Author: f.basouny

In the last few weeks before president Trump leaves office more actions are seen in Iran. The death of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the top nuclear scientist and mastermind of Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been killed in an ambush on Friday confirmed by Iran’s security forces that the act was held by Israel. Fakhrizadeh has been mentioned in 2018 in a presentation by Natanyahu releasing Fakhrizadeh’s work on the nuclear program and was put on Israel’s top agenda ever since. The assassination of Muhsen Fakhrizadeh has be met by heavy condemnation of Iranian officials, Iran calling the UN to condemn the act and many senior officials publicly announcing retaliation. Protests by Iranian civilians also calling for retaliation as Fakhrizadeh has created a Covid-19 kit for his people to fight the virus[1]. The assassination of Fakhrizadeh goes along with a number of scientists killed by the Israeli government and on par with the U.S. assignation of major general Qassem Solimani. Both have served and had prominent roles in the Islamic revolutionary Guard corps (IRCG), Solimani was the major general of the (IRCG) and Fakhrizadeh was senior official. Which magnifies possible forceful attempts within retaliation. This makes it a very tough environment for president-elect Joe Biden to walk into office and restore friendly diplomatic relations and revive the JCPOA as pledged in his campaign.

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-scientist-assassinated-mohsen-fakhrizadeh.html

 

On November 24, Russian and American maritime ships came very close. Russian navy chased U.S destroyer in the Sea of Japan also known as the East sea. The U.S. claimed it was conducting a “freedom of navigation” operation in the largest bay in the sea, Peter the Great Bay. An area both countries long disputed about, U.S long denying the claim of Moscow over the territory.

 

Russian officials declared that the U.S. has sailed beyond its maritime boarders by 2km before being warned by the Russian vessel “the Admiral Vinogradov”[1]. And warned the U.S. through communication channels that such actions could lead to a possibility of maneuvering.

 

The U.S. destroyer “USS John McCain” had then changed routes after the Vinogradov turned towards McCain according to the Russian Defense. However, the U.S fleet declared that MacCain has operated within international law boundaries and that Russia claimed the area to be internal waters in 1984 illegally.

 

Is this an indicator for deviating relations between the two countries? Does this have any implications towards the new administration coming in January? I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-chases-u-s-warship-spat-over-territorial-waters-sea-n1248759

Today the U.S has announced that it will withdraw 2,500 American troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq by Jan 15, 2021. Just five days before president- elect Joe Biden would holds inauguration in the white house.

The United states has approximately 4,500 US troops in Afghanistan and 3,000 troops in Iraq. Secretary of defense Christopher Miller has announced that it is no reduction in capability and that this is policy plan would not change neither U.S objectives neither goals. However, Mark Esper which was previous defense secretary before getting fired last week has been pushing back on this plan and asserting that the preconditions on the ground have not yet been met.

 

One more major hot topic agenda added to president elect Joe Biden to deal with once he’s in office. Joe Biden will face dramatic foreign and domestic issues from the Covid pandemic to racial divisions, economic recession, Iran, china and all the other typical foreign issues. Essentially, if this plan does not turn out to be a good decision it will cause sever damaging. If Al-Qaeda or ISIS are seeking this reduction of 2,500 troops to exert influence by bloody means then this would be a huge problem to Joe Biden will have to face. Al-Qaeda already supports the decision as well with the U.S. agreement with Taliban[1]. This plan typically falls within President Trump’s policy of Isolationism and NATO members are warning from this plan. Whether this plan will have a positive or negative effect is only a matter of little time that we would be able to see and estimate.

[1]Barbara Starr, “ US announces further drawdown of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq before Biden takes office.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/17/politics/afghanistan-iraq-withdrawal-pentagon/index.html

 

Mails in ballots that are received late are still counted in many states. In Washington state mail in ballot can be received as late of November 23, the day before the state certifies its election results. In Minnesota and Nevada ballots will be received until November 10, and In Ohio till November 13. And in North Carolina and Pennsylvania till November 6.

By December 6, is the last day to recount votes and settle any disputes it is known as the “safe harbor” date.

On December 14, which in law is the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December 14 Electoral cast their votes in states and by December 23 the certified electoral votes have nine days to get from their states to Capitol Hill.

By January 3, new members are sworn in 117^thcongress and take the oath at noon.

On January 6^thElectoral votes are counted in the house chamber by members of House and the Senate by January 20^thby noon. Inauguration day on January 20^thfor the president elect and vice-president taking the oath of office.

