Israel’s assassination of the head of Hamas’ political bureau, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran, on yesterday is part of Tel Aviv’s overall desperate search for a wider conflict. It is a criminal act that reeks of desperation.

Almost immediately after the start of the Gaza war on October 7, Israel hoped to use the genocide in the Strip as an opportunity to achieve its long-term goal of a regional war — one that would rope in Washington as well as Iran and other Middle Eastern countries.

Despite unconditional support for its genocide in Gaza, and various conflicts throughout the region, the United States refrained from entering a direct war against Iran and others.

Although defeating Iran is an American strategic objective, the US lacks the will and tools to pursue it now.

After 10 months of a failed war on Gaza and a military stalemate against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel is, once more, accelerating its push for a wider conflict. This time around, however, Israel is engaging in a high-stakes game — the most dangerous of its previous gambles.

The current gamble involved the targeting of a top Hezbollah leader by bombing a residential building in Beirut on Tuesday — and, of course, the assassination of Palestine’s most visible, let alone popular political leader.

Successful Haniyeh diplomacy
Haniyeh, has succeeded in forging and strengthening ties with Russia, China, and other countries beyond the US-Western political domain.

Israel chose the place and timing of killing Haniyeh carefully. The Palestinian leader was killed in the Iranian capital, shortly after he attended the inauguration of Iran’s new President Masoud Pezeshkian.

The Israeli message was a compound one, to Iran’s new administration — that of Israel’s readiness to escalate further — and to Hamas, that Israel has no intentions to end the war or to reach a negotiated ceasefire.

The latter point is perhaps the most urgent. For months, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has done everything in his power to impede all diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the war.

By killing the top Palestinian negotiator, Israel delivered a final and decisive message that Israel remains invested in violence, and in nothing else.

The scale of the Israeli provocations, however, poses a great challenge to the pro-Palestinian camp in the Middle East, namely, how to respond with equally strong messages without granting Israel its wish of embroiling the whole region in a destructive war.

Considering the military capabilities of what is known as the “Axis of Resistance”, Iran, Hezbollah and others are certainly capable of managing this challenge despite the risk factors involved.

Equally important regarding timing: the Israeli dramatic escalation in the region, followed a visit by Netanyahu to Washington, which, aside from many standing ovations at the US Congress, didn’t fundamentally alter the US position, predicated on the unconditional support for Israel without direct US involvement in a regional war.

Coup a real possibility
Additionally, Israel’s recent clashes involving the army, military police, and the supporters of the far right suggest that an actual coup in Israel might be a real possibility. In the words of Israel’s opposition leader Yair Lapid: Israel is not nearing the abyss, Israel is already in the abyss.

It is, therefore, clear to Netanyahu and his far-right circle that they are operating within an increasingly limited time and margins.

By killing Haniyeh, a political leader who has essentially served the role of a diplomat, Israel demonstrated the extent of its desperation and the limits of its military failure.

Considering the criminal extent to which Israel is willing to go, such desperation could eventually lead to the regional war that Israel has been trying to instigate, even before the Gaza war.

Keeping in mind Washington’s weakness and indecision in the face of Israel’s intransigence, Tel Aviv might achieve its wish of a regional war after all.

Republished from The Palestine Chronicle with permission. The Chronicle is edited by Palestinian journalist and media consultant Ramzy Baroud, author of The Last Earth: A Palestine Story, who visited New Zealand in 2019.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Papua New Guinean academic says the new security deals with the United States will militarise his country and anyone who thinks otherwise is naïve.

In May, PNG’s Defence Minister Win Barki Daki and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed the Defence Cooperation Agreement and the Shiprider Agreement.

Last week they were presented to PNG MPs for ratification and made public.

The defence cooperation agreement talks of reaffirming a strong defence relationship based on a shared commitment to peace and stability and common approaches to addressing regional defence and security issues.

Money that Marape ‘wouldn’t turn down’
University of PNG political scientist Michael Kabuni said there was certainly a need for PNG to improve security at the border to stop, for instance, the country being used as a transit point for drugs such as methamphetamine and cocaine.

“Papua New Guinea hasn’t had an ability or capacity to manage its borders. So we really don’t know what goes on on the fringes of PNG’s marine borders.”

But Kabuni, who is completing his doctorate at the Australian National University, said whenever the US signs these sorts of deals with developing countries, the result is inevitably a heavy militarisation.

“I think the politicians, especially PNG politicians, are either too naïve, or the benefits are too much for them to ignore. So the deal between Papua New Guinea and the United States comes with more than US$400 million support. This is money that [Prime Minister] James Marape wouldn’t turn down,” he said.

The remote northern island of Manus, most recently the site of Australia’s controversial refugee detention camp, is set to assume far greater prominence in the region with the US eyeing both the naval base and the airport.

US fighter jets now (21.06.23) at Jacksons International Airport, Port Moresby.

📷 Walen Parange pic.twitter.com/EVrOV7CWZ3

— Bobby Jr (@tambijr_4rmPNG) June 21, 2023

Kabuni said Manus was an important base during World War II and remains key strategic real estate for both China and the United States.

