The loss of its president and top diplomat could have been a critical test for the Islamic Republic, yet its foreign policy looks to remain steadfast and unyielding, propelled by robust institutions and powerful strategic alliances.
MAY 24, 2024 – The Cradle
(Photo Credit: The Cradle)
During a 20 May press conference, White House National Security Adviser John Kirby stated that while the US government offered its official condolences to Iran over the loss of President Ebrahim Raisi, who died in a helicopter crash along with Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, it does not “anticipate any change in Iranian behavior, and, therefore, the Iranians should not expect any change in American behavior when it comes to holding them accountable.”
Over recent years, Iran’s eastward foreign policy orientation has solidified with the various experiences and factors that have convinced its leadership of this approach. Trust in the west was shattered when US president Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or “nuclear deal”) in 2018, and the west’s use of sanctions has consolidated Tehran’s cooperation with Asian and Global South partners. Moreover, recent shifts in the international arena have compelled the Islamic Republic to become an active player and secure a strategic position in the new multipolar world order.
Diplomatic hopes and skepticism
In September 2013, the first direct contact between then-Iranian president Hassan Rouhani and his US counterpart, Barack Obama, occurred since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
As a so-called ‘moderate,’ Rouhani, who took office in 2013, represented a faction that believed in the possibility of resolving differences with the US through diplomacy and dialogue. In his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2014, he emphasized Iran’s determination to continue negotiations:
We are determined to continue negotiations with our interlocutors in earnest and good faith, based on mutual respect and confidence, removal of concerns of both sides as well as equal footing and recognized international norms and principles.
Supporters of Rouhani’s western-centric approach saw the 2015 nuclear agreement between Tehran and Washington as a validation of their strategy. At the time, the Iranian president hailed the agreement as a “political victory” for Iran, asserting that it meant Tehran would no longer be actively isolated by Washington and its allies.
However, the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, remained skeptical, stating in his first speech following the agreement:
I have told the officials to not trust the opposing side, to not be fooled by their smiles, to not trust their promises because when they have achieved their objectives they will laugh at you. … After every round of talks they make public comments that they then tell us in private was meant to save face in their own country and to counter their opponents, but this is their own problem and has nothing to do with us.
Almost three years later, Trump proved Khamenei right and undermined Rouhani’s approach by announcing Washington’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal. This conviction that the US could not be trusted was further reinforced when Iranian principalist Ebrahim Raisi assumed the Iranian presidency in 2021.
From that point on, the Islamic Republic operated on the premise that the west, despite US statements about returning to the nuclear agreement, would not take any mutually beneficial steps that would positively benefit Tehran.
Toward a multipolar world order
There is a global consensus that the world order is undergoing a transformation. Americans assert that we are at an “inflection point,” and the policies states adopt today will determine their positions in the new order.
During Raisi’s tenure, Iran, like other regional powers, had expanded its influence and position on the world stage. It is crucial to understand that Iran’s decisions are not solely linked to Raisi but are rooted in the broader variables of the international system that have been acknowledged by all.
With change accelerating from Eastern Europe to West Asia and Africa, Tehran is racing to secure an advanced position in the post-unipolar order. Incidentally, Iran was the first country in West Asia to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2023, offering expanded cooperation with countries such as Russia, China, and six other strategically located Asian states. Additionally, Iran gained a seat in the BRICS last year, determined to play an important role in shaping multilateral structures and mechanisms.
With the inclusion of four other new members: Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, the BRICS+5 now accounts for 46 percent of the world’s population and 30 percent of its economic output.
The group’s share of global oil production rose from 18 percent before the expansion to 40 percent, while its share of oil consumption will jump from 27 percent to 36 percent. Similarly, its share in world merchandise trade will rise from 20 percent to 25 percent, and its share of world services trade will increase to 15 percent from 12 percent.
