Connect with us

Middle East

U.S. Sanction against Iran: Breach of International Obligation



Authors: Akhand Pratap Rai and Aman Mani Tripathi*

The United States sanction on Iran at the time of COVID-19 crisis caused damages to the Iranian people. Essential Medicines and medical equipment are affected and also put a lot of obstacles for Iran struggle against this pandemic. The unilateral act of the United States to impose sanction on Iran, not only violate the state responsibility under International law, but it also violates the International Human Right obligations.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibited ‘use of force’ under International Law except ‘right to self-defence’ mentioned in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. But, whether the unilateral coercive measures of a state to impose ‘economic sanction’ against other State or states under International Law is fall under the purview of ‘use of force’ or an ‘act of aggression’ is still a debatable issue. Though, United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopts resolutions calling on states not to recognize unilateral coercive economic measures imposed by any countries across territorial boundaries, which are contrary to the recognized principle of International Law. In the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Principle Judicial Organ of United Nations decision on the merits of Nicaragua vs United States the Court stated clearly that ‘use of force’ does not always entail an armed attack.

U.S. Sanction and State Responsibility

Iran challenged the United States sanction on Iran in the year 2018 before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Iran claims that the United States sanction violates the provision under the Treaty of Amity 1955. The International Court of Justice indicates certain measures as a case pending for final decision to protect the rights claimed by Iran. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the United States should, in accordance with its obligations under the Treaty of Amity 1955  must remove, any impediments to the free exportation to the territory of Iran of goods required for humanitarian needs such as (I) medicines and medical devices (ii) foodstuff and agricultural commodities (iii) goods and services as are necessary for the safety of civil aviation. In the current global crisis due to COVID-19, the United States sanction disrupted the financial stability of Iran to fight against the pandemic, and it is a clear violation of International law.  A breach of International obligations by a State entails its international responsibility of an internationally wrongful act of State by actions or omission or a combination of both. Article 1 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts, 2001(hereinafter referred to as ‘ARSIWA’) drafted by the International Law Commission, states that:

“Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State”.

The International Law Commission (ILC) is a subsidiary organ of United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). It established under Article 22 of United Nations Charter in 1947, to undertake the mandate of the General Assembly, under article 13(1)(a) of the Charter of the United Nations for “progressive development of international law and its codification”.

The Permanent Court of Justice (PCIJ)in (Phosphates in Morocco, Judgment, S.S. “Wimbledon”, Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Judgment) and its  International Court of Justice (ICJ) (Corfu Channel, Merits, Judgment, Nicaraguavs. United States, Merits, Judgment, Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project case)cases declared that when a state commits an internationally wrongful act against another international state responsibility established between the two states. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its advisory opinion on Reparation for Injuries and on the Interpretation of Peace Treaties (Second Phase) stated that “refusal to fulfil a treaty obligation involves international responsibility”.

 Now, the question arises that what constitutes an internationally wrongful act of a state. Article 2 of ‘ARSIWA’ states that:

“There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission:

(a) is attributable to the State under international law; and

(b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.” The constituent elements for the existence of an internationally wrongful act of State are ‘conduct of state attributable to the state’ and ‘conduct must breach international legal obligation’ in force for that State at that time (Malcolm Evans). The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran case pointed out that act is imputable to State, and it must consider their compatibility or incompatibility with the obligation under treaties in force or under any other rules of international law that may be applicable.

Circumstances precluding wrongfulness

The State can claim defences or excuses for not performing international obligation, which termed as ‘Circumstances precluding wrongfulness’. Chapter V of ARSIWA sets out six circumstances precluding the wrongfulness of conduct of states. This chapter provides a shield against the breach of an international obligation by the rules. These six circumstances are consent, self-defence, countermeasures, force majeure, distress and necessity. It should be noted that Article 26 of ARSIWA makes it clear that none of these circumstances precluding wrongfulness can be relied on if to do so would conflict peremptory norms of general international law.  The United States unilateral sanction against Iran may depend on the defences of “countermeasures”. However, these countermeasures imply non-armed measures such as coercive economic measures. The International Law Commission (ILC) in ARISWA commentaries, appears in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001 (Vol. II, Part Two) calls the unilateral sanction by states as “countermeasures”. Chapter VII of the United Nations charter uses the term “measures”, not “sanction”. Judicial decisions, State practice and doctrine confirms that “countermeasures” taken by a state are not wrongful acts, but recognized as a valid means of self-help as long as it does not violate the peremptory norms of general international law.

Do U.S. “countermeasure” violates peremptory norms of general international law?

Article 26 of ARSIWA states that:

“Nothing precludes the wrongfulness of any act of a State which is not in conformity with an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law”.

Accordance with Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties 1969, a treaty which conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law is void. A peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. The United Nations placed sanction on Iran since 1979 after a hostage crisis in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Iran was later hit by even more sanction over its nuclear programme, but under an International deal in 2015, they agreed to limit their nuclear activities. In 2018, the United States decided to re-impose sanction that the United States lifted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA).

The United States says that sanction aimed to the government, not to the people but sanction affecting the day-to-day life of Iranian People such as

1. Medicine

Medicine has become more expansive. Some drug supplier is refusing to sell the drug in Iran to avoid falling in foul of the United States. This has led to shortages of medicine, putting thousands of lives at risk and harms the Iranian Right to Health.

2. Civil Aviation

Iranian planes are so old. Some Iranian call them ‘flying coffin’ and no wonder, in the past 25 years, more than 2000 people have died in air crashes involving Iranian Planes. For the last 40 years, Civil Aviation in Iran has struggled to update and maintain their fleets because of trade sanction. Under an international deal in the year 2015, Boeing and Airbus were going to sell Iran almost 200 planes. But three years later only handful planes were delivered before the United States revoked the export licenses.

3. Ink and Paper

Iran is dealing with ink shortage, and the price of imported paper has more than tripled since they pulled out of the nuclear deal. The publisher of newspaper and books are suffering from this crisis.

4. Meat

In Iran, one kilogram of red meat has become a luxury. Before the new sanction kicked, it cost 10 U.S. dollars. Now, the price is more than doubling. Importing food has been made difficult by sanctions on Iranian banks and financial institutions.

These are the only few examples which made the life of Iranian people much miserable. An independent expert appointed by Human Right Council has expressed grave concern over economic sanction for political purposes. It violates human rights and the norm of international behaviour.

Article 50 Paragraph 1 of ARSIWA specifies certain obligations, the performance of which may not be impaired by countermeasures. Article 50 paragraph 1 states that:

“1. Countermeasures shall not affect:

 (a) the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force as embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) obligations for the protection of fundamental human rights;

 (c) obligations of a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals;

(d) other obligations under peremptory norms of general international law.”

The U.S., by imposing sanction on Iran directly or indirectly halt the supply of medicines and medical equipment, violates the right to health and life under Human Right obligations. The United States is obliged for the protection of the fundamental human right of Iranian people.


In the global crisis, due to COVID-19 the United States economic sanction on Iran constitute an internationally wrongful act towards Iran. It violates the state responsibility, human rights obligation as well as the peremptory norms of general international law. Economic restriction is likely to result in violation of basic human rights and has adversely affected the nature of foreign relations. Economic sanctions doesn’t resolve the political gap between governments. The dominant position of any states in the global financial arena must not be abusive to cause economic hardship to the economy of sovereign states contrary to international law.

*Aman Mani Tripathi (Aman Mani Tripathi is an LL.M Candidate (International Law) at the Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University, New Delhi. He qualified National Eligibility Test for Assistant Professor (Law) conducted by National Testing Agency on behalf of University Grant Commission (UGC) the apex regulatory body of higher education in India, held in June 2019.

Continue Reading

Middle East

The US-Iran deal and its implications for the South Caucasus and Eastern Europe



Image credit: EPA

The ongoing meetings between the US and Iran since the beginning of April in Vienna show new signs of progress. Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s chief negotiator and Deputy Foreign Minister, in the last days suggested that a ‘new understanding’ is being shaped. Any possibility of reaching an agreement and the US returning to the deal once abandoned by former US President Donald Trump, will result in a new state of affairs in wider Eurasia. New opportunities may also emerge for the South Caucasus and Eastern Europe creating new sources for security and development.

The nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed between Iran and six world powers – the USA, Russia, China, France, the UK and Germany – back in 2015 was envisaged to bring Iran’s nuclear enrichment process under stricter international inspection and monitoring. In response, the US and other participants of the deal pledged to lift sanctions imposed on Iran. 

However, in May 2018 the process was mostly undermined by former US President Donald Trump, whose administration decided to withdraw from the deal. The withdrawal was followed by a new wave of sanctions and targeted assassinations of a few prominent Iranians, among them General Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, killed by an American drone strike in Iraq in January 2020. All the efforts of the Trump administration to dismantle the Iranian regime and its ambitions resulted in the resumption of the nuclear enrichment program. Upon his election, President Joe Biden expressed his sincere interest in returning to the deal. This led to the recent negotiations between Tehran and Washington in the Austrian capital. 

The fact that Iran and the US are mutually interested in the restoration of the JCPOA can be explained in a number of ways. The most apparent aspect is the US return to the international arena which it, to some extent, left under Trump’s isolationist policy. The American active engagement in the nuclear deal with Iran is aimed at various targets. In reviving the deal, Washington may hinder the hardliners’ return to power in Iran during the upcoming presidential elections this summer. Besides, Iran is becoming a regional bastion for China, which uses Iran’s economic vulnerabilities to maximise its gains. Finally, the rapprochement of Turkey and Russia creates another danger for US interests in the region, prompting it to reconsider its politics in the Middle East. In other words, the US and Iran need this recovery in relations for reasons stemming from the core principle of Realism, the balance of power; in order not to allow dramatic shifts in the geopolitical landscape, not only in the Middle East but also in central Eurasia. 

Russia’s strengthened stance in the South Caucasus following the second Karabakh war can primarily be explained by its emerging relations with Turkey, which were described by Russia’s chief diplomat, Sergei Lavrov, as ‘sui generis co-operation and competition’. This odd couple could dismantle hopes of peaceful settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chaired by the US, France and Russia. The Russian-Turkish duo have created the vast majority of the broader region’s flash points ranging from Libya to Syria and Karabakh. Russia’s rapprochement with Turkey is in Moscow’s favour and is aimed at disuniting NATO. On the other hand, Turkey’s bold politics speak about its global ambitions and desire to set its own course. Both behaviours are in direct contradiction of American vital interests, which is reflected in harsh criticism of the Kremlin and Ankara. In the case of Moscow, this reached a historic post-Cold War peak – Biden’s recent scandalous statement on Putin, calling him a ‘killer’, has inflamed relations between the two countries. 

The USA is actively supporting any activities aimed at decreasing the influence of Russia and China in various parts of the world. One of such projects is the so-called ‘Three Seas Initiative’. Created in 2015 by the presidents of Croatia and Poland, this project brings together the twelve states of Eastern and Central Europe located between the Baltic, Adriatic and Black Seas. The main goal is to counter the growing Russian and Chinese influence in the region, which is less developed than Western Europe and more open to foreign direct investments. Aimed at developing infrastructure, energy co-operation and digitalisation, the initiative seeks to create ”North-South” energy and infrastructure corridors. Given the US ambitions to reduce the region’s dependence on Russian energy supplies, the nuclear deal with Iran opens new opportunities. The fact that the Chinese Silk Road is heading to Europe via Central Asia and Turkey, it could be better to allow Iran to export its gas through Armenia and Georgia to Eastern Europe under the Black Sea. Firstly, this would solve the European dependence on Russian energy supplies. The export of natural resources has been traditionally used by the Kremlin as a foreign policy instrument. The reduction of dependence on Russian commodities will ultimately reshape the Kremlin’s behaviour abroad making it more predictable and constructive. The fear that this may plunge Russia into China’s orbit, turning it a puppet state for Beijing, are groundless given the Russian bear’s historical caution of the Chinese dragon. The second important contribution of the Iranian pipeline will be to increase the energy security of Ukraine, which is trying to integrate itself into European infrastructure and move come closer to EU standards at the same time as coping with Russian energy blackmail.

The Iranian pipeline is able to solve the economic and energy independence of the Eastern and Central European EU member states which participate in the ‘Three Seas Initiative’. It may liberalise the energy market of the region and will boost economic development, reducing its gap with Western Europe. 

Finally, the US-Iranian possible rapprochement may also change the state of affairs in the South Caucasus region. The increased Russian presence and active Turkish involvement in the region are aimed at keeping other external actors – and first and foremost the West – out of it. In the long run, this will threaten Georgia’s European dreams in the same way it has harmed Armenia’s democratic aspirations. Alternatively, the vision of being a transit route for Iranian energy pipelines to Europe, whilst also helping to connect India and Eastern Europe, could elevate the security of Georgia and Armenia to a new level.

Therefore, the US-Iran agreement is essential for restoring the balance of power in the region, in order not to allow the main competitors to maximise their gains. This deal promises new opportunities for Central Eurasia, creating room for manoeuvre for the region’s small and fragile countries.

Continue Reading

Middle East

The Mediterranean: Will Turkey be successful in pulling Egypt to its side?




The Mediterranean acts as a channel connecting Europe, the Middle East and Asia. The region has, however, become a bone of contention due to varying political setups, religions and cultural values, economic resources, and the existence of crisis situations. The maritime dispute between Turkey and Greece is highly contentious, developing new complexities that worries the international community. Greece prefersinternational arbitrationwhile Turkey favors the option of bilateral negotiationsconstituting asthe main cause of friction between the two countries.

Historically, root of the crisis also lies in conflicting claims by Turkey and Greece concerning maritime boundaries and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), threatening Ankara’s “Blue Homeland”doctrine. To further aggravate the situation, the dispute has now been intertwined withdisputes in the eastern Mediterranean among Turkey and a coalition of countries including France, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates that are doused in geopolitical tensions, energy disputes and Libyan conflict.

Gas discoveries in eastern Mediterranean have increased Turkey’s greed for hydrocarbon exploration. Turkey aims to solve its longstanding economic challenges and reduce its energy dependency due to which the country has increased its energy-related exploration activities in the region resulting in a major gas discovery thus shaping the region towards resource competition. Moreover, Turkey seeks to establish itself as an energy hub for Europe and has signed several oil and gas pipeline deals with Azerbaijan, Iraq, Iran, and Russia. However, its aspirations have significantly remained unsuccessful, and the gas discoveries have deepened its concerns of being left out from the region’s emerging energy and security order due to the creation of the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum (EMGF).

Conflict in the Mediterranean has unwittingly pushed Libya into a proxy war. Scuffle between Libyan National Army (LNA) and Government of National Accord (GNA) has pushed Turkey to increase its support for GNA by sending troops and weapons to Libya which is a move directly affecting the ongoing situation in the region. GNA signing its EEZ agreement with Turkey while Greece turning to LNA and signing an agreement with Egypt have contributed to exacerbating the dispute. Not only this, but major European powers have shown keen interest in the region that patently require Turkey’s support in terms of migration and counterterrorism. If the conflict between the Turkish-backed GNA and the LNA stabilizes, this would result in an ordered flow of migrants to Europe.

Moreover, Europeans do not wish to abandon a 2016 German-brokered deal between Turkey and the European Union (EU) that allows Turkey to maintain a considerable control over refugee movements into Europe. On counterterrorism, France to fight against the terrorism in southern Libya and Benghazi, allied with Haftar against Turkey, despite recognizing the GNA’s sovereignty.  France has developed security partnerships with UAE and Egypt, who are opponents of Turkey in the region.

Egypt’s possession of two liquefication facilities, making the country act as both an exporter and re-exporter of LNG including a potential Cyprus-Egypt pipeline beneficial to Egypt in terms of economic stability, and help establish itself as a regional power. Cyprus-Egypt pipeline will allow Cyprus to export gas from the Aphrodite gas field to Egypt for liquefaction and Egypt would then reexport LNG to the European market. Turkey, however, argues that revenue generated from the process must be shared with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TNRC). Turkey’s continuation on the belligerent course will bring consequences for Egypt making its support for Greece more prominent. Turkey also stands with Mediterranean cooperation through initiatives like the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum that focuses on exploitation and regional energy resource sale.

Turkey is keen to become a regional gas trade hub thus looks forward to the initiative of a Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) which transfers from Azerbaijan to Europe through Turkey. Reducing the region’s reliance on Russian gas could certainly achieve the goals. Talks between Israel and Turkey of a pipeline from Israel to Europe were also initiated, however relations between Turkey and Israel have deteriorated following Erdogan blatantly supporting Palestine. This led Israel to work with Cyprus and Greece on the EastMed pipeline, stemming in devaluation of the Trans-Anatolian pipeline.

Most of the Middle Eastern countries have recalibratedtheir foreign policy following Joe Biden’s presidential win in the United States. Similarly, both Turkey and Egypt have begun to revise their foreign policies as well. The two countries have initiated a series of new diplomatic dialogue including Turkey and Greece signing a maritime delimitation agreement in August 2020.Nonetheless Egypt did not accept Greece’s thesis of having claims over islands in the south of Aegean Sea and it also announced a new oil and gas exploration bid with taking Turkey’s coordinates of the continental shelf into consideration. Moreover, Egypt began to change its Libya policy and improve relations with GNA. Turkey has stated that it is willing to negotiate dialogue with Egypt and focus on common interests.

Understanding the new developments, it is suggested to continue to alleviate tensions as the two countries enjoy same moral values at cultural level, given their shared past and historical ties. That is only possible if the expansionist pan-Islamistproject stops with Erdogan and does not continue with future Turkish governments. Cairo and Ankara must move together on the issues concerning Palestine, Libyan conflict, and the eastern Mediterranean. Despite possible pressure from the Democrats in the Biden administration, Egypt seems reluctant to consider convergence on Islamic synthesisand integration of Muslim brotherhood. Complete normalization of relations between the two sides may take time therefore to establish trust in one another, all parties must take certain confidence-building steps.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Israel and Turkey in search of solutions



Twelve and eleven years have elapsed since the Davos and Mavi Marmara incidents, respectively, and Turkey-Israel relations are undergoing intense recovery efforts. They are two important Eastern neighbours and influence regional stability.

Currently, as in the past, relations between the two countries have a structure based on realpolitik, thus pursuing a relationship of balance/interest, and hinge around the Palestinian issue and Israel’s position as the White House’s privileged counterpart. However, let us now briefly summarise the history of Turkish-Jewish relations.

The first important event that comes to mind when mentioning Jews and Turks is that when over 200,000 Jews were expelled by the Spanish Inquisition in 1491, the Ottoman Empire invited them to settle in its territory.

Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognise Israel in 1949. Israel’s first diplomatic Mission to Turkey was opened on January 7, 1950 but, following the Suez crisis in 1956, relations were reduced to the level of chargé d’affaires. In the second Arab-Israeli war of 1967, Turkey chose not to get involved and it did not allow relations to break off completely.

The 1990s saw a positive trend and development in terms of bilateral relations. After the second Gulf War in 1991 -which, as you may recall, followed the first Iraqi one of 1980-1988 in which the whole world was against Iran (with the only exception of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Syria, Libya and the moral support of Enver Hoxha’s Albania) – Turkey was at the centre of security policy in the region. In that context, Turkey-Israel relations were seriously rekindled.

In 1993, Turkey upgraded diplomatic relations with Israel to ambassadorial level. The signing of the Oslo Accords between Palestine and Israel led to closer relations. The 1996 military cooperation agreement was signed between the two countries in the fight against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Turkey, which provided significant logistical and intelligence support to both sides.

In the 2000s, there was a further rapprochement with Israel, due to the “zero problems with neighbours” policy promoted by Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party. I still remember issue No. 3/1999 of the Italian review of geopolitics “Limes” entitled “Turkey-Israel, the New Alliance”.

In 2002, an Israeli company undertook the project of modernising twelve M-60 tanks belonging to the Turkish armed forces. In 2004, Turkey agreed to sell water to Israel from the Manavgat River.

Prime Minister Erdoğan’s visit to Israel in 2005 was a turning point in terms of mediation between Palestine and Israel and further advancement of bilateral relations. In 2007, Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas spoke at the Turkish Grand National Assembly one day apart. High-level visits from Israel continued.

On December 22, 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert came to Ankara and met with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In that meeting, significant progress was made regarding Turkey’s mediation between Israel and Syria.

Apart from the aforementioned incidents, the deterioration of Turkish-Israeli relations occurred five days after the above stated meeting, i.e. Operation “Cast Lead” against Gaza on December 27, 2008. After that event, relations between the two sides were never the same as before.

Recently, however, statements of goodwill have been made by both countries to normalise political relations. In December 2020, President Erdoğan stated he wanted to improve relations with Israel and said: “It is not possible for us to accept Israel’s attitude towards the Palestinian territories. This is the point in which we differ from Israel – otherwise, our heart desires to improve our relations with it as well”.

In its relations with Israel, Turkey is posing the Palestinian issue as a condition. When we look at it from the opposite perspective, the Palestinian issue is a vital matter for Israel. It is therefore a severe obstacle to bilateral relations.

On the other hand, many regional issues such as Eastern Mediterranean, Syria and some security issues in the region require the cooperation of these two key countries. For this reason, it is clear that both sides wish at least to end the crisis, reduce rhetoric at leadership level and focus on cooperation and realpolitik areas.

