In Iraq and Yemen, over its nuclear program and more, Tehran has evidently taken a decision to flex its muscles

 

Illustrative: The 207-meters-long container vessel 'IRAN PIROOZI' anchors at the quay of Aker MTW Shipyard in Wismar, northern Germany, after the namegiving ceremony on Friday, Oct. 24, 2003. (AP Photo/ Thomas Haentzschel)

Illustrative: The 207-meters-long container vessel ‘IRAN PIROOZI’ anchors at the quay of Aker MTW Shipyard in Wismar, northern Germany, after the namegiving ceremony on Friday, Oct. 24, 2003. (AP Photo/ Thomas Haentzschel)

As reports emerged Thursday of another Iranian strike on an Israeli civilian vessel, it appeared that the confrontation between Iran and Israel was escalating dangerously at sea.

This fits into a pattern that has unfolded in recent months. Iran has taken a more aggressive posture on several fronts, both rhetorically and in its operations, as tensions rose with the new US administration and Iran’s adversaries in the region.

Thursday’s attack wasn’t the first time Iran allegedly struck an Israeli-owned cargo ship. On February 26, a blast struck the Israeli-owned MV Helios Ray, a Bahamian-flagged cargo ship, in the Gulf of Oman. Netanyahu accused Iran of attacking the ship. Iran swiftly denied the charge, but experts say the attack bears hallmarks of previous attacks ascribed to Tehran.

The operation seems to have been carefully planned, and mirrored a series of attacks on tankers in 2019 and an Iranian campaign against shipping vessels four decades ago.

The incident early Thursday morning — in which an Israeli-owned vessel reportedly came under missile fire in the Gulf of Oman — didn’t come out of thin air. According to The Wall Street Journal, Israel has been carrying out covert strikes on Iranian vessels, and other ships with Iranian cargo. If true, the latest attack may well be part of a more assertive Iranian response to such actions.

The report said Israel has targeted at least 12 ships bound for Syria, most of them transporting Iranian oil in violation of international sanctions, with mines and other weapons. Some of the alleged Israeli strikes, which took place in the Red Sea and other areas, targeted Iran-linked weapons shipments, the report said. The attacks did not sink the tankers but forced at least two of the vessels to return to port in Iran.

Israel sought to halt the trade in oil because it believed the profits were financing regional extremists, the report said.

If indeed Israel has been attacking Iranian shipping for more than a year, why has the Islamic Republic taken the decision to respond now?

For one, Tehran has been desperate to respond to a series of military setbacks. Senior Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was traveling on a highway outside the capital in November 2020 when he was killed by what was reported as a remote-controlled machine gun. Tehran blamed Israel.

The assassination came after months of mysterious explosions in Iran, including a blast and fire that crippled an advanced centrifuge assembly plant at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, which is widely believed to have been an act of sabotage allegedly carried out by Israel.

In addition, Iran remains under crippling US sanctions that it is longing to find a way out of.

While Syria is consumed by a decade-long civil war, Iran has been trying to open a new front on Israel’s border. It has sent allied forces to the Syrian Golan Heights to set up infrastructure for carrying out attacks on Israeli targets. It has also been working to arm its Hezbollah proxy terrorist group with precision rocket capabilities, shipping weapons through Syria to Lebanon.

However, Israel has displayed competence in sniffing out Iranian actions and a firm willingness to disrupt them using military force, launching hundreds, even thousands, of strikes against Iran and its proxies in Syria and Iraq since 2011.

Lebanese Hezbollah supporters carry the coffin of Jihad Mughniyeh, killed in an alleged Israeli airstrike, during his funeral in a southern Beirut suburb on January 19, 2015. (Joseph Eid/AFP)

“This fits in with Iran being frustrated in its efforts to get at Israel from Syria, where Israel dominates, now acting in their own backyard against Israel because, first of all, it’s a proven modus operandi,” said Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

At the same time, Iran is operating with a newfound confidence. Donald Trump — the unpredictable, pugnacious US president who walked away from the nuclear deal and ordered the assassination of the Revolutionary Guard’s extraterritorial Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani — is out of office in the US. His successor, Joe Biden, seems determined to avoid getting sucked into the Middle East, and has stated his desire to return to the 2015 nuclear deal.

Biden has also signaled that he will be less unconditionally generous to countries in the Arab and Israeli anti-Iran bloc: He waited for weeks to call Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after his election; he’s begun to squeeze Saudi Arabia on its human rights record; In February, his Secretary of State Antony Blinken expressed concerns to Egypt over its human rights policies and its plans to buy Russian fighter jets.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks on foreign policy at the State Department, March 3, 2021 in Washington. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Pool via AP)

And the existence of the WSJ article itself, based on conversations with US officials, might be an indication of displeasure in the Biden administration toward Israel.