Significantly, the new group will also account for about 45 percent of global foreign exchange reserves. This underscores the long-term importance of Iran’s presence in such a structure. One of Tehran’s main goals in joining these groups is to counter unilateral Atlanticist policies, as BRICS membership enhances Iran’s ability to bypass coercive western measures.
Strengthening eastern alliances
In addition to its growing presence in eastern blocs, Tehran has worked to strengthen its relations with major Eurasian powers, namely China and Russia. Under the heavy burden of western sanctions, the Islamic Republic intensified efforts to sign major agreements with Beijing and Moscow.
Those efforts bore fruit with the signing of a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement with China in 2021, covering economic, military, and security cooperation, and was implemented in early 2022 under the Raisi administration.
The impact of this agreement quickly became evident as trade between Iran and China developed significantly between 2021 and 2023. By 2022, total trade volume between the two countries reached nearly $16 billion, representing a 7 percent increase from the previous year. This growth was largely driven by China’s import of Iranian oil, despite ongoing US sanctions that have affected Iran’s ability to trade with other countries.
As for Russia, the Ukrainian war has reinforced the Kremlin’s conviction to expand cooperation with “anti-western” countries, particularly Iran. This is exemplified by the two parties reaching the final stage of negotiating a strategic cooperation agreement.
The activation of the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which runs from Russia to India via Iran, marks an additional success for the transit countries due to its international economic importance. Russia made its first shipment through this corridor in July 2022.
The western sanctions campaign against Moscow was also a major factor prompting the Kremlin to develop economic cooperation with Tehran. Consequently, with Moscow’s growing desire to cooperate, the Islamic Republic has the opportunity to strengthen ties in line with its vision for its role in the fast-developing new world order.
Defense cooperation between Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran also accelerated over the past few years. The three countries have conducted five joint exercises since 2019 – their highest-ever rate of joint military activities.
Continuity of Iran’s foreign policy
In her book Madam Secretary: Memoirs, late former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright emphasizes the importance of institutions and laws within a country for maintaining internal stability and effectiveness in foreign policy.
Albright argues that these institutions and laws provide a framework that constrains power and ensures the long-term continuity and success of a state’s foreign policy, regardless of changes in leadership. This principle is notably relevant to Iran, where the institutionalization of foreign policy allows it to withstand shocks, such as the recent passing of the head of state and its foreign minister.
A state whose foreign policy depends on the stability of institutions rather than individuals is more resilient, as the broad outlines of foreign policy stem from the interests of these institutions – which are essentially the interests of the state.
Recognizing this reality, several western analysts have concluded that there will be no significant change in Iranian foreign policy following the departure of Raisi and Amir-Abdollahian. As Jean Kinninmont notes in her article:
It is an extraordinary situation: the president and foreign minister have suddenly died in one of the most geopolitically significant countries in a conflict-torn region, and yet the prevailing view is that the geopolitical impact is minimal.
This shows that Iran’s current foreign policy orientation is shaped not only by the Islamic Republic’s ideological background but also by the state’s pragmatic interests, which necessitate continuing the approach established by Raisi.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
———————-
Ian AustinLet’s Talk
The UK should pull its funding from the International Criminal Court
How would we have felt if Britain’s leaders had been indicted alongside leaders of the IRA or if Churchill had been treated in the same way as Hitler?
Karim Khan KC
May 24, 2024 11:07
- The Jewish Chronicle
This week’s decision by the International Criminal Court’s Prosecutor Karim Khan to request arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defence minister Yoav Gallant is a disgusting perversion of the principle of justice the court is meant to uphold. And to call for the arrest of Israel’s leaders at the same time as Hamas terrorists is an insulting disgrace.
How can people responsible for upholding international law draw an equivalence between the barbaric murderers, rapists and kidnappers of the terrorist group Hamas and the elected leaders of the Middle East’s only democracy?
There can never be any comparison between terrorists attempting genocide and a democracy defending itself.
How would we have felt if Britain’s leaders had been indicted alongside leaders of the IRA? If Churchill had been treated in the same way as Hitler?