“So there is talk that, apart from the US and Australia building a naval base on Manus, China is building a commercial one. But when China gets involved in building wharves, though it appears to be a wharf for commercial ships to park, it’s built with the equipment to hold military naval ships,” he said.

Six military locations
Papua New Guineans now know the US is set to have military facilities at six locations around the country.

These are Nadzab Airport in Lae, the seaport in Lae, the Lombrum Naval Base and Momote Airport on Manus Island, as well as Port Moresby’s seaport and Jackson’s International Airport.

According to the text of the treaty the American military forces and their contractors will have the ability to largely operate in a cocoon, with little interaction with the rest of PNG, not paying taxes on anything they bring in, including personal items.

Prime Minister James Marape has said the Americans will not be setting up military bases, but this document gives them the option to do this.

Marape said more specific information on the arrangements would come later.

Antony Blinken said the defence pact was drafted by both nations as ‘equal and sovereign partners’ and stressed that the US will be transparent.

Critics of the deal have accused the government of undermining PNG’s sovereignty but Marape told Parliament that “we have allowed our military to be eroded in the last 48 years, [but] sovereignty is defined by the robustness and strength of your military”.

The Shiprider Agreement has been touted as a solution to PNG’s problems of patrolling its huge exclusive economic zone of nearly 3 million sq km.

Another feature of the agreements is that US resources could be directed toward overcoming the violence that has plagued PNG elections for many years, with possibly the worst occurrence in last year’s national poll.

But Michael Kabuni said the solution to these issues will not be through strengthening police or the military but by such things as improving funding and support for organisations like the Electoral Commission to allow for accurate rolls to be completed well ahead of voting.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Regional stability and security, and the China Economic and Security Deal were on the agenda today when some Pacific leaders met in Suva, Fiji, a Micronesian head of the Pacific’s regional political body says

Several Pacific Island heads of state, including at least three from the Micronesian states, have arrived in Fiji for two days of meetings called by Fijian Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama.

As chair of the Pacific Islands Forum(PIF), Bainimarama is positioned to call meetings of the Pacific Troika which includes current, incoming and immediate past chairs of the Forum.

This usually takes place ahead of the Pacific Forum Leaders Meeting which this year will take place in July.

The heads of the governments of Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia confirmed the Troika would meet with the Micronesian Presidents’ Summit (MPS) in the second of The Political Dialogue Mechanism, an initiative to allow for open conversation between PIF leaders.

When it last sat last year, the Political Dialogue Mechanism sought to address tensions within the PIF after the Micronesia President’s Summit threatened to pull out its membership of the forum, threatening regional stability for the first time.

The President of Federated States of Micronesia David Panuelo told RNZ Pacific in Suva, that the Micronesian leader’s main agenda was the tension over the way Micronesia was denied what long-standing regional tradition owed them, the seat of Secretary-General of the PIFS.

‘Nothing really being resolved’
“This is exactly why we’re here and talks are ongoing, and nothing is really being resolved but we’re actively discussing this. This is a very good trip for our Micronesian brothers. Meetings are ongoing and today we will continue to discuss how we can get the best in terms of uniting and promoting regionalism,” President Panuelo said.

“We’re all optimistic until, without ruling out any possibilities. I think we are optimistic. Let’s look forward to a successful conclusion of our ongoing meetings.”

Meanwhile, President of Palau Surangel Whipps Jr said the two-day meeting would be the first time since the pandemic that Pacific leaders could meet in person, which made it an “opportunity to invest” in good dialogue.

The Palauan president said Micronesian states had made clear their stance on the SG’s position and hoped the leader’s meeting would “come up with a solution where we can all walk away from it with good understanding and rebuilding of that trust.”

“Well, I’m optimistic because we’re here. And we have the opportunity to sit down and discuss and find the best way forward,” he said

Palau, which like most of the Micronesian states has diplomatic relations with Taiwan instead of China, hopes the Political Dialogue Mechanism would provide the space for Pacific leaders to “really share each other’s concerns and try to find a way forward where we can all be the winners.”

Micronesian states believe the Pacific Islands Forum as a political bloc was built on values of trust and mutual respect which needed rebuilding, implying the fragmentation created by tension over the SG’s position is further threatened by the emergence of China’s plan for its presence in the Pacific.

‘Regaining trust, respect’
“I think what’s most important is regaining that trust and mutual respect among the Micronesians and the rest of the forum. That’s what’s most important. How do we rebuild that? That’s the question and I think that’s what the discussion over the next few days is going to be about,” Whipps Jr said.

Micronesian leaders are concerned over the wording in China’s proposed Pacific Economic Security deal leaked ahead of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit late last month.

“We are friends to everyone and enemies to none but we also lived through World War Two. When we see documents that say, you know, certain countries need to be taken or taken back, it brings us back to the time of where we were all involved in World War Two and we don’t want to relive that,” Whipps Jr said.

“We are peaceful countries and we want to live in peace and harmony. That’s the value of the forum. It’s the Pacific coming together and sharing the same values and I think we all want peace and prosperity in the region.”

Samoan Prime Minister Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa has also arrived in Fiji for the meeting and the opening of a new Samoan High Commission in Suva.

Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown is also in Fiji and opened a new high commission in the Fijian capital.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz