Connect with us

Foreign

The odds against war in the Middle East

Published

on

The winds of an all-out regional war and a possible Third World War are right now blowing fiercely in the Middle East. Countries including Nigeria are evacuating their nationals from the region and those without means to do so are asking them to leave as quickly as feasible.

For about a year now Israel has been bombing the Palestinian Gaza strip to smithereens in retaliation for the killing of several Israelis revelling in an outdoor event inside Israel last October by members of the Palestinian Hamas group. In the attack, the Hamas operatives took with them scores of Israelis in addition to the killing

In response, the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to exact a severe retribution on Hamas by going after its infrastructure in the Gaza strip. In the process about 50,000 Palestinians have been killed in the non-stop combined bombing raids and ground attacks by the Israeli Defence Forces. The Israelis too have suffered thousands killed in pitch battles with the Hamas operatives.

Shunning calls across the world for a ceasefire and to allow humanitarian convoys to convey relief supplies get to the besieged Palestinians, Israel had carried on its relentless aerial bombing and ground attacks indiscriminately targeting hospitals, schools, worship places, residential areas, water and electricity plants and other critical infrastructure.

Advertisement

To the north of Israel in southern Lebanon, the Lebanese guerrilla group Hizbollah which supports Hamas had been launching intermittent attacks on targets in Israel while the latter has been engaged in Gaza. The Israeli army’s engagement against Hizbollah took a turn for the worst recently when its leader Hassan Nasrallah and several of the group’s leaders were killed in coordinated bomb blasts through their pagers using electronic timing devices to detonate hidden bombs placed in the pagers. Israel has followed up its aerial bombing of Lebanon with ground attacks intended to smash Hizbollah and its infrastructure in Lebanon.

In retaliation last week, Iran to which Hizbollah is affiliated, launched hundreds of missiles some of them hypersonic on targets including the strategic Nevatzim Airforce home to some of Israel’s cutting edge fighter airplanes and the headquarters of the Israeli foreign Intelligence out-fit MOSSAD in Herzliyya district (named after Theodor Herzl, the founder of the World Zionist movement). Iran said the attacks were carried out in response to the killing of the Hizbollah leader and his associated and vowed that should Israel launch any counter attack, Iran with greater force.

Israel has promised to respond to these missile attacks ‘’at a time of its choosing’’. Analysts looking at implication of this statement have zeroed in on some scenarios that the possible Israeli strike will take.

As there are no land borders between Israel and Iran the possibility of such an attack will most likely be launched by air. Israel could decide to respond in kind by missiles and Unarmed Air Vehicles (UAVs, also known as Drones) targeted at sensitive Iranian installations like air and army bases. It could also target refineries, arms production and headquarters of the Iranian defence and intelligence establishment, especially the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Advertisement

Israel could also send squadrons of its air force to bomb targets deep in Iran. For this, the Israeli air force may opt to use land air bases in Cyprus or Azerbaijan. Israel could also request the United States to allow it use its aircraft Carrier stationed nearby in the gulf. There is also the option of using the huge US base in nearby Qatar.

For Israel to exact retribution on Iran it must be commensurate or even more that what Iran did with its recent strike. And I believe in their preparations for such, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant would not rule out the nuclear option.

For Israel all of these scenarios are fraught with heavy implications.

Using air bases in both Cyprus and Azerbaijan will certainly be balked at by Erdogan’s Turkey. Both countries are deep sore points for Turkey and using any or both of them to attack Iran will draw serious reservations among the Turkish population. This is in addition to the unmanageable blowbacks that will likely follow the use of such option. Using this option also will not afford the Israeli planes the needed surprise element as mid-air refuelling and air manoeuvres on the way to bombing Iran will be picked up by radars.

Advertisement

And in the unlikely case of some of the planes evading detection and dropping their payloads, they may not return safely back. Although much has been made about the stealth and radar evading capabilities of the American made F-35 stealth fighter planes which are in the inventories of the Israeli air force, it will not be beyond the capabilities of the Russians, Turks and even the Iranians to detect the movement of those planes at some point.

In planning an air invasion of Iran, the Israelis would certainly reflect on the incident in 1980 when American Delta Special Forces failed in their attempt to rescue American hostages held by the Iranians following the Iranian revolution. Some reports had it that it was the Soviets who tampered with the communications of the American Special Forces which in turn resulted in the helicopters carry the forces clashing against each other.

In the present scenario it will not be out of place to expect the Russians, Turks and Iranians who have assets in the vicinity to track the movement of Israeli planes towards Iran and proceed to thwart their mission.

Sending using agents in Iran to plant and detonate bombs in selected Iranian targets is something the Israelis have done before. But the commensurate damage in this regard would not match the scale of what Iran did to Israel. And the danger involved in such operations in terms of likely capture of the agents and malfunctioning of the devices could result in terrible consequences for Israel.

Advertisement

Israel could also consider using nuclear bombs on Iran. But that will be suicidal. First the radiation effects could drift far beyond Iran and spread throughout the region endangering the population of other countries. Secondly if Israel does not have first strike nuclear capability to knockout Iran’s counter strike abilities then it will be a worthless effort. In such a scenario, Israel will be a target not only the Iranians but other countries in the region as well.

Let us face the reality; between Israel and Iran there is a state of mutually assured destruction. A war between both countries under the present circumstances would not be limited to them but would drag in other significant parties as well. Meir Dagan the former Chief of the Israel’s MOSSAD cautions that Israel should not contemplate going into a war with Iran alone. He wants the US and its allies to help Israel do the job. But Iran has warned that any US involvement would result in its assets in the region being legitimate targets for Iranian attacks.

That means the huge US base in Qatar and others in Saudi Arabia will come under attack from Iran. And there is a distinct possibility that the oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other gulf states will be affected. Iran could also shut down the strategic straits of Hormuz through which about a third of global oil shipping passes through. All these will lead to an immediate spike in global oil prices resulting in serious negative consequences for the world economy.

Is there a way out of this looming quagmire?

Advertisement

My take is that Saudi Arabia and other gulf states who stand in the line of fire will try to persuade Russia, China the US and other parties to prevail on Iran to allow Israel as a face saving measure ‘’avenge’’ the strike on it by Iran in a certain way agreed by all the parties. As arranged, Iran will refrain from retaliation.

And then there will be strident calls for restraint and de-escalation. And there will be secret negotiations between Iran and Israel brokered by Russian, US, China and Saudi Arabia. All issues like the Palestinian question, the Iran nuclear plans, guarantees of Israel’s security in the region and security of oil infrastructure will be on the table.

Similar diplomatic conclave has happened before during the 1973 war between Egypt and Syria on the one hand and Israel on the other. That war went to the brink of nuclear war as the Arab forces came to within a sight of defeating Israel with only option left was to use nuclear weapons on Egypt.

A deal was done whereby the US provided satellite images of the Egyptian army formations in the Sinai to the Israeli army to through a gap and surround the Egyptian army. This strategic manoeuvre resulted in a ceasefire and for secret negotiations to commence between Egypt and Israel leading to the historic Camp David Accords in 1977.

Advertisement

The Iranians too are not new to this type of diplomatic manoeuvres. The hostilities that had existed between Iran and the US following the Iranian revolution did not deter both from negotiating secretly on the Iran-Contra deal.

In the present circumstances where the world is on the brink nobody would want a regional war in the Middle East as a trigger. Where the only alternative left is the devil’s alternative of a nuclear war, all the major parties involved certainly find a way to prevent it in view of the consequences.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Foreign

Child-abuse scandal: Archbishop of Canterbury resigns

Published

on

The Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the global Anglican Church, Justin Welby, resigned on Tuesday, following a review that revealed senior church leaders covered up the widespread abuse of over 100 boys and young men.

The abuse was perpetrated by a British lawyer, John Smyth, who led Christian summer camps in the United Kingdom and other countries during the 1970s and 1980s.

The independent review, which was released last week, found that despite repeated efforts by individuals to bring Smyth’s actions to light, the response from the Church of England was inadequate, amounting to a cover-up.

Smyth, who died in South Africa in 2018 without facing any legal proceedings, abused boys and young men under his care for decades.

Advertisement

The review revealed that the church’s failure to act enabled Smyth to continue his abuse in the UK and abroad.

In a statement announcing his resignation, Welby expressed deep regret over the church’s failures.

“The last few days have renewed my long-felt and profound sense of shame at the historic safeguarding failures of the Church of England,” Welby said in the statement.

Welby admitted that he first learnt about the abuse allegations in 2013, the same year he became Archbishop, but acknowledged that his efforts to investigate and address the situation were insufficient.

Advertisement

He said, “For nearly twelve years I have struggled to introduce improvements. It is for others to judge what has been done.”

The Archbishop’s resignation came amid growing criticism from victims and other church leaders.

The Bishop of Newcastle, Helen-Ann Hartley, remarked, “I think, rightly, people are asking the question: ‘Can we really trust the Church of England to keep us safe?’ And I think the answer at the moment is ‘no’.”

Survivor Andrew Morse, who was among those abused by Smyth as a teenager, called for Welby’s resignation.

Advertisement

He criticised the Archbishop’s handling of the situation, stating that had Welby acted decisively in 2013, further abuse could have been prevented.

He said Welby’s “admission that in 2013, which is really modern day in comparison to the 1970s and 1980s, that he didn’t do enough, that he wasn’t rigorous… is enough in my mind to confirm that Justin Welby, along with countless other Anglican churchmen, were part of a cover-up about the abuse,” Morse told the BBC.

The scandal has cast a long shadow over Welby’s tenure, which included officiating high-profile events such as the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and delivering the sermon at Queen Elizabeth II’s state funeral.

His resignation marked a moment for the Church of England, as it grapples with the legacy of abuse scandals and attempts to restore trust among its followers.

Advertisement

Welby concluded his statement by acknowledging the profound impact of the review’s findings, noting the pain endured by the victims and the failure of the church to protect those in its care.

“I am so sorry that in places where these young men, and boys, should have felt safe and where they should have experienced God’s love for them, they were subjected to physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual abuse,” he said.

Efforts to get the reactions of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and the Christian Association of Nigeria failed.

When contacted, the Communication Officer of the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion, Korede Akin, informed our correspondent that he could not speak on the issue, stating that only the Primate of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop Henry Ndukuba, could provide the position of the church.

Advertisement

Similarly, the Director of National Issues and Social Welfare for the Christian Association of Nigeria, Abimbola Ayuba, told our correspondent that only the CAN President had the jurisdiction to speak on international matters, as he could only speak to issues of national concern or social welfare.

Meanwhile, efforts to reach the National Publicity Secretary of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, Bishop Emmah Isong, failed as his phone line was switched off.

Continue Reading

Foreign

President Trump Makes Several Key Appointments (FULL LIST)

Published

on

Donald Trump has begun the process of choosing a cabinet and selecting other high-ranking administration officials following his presidential election victory.

Here are the early picks and top contenders for some of the key posts overseeing defence, intelligence, diplomacy, trade, immigration and economic policymaking. Some are in contention for a range of posts.

Chief of staff

Trump on Thursday announced that Susie Wiles, one of his two campaign managers, will be his White House chief of staff. While the specifics of her political views are somewhat unclear, Wiles, 67, is credited with running a successful and efficient campaign. Supporters hope she will instill a sense of order and discipline that was often lacking during Trump’s first four-year term, when he cycled through a number of chiefs of staff.

Advertisement

Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Trump announced on Sunday night that Tom Homan, the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement from his first administration, will be in charge of the country’s borders. Trump made cracking down on people in the country illegally a central element of his campaign, promising mass deportations.

UN ambassador

Trump announced on Monday that Elise Stefanik, a Republican congresswoman and staunch Trump supporter, would be his ambassador to the United Nations.

Advertisement

Stefanik, 40, a US representative from New York state and House Republican conference chair, took a leadership position in the House of Representatives in 2021 when she was elected to replace then-Representative Liz Cheney, who was ousted for criticising Trump’s false claims of election fraud.

Treasure secretary

Scott Bessent, John Paulson; Larry Kudlow, Robert Lighthizer and Howard Lutnick considered for the role of potential treasury secretary. Bessent, a key economic adviser to Trump, is widely seen as a top candidate for treasury secretary. A longtime hedge fund investor who taught at Yale University for several years.

Commerce secretary

Advertisement

Linda McMahon is seen as the frontrunner to lead Trump’s Department of Commerce, three sources briefed on the plans said. Mcmahon is a Professional wrestling magnate and former Small Business Administration director

Secretary of state

Richard Grenell, Robert O’brien, Bill Hagerty and Marco Rubio, among the top choices for potential secretary of state. Grenell is among Trump’s closest foreign policy advisers.

O’Brien, Trump’s fourth and final national security adviser during his first term, maintains a close relationship with Trump, and the two often speak on national security matters.

Advertisement

Hagerty, a US senator from Tennessee who worked on Trump’s 2016 transition effort, Hagerty is considered a top contender for secretary of state. Rubio, a US senator from Florida and 2016 Republican presidential candidate, is also a top secretary of state contender whose policies hew closely to those of Trump.

Defence secretary

Mike Waltz, potential defence secretary. A former Army Green Beret who is currently a US congressman from Florida, Waltz has established himself as one of the foremost China hawks in the House. Among the various China-related bills he has co-sponsored are measures designed to lessen US reliance on critical minerals mined in China.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Foreign

UK universities face funding ‘crunch’ as foreign students go elsewhere

Published

on

By Francesca Hangeior.

 

UK universities are among the most prestigious in the world, but visa restrictions mean they are now attracting fewer international students — taking a heavy toll on their finances.

The restrictions are compounding problems caused by the UK’s departure from the European Union four years’ ago.

Advertisement

Almost 760,000 foreign students were enrolled in British universities in 2022, making Britain the second most popular destination after the US, in a highly competitive market.

Most come from India, then China and Nigeria.

But last year, the number of student visas fell by 5 percent. Between July and September, student visa applications slumped 16 percent compared to the same period last year.

The decline is a major cause of concern for higher education institutions since foreign students pay far more in fees than British students.

Advertisement

Leo Xui, 20 years old and from China, began studying population and health sciences at University College London in September.

“It’s good for my career,” he said of enrolling abroad. Thinking ahead to when he will return to China, he added: “I will be able to apply for a foreign company.”

His fees for the academic year are £31,000 (37,200 euros). British students attending universities in England have paid a maximum of £9,250 since 2017.

The Labour government, elected in the summer, announced last week that the cap would rise to £9,535 from next year, a move welcomed by universities who have been calling for an increase for years.

Advertisement

Universities UK (UUK), which represents 141 British higher education institutions, warned at its conference in September that funding per student is at its lowest level since 2004.

It estimates that the £9,250 fee is worth less than £6,000 because of inflation, leading to deficits in teaching and research.

“We are all feeling the crunch,” UUK president Sally Mapstone told the conference.

Universities have welcomed more foreign students in a bid to fill budget gaps, to the point where many are financially dependent on them.

Advertisement

According to a parliamentary report, foreign students make up more than half the student body at London’s University of the Arts and Cranfield University, a science and engineering institute just north of the British capital.

The Financial Times reported earlier this year that some universities, including York, have lowered their admission criteria to attract more students from abroad.

But the previous Conservative government, ousted from power in July, complicated the universities’ task by imposing restrictions on student visas as it sought to reduce record levels of regular migration.

It forbade foreign students from bringing family members with them, with a few exceptions, and prevented them from switching to work visas while studying.

Advertisement

In the first four months of 2024, there were 30,000 fewer applications from overseas than in the same period in 2023, according to official statistics.

“These hard numbers confirm our fear that the previous government’s changes have made the UK a less attractive study destination,” said Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute think-tank.

– Overseas campuses –
Provost Ian Dunn of Coventry University, where more than a third of the 30,000 students are from overseas said the Tories’ “narrative was very destructive”.

The university had already been impacted by Brexit.

Advertisement

“We had 4,400 students from the European Union. Now we’re probably at 10 percent of that,” he said, adding that the situation was “difficult”.

A lecturer at another English university told AFP that teaching positions as well as courses had been cut.

“The drop in international students has dramatically worsened the crisis for us,” she said on condition of anonymity because she was not authorised to talk to the media.

“Some have preferred to go to Canada, Australia or the Netherlands, where courses are taught in English,” she added.

Advertisement

Coventry University may have found the answer by partnering with institutions overseas to open campuses in several countries, including Egypt, Morocco, India and China.

At the end of their studies, students may not have set foot in the UK but they still “obtain a degree from Coventry University”, said Dunn.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Naija Blitz News