Make no mistake: this is a propaganda victory for Hamas and a disgusting attack on Israel, simply for defending itself.
Number Ten were right to condemn the ICC’s warrants, but we are one of the court’s most significant donors and we should withdraw funding immediately in protest.
The pictures from Gaza are terrible. The death of any innocent civilian is a tragedy, but it is inevitable because Hamas are deliberately putting them in harm’s way by hiding fighters and weapons in densely populated civilian areas and in hospitals, schools and mosques.
And it is just not true to claim – as Khan does – that Israel is “causing extermination, causing starvation as a method of war including the denial of humanitarian relief supplies, [and] deliberately targeting civilians in conflict.” He accuses Israel of enforcing a “total siege” when in fact 28,000 lorries have carried more than 540,000 tonnes of food, medical supplies and shelter equipment into Gaza.
Military experts say the numbers of civilian casualties are wildly exaggerated by Hamas. The majority of those killed are in fact Hamas terrorists because the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) takes great care to abide by international law. It goes to unprecedented lengths to minimise the risk to civilians. Before taking any military action they warned civilians to evacuate to other parts of Gaza. They issue warnings and drop leaflets alerting residents before targeting buildings in which terrorists are hiding.
Indeed, back in October, it was none other than Khan himself who said, “Israel has trained lawyers who advise commanders and a robust system intended to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law.”
Israel’s leaders were united in fury. “With what insolence do you dare to compare Hamas’s monsters with the soldiers of the IDF, the most moral army in the world?” asked Netanyahu. Opposition Leader Yair Lapid said “it is not possible to issue arrest warrants against Netanyahu, Sinwar and Deif. There is no such comparison, we cannot accept it and it is unforgivable.”
Even Joe Biden, who has been critical of Netanyahu, said the warrants were “outrageous”. “Let me be clear,” he said, “whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence—none—between Israel and Hamas”.
Rishi Sunak’s office criticised the decision as well and the Foreign Office issued a statement saying “we don’t believe that seeking warrants will help get hostages out, get aid in, or deliver a sustainable ceasefire. This remains the UK’s priority… As we have said from the outset, we do not think the ICC has jurisdiction in this case.”
In the months after 7 October, Keir Starmer provided strong and determined support for Israel’s campaign to defend itself, but resolve in the Labour Party now appears to be weakening.
Shadow foreign secretary David Lammy defended the court and said it was “an independent matter for the court and the prosecutor’.
And let’s hear no more talk – from either the government or opposition – about suspending arms exports licenses or restricting arms sales to Israel.
However many shanty towns trendy students erect outside their universities and whatever the extremists and anti-Israel racists say on social media, the decent mainstream majority – and the ‘Red Wall’ voters whose trust Labour needs to win back – know that Israel is the victim and has to defend itself.
They know as well that Britain stands to lose much more than Israel if the defence and security relationship between Israel and the UK is undermined.
British companies provide less than one per cent of Israel’s arms imports but much more vital equipment and critical intelligence comes the other way.
Israel’s security services provided warnings of Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorism that prevented attacks in the UK. Military experts say the RAF could not get its planes off the ground without Israeli technology. Their drones and armoured vehicle defences protected British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Good luck to politicians who try to explain why they want to deprive out security services of vital intelligence and our troops of the means to defend themselves.
We need to bear two facts in mind. First, the lunatic fundamentalists in Iran have declared war on the West and Israel is the front-line.
Second, Hamas are completely opposed to peace with Israel. They will not stop until they have destroyed the country and murdered its citizens. There is no prospect of peace until Hamas are destroyed.
This is why the UK must do everything it can to help Israel defeat the terrorists as quickly as possible.