The European Union and many allies have announced that they are ready to intensify and cooperate relations with the next administration of the United States. President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said on Sunday. Whether the next administration will bring hope or will be a disappointment in other ways in too early to decide now.

North Korea has highlighted many questions in regard to the efficiency of a lot of multilateral organization bodies along with legally binding treaties. A lot of concern has aroused around the fact that North Korea has been:1) able to acquire a nuclear weapon program under strong reluctant from all great power U.S, China and Russia. 2) the acquisition of the know-how from visits to more than 6 states and initial help from Russia and China that didn’t last for long leaving Pyongyang self-reliant and insisting on creating the bomb.3) the idea of how North Korea was able to cheat under being a member of the NPT and the limitations of the IAEA to effectively do its job. 4) the limitations of the security council and its inability to stop North Korea.

Walter Clemens has laid down in his book “North Korea and the world”, several strategies that have been already pursed such as sanctions, and have made negotiations more tensions and intransigent with North Korea. Also, some of the strategies that were proposed were new such as the “Hack and Frack”. North Korea’s geopolitics is crucial in Asia and also strategical to security of United States.

Diplomacy and negotiations are the only key in my point of view with North Korea. They already have the know-how and any forceful attempt would not be of benefit.

Mehran Kamrava argues that Multipolarity on its own is not the source of instability in the Middle East region. This statement could be subject to many different perspectives, indeed instability in the region is stemmed from various reasons including different ideological perspectives, differences in defining power in the region and differences in reshaping power balance in the region, sectarian divergences among Sunni and Shia and the official collapse of Pan-Arabism.

Many could argue that, these reasons are stemmed for centuries and may not be new issues. But post 2011 the region has completely changed, the rise and fall of new hegemons. Turkey’s shift from the EU to being more focused on the Middle East and its “Neo-Ottoman” aspirations.[1]Iran and its ideology of rejecting the west in the region along with potential development nuclear program. Israel and its continuous expansionism policy regardless the acknowledgment of Palestinian in the region and with little concern to resolve the ongoing conflict. Saudi Arabia and its hostilities with Iran, and its embracement of Pan-Islamism that overcame the idea of Pan Arabism, along with is funding of radicalized Salafi constituency[2].

Since 2011 and the decline of many states such as Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. There have been new rising aspirations for the neighboring countries to challenge the regional hegemony and reorder balance of power. Resulting in foreseeable new threats to arise, new challenges in the region with the development of technology and AI. Only exacerbating the relations among states in the region and creating more tensions that will only lead to increasing mistrust and continuous hostilities in the region.

Israel’s new normalizing relations or peace agreement with countries of UAE, Bahrain and Sudan is not a step towards peace it is a temporary path to economic and mutual interests that may lead to higher tensions than before exacerbating the situation more in the future if disagreements occur. The real path to normalizing relations starts with normalization within the same country, starts with diplomacy and re-establishing peace negotiations with Palestine to settle the most ongoing prolong conflict till this very day. This is the way to reduce tensions, terrorism attacks and sustain peace.

[1]Mehran Karava, “Multipolarity and instability in the Middle East”, 2018

[2]  Trevor Stanley, “Understanding the Origins of Wahabism and Salafism, 2005

Since the outbreak of the civil war back in 2011 and the country being divided into sub-states fighting among each other in proxy wars. The East zone is occupied by the Syrian-Kurds and was previously supported by the United States, until president Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. military forces in 2018. The Northern Western zones of Syria are under Turkish control, and the rest of the country is dominated with Syrian government forces supported by Russia and Iran.

Many believe that Syria is on the road of dismantling external forces, given that the U.S. has already withdrew its troop and concerns arise more profoundly around Turkey and its position since it was reported to withdraw its troops on October 19^thin the northwest of Syria. Since observational posts were set up by the Turkish government to deescalate tension in Idlib region and northwest in general, the Syrian government has already surrounded several other Turkish observational posts by last year.

However, the Turkish government has reported that they are not considering evacuating another observational post. And they also indicated that withdrawing from Morek will have them consolidate their presence elsewhere in the region[1].

It has been noted that the withdrawal of Turkey was towards efforts of consolidating cease fire agreements with Russia back in March. Whether the withdrawal of Turkey from Morek is an indication of dismantling forces and cease fire or not. The country’s biggest enemy is Bashar al Assad a war criminal that now seeks sanction elevation from the U.S. to continue the war within his own country. The U.S does not have a vital interest in Eastern Syria anymore, not strategically vital for American national security[2]. Finally, Syria will be left with severe economic conditions being unable to rebuild the state due to the high sanctions imposed, and the 5.6 million refugees that have little incentive to come back in the country and rebuild it again. A country occupied by foreign powers from its north and east territories. A failed sate.

