Endless provocations and subversive actions of the US and Israel against Iran lead to the Iranian people getting increasingly bitter towards the two countries and their representatives.

Following the blatant US assassination operation against Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) special forces, killed on the night of January 3, 2020 by the United States near Baghdad International Airport, another similar assassination attempt was carried out on March 7, near Damascus. According to a statement from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, two Iranian officers were killed in an Israeli air strike there: “IRGC Colonels Ehsan Karbalaipour and Morteza Saibnejad became shahids, the responsibility for their deaths lies with the Zionist regime that launched the missile attack on Damascus. The Zionists will answer for their crimes.”

As early as 11 March, Israeli media reported, citing US intelligence, “Iran may dare to strike directly at Israel. This is how the Islamic Republic wants to avenge the Jewish state for the deaths of two IRGC officers on the outskirts of Damascus.”

And so on March 5, in the US state of Nevada, 21-year-old Nike Nikubin stabbed an American citizen in an attempt to avenge the death of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani at the hands of the US, local TV channel KLAS reported, citing the Henderson City Police.

And on the night of March 13, some twelve ballistic missiles were fired from the Hasanabad area in the Iranian territory at the Kurdish city of Erbil in northern Iraq, where the US consulate is located. However, some media outlets have highlighted the fact that the shelling took place at exactly 1:20 am, the same time that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps General Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike on January 3, 2020. The Associated Press reported, citing Iraqi security officials and US officials, that none of the missiles that had exploded near the US diplomatic mission under construction caused serious damage. There were no casualties either. After the explosion, US Air Force planes were airborne.

According to Israeli media, the Saudi Arabian channel Al-Hadath believes that the Iranian missile attack on the US Consulate General in Erbil was in response to the killing of two high-ranking Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers in Syria on March 7. The Iranians chose to respond with an airstrike not on Israel but on US facilities in Iraq. At the same time, it is acknowledged that the target of the missiles fired at the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan was not only the US consulate, but also the intelligence center of Israel’s Mossad foreign intelligence service in Erbil.

This fact was later acknowledged by an Iranian state channel, which reported that the target of the overnight missile attack was “secret Israeli bases” in Erbil.

Doron Kadosh, Israeli Galei Zahal columnist recalled in this regard that in October 2021, in response to the Israeli bombing in Syria, Iran launched a missile attack on the US Al-Tanf base on the Iraqi-Syrian border. Late last year, the Israeli military estimated that Tehran would not tolerate this any longer and would be striking back at Israel next time. But that has not happened yet. “The word “yet” should be emphasized,” writes Doron Kadosh on his Twitter.

In these circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that, following the Iranian missile strike on the area where the US consulate under construction in Erbil is located, negotiations on the Iranian nuclear deal could be terminated. This, incidentally, is precisely what Israel sought, including through its provocative sabotage attack on March 7, killing two high-ranking IRGC soldiers.

Meanwhile, in these realities, the EU and Washington are losing hope of replacing Russian oil with Iranian oil, with the result that oil prices will continue their unpredictable rise.

As for the US, its retaliatory military action against Iran and in the Strait of Hormuz, which will again become unsafe for navigation, cannot be ruled out. Preparations for such military action have already been announced recently to the Associated Press by Vice Admiral Brad Cooper, head of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, who said the US is building a fleet of more than 100 unmanned aerial vehicles — both sailing and underwater — to counter Iran. Under the new concept, UAVs will patrol vast maritime areas. It should be recalled that the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet has included in its area of responsibility the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow artery in the Persian Gulf through which more than 20% of the world’s oil shipments pass, with Iran and the US fighting for control of it. The Islamic Republic controls the northern coast of the strait, while the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman possess the southern coast.

Against the background of the March 13 shelling of Erbil, it must also be recalled that US troops stationed in this international complex have previously been subjected to missile attacks, which were carried out by means of UAVs. In general, however, the US military presence in Iraq irritates both Shia and Sunni Arabs.

There have already been several recent attacks on US military convoys in Iraq. So, in the last month alone, according to Iraqi media reports, a US logistics convoy was attacked in Salah ad Din province on February 13. On February 22, a roadside bomb exploded near the city of Nasiriya in Dhi Qar province in the south of the country while a US convoy carrying equipment and supplies destined for US troops was passing through. On March 1, a US military convoy was attacked in Iraq’s Al Muthanna province between the cities of Samawah and Nasiriya, and several bombs were detonated in the path of another military convoy in Al Diwaniyah and Al Anbar provinces. Another convoy carrying equipment belonging to the US military was attacked in Salah ad Din province on March 4. On March 8, a convoy carrying equipment was attacked in the city of Nasiriya, about 360 km southeast of Baghdad.

Iranian Major General Rahim Yahya Safavi told the Mehr News Agency on March 7 that the US will soon flee Syria and Iraq, just as it retreated from Afghanistan. According to the Iranian military commander, the US is politically and morally in decline.

Vladimir Odintsov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

More recently, the topic of Turkey and its use of fighters with Syrian war experience in a number of armed conflict zones has been discussed at length in the pages of NEO. However, the topic of foreign fighters in the current events in Ukraine, as well as the involvement of a number of NATO countries in sending them there, compels us to revisit this topic.

First, regarding foreign fighters “with Syrian experience”, the deputy head of the Russian Center for the Reconciliation of Opposing Sides (CROS) in Syria, Rear Admiral Oleg Zhuravlev, said on March 5 that fighters of Albanian and Caucasian origin were heading to Europe from the US-controlled Syrian province of Idlib. They plan to further “take part in combat operations on the territory of Ukraine”.

On March 1, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Bashar Jaafari said that the USA might transfer terrorists of DAESH (a terrorist group banned in Russia) or members of other radical groups to Ukraine. According to the politician, this is being organized by the US special services. He also stressed that the use of mercenaries is a common practice in the US. “They moved terrorists from El-Hol camp (in northeastern Syria) to Al-Tanf area (territory seized by the US army) and from there sent them to Afghanistan and Burkina Faso,” Jaafari stressed.

In this connection, attention was also drawn to information that appeared in a number of media outlets that officers of the Ukrainian Security Service, together with officers of Turkey’s national intelligence organization, had recently visited northern Syria (including the settlements of Afrin and Azaz). In particular, a military diplomatic source told RIA Novosti that they visited the base of armed groups banned in Russia, in particular “Harakat Saurin” (part of the “Syrian National Army”), where they met with commanders of several pro-Turkish formations (“Firkyat Sultan Murad”, “Liwa Al-Muattasim”) as well as camps of the illegal armed groups. There, the possibility of recruiting fighters for Ukraine’s territorial defense was discussed with pro-Turkish formations and an agreement was reached to organize a series of secret meetings with “interested parties”.

Detection of a Turkish flag in one of the workshops for manufacturing homemade drone shells near Mariupol in the village of Sopino by the DPR military on 5 March is definite confirmation of the involvement of pro-Turkish militants in the current events in Ukraine on the side of Kiev-controlled military formations. Troops found large quantities of explosive devices and electronic components for drones there.

Moreover, according to Kosovo media reports, veterans of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), recognized as a terrorist organization in Russia and Serbia, intend to fight on the Ukrainian side. As the Balkanist portal notes, the Croatian nationalists who expelled the Serbs living there in 1995 from Croatia had previously volunteered to participate in Kiev’s military operations.