May 24, 2024
——————-
Tel Aviv ‘prohibits’ Spain’s West Bank consulate from serving Palestinians
Spain, Ireland, and Norway announced this week a decision to formally recognize Palestinian statehood
MAY 24, 2024 – The Cradle
(Photo credit: Flash90)
Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz has decided to bar the Spanish consulate in Jerusalem from providing services to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank in response to Madrid’s decision to recognize Palestine as a state.
“I have decided to sever the connection between the Spanish mission to Israel and the Palestinians, and to prohibit the Spanish consulate in Jerusalem from providing services to Palestinians from the West Bank,” Katz said in a statement on 24 May.
Norway, Ireland, and Spain announced on 22 May that they will formally recognize Palestine as a state next week.
The Israeli decision is a response to the announcement and to comments made by a Spanish minister on 23 May.
Katz said on Friday that if “this ignorant hate-filled person wants to truly understand what radical Islam wants, she should learn about the 700 years of Islamic rule in Al-Andalus – modern-day Spain,” in reference to Spain’s Labor and Economy Minister Yolanda Diaz, who said in a speech a day earlier that “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea.”
Following the decision to recognize Palestinian statehood, Tel Aviv immediately recalled its ambassadors to Ireland and Norway and pledged to recall its envoy to Spain. The foreign ministry also summoned the ambassadors from the three European nations to “reprimand” them.
Spain has repeatedly condemned Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians. Diaz’s statement was not the first instance in which the country signaled its readiness to recognize Palestine as a state.
On 10 May, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of an Arab-sponsored resolution to recognize Palestine as a member state of the organization. Washington voted against it, along with Israel and a number of other states.
The US vetoed on 18 April a Security Council resolution to recognize Palestine as a full member state in the UN. The US maintains that Palestinian statehood can only be achieved through direct negotiations with Israel.
However, Israel continues to reject the idea of a Palestinian state.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday of putting the two-state solution in “danger” with his policy of “pain and destruction” in Gaza.
————————-
Colombia to break diplomatic ties with Israel over actions in Gaza
By Stefano Pozzebon, Michael Rios and Ruba Alhenawi, CNN
Updated 7:50 PM EDT, Wed May 1, 2024- CNNWorld
People demonstrate in support of Palestinians in Cali, Colombia, on October 19, 2023. Joaquin Sarmiento/AFP/Getty ImagesCNN —
Colombia says it will break diplomatic relations with Israel on Thursday over its actions in Gaza.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro made the announcement at a rally in Bogotá’s Bolívar Square on Wednesday, describing the Israeli government’s handling of the war in Gaza as “genocidal.”
Israel launched its assault in the Palestinian territory following terror group Hamas’ attacks on October 7, which left more than 1,200 people dead and saw more than 250 taken hostage – many of whom remain in captivity today.
Now nearing its eight month, Israel’s war in the isolated enclave has killed more than 34,000 people, according to the Palestinian health ministry.
Israel’s foreign minister, Israel Katz, condemned Colombia’s announcement and accused Petro of rewarding Hamas, which controls Gaza, saying he was siding with the “most despicable monsters known to humanity.” Katz also called Petro a “hate-filled, antisemitic president,” but said relations between both countries would remain warm despite the president’s actions.
Hamas said it “highly appreciated” Petro’s position, saying in a statement that it considered the decision “a victory for the sacrifices of our people and their just cause” and calling on other countries to follow suit.
South Africa has previously accused Israel of violating international laws on genocide, telling the United Nations’ top court that Israel’s leadership was “intent on destroying the Palestinians in Gaza” – a case which Israel dismissed as “absurd blood libel.”
The International Court of Justice later ordered Israel to “take all measures” to prevent genocide but stopped short of ordering its government to halt the war.
Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro at a rally in Bogota, Colombia, on May 1, 2024. Luisa Gonzalez/Reuters
Regional neighbor Bolivia also cut diplomatic ties with Israel last year, citing “crimes against humanity committed against the Palestinian people” in the wake of Israel’s war with Hamas.
This is a developing story.
BIG BROTHER in the 21. Century 