[1]  BIA News Desk, “Turkey withdrawal from Morek base in Syria”, 20 October 2020.

[2]Robert S. Ford, The Syrian Civil War, April 2019.

Whether the question of the U.S. giving security guarantee’s to European states is valid, appropriate, crucial & necessary in the modern world of technological advances, or not? would be question that needs further investigation within it, not only from the past history but also from predictions and patterns drawn in the present and future.

For more than 70 years the United States has been committed to support and strengthen NATO allies. One of the most logical and genuinely reasons for the United states to such stance was the strategy of expansionism and the ideology of a global leader. Here comes the question in the modern world? What roles exactly does the U.S. play in the global arena? Is the United States still perceived as a global leader and especially under president Trump?

As Kaufman stated that the one individual that comes in to office and becomes president does have a big influence on how other countries perceive the United States.

The idea of cooperation and multilateralism is essential with no doubt and the alliance is important. But just like any other alliance it should be took. The United States doesn’t have to keep reaffirming every action it takes and goes back to consult NATO or the EU. However, what president Bush committed in Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision in history so far I agree with Kaufman and I do agree that the NATO states are frustrated and lost trust in the U.S because the strategy of “Us vs them” could easily imply on any country regardless of any kind of treaty or cooperation that aims for multilateralism.

I expected the part when the author draws the lines between the similarities in discussions regarding the European countries to have “other ties” that will be beneficial for them economically, politically and strategically. He even called the alliance between China and Germany a forged strategic relation. But the idea of getting China on their side to enhance relationships which will be beneficial to individual and common goals and less costly for the U.S to enhance security in Asia is a real sense and example of multilateralism, cooperation and diplomacy.

Joshua Shifrinson argues that the United States is a relatively declining super power, not quietly as the Soviet Union where power would go in to a dust bag in history but essentially declining in the sense of exceptionalism and exercising a unipolar position in international affairs landscape. The U.S. still possess the highest GDP in the world but other countries such as China are in the race of moving in fast pace to essentially compete with the United States. However, this hasn’t been something new, in 1990 and early 2000 when the U.S. had to deploy advanced military assets towards East Asia. DOD has announced that it has been in a long-term strategy competition with China and Russia.

By that said, this leaves us to the question that we should really ask ourselves. Is china really a threat to the United States hegemony and in what way? How threatful is China now and in the future?

I find these questions crucial as one may think that since China is considered a Revisionist and expansionist state. Which means that china will always try to find new technologies, solutions and opportunities to cease to become a super power.

It is very clear that China seeks to cease control and hegemony in the Indo-Pacific Region

The United States perceives that this is shaking it preeminent position with its allies in the region. The geopolitical context in concerning this regard has created several tensions and implications, one to mention that the United States has strengthened ties with surrounding countries such Vietnam, Thailand and promoted defense cooperation’s between South Korea, Australia, India and Japan. In regards that China would not push the U.S from the Western Pacific and also prevent from aiding the U.S allies.

The United States is starting to accept the rising of another powerful state and this is clear during the Obama administration when he stated that the “United states welcomed the rise of China that is peaceful, prosper and responsible in global affairs”

What are the on international security in the U.S and China? In my opinion, neither the U.S nor China would go into war together in the near future, two relatively strong super powers that possess nuclear warheads. And find several options to use in international security as deterrence mechanisms but differences might be on the technological and artificial intelligence.

The author in this article gives an overview of Russia’s history stating that it has always been considered the weak super power. He points out to the fact that with the breakup of the Soviet Union, Moscow lost 2 million square miles of sovereign territory equivalent to the entire share of the European Union. He then continues that Russia considers itself as an exceptionalism and that its foreign policy revolves around this idea of having a special mission and that it has to be treated in a special way. And this is why post-Soviet Russia precluded to join Europe and also forming an unequal partnership with the United States. I liked the part that the author mentioned that Russia is not putting its aspirations in alignment with its capabilities, and I think this is one of the most important traits that a successfully ‘developed’ nation- state should have because it leads to political stability and one that is really noticeable within its international relations. Even more important than the GDP of one country. Russia is still not accepting post war settlements or the idea of global rivalry that it lost on a multidimensional level and could still wait for the best time to annex small countries around instead of having diplomatic relations.  Russia need to get over the past and start redefining the notion of exceptionalism and start working with other countries even if they are small ones in Europe to fit its global role.