Internationalization of the Ukrainian war by Kiev has been acknowledged by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba on the US TV channel CNN, who said, among other things, that more than 20,000 mercenaries from 16 countries were being sent to Ukraine. On February 27, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the creation of a combat unit, into which he has invited citizens of foreign countries to join, and which has already been dubbed Kiev’s “foreign legion”. The Norwegian conflictologist Thomas Hegghammer has already pointed out in an interview with Der Spiegel that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made a blatant political mistake in urging foreigners to fight in his country against Russia. Volunteers are also more difficult to control, he says, since they are less pragmatic and less willing to compromise than the local population. They are of little military use, but are often the ones who commit atrocities and violate ceasefires.

Nevertheless, militants from various countries have already started making their way into Ukraine in response to Kiev’s call. A large number of military personnel are now reportedly on Polish territory and are involved in smuggling weapons and fighters into Ukraine.

A number of Western countries have previously officially allowed their citizens to go to Ukraine and join the “foreign legion”. In particular, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Croatia, Poland and Latvia have endorsed the sending of mercenaries at national level. Meanwhile it is already known that the backbone of this “army of mercenaries” will be nationalists and far-rightists of all stripes from Europe and America.

A certain proportion of these mercenaries are Western private military companies, which were present in Ukraine even before the special operation by Russian troops began. They are led by the US, and consist mainly of Eastern European nations, with Poles in particular tending to be the majority. These PMCs were used by Washington in Afghanistan and Iraq, in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi. PMC services are very expensive, so they will certainly be paid for by “Western sponsors”, as “Zelenskyy’s state” is now bankrupt. It is therefore naive to suggest that Zelenskyy’s call for a “foreign legion” was made by himself. This is clearly Washington’s tactical line to escalate the Ukrainian conflict. The “US leadership” in deepening the armed conflict in Ukraine is also evidenced by a report in the possession of The Washington Post showing that the Pentagon had significantly increased its military aid deliveries to Kiev long before the Russian special operation began. Moreover, according to the declassified document, the US Department of Defense “was equipping Ukrainian fighters with arms and equipment useful for fighting in urban areas.”

Another category of “foreign helpers of Kiev” will be outright Nazis who hate Russia and Orthodoxy fiercely. The most prominent of these are the Croats, about 200 of whose representatives are now based in besieged Mariupol and holding tens of thousands of people hostage. Representatives of such groups are very aggressive and they are not part of the European right-conservative political community, which is largely sympathetic to Russia because of its strong defense of traditional values.

It is frankly surprising that there are Israelis in the ranks of such ultranationalists and Nazis. It would seem that they cannot stand idly by as monuments are being erected in Ukraine to those who were exterminating Jews by the tens of thousands, burning, stabbing, shooting and burying them alive in mass graves. The names of these executioners, whose hands are up to their elbows in Jewish blood, are called streets and schools in the cities. Because of the policies pursued by the Kiev authorities, these murderers are now heroes for Ukraine.  But nevertheless, Israeli mercenaries chose to betray the memory of the Jewish people who suffered under fascism, at the behest of the White House to stand up for the Nazi authorities in Kiev.

The Israeli media reported that Israelis, in particular former fighters of the Golani brigade, are already fighting in the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Territorial Defense Forces. This was reported on the telegraph channel Israeli Working Life, which even published a video showing one of these fighters being interviewed in Hebrew. The Ukrainian newspaper Donpress also reported that the first Israeli special forces veterans had already arrived in Ukraine, quoting Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Honcharenko. Moreover, several Ukrainian media outlets quoted the Israeli portal Ynet as saying that trainees from the Israeli army’s elite units are taking part in the war with Russia on Ukraine’s side.  All this raises a lot of questions for the official current authorities in Israel!

On March 2, Japanese newspapers reported that Tokyo was ready to send 70 Japanese “volunteers” to the Ukrainian front. The Japanese Mainichi Shimbun reported that about 50 of them were former members of the Japan Self-Defense Forces.

Groups of young Danish citizens have already left for Ukraine, Danish news agency Nyheder.TV2 reported on March 1, specifying that the young Danes have only three months of military service as their only military experience. So the likelihood of any of them returning from the Ukrainian battlefield alive is small…

The US publication Vice published on March 2 an interview with a former British military officer who is already in Ukraine. Britain’s retired Royal Marines have already arrived in Ukraine to fight the Russians, said Fox News journalist Lucas Tomlinson. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss gave permission for Britons to fight on the side of Kiev’s neo-Nazis, but on March 6 she was opposed by the head of the Royal Armed Forces’ General Staff, Admiral Tony Radakin, who said that it was “illegal and useless” for Britons to fight against Russia in Ukraine.

A short while ago, the Senegalese Foreign Ministry summoned the Ukrainian ambassador to protest over the recruitment of its nationals to take part in military operations. The communiqué said it was about a Facebook post by the Ukrainian embassy in Dakar that called for Senegalese volunteers to take part in the armed conflict in Ukraine.

About 60 mercenaries are known to have left Georgia for Ukraine. According to unofficial data, 15 of them have already died…

The mercenaries sent by Western countries to help Kiev will not be entitled to POW status, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov has said. Their fate is therefore unenviable.

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The dismissive attitude of the US political and military establishment towards its foreign “helpers” is well known.

This attitude became even more apparent after Joe Biden’s recent appearance before the House of Representatives and Senate with his annual State of the Union Address, in which he described the people of Ukraine as Iranians. One could hardly attribute this remark to Biden’s mental ageing. It is yet another indication of the indifference of the White House as to whom to shell: Iranians, Ukrainians, Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, who are all seen there as second class people.

As recently as last August, US combat veteran Sgt Larry Suer was convinced that the story of how the Americans abandoned the Vietnamese in Saigon in 1975 would be repeated in Kabul, which, by the way, happened!

The death of Afghan interpreter Sohail Pardis and the dramatic plight of thousands of Afghans working for the US is a vivid example of the entire highly chaotic attempt to evacuate Americans from Afghanistan, but also a testament to Washington’s disregard towards its helpers abroad. According to a report by the Association of Wartime Allies, the Afghanistan International television revealed that the United States evacuated about 3% of its Afghan allies who had applied for special immigration visas, leaving behind some 78,000 people willing to flee. According to interviews with 4,000 applicants for special immigration visas, those remaining in Afghanistan face harassment and hardship under the Taliban (organization banned in the Russian Federation). Almost 30% of these applicants said they spent some time in detention during the six months after the withdrawal of US troops, and 52% said they were interrogated, 88% of these people faced unemployement, and 94% reported economic difficulties and hunger. Meanwhile, Kim Stafiri, one of the founders of the Association of Wartime Allies, says other Western governments, unlike the US, have managed to pull their Afghan partners out of Afghanistan with fewer casualties.

Hundreds of Iraqi interpreters working for the US army have made similar claims against the US authorities, as they have been abandoned to their fate, according to Switzerland’s SRF portal. Citing the testimony of one of them, Ali, an Iraqi resident, SRF says he worked as an interpreter for the US army for nearly two years, carrying out communications between the US and Iraqi military. For the sake of their work, such Iraqi interpreters risked everything – including the safety of their families. After almost two years in the US army, he received order to leave the US military base, then he was escorted on foot to a fortified Iraqi army post, and five days later received a letter telling him that his job with the US army was over. He then learned that the US military had given the full identities of all Iraqi interpreters to the Iraqi government, which Ali said had been infiltrated by militant groups. After this, a list of several hundred interpreters’ names appeared on the Internet and members of militant groups started sending death threats to the interpreters.

According to a former interpreter who worked with the US army occupation forces, the US military was ambivalent towards Iraqis during the occupation. He divided the US military into three groups according to their attitude towards Iraqis: the first supported the occupation of Iraq and held a grudge against the local population; the second doubted the rightness of the US leadership; the third detached themselves from politics and joined the service just to be able to get a higher education.