In the coming months, efforts will certainly be made to strike a balance between these intentions and the conditions that make it necessary to restart bilateral relations with Israel on an equal footing. As improved relations with Israel will also positively influence Turkey’s relations with the United States.

Turkey seeks to avoid the USA and the EU imposing sanctions that could go so far as to increase anti-Western neo-Ottoman rhetoric, while improved relations with Israel could offer a positive outcome not only to avoid the aforementioned damage, but also to solve the Turkish issues related to Eastern Mediterranean, territorial waters, Libya and Syria. Turkey has no intention of backing down on such issues that it deems vital. Quite the reverse. It would like to convey positive messages at the level of talks and Summits.

Another important matter of friction between Turkey and Israel is the use of oil and gas in the Eastern Mediterranean reserves between Egypt, Israel, Greece and Cyprus (Nicosia).

This approach is excluding Turkey. The USA and the EU also strongly support the current situation (which we addressed in a previous article) for the additional reason that France has been included in the equation.

The alignment of forces and fronts in these maritime areas were also widely seen during the civil war in Libya, where Turkey, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, France, as well as other players such as Russia, Italy, etc. came into the picture.

Ultimately, a point of contact between Turkey and Israel is the mediation role that the former could play in relations between Iran and Israel, especially after the improvement of Turkish-Iranian relations.

Indeed, in the aftermath of the U.S. airstrike in Baghdad – which killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani on January 3, 2020 -the Turkish Foreign Minister stated that the U.S. action would increase insecurity and instability in the region. He also reported that Turkey was worried about rising tensions between the United States and Iran that could turn Iraq back into an area of conflict to the detriment of peace and stability in the region. There was also a condolence phone call from President Erdoğan to Iranian President Rouhani, urging him to avoid a conflictual escalation with the United States following the airstrike.

Consequently, it is in the Turkish President’s interest to maintain an open channel with Iran, so that he himself can soften the mutual tensions between Israel and Iran, and – in turn – Israeli diplomacy can influence President Biden’s choices, albeit less pro-Israel than Donald Trump’s.

Turkey is known to have many relationship problems with the United States – especially after the attempted coup of July 15-16, 2016 and including the aforementioned oil issue – and realises that only Israel can resolve the situation smoothly.

In fact, Israel-USA relations are not at their best as they were under President Trump. President Erdoğan seems to be unaware of this fact, but indeed the Turkish President knows that the only voice the White House can hear is Israel’s, and certainly not the voice of the Gulf monarchies, currently at odds with Turkey.

Israel keeps a low profile on the statements made by President Erdoğan with regard to the Palestinians- since it believes them to be consequential – as well as in relation to a series of clearly anti-Zionist attitudes of the Turkish people.

We are certain, however, that President Erdoğan’s declarations of openness and Israeli acquiescence will surely yield concrete results.

Continue Reading



South Asia31 mins ago

Arthashastra- book review

Arthashastra is a historical Indian book which covers aspects of state functioning. It is about how economy, politics, military strategy...

Middle East3 hours ago

The US-Iran deal and its implications for the South Caucasus and Eastern Europe

The ongoing meetings between the US and Iran since the beginning of April in Vienna show new signs of progress....

Health & Wellness4 hours ago

How to Ensure that your Teen Driver Learns the Principles of Safe Driving

If your teenager is now eligible to apply for a provisional licence, it’s natural that you would have mixed emotions...

South Asia5 hours ago

Ensuring ‘Vaccine for All’ in the World: Bangladesh Perspective

Health experts and analysts argue that the massive scale of vaccination is the most effective way to save people and...

Americas7 hours ago

Is the Washington-initiated Climate Summit a Biden Politrick?

Earlier on, climate skeptics had wondered if President Biden’s January 27 Executive Order on “climate crisis” was “climate politrick?” Now,...

Russia9 hours ago

Russia Increases Its Defense, While U.S. Backs Down From Provoking WW III

Ever since Joe Biden became America’s President in January, America’s hostile and threatening actions and rhetoric against (as Biden refers...

Russia11 hours ago

Goodbye, the ISS: Russia plans to withdraw from the International Space Station

On April, 18, 2021, Russia announced its plans on withdrawing from the International Space Station in 2025. According to Rossiya...