“In my opinion, the Americans leaked the report,” said Raz Zimmt, Iran scholar at the Institute for National Security Studies. “Apparently they’re not so happy with what we are doing, which might be the most interesting aspect of this entire story.”

As Iran notices the daylight emerging between the US and its allies, it has been making moves across the region.

Dr. Raz Zimmt (YouTube screenshot)

In Iraq, a string of rocket attacks in February struck near the US embassy and bases housing US forces. Earlier this month, Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen said they attacked a Saudi oil facility in the port city of Jeddah.

Iran has also projected confidence around its nuclear program. Iran’s supreme leader on Sunday reiterated the Islamic Republic’s “definite policy” that Washington must lift all sanctions before Tehran returns to its commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal. Tehran has been steadily violating the restrictions of the deal, including on the amount of enriched uranium it can stockpile and the purity to which it can enrich it.

“This might be connected to the new administration,” Zimmt said. “And to the Iranian estimation that the danger that existed in recent months under Trump no longer exists, so they can push the envelope.

“They might also estimate that Israel is limited, even though I don’t know if that is a correct assumption — but they might think that Israel’s freedom of action is limited because of the new administration and because of the political crisis. So they are willing to take chances they weren’t willing to take in the past.”


Israeli container ship hit by Iranian missile in Arabian Sea

The ship was struck by a missile as it passed between India and Iran.

By David Isaac, World Israel News

Another Israeli-owned container ship has been targeted by Iran on Thursday.

The ship, Lori, was hit by an Iranian missile in the Arabian Sea as it made its way from Tanzania to India, according to reports. It is Liberian-flagged and owned by XT Management, which is chaired by Israeli businessman Udi Angel.

The ship was struck by a missile as it passed between India and Iran.

The ship, manned by a foreign crew, was lightly damaged. No casualties or injuries were reported. The ship will continue to India for damage assessment, website N12 reports.

The attack on the Lori is the second attack on an Israeli cargo vessel in a month’s time. On Feb. 25, the Israeli ship Helios Ray was damaged in the Gulf of Oman. Israel placed the blame squarely on Iran.

Israel’s Channel 11 commentator Roy Sharon said on Thursday’s broadcast, “If indeed we’re talking about another attack by Iran, then we see it’s systematic, it’s not one instance, that they’re determined to take revenge, that they’re trying to take revenge and it’s likely to end in more serious results.”

“The most important thing to stress here is that they don’t spurn targets – they don’t focus just on military targets… or targets of the state … this is the crossing of a red line… they’re going after civilian targets.”

Sharon said if this is the case, then Israel will be forced to take steps that will “frighten” Iran from carrying out such attacks.

According to a recent Haaretz investigation, Israel has already carried out attacks on “several dozen Iranian oil tankers” over the years, costing Iran billions of dollars in damage.


Biden May be Ready to Sacrifice Abraham Accords for Iranian Deal

On Sunday, Tablet Magazine’s Lee Smith framed the emerging US Middle East policy with the headline: Biden Torpedoes Abraham Accords Summit, suggesting that the Biden administration was behind the United Arab Emirates’ suspending of a planned summit in Abu Dhabi with Israel, the US, and the Arab states that recently recognized Israel. “Supposedly, the Emiratis are angry with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for using the UAE’s de facto leader Mohammed bin Zayed as a ‘prop in his election campaign,’” Smith wrote, explaining that “the source of the upset isn’t in Abu Dhabi but in Washington.”

Smith believes that the Biden administration was interfering in Israel’s election campaign by “strong-arming the Emiratis into publicly distancing themselves from Bibi.”

But that’s just election tactics, and Smith, indeed, recalls the Obama administration’s 2015 campaign against Netanyahu, the notorious V15 operation, reportedly funded by US taxpayers, which resulted in the PM’s most solid coalition governments in his long career. According to Smith, Biden’s long-term strategy is to “weaken or dismantle the Abraham Accords, which by assembling a treaty structure that binds Israel together with the Gulf states structurally interferes with the administration’s stated goal of realigning the United States with Iran—and therefore against Israel and the Gulf—by reentering Obama’s nuclear deal.”

The other part of Biden’s long-term strategy, according to Smith, is a return to the good, old peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, in pursuit of a two-state solution. That foundation of American foreign policy was cast aside by President Donald Trump in favor of his more daring and imaginative peace of the willing, namely the Abrahamic accords.

“For decades the professional peace processors warned that there could be no stability in the Middle East unless there was a comprehensive settlement to the Palestinian issue,” Smith points out, adding: “By giving the Palestinians unbridled veto power, the Beltway establishment also ensured their job security. As long as the Palestinians said no, the peace processors were still in business. Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner wondered why the wise men held them in contempt for making peace. What they didn’t understand was that making peace meant the wise men were fired.”

On Tuesday, Derek H. Burney, writing in the National Post (Derek H. Burney: Judge Joe Biden by what he does, not by who he isn’t), confirms all of the above, and then some. “Biden is undoing much of Trump’s legacy in the Middle East,” Burney writes. “Delaying contact with the leaders of Israel and Saudi Arabia while initiating a dialogue with Iran could be problematic. Instead of building on the Abraham Accords between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco, Biden’s actions may jeopardize those agreements.”

Burney’s proof is in the pudding: Biden “froze arms sales to the UAE, promised as part of the deal,” and “halted military aid to the Saudi war in Yemen and rescinded the terrorist designation applied to the Houthis (in Yemen) by President Trump.” Then, to further weaken the pro-Israel forces in the kingdom, the White House released “an intelligence assessment indicating that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) was responsible for planning the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi,” and “insisting on speaking to the frail king instead of MBS.”

Burney does not see an upside to these moves by the administration, predicting two undesirable outcomes: Israel will have to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat on its own; and Saudi Arabia may retaliate with a price hike on oil – seeing as gasoline prices in the US have already risen on March 19 to $2.89 per gallon from $2.40 in January.

Jay Solomon, an adjunct fellow at The Washington Institute, reported in January (Party leaders are providing constructive input, but the administration should stop short of any measures that risk sabotaging this moment of historic progress in Arab-Israel relations) that leading Democrats in Congress and the State dept. argue the Abraham Accords encourage non-democratic regimes in the Middle East (because the region is naturally a thriving panacea of democracy and equality). They’re also against militarizing the Persian Gulf through arms sales (because let’s face it, there are too many American jobs as it is). Finally, according to Solomon, these leading democrats “also say the normalization deals will reduce pressure on Israel to make the territorial concessions needed to forge an independent Palestinian state, long a top US foreign policy objective.”

In pursuit of the holy grail of a two-state solution, according to Solomon, some Democratic lawmakers “are pressing Congress to challenge, if not roll back, the terms of the Abraham Accords. These include the arms deals to the UAE and Bahrain, and the financial aid package promised to Sudan.”

Solomon cites Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), who said in December: “What we risk doing here is fueling an arms race. Today we may be selling the F-35s and the MQ-9s to the UAE. But the Saudis are going to want it, the Qataris have already requested it, and it just fuels Iran’s interest in continuing to build up its own military programming.”

In other words, to bring Iran back into the embrace of the civilized world, its terrified neighbors must first be deprived of their ability to defend themselves. Can you get more Munich than that?

(The Munich Agreement, a.k.a. the Munich Betrayal, was concluded in Munich, Nazi Germany, on September 30, 1938, by Germany, the UK, France, and Italy, ordering the “cession to Germany of the Sudeten German territory” of Czechoslovakia, despite several treaties between the UK and France and the Czechs, who weren’t even asked for their opinion. Eleven months later, the territory-hungry Nazis invaded Poland.)

Andrea Widburg reported on Tuesday in American Thinker (Biden’s approval rating remains bizarrely high) that Americans are mesmerized with Joe Biden, with 6 out of 10 approving of his performance as president. Citing a report in The Hill, Widburg notes: “As you can see, Democrats are in hog heaven; 25% of Republicans (all of whom must be NeverTrumps) are happy; and an astonishing 60% of independents are happy, too.”

This national happiness appears more emotional than political and attests to just how unpopular Donald Trump was from his first day in office. A vast majority of Americans like Biden because he is not Trump – a point the Republican party should pay attention to if it wishes to retake the White House.

In her long list of Biden policies that couldn’t end well, Widburg includes foreign policy, stating: “Biden is effectively undermining the Abraham Accords, which had promised to bring true peace to the Middle East. It’s no wonder that Saudi Arabia, which had been inching towards a rapprochement with Israel, is once again back to demanding that the Palestinians be included in any peace. The genius of Trump’s Abraham Accords was that he marginalized the Palestinians, showing that a group deeply hated across the Arab Middle East should not prevent reaching mutually beneficial agreements with Israel.”

All the voices I cited here are surprisingly dramatic for sober policy analysts in predicting the disaster that Joe Biden’s emerging Middle East policy is bound to be. And the new president also made sure to staff his foreign policy ranks with old Obama hands, including John Kerry who has come to represent American anti-Israel attitude even more so than President Obama.

On Wednesday morning, with Benjamin Netanyahu appearing to be able to put together a majority coalition government that does not support a two-state solution and is willing and able to fight a bad Iran nuclear deal, I recommend thinking outside the American box.