More than once, the US has demonstrated its complete indifference to the fate of the Kurds by exploiting them for its own momentary interests during the wars in Iraq and Syria. The US has shown the Kurds its support towards the Kurdish vision of creating a separate state, supported by the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds. To this end, Washington has nurtured this dream to meet its own needs of establishing US bases in those areas of Iraq and Syria where Iran has had a lot of influence. However, the Kurdish plan, like the US support for it, has failed to come to fruition. In particular, it is well known that after the start of the Turkish military operation Peace Spring, Washington abandoned the Kurds to their fate, forcing them to fight with Ankara.

In this context and against the backdrop of a deteriorating situation in Ukraine after Russia launched a special operation to denazify and demilitarize it, many Ukrainians began to express their concerns about the possible consequences of cooperation with the US embassy. In particular, local employees of the US embassy in Kiev have sent a letter to the US Department of State asking for help, feeling, as the US media report, abandoned to their fate. In particular, on February 26, The Financial Times, quoting the text of their letter, which was made available to its editors, pointed out that the embassy staff requested help with evacuating from the war zone, obtaining US visas, as well as a stable line of communication with the Department of State amid the ongoing hostilities. However, even these requests for help were ignored by Washington, which showed its true attitude towards those “helpers”.

Under these circumstances, even the Polish Polityka points out the fear of many countries today that the US will abandon them, demonstrating its usual “defection” to them and NATO.

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Russia’s recognition of the independence of the LPR and DPR caused some confusion in Tel Aviv, where at first nobody was in a hurry to make a statement. Moreover, after intense consultations in Israel’s Foreign Ministry and National Security Council, local officials were forbidden to provide comments by the ruling coalition, leaving the Jewish nation-state in a very uneasy situation. On the one hand, they did not want to spoil relations with Russia and harm the joint projects that had already been launched. On the other, they feared that silence over Donbass would provoke tensions in further communication with Western allies and, above all, with the US, for whom Ukraine has long been not just a bargaining chip but an instrument of confrontation with Russia, that would be used to stir Russophobic sentiments through the remotely-controlled Kiev authorities.

In this regard, at the February 27 politico-military cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett asked ministers not to speak publicly about Ukraine, stressing that: “Israel is not a party to this conflict, please remain silent.”

The Israeli position on the escalating tensions between Moscow and Kiev became a little clearer after the start of the Russian Defense Ministry’s special operation to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, as Israel’s Foreign Minister Yair Lapid condemned the attack in a statement, saying that war is not the way to solve conflicts.

In doing so, the current authorities have neglected the fact that for the past eight years Moscow has been urging the international community to use diplomacy for ending the active nazification of Ukraine. It has been taking place all these years at the intense instigation of the US and Western countries, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Donbass civilians at the hands of Right Sector (banned in Russia) Nazis and Bandera militants.

However, Tel Aviv’s stance further underlines the fact that there’s a double standard in its approach, as Israel itself and its leaders have repeatedly expressed their intentions to use armed countermeasures against Iran and have carried out numerous terrorist attacks against Iranian military and political representatives. Moreover, neither Washington, nor its Western allies, nor the UN and the world community in general, have ever officially censured Tel Aviv for these provocative and subversive actions against Iran. As for overt military operations against Iran, Tel Aviv has avoided them only because it fears the devastating consequences of retaliatory military response that Tehran is capable of mounting. Nevertheless, the bogeyman of the Iranian nuclear threat is still actively used by Tel Aviv today, gathering a “pool of supporters” in armed opposition to Iran, in particular through the Washington-initiated “Abraham Accords” – i.e. strengthening Israel’s multidimensional cooperation with several Arab states.

In late February, the Israeli Foreign Ministry rejected a request from the US State Department and did not co-sponsor a resolution condemning the Russian invasion in mild terms, which was put to a UN Security Council vote. However, Washington has since initiated a series of “clarification talks” with the Israeli political establishment on how to behave in today’s situation. Also the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who has thrown away his former German identity to become a fierce supporter of White House politics for his own political ambitions, was asked to make a “surprise visit” to Israel to persuade Tel Aviv to vote in favor of a UN resolution condemning the Russian operation in Ukraine.

As a result, on instructions from Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid at the UN General Assembly, Israel decided to support a resolution condemning Russia. However the Tel Aviv statement was not voiced by Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan, as his deputy Noah Furman took this task in order to reduce “the irritation factor for Russia.” Thus Israel, which had previously tried to deal with the consequences of the actions of fascists and manifestations of neo-Nazism, has now officially stood up for the neo-Nazi authorities in Kiev, officially glorifying such fascist thugs as Bandera and Shukhevich.

And here the current Israeli authorities have blatantly ignored the attitudes of their own population to the rise of Nazism and anti-Semitism in Ukraine in recent years. Moreover, Moscow’s current special operation is precisely aimed at countering this, while this criminal policy of Kiev has been encouraged by the West for eight years now!

In this regard, it would be appropriate to recall at least the recent events of the annual Hasidic pilgrimage to a small Ukrainian town, Uman, Cherkasy region, whose locals, in a fit of neo-Nazi indoctrination by the Ukrainian authorities, opposed the arrival of believers from the Promised Land. Religious Israelis then voiced their harsh accusations to president Vladimir Zelenski. Hasidism is a powerful current in Judaism, according to which everyone can achieve personal holiness. For one of its branches, the Breslov Hasidim, the holy place is Uman in Ukraine, where the founder of their movement, Rabbi Nachmani, is buried, and a pilgrimage to his tomb at least once in a lifetime is considered a God-given deed. However, amid an upsurge of Judeophobia in Ukraine, a rabbi was beaten in the summer of 2020 in the same town of Uman; the police have not found the perpetrators.

Furthermore, it is unlikely that the people of Israel can indifferently watch as monuments are erected in Ukraine to those who exterminated Jews by the tens of thousands, burned, stabbed, shot, and buried them alive in mass graves. The names of these executioners, whose hands are up to their elbows in Jewish blood, are used to name streets and schools in the cities. Due to the policies pursued by the Kiev authorities, these murderers are now heroes for Ukraine. And the fact that the current president of Ukraine is an ethnic Jew means absolutely nothing. After all, this man betrayed not only his own blood but also his own kinship, effectively spitting on the grave of his grandfather who fought against Nazism.

It would seem that Israel should be sounding the alarm, calling on the entire civilized world to pay attention to the crimes that are taking place in Ukraine with the connivance of the Kiev authorities and their US sponsors. And heirs of the executioners are now literally dancing on the graves of murdered Jews there, encouraging anti-Semitism: regular desecration of Jewish graves, monuments, and domestic anti-Semitism. This, in particular, is confirmed by Eduard Dolinsky, Director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, who, on his Facebook page, clearly demonstrates that modern Ukraine is a completely anti-Semitic country, where the memory of murderers of the Jewish people is honored and protected and monuments are erected to them, often even on the site of the mass graves of the Jews they murdered.

But current Israeli officials do not hear Eduard Dolinsky and do not want to know the true situation in Ukraine. They prefer to listen to Washington’s fakes and betray the memory of the Jewish people who suffered under fascism, and to stand up for the Nazi authorities in Kiev at the behest of the White House.

Not long ago, former US President Donald Trump said: “America will not be held hostage by nuclear blackmail.” The same position was previously held by Tel Aviv. However, having taken the path of criticizing Russia over its fears of Ukraine getting nuclear weapons, Israel itself will now no longer have the right to resent the possibility of Iran arming itself with a nuclear bomb, since it chose to suit the political whims of the current rulers in Washington!

As for further engagement with Moscow, Israel has needed it more than Russia in recent years, especially in developments in neighboring Syria. However, with Tel Aviv adjusting its attitude to Russia’s objective fears due to NATO’s provocative eastward expansion and the growing neo-Nazi and nuclear threat from Ukraine, Israel can now hardly expect Moscow to understand its concerns about extremist manifestations from Syria and the previous reaction to the Israeli army’s missile and air strikes on Syrian territory.

Vladimir Odintsov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Hype in the West regarding Russia’s plans to seize Kyiv and its other “schemes” garnered response and comments in the Middle Eastern political circles and media. Among these the US-driven propaganda narratives regarding Moscow’s alleged intent to use its gas as a geopolitical weapon and about the gas stranglehold that Russia has allegededly put on Europe’s neck is surrounded by lively debates.

In this regard, a number of Arab commentators are reminiscing about the “freedom gas” slogan. And indeed, back in the day, US president Donald Trump touted American liquefied gas that was supposed to free the Old World from dependence on Russia.

As Al-Arabiya reports, following these plans, in January the US accounted for 45% of LNG supplies arriving in Europe from outside (almost 12 billion cubic meters). Washington wants to sideline the Russian gas as it seeks alternative gas supply sources.

Another incentive derives from the mounting pressure on the US administration in terms of demands to cut exports of this commodity in order to offset the soaring prices at the domestic market. For that reason, the US is seeking another gas sources, including in the Middle East, a region that accounts for 15% of natural gas production globally.

As for the positions of Arab producers, as the Saudi author reports, compared to Russia that covers 40% of gas consumption in Europe, supplies from Algeria account just for 8%, while Qatar stands for 5%, which is followed by Libya. The way the local gas exporters react to this development can be estimated by the Middle Eastern media’s feedback.

According to Libyan Oil and Gas Minister Mohamed Aoun, his country is impotent to influence the gas crisis in Europe in terms of attenuating its sufferings. The Libyan gas that was back in the day flowing to Europe via Greenstream pipeline connecting Libya and Italy is now used only for supporting local thermal power plants.

For now, Algeria will not be able to replace Russian gas in case of shortages due to a simple reason: a vast difference in production volumes of the two countries. Objectively speaking, Algeria lacks resources for this purpose, says a former responsible head of the Algerian company SONATRACH.

Qatar is the second largest LNG exporter globally, that is why Washington bets big on Doha to sideline Russia in the European gas market.

Some researchers argue about the chances of Qatari gas becoming an alternative to the Russian fuel, citing Doha’s ambitious plans to significantly step up its LNG production and export capacities in the coming years.  Other Middle Eastern experts, however, have voiced caution in this regard.

75% of Qatari LNG is exported to Asian countries: Japan, South Korea, etc. 90% of deliveries are long-term contracts. Last year, in particular, China and Qatar signed the largest contract of such sort.  This means that only a tiny fraction of Qatari gas is sold on the spot market.

According to a BCS Global Market analyst, as cited by the Arab source, it is necessary to transfer half of LNG consumed by Asia to Europe to replace Gazprom. Qatar’s Energy Minister Saad Al-Kaabi pointed out that Doha considered its gas contracts to be “sacred” while fulfillment of contractual obligations is the nation’s priority.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, Qatar’s foreign minister, said that Qatar will not “be a part of some kind of conflict and political polarization.” As for the energy competition, it is open while Qatar intends to compete with Russia, the US and other producers.

Besides, Qatar demands to refrain from reselling the gas it supplies, a pattern of behavior some European countries are engaged in, in order to transfer the fuel to Asian countries with excess profit in mind.

At the same time, as the Arab outlet reports, generally speaking, the Russian pipeline gas has an edge over the Qatari fuel. This method is more convenient and cost-effective since the pipeline gas does not require liquefaction, long-distance sea transportation and expensive-to-run on-shore equipment for accepting and storing fuel.

Analysts also urge to take into account Europe’s push to rely more heavily on gas since the green energy sector plans to stop using coal in the upcoming decades.  Moreover, gas consumption in the Middle East is increasing by 4.6% annually, which will be an understandable cause for cutting exports from this region.

In recent years, Washington has been consumed with an idea to become a global energy security hegemon, pushing back against Europe’s energy independence and its ties with Russia, especially in the gas industry. Under the last US administration Washington was dead set on finding an alternative to the Russian gas, but failed miserably.

The Egyptian political scientist assumes that geostrategic reality predetermines imminent economic bilateral tying of Russia and Europe. In recent years, even when Europe slapped sanctions on Russia, they did not affect the gas sector.

For Europe ditching of the Russian gas will prove problematic since such a move would require a lot of time and efforts for construction of brand-new infrastructure for accepting, processing and distributing LNG among the consumers. For Russia, such backpedaling (a matter Western experts like to drone on) would be suicidal.

More and more Middle Eastern analysts agree that restless authors’ hysteria about the Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine reached its peak.

The Emirati outlet concludes Russia is determined to avoid the war that would disembowel it and expose it in the eyes of the world community as a violator of international legal norms…

But, as the metaphor goes, if a knife is put to Russia’s throat, then it will certainly resort to some military measures to shield itself in the long run and protect its Eastern borders from Western encroachment. Despite a threat of severe sanctions and other risks, moving forward, this nation has much more to gain than it stands to lose.

Yuri Zinin, a senior researcher at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Institute of International Studies of the Moscow State Institute for International Relations, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

On February 24, the Syrian Arab news agency SANA reported that the United States was sending another military escort to Syria, which again acknowledged Washington’s ongoing occupation policy in this Middle Eastern country. It has been continued since 2014 without any UN sanctions and without any permission from official Damascus authorities.

The US military convoy from Iraq, consisting of 23 transport units, including 18 trucks with weapons, ammunition and logistics equipment, as well as 5 empty tank trucks, crossed the border at the illegal Al-Waleed border crossing. The military convoy headed to the Rmelan district in the north-east of the Al-Hasakah Governorate, where the US military bases, in particular, Al-Tanf, are located. The American convoy was accompanied by two vehicles belonging to the opposition Syrian Democratic Forces, equipped with small arms.

It is assumed that the next batch of weapons delivered by the United States to Syria is intended for the military bases of Kurdish insurgents from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) located in the north of the country, who regularly receive assistance from the Americans. The tank trucks in the above mentioned US military convoy are, for sure, intended to transport the oil as part of continued Washington’s pillage of Syrian oil resources, most of which are concentrated in the east of the country where the major Syrian oil fields are located: the Conoco, Al Omar, and Al Tanak oil fields are located on the left bank of the Euphrates, in the area controlled by the pro-American SDF. US Kurdish allies are also actively involved in smuggling oil from Syria, and in exchange, the Americans supply them with weapons.

The Kurdish illegal armed groups that appeared in the midst of the civil war in Syria managed to gain support in the United States, which was facilitated by lobbyists hired by the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (Rojava) to build links with the American establishment. The names of those people in the USA who promote the interests of SDF in the United States, can be easily found in the database of the US Department of Justice, which contains relevant information provided in accordance with the law about registration of FARA foreign agents.

The Syrian Democratic Forces were formed in the midst of the civil war which began in Syria in 2011, right after the “Arab spring,” their official date of formation is October 11, 2015. The skeleton of this organization consisted of Kurds, and also includes Arabs, Assyrians, Turkmens, Armenians and Circassians. By now, SDF has taken control over parts of the North-East of the Syrian Arabian Republic (SAR). The United States is interested in having the Kurds as the opposition to the official regime in Damascus, and for this reason, in 2013 the administration of the then President Barack Obama took a decision to supply weapons to that armed group. However, in July 2017, when Donald Trump was in office, this “CIA’s secret program for weapons provisioning and training of certain groups of insurgents” who were fighting against the government of Bashar Al-Assad, the Syrian President, was terminated. Already in early 2018, SDF launched their first representative office in Washington, the US mission of the Syrian Democratic Council, which was headed by the US citizen, Ahmed Al-Khendi, having declared in its US registration documents its goals. The Kurds managed to establish relations with a number of MPs, including a representative of the Republican party, Marco Rubio.

In 2021, with the beginning of Joe Biden’s presidential term in the White House, the US office of the SDF expanded its activity, including mining and sale of illegally extracted Syrian oil with the participation of Delta Crescent Energy, a US-based company registered in Delaware. Up to three million barrels of raw materials are extracted monthly at the fields in the Al-Hasakah, Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor Governorates. About a third of the stolen oil is sold to the Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq at a price of USD 35-40 per barrel, with the US support. According to Al-Monitor, this “cooperation” was made possible with the support of the White House and under the protection of the US military.

Hundreds of terrorists in Syria were released to join the US-controlled armed groups, some of which have been delivered to the territory of the Al-Tanf zone.  The US intelligence agencies plan to offer to the extremist cells in Damascus and Latakia to commit actions against the Syrian, Russian and Iranian military forces, and try to arrange a media campaign to provoke protest sentiments in the Syrian civil society.

With its illegal activities in Syria, the US military continues to kill hundreds of civilians in this country. At the same time, the United States kept hiding the real data on the number of civilians killed after the air raids in Syria, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq, as evidenced by the results of the investigation by the New York Times, in particular. So, on February 22, as a result of another armed attack by landing troops in the village of Ad-Dakhla in the east of the Deir ez-Zor Governorate, the US armed forces together with SDF commenced intense and random fire attack at the residential buildings and agricultural land. As a result, the elder of the Al-Bakkara tribe, Ibrahim Al-Omar, was killed.

Alexander Efimov, Russia’s ambassador in Syria, in his interview with RIA Novosti on February 9, 2022, made the following comments on the US presence in Syria: “First of all, I shall repeat what has been repeatedly said: the presence in Syria of the forces of the so-called “international coalition” led by the United States has no legal basis — such as the resolutions by the UN Security Council or the consent of the legitimate Syrian authorities – and this presence should be terminated immediately. Moreover, the United States obviously has not succeeded in combating terrorism in Syria. In addition to the Trans-Euphrates region, there is another “grey zone” that emerged thanks to the efforts of the Americans, and located in the south of the SAR – the Al-Tanf zone, where Magavir Al-Saura gunmen (an organization banned in Russia) do whatever they want, acting in the atmosphere of impunity and permissiveness, in particular, they hinder the overdue resettlement of the Rukban camp for IDPs located there.

In other words, they divide terrorists into “bad guys” and “good guys,” many of them are given a “second start,” and they continue to accumulate power potential and radicalize civilians. And the longer the United States stays here, the more powerful the delayed-time bomb may turn out to be. We shouldn’t forget the fact that Washington continues to support the illegal appropriation of the SAR’s natural resources – primarily oil and wheat in the North-East of the country.

These facts are sufficient enough to persistently demand the illegal American occupation of the SAR to be terminated.”

This appeal to terminate the US illegal aggressive operation in Syria and to have the presence of the US occupation forces in Syria recognized as illegal by the UN, is a burning issue today, especially in the context of the criticism against Russia by Washington and NATO countries regarding Russia’s military special operation in the Donbass. Recall that this operation is intended to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, and it was started because no reaction from the Ukrainian authorities followed to stop the policy of genocide of the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine, a policy supported by Kiev militants since 2014, which resulted in killing hundreds of civilians.

It makes one wonder, how come the political demagogues from Washington and Western Europe have the right to criticize other countries, impose unilateral sanctions, at the same time being silent about their war crimes in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and earlier in Yugoslavia? Thus, they are demonstrating “double standards” in assessing international events and understating Washington’s blatant violation of international norms!

Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Turkey has recently been receiving a considerable amount of attention in the publications of various media outlets. However, much of the reporting revolves around the attitude of Ankara and the Turkish president himself towards various armed conflicts, where Turkey still plays a major role.

One example of this is the Turkish leader’s offer to mediate in the Ukrainian crisis, which has been widely reported in the media from different (and not always flattering for Ankara) perspectives. However, Erdogan would continue to pump his combat drones into Ukraine and deepen his military cooperation with Kiev, under which circumstances any reasonable reader is bound to ask: what is the nature of the “mediating role” that Ankara plays here? It looks more like an attempt at fomenting a military crisis with Erdogan aligning himself with Kiev, thus siding with NATO, of which Turkey is a member, as well as with Washington, which has long exercised external control over Ukraine, both directly and through various intermediaries.

Ankara’s continued activity in sending its fighters from Syria to a number of conflict zones has also not been off the newswire. In particular in Libya, where the international community and the members of the 5+5 Joint Military Committee had previously decided that foreign troops stationed on the territory of the North African state should return home. To this notion, Turkey has responded by officially declaring its readiness to withdraw some 150 fighters from Libya. However, Al-Hadath reported on February 17 that at least 150 new Syrian fighters have arrived in Libya to take part in military operations there. Most are members of the illegal Muhammad al-Fateh Brigade (banned in Russia), which is linked to groups loyal to Turkey. According to journalists, the mercenaries were recruited with the participation of the Turkish military, which organizes their delivery from Idlib province in Syria to Tripoli. Moreover, according to journalists, the Turkish Defense Ministry allegedly pays for the services of Syrian mercenaries in Libya, in particular paying up to $200-250 to field commanders. The supply or exchange of pro-Turkish mercenaries in Libya has been a regular occurrence in recent months. Along with armed gangs, militants represent one of the main challenges to the peace process in that country.

The director of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), Rami Abd al-Rahman, also confirmed the information about Turkey’s ongoing deployment of Syrian mercenaries in western Libya on the Libyan television channel Al Masar on February 22. According to him, Erdogan continues to import groups into Libya under the guise of the agreement made with the former Tripolitan Government of National Accord (GNA). The militants are recruited by Turkish intelligence in Syria and then given legal cover in an African state through a security company. However, Al-Rahman stressed that a number of Arab media outlets were unwilling to cover the issue and expressed his suspicions about the existence of agreements between Erdoğan and some countries in the region in the context of the media war.

The media, however, continues to uncover Turkey’s involvement not only in sending fighters to other countries, but also in producing forged papers for them and former members of terrorist groups, including DAESH (banned in Russia). They allow militants to travel freely not only to Libya, but also all over Europe, as well as the United States.

The Guardian, for example, has managed to track down those who make and sell fake documents for dozens of radicals linked to DAESH, who then quietly cross the border into Syria, presenting such documents, and travel around the world. Such documents cost $5,000 to $15,000, and the holder of a fake passport receives an almost one hundred per cent guarantee that he will cross the border into Turkey without incident. British journalists have been able to track down one of the clandestine document forgery firms run by an Uzbek national living in Turkey. His business is going so well that he has set up a special Telegram channel with the serious name Istanbul Global Consulting. Answering the journalists’ question about whether terrorists or dangerous extremists might use his products to evade justice, the businessman said he did not ask his customers what group or movement they belonged to.

It begs the question: why aren’t the Turkish authorities and law enforcement agencies themselves interested in this “business” and covering it up?

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that the activities of such “businessmen” from Turkey and his colleagues in other states have been expanding recently, as such firms take advantage of the residents of refugee camps in Syria, such as Al-Hol camp, which hosts some 60,000 women and children associated with DAESH militants. In addition, according to The Guardian, since the Taliban (banned in Russia) seized power in Afghanistan, there have been many Afghan refugee “clients” in Turkey who use fake passports to board a plane to a Western country in Turkey and then apply for asylum upon arrival.

The products of such clandestine firms also allow individuals to disappear without a trace – simply order a fake death certificate for just $500 and send it to the consulate of the client’s country, as no one will go to the morgue to check who is really lying there.

In addition, it was recently reported in the media that Turkey has become the largest source of military equipment for radical Islamists. The Turkish Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) has also confirmed this information, publishing a new report that reveals the involvement of three construction companies from the port city of Mersin in the arms trade with DAESH militants. Weapons and components for the UAVs were purchased for the most part in China and then transported by sea through Ankara-controlled territory to the militants. The harbor, where local firms were based, occupied a central part in the supply chain. MASAK officials report that Altun İnci Construction supplied several million dollars worth of already well-known Turkish UAVs and weapons to DAESH in 2015-2016. In its report, MASAK notes that the Turkish Intelligence Service (MİT), among others, monitored the firm and its leader. However, it is not entirely clear why the criminal DAESH arms supply network was not exposed and dismantled earlier?

And this is a fairly incomplete list of information circulating in various media about Turkey and its links to militant and extremist groups, including in Ukraine. Let’s keep an eye on it together!

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Algerian officials met separately with the representatives of the Palestinian factions in mid-January to help pave the way for a comprehensive dialogue on the Palestinian reconciliation and end the division between Fatah and Hamas, which has controlled the Gaza Strip since 2007. The controversy began after the last Palestinian parliamentary elections in early 2006, which were followed by accusations from both sides in the nonobservance of the election results. This led to violent clashes between Hamas militants and the Palestinian Authority (PA) security bodies, which ended with Hamas in full control of Gaza now.

Algerian officials met with representatives of Fatah, followed by meetings with the representatives of Hamas. Both groups sent delegations to Algeria at the invitation of Algerian President Abdelmajid Tebboune.  Other Palestinian groups also travelled to Algeria, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Islamic Jihad. They also met with Algerian officials in the hope of a breakthrough in reconciliation.

Algeria took the initiative after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas visited Algeria in late December ahead of another Arab summit soon to be scheduled by the Arab League. Algeria hopes to reach progress on the issue.  Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra said at a press conference behind the scenes of the meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Kuwait, that “the road to Palestinian reconciliation has begun, and Algeria has a lot of experience in uniting the Palestinians.” Lamamra referred to his country’s experience in holding meetings to settle the Fatah issue before the creation of the PA in 1994.

Egypt also plays the principal role in most of the Palestinian reconciliation efforts, including other issues on strengthening the Palestinian position. In recent years Egypt has been trying to bring the two sides closer through a series of meetings that leads to agreements and improve understanding between them, but the application of these agreements quickly fell apart due to the obstacles on both sides. This raises doubts as to whether the current round of talks will bring any notable results.

Saudi Arabia contributed to the conclusion of the Mecca Agreement in 2007, while Yemen also attempted to mediate under former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. So did Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Russia and Turkey, but all these attempts failed. When asked whether the reconciliation talks would succeed this time, Al-Azhar University political science professor and former Palestinian minister of culture Ibrahim Abrash announced that he would hold no breath. “Why will the talks in Algeria be successful if they have not been successful during all these years since the controversy began?” he said to the Al-Ahram weekly. “A change of venue will not lead to successful negotiations.”

“No Arab side has hindered the success of reconciliation. The problem lies with the Palestinians and whether a critical mass has been reached to end the differences.  The invitation was sent by Algeria, not by the Palestinian political parties or factions demonstrating their determination for reconciliation. If there was genuine conviction for reconciliation, it would have happened on Palestinian soil without the need for outside mediators”, he continued.  “Algeria is acting cautiously and listening to all points of view, trying to bridge the gap. If there is any progress, a comprehensive dialogue could be proposed. But if complications arise, Algeria will not engage in dialogues that will end in failure”, he added.

He believed that Palestinian reconciliation had become a difficult problem, and that since the separation there had been a political class in Gaza and the West Bank that was not interested in bridging the gap. Abrash argued that Egypt must be present for true reconciliation. “It is the most important player in the Palestinian issue and a key element of any reconciliation agreement”, he added.

Following the last Israeli war in the Gaza Strip, Egypt invited the Palestinian groups to Cairo in May 2021 to discuss the differences, but their different agendas and prospects led to the failure of the effort before it even began. In December 2021, Hamas said it presented its vision for ending the disagreement to the Egyptian intelligence agency in charge of Palestinian reconciliation. This vision included revising the top national leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) to include all forces, factions and national leaders by means of elections. If elections were not possible for whatever reason, a national agreement would be reached to form an interim national leadership for a certain period as a transition phase to get ready for the general elections.

Hamas also wanted agreement on a national strategy at this stage, meaning consensus on the national political agenda and mechanisms for national, field and political action. Fatah refused, arguing that there was no need for new strategies and visions, and relied on what had already been agreed instead. It believes that the main obstacle lies in implementing the previous agreements rather than in reaching new agreements. Reconciliation was further complicated when, in early May 2021, Abbas issued a decree cancelling parliamentary, presidential and the Palestinian National Council elections because Israel refused to allow elections in occupied Jerusalem. The PA justified the decision on the grounds that occupied Jerusalem was the capital of the Palestinian state and elections could not be held without Jerusalem. Hamas, on the other hand, saw this move by Abbas as a way to evade elections and demanded elections, but without clarifying its position on Jerusalem.

Other complications on the road to reconciliation are the boycott by some factions of the meeting of the Palestinian National Council (PNC, the parliament for Palestinians at home and abroad), as required by the PLO charter, which is the highest executive body in Palestine from which the PA was created. The NPC should include representatives of all Palestinian factions and forces, as well as some key leaders. Hamas and Islamic Jihad said they would boycott the meeting, and the PFLP joined them. Meanwhile, Fatah, which controls the PLO, is moving ahead with the PNC meeting scheduled for February.

The gap between Fatah and Hamas is growing, making any mediation attempts to bridge their differences difficult. Abbas wants Hamas to declare its commitment to the principles of international legitimacy, which includes recognition of Israel, before the group can join any future Palestinian government. The PA chairman justified his position by expressing concern that if the agreement leads to Hamas, listed as a terrorist organisation by the EU and Britain, joining a Palestinian government, harsh economic sanctions could be imposed on that government because Hamas does not recognise international resolutions.

Palestine relies not only on the support and assistance of the Arabs, but also of other countries friendly to it, most notably Russia in its struggle to establish its own state. That is why the Palestinian side support very actively and gratefully Russia’s call for a ministerial meeting of the Middle East Quartet as soon as possible, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki told the UN Security Council.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has previously reiterated that Russia insists on a meeting of the Middle East Quartet (Russia, US, UN, EU) to help resume direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. The Palestinian side demands within the framework of a peace process with Israel, currently on hold, that future borders between the two sovereign states should follow the lines that existed before the Six Day War in 1967 with a possible exchange of territories. They hope to establish their state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and want East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel refuses to return to the borders that existed in 1967 or divide Jerusalem, which has been already declared its eternal and undivided capital. In this regard, it should be noted that former US President Donald Trump, the representative of the “great democracy”, did his best to stall the Palestinian problem and fully supported the Israeli efforts to make Jerusalem fully theirs by declaring the city as the capital of the State of Israel.

Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The next Turkish general elections are scheduled for June 2023. The incumbent Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan plans to run as a People’s Alliance presidential candidate, a coalition that had been formed by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).

Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been in power since 2003 (first, as prime-minister). In 2007, he pushed through amendments to the Constitution that would mean that the president would be elected by popular vote (earlier the president was elected by parliament). In August 2014, he won the first direct presidential election in the country mustering 51.8% votes. In 2018, Erdogan won snap presidential election on the first ballot enlisting the support of more than 52.5% voters.

However, in today’s crisis-ridden Turkey, Erdogan’s popular support is dwindling. The latest polls conducted in Turkey by independent research organizations attest to an aggravating social and political crisis in the country, with some experts saying that internal situation could exacerbate, a development that would entail further crackdown by the current authorities on the opposition. According to a slew of analysists, the Turkish economy has entered a period of a prolonged recession that is in part driven by the increasing side effects of the current economic growth model and social and economic fall-out from the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic. The country has faced double-digit inflation, rising unemployment, weakening of the national currency and outflow of foreign investment. Analysts say that Turkey’s economic prospects look increasingly bleak amidst wide-spread youth unemployment and exacerbating poverty.

As an information and analytical Turkish portal Duvar reported on February 18, the Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat) announced the results of the “2021 Life Satisfaction Survey,” which revealed that the proportion of Turks who say they are “happy” has decreased from 59.6 percent to 49.3 percent in the past 19 years. In other words, the survey covers the period when Turkey was ruled by the Justice and Development Party led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The study also questioned Turks regarding their “life expectations in the upcoming year.” The results showed that the proportion of those who said “it could get worse” increased from 9.3 percent in 2003 to 33.8 percent in 2021.

According to a recent report by the Istanbul Municipality’s Planning Agency (IPA), most people in this Turkish metropolis are left “desperate and hopeless” by the state of the economy, with a large proportion claiming last month that their economic outlooks are bleak.

Given these circumstances, the opposition is calling on Erdoğan to step down, and the police have investigated people for using social networks to organize demonstrations. In addition, the debates regarding Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s right to run for president again are raging on, with the elections scheduled to take place in 2023. The sticking point is that according to the Constitution, the leader of the republic cannot be elected for more than two terms if the elections are proceeding according to the schedule. For that reason, Erdoğan’s critics think that he may not legally run in the upcoming elections while many, including MPs, some of whom represent opposition parties, believe otherwise.

The president’s ally and leader of the far-right Nationalist Movement Party, Devlet Bahceli, claims that nothing impedes Erdogan to run for office again. He made this statement after one of former ministers and members of the Justice and Development Party Ertuğrul Günay had said that if the election were to be held as scheduled, the incumbent leader could not run for president and would be able to do so only in case of snap election.

Bahceli and other Erdogan’s allies argue that the president was elected only once since the reform of the political system had taken place, which allegedly offsets the Constitution’s disputed paragraph in his specific case. At the same time, the MHP leader stressed that if there were a need to introduce constitutional amendments to extend the president’s term, his party and the AKP would do their best to make that happen. Some critics, however, say that such amendments would require a two-third parliamentary majority with MHP—AKP falling short of this number in the Grand National Assembly.

However, the opposition reacted to this bickering with surprising indifference. This could be explained only by the fact that Erdogan is swiftly losing support of Turkey’s population as opposition strongly believes that he would lose.  At the same time, as for the reasons for the incumbent president’s dwindling popular support, the opposition has been citing not only Turkey’s deteriorating social and economic prospects due to Erdogan’s domestic policy blunders. A role in this process was also played by the Turkish authorities’ brutal crackdown on dissent that has only picked up steam after an attempted coup in 2016 and mass purges with thousands of Turks ending up behind bars. Neither does Erdoğan gain support by imposing religious way of life on the society considering that his push to islamize the country is frowned upon not only by the youth, but also by senior citizens that are used to the secular order. Besides, Turks have been witnessing ever-lasting major corruption scandals which force the most prominent members of the ruling AKP party to skedaddle, with some of them establishing new political organizations. These include former Deputy Prime Minister Ali Babacan, former Foreign Minister and former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, and others who were at the root of the AKP. They argue that Turkey needs an entirely new vision for the future, claiming that “Erdoğan has exhausted the resources to continue his geopolitical experiment” and that its “economy cannot withstand his ambitious foreign policy.”

At the same time, with Erdogan still in power, there is an apparent lack of charismatic political leaders, which gives the incumbent president a chance to splinter the opposition and win the 2023 elections even against the backdrop of his dwindling popularity. All opposition figures operating in the country are not independent and try to entrench themselves in electoral terms as they rely on various alliances with Western external forces. The political landscape is shaky, a situation that was clearly understood by the US which made a “sudden” U-turn in the Eastern Mediterranean towards Turkey, saying that it no longer supports the Greek-Israeli EastMed gas pipeline project. Moreover, according to US-based Foreign Policy magazine, Washington has faced the danger of losing Turkey and is now trying to hinder its “rapprochement with the East” and therefore undoubtedly will make efforts to ensure Erdogan’s victory at the upcoming elections.

Vladimir Odintsov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Iran and the United States used to be the closest allies before the 1979 Iranian revolution, but now they are uncompromising enemies. Quite a peculiar political metamorphosis.  Makes one wonder how former close friends turned into such enemies in just over forty years? And why it is the US who is still full of such violent hatred towards the Iranian people and tries to suffocate them in a deadly embrace?

Everything began with the taking of hostages at the US Embassy in 1979. It was the time of free expression of the Iranians’ will and their fear that the Shah, supported by the West, may return to power, as he did in 1953 when the CIA and MI-6 organized a coup d’état by grossly interfering with Iran’s domestic affairs. Therefore, the taking of hostages was a clear message to Washington to warn it against meddling in internal affairs of the Iranian people who had chosen their own independent way of development. Quite obviously, if it wasn’t for the 1953 intervention, the grievous events of 1979 would not have happened. And it was US with its poorly targeted and insolent policy that caused a drastic worsening of the Iran-US relations. No one but Washington is guilty of the developments where the holding of hostages at the Embassy went on or 444 days of late-night news reminders to the Americans. And every time when Iran was mentioned in the news there appeared images of hostages and the chanting “death to America”, in order to remind the Americans about their numerous crimes committed in Iran and the spiteful messages of the vile politicians from the Department of State. For the first time in many years, the Americans felt helpless and humiliated while the US media and their biased politicians proceeded with thumping the drums of hatred and conflict. The conflict could be resolved literally within a week. But America’s spiteful masters needed to humiliate their own people, to blow up the flames of hatred and animosity against the Iranian people.

Instead of normal negotiations and explanations, America introduced inhuman sanctions against Iran. And it went even further. Both before and after the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran, the US made many efforts to convince and encourage him to do the dirty work for it. The United Nations, being under tremendous pressure from the US, who had lost its political sense, and its obedient allies, did not display any activity to condemn this most serious violation of the UN Charter. The US and its European allies supplied to Saddam Hussein all the necessary weapons, including the chemical weapons prohibited by international law, while simultaneously introducing the embargo for deliveries of weapons to Iran.  The all-penetrating sanctions are equal to an act of war as even trade embargoes were historically regarded as such.

Thus, the war continued for over eight years. During the war, over 1.5 million people from both sides were killed, and even more people were wounded, and thousands of Iranians poisoned with gas have survived only thanks to oxygen flasks. America spitefully and vilely enjoyed its triumph, it showed little compassion to the Iranians’ pain and deaths, the memories of which will be hard to forget for the world and which have placed a heavy burden on the shoulders of all American people who had failed to curb their presumptuous leaders.

Though the war between Iran and Iraq ended in August of 1988, the hostilities between the US and Iran continued. America proceeded with introducing its vast sanctions and Iran strengthened its defense and supported – to the best of its powers and capabilities – its allies in the region. After the Iraqi intrusion to Kuwait, engineered by Washington, Tehran provided support to the fleeing Kuwaiti and made an attempt to improve its relations with the US and Saudi Arabia. However the Iranian rapprochement envoy was rudely renounced by the Department of State, while the Saudi waived their promises given to the mediator whom they had chosen together with the Iranians. Iran tried to attract American companies and was near to concluding an important agreement with Conoco on the new oil field development. Iran also invited Bechtel to discuss a number of projects, including the huge Iranian gas reservoir used jointly with Qatar. But in 1996 President Clinton adopted the malevolent ILSA (Iran and Libya Sanctions Act) limiting any major investments in Iran and closed a number of loopholes in the sanctions, including in respect of imports of Iranian refined petroleum.

The American bases and military power in the Gulf region threatened Iran, but much was still ahead. After 9/11, the United States, aggressively and in violation of all international laws, invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq. Afghanistan provided to Iran yet another opportunity to overcome the gap in the relations with the United States. Iran worked with its ally, Ahmad Shah Massoud, and with the Northern Alliance that actively attacked the Taliban (the movement is banned in the RF) in ground combats. Iran believed that this cooperation would open a more fruitful way towards making peace with the US. Though there appeared a flash of hope, as soon as the US won the war in Afghanistan the ungrateful American politicians grossly renounced the Iranian hand stretched out for peace.

It was followed by the invasion to Iraq when the former Secretary of State Colin Powell, acting like an unlucky beginner juggler from a burnt-down circus, grossly and insolently deceived the international community, “informing” about the existence of chemical and biological weapons in Baghdad and about Saddam Hussein’s close ties with international terrorists, first of all, with al-Qaida (banned in the territory of Russia). Nevertheless, it is common knowledge that Al-Qaeda was created by the US with the funds of the Gulf monarchies against the USSR, whose army at that time was fighting against international terrorists in Afghanistan. Thereafter, Iran was surrounded by the US troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. All these, along with the accumulated American political and economic abuse, boxed Iran into a corner. Tehran had to strengthen its defense and support its regional allies – Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shia Muslims everywhere, especially in Iraq. Such allies would provide to Iran offensive opportunities in their fight against what they perceived as the American threat to the survival of the regime.

The main factor nourishing and prolonging Iran’s isolation is the anti-Iranian lobbying on the part of Israel and its American allies and – however to a lesser extent – on the part of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and their corporate patrons in the West. By that time, Iran understood that cooperation with the US would not lead to mutual benefits and that it must work with the US only when it is directly related to its own interests and survival. Iran employed more concerted efforts to develop its defense industry. Missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles became the most economically efficient weapons. They were cheap and offered to Iran both offensive and defensive opportunities.

At the same time, Iran was building on its peaceful nuclear research, adding more and more centrifuges and increasing the enrichment levels. Though the conscientious Iran, as different from Israel, has signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) if has not received all the peaceful assistance in the nuclear technologies area promised pursuant to the Treaty.  Having received insignificant assistance or having received no assistance at all for their nuclear program, being under the strenuous sanctions, isolated and surrounded by the US, the Iranian officials believed that anticipatory disclosure of the information would lead to attack on their facilities.

The Israeli and Saudi Arabian anti-Iranian lobbying has enhanced. As far as Israel is concerned, it was lobbying its allies in the US Congress and media in order to isolate Iran, have the sanctions strengthened, engage in subversive activities in the territory of Iran and adopt the policy of changing the regime as the sole long-term acceptable solution. Some politicians gave it away that the ultimate goal consisted in breaking Iran into four or five parts, they all being too weak to pose any problem for Israel, the Arabs and the US.

Obama’s administration feared activation of Iran’s nuclear efforts but did not wish to attack Iran as suggested by Israel and some Gulf Arabs. The US began secret negotiations with Iran under the auspices of the Sultanate of Oman. The discussions resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was also ratified by the UN Security Council. This was by no means an ideal agreement. This provided for the most obtrusive nuclear activity program of Iran for the US and its allies, though with a reservation regarding termination for ten years, conservation of the Iranian heavy water reactor, transfer of the most part of the Iranian enriched fuel (far from military quality) and restriction of the Iranian enrichment program. For Iran, the lifting of the sanction had to take place – de-freezing the Iranian assets, unimpeded direct foreign investments, access to the global financial markets and a flow of imports (with the exception of some nuclear and military goods) and exports of goods and services. Iran was naive in one very important aspect – the American compromise was reversible while much of the Iranian compromise was irreversible.

Trump’s new administration threw everything overboard. He had close relations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and rich Gulf Arabs, and Saudi Arabia was the first country that he visited and concluded huge military contracts in favor of the US. Trump requested restriction of the Iranian missile programs of unmanned aerial vehicles, introduced new sanctions against Iran, he was also involved in the Israeli sabotage of the Iranian facilities and killings of Iranian scientists, in the first turn of the leading Iranian nuclear scientist. Then the US withdrew from the JCPOA. And, most notoriously, the United States killed General Soleimani with complicity of Israel in Iraq. In order to save its face, Iran had to strike a counterblow, and so it did launching missiles at the American base. Iran still could choose proportional revenge for a person whom many Iranians – both the supporters and adversaries of the Tehran regime – considered a national hero who had dedicated his life to defending Iran at its most gloomy hours.

President Biden began restoration of the JCPOA. Iran, who had been complying with its part of the deal during one year even after Trump’s leaving, was ready to join the JCPOA if all the sanctions that had been eliminated at signing of the JCPOA, as well as the other ones introduced by Trump, would be lifted, and if the US provided the guarantees that they would not withdraw while Iran was in compliance with its obligations. The US do not wish to lift all these sanctions, can not provide the guarantees sought by Iran but wish to discuss its missile program and its regional activities in support of its allies. The discussions in Vienna continue, with no end to be seen.

Though the US had been more popular in Iran than in any other Arabic country during many years, Trump’s actions in respect of Iran and the sufferings of ordinary Iranians caused irreparable damage to these relations.  The US did not demonstrate and are not demonstrating any compassion whatsoever towards the Iranian people, and the sanctions in addition to the new severe restrictions lead to impoverishment of ordinary Iranians.  The main factor nourishing and prolonging Iran’s isolation was the anti-Iranian lobbying on the part of Israel and its American “yeasayers” and – however to a lesser extent – on the part of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and their corporate patrons in the West. This lobbying so strongly turned the US Congress against Iran that a whole change of generations might be needed to change the US policy. Spreading anti-Iran attitudes in all US media “made” Iran enemy number one in the eyes of ordinary Americans.

The ruthless Israeli and Arab lobbying in its turn forced Iran into a corner. The Arab lobbying complicated the business relations while the Israeli lobbying poisoned Iran’s political relations with the US. Tehran feels a threat posed by the American troops and the Israeli adventurism that will be most possibly supported by the US military. The all-penetrating sanctions are equal to an act of war as even trade embargoes were historically regarded as such.

These hostile relations continue for over forty years and no signs to end them can be seen. The future of the Iran-US relations is not rose-colored, whatever happens at the JCPOA negotiations in Vienna. American presidents and other politicians do not dare to oppose the Israeli and Arab lobby. The only flash of hope for improvement of the relations between the two states is the renewed US. The President should firmly and unequivocally say to Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to stop their interference with the American foreign policy and that the US must adopt a policy representing its long-term national interests. Extensive business relations with Iran that may be better achieved without other countries’ interference would definitely serve the interests of the US and improve the situation in this region.

Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.