US personnel 'are being moved out of Middle East'
US personnel 'are being moved out of Middle East'
A Marine keeps an eye out for potential trouble at the US embassy in Baghdad. File photo: AFP
The sixth round of US-Iran nuclear talks will be held on Sunday in Muscat, the Omani foreign minister said on Thursday, after US President Donald Trump reiterated that Tehran would not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
Trump said on Wednesday US personnel were being moved out of the Middle East because "it could be a dangerous place".
The United States has been reported as preparing an evacuation of its Iraqi embassy and allowing military dependents to leave locations around the Middle East due to heightened security risks in the region, according to US and Iraqi sources.
The four US and two Iraqi sources did not say what security risks had prompted the decision.
Reports of the potential evacuation pushed up oil prices by more than 4 percent before prices eased on Thursday.
Foreign energy companies were continuing their operations as usual, a senior Iraqi official overseeing operations in southern oilfields said on Thursday.
A US official said the State Department had authorized voluntary departures from Bahrain and Kuwait.
The State Department updated its worldwide travel advisory on Wednesday evening to reflect the latest US posture.
"On June 11, the Department of State ordered the departure of non-emergency US government personnel due to heightened regional tensions," the advisory said.
The decision to evacuate some personnel comes at a volatile moment in the region.
Trump's efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran appear to be deadlocked and US intelligence indicates that Israel has been making preparations for a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
"They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, and we'll see what happens," Trump said.
"We've given notice to move out."
Asked whether anything could be done to lower the temperature in the region, Trump said: "They can't have a nuclear weapon. Very simple, they can't have a nuclear weapon."
Trump has repeatedly threatened to strike Iran if stuttering talks over its nuclear programme fail and in an interview released earlier on Wednesday said he was growing less confident that Tehran would agree to stop enriching uranium, a key American demand.
While the evacuation of non-essential personnel raised concerns about a possible regional escalation, a senior Iranian security official told Iran's Press TV on Thursday that US military dependents leaving did not constitute a threat.
On Wednesday, Iran's defence minister warned Washington that Tehran would hit US regional bases if drawn into a war in the case of nuclear talks failing.
The United States has a military presence across the major oil-producing region, with bases in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. (Reuters)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
43 minutes ago
- Asia Times
Why Trump won't kill AUKUS
The Pentagon has announced it will review the massive AUKUS agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to ensure it's aligned with US President Donald Trump's 'America first' agenda. The US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby is reportedly going to oversee the review. The announcement has raised concerns in Australia, but every government is entitled to review policies made by its predecessors to consider whether there is a particular purpose. The UK has launched a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS too, so it's not actually unreasonable for the US to do the same. There is a degree of nervousness in Australia as to what the implications are because Australia understandably has the biggest stake in this. But we need to consider what Colby has articulated in the past. In his book, 'The Strategy of Denial: American Defence in the Nature of Great Power Conflict', he made the case the US could 'prepare to win a war with China it cannot afford to lose – in order to deter it from happening.' So, with a deterrent mindset, he sees the need for the US to muscle up militarily. He's spoken about the alliance with Australia in very positive terms on a couple of occasions. And he has called himself an 'AUKUS agnostic', though he has expressed deep concern about the ability of the submarine industrial base in the US to manufacture the ships quickly enough. And that leads to the fear that the US Navy would not have enough submarines for itself if Washington is also sending them to Australia. As part of the deal, Australia would eventually be able to contribute to accelerating the production line. That involves Australian companies contributing to the manufacture of certain widgets and components that are needed to build the subs. Australia has already made a nearly A$800 million (US$500 million) down payment on expanding the US industrial capacity as part of the deal to ensure we get some subs in a reasonable time frame. There have also been significant legislative and industrial reforms in the US, Australia and UK to help facilitate Australian defence-related industries unplug the bottleneck of submarine production. There is no question that there is a need to speed up production. But we are already seeing significant signs of an uptick in the production rate, thanks in part to the Australian down payment. And it's anticipated that the rate will significantly increase in the next 12–18 months. Even still, projects like this often slide in terms of timelines. The leaders of the three nations announced details of the submarine deal in San Diego in 2023. Photo: Etienne Laurent / EPA via The Conversation I'm reasonably optimistic that, on balance, the Trump administration will come down on the side of proceeding with the deal. There are a few key reasons for this: 1) We're several years down the track already. 2) We have more than 100 Australian sailors already operating in the US system. 3) Industrially, we're on the cusp of making a significant additional contribution to the US submarine production line. And finally, most people don't fully appreciate that the submarine base just outside Perth is an incredibly consequential piece of real estate for US security calculations. Colby has made very clear the US needs to muscle up to push back and deter China's potential aggression in the region. In that equation, submarines are crucial, as is a substantial submarine base in the Indian Ocean. China is acutely mindful of what we call the 'Malacca dilemma.' Overwhelmingly, China's trade of goods and fossil fuels comes through the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia's island of Sumatra. The Chinese know this supply line could be disrupted in a war. And the submarines operating out of Perth contribute to this fear. This is a crucial deterrent effect the US and its allies have been seeking to maintain. And it has largely endured. Given that nobody can predict the future, we all want to prevent a war over Taiwan and we all want to maintain the status quo. As such, the considered view has been that Australia will continue to support the US to bolster its deterrent effect to prevent such a scenario. As part of the US review of the deal, we could see talk of a potential slowdown in the delivery rate of the submarines. The Trump administration could also put additional pressure on Australia to deliver more for the US. This includes the amount Australia spends on defence, a subject of considerable debate in Canberra. Taking Australia's overall interests into account, the Albanese government may well decide increasing defense spending is an appropriate thing to do. There's a delicate dance to be had here between the Trump administration, the Australian government, and in particular, their respective defence departments, about how to achieve the most effective outcome. It's highly likely that whatever decision the US government makes will be portrayed as the Trump administration 'doing a deal'. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a bad thing. This is what countries do. We talk a lot about the Trump administration's transactional approach to international relations. But it's actually not that different from previous US administrations with which Canberra has had to deal. So I'm reasonably sanguine about the AUKUS review and any possible negotiations over it. I believe the Trump administration will come to the conclusion it does not want to spike the Australia relationship. Australia has been on the US side since federation. Given this, the US government will likely make sure this deal goes ahead. The Trump administration may try to squeeze more concessions out of Australia as part of 'the art of the deal,' but it won't sink the pact. However, many people will undoubtedly say this is the moment Australia should break with AUKUS. But then what? What would Australia do instead to ensure its security in this world of heightened great power competition in which Australia's interests are increasingly challenged? Walking away now would leave Australia more vulnerable than ever. I think that would be a great mistake. John Blaxland is professor, Strategic and Defense Studies Center, Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
RTHK
2 hours ago
- RTHK
Airlines scramble to stay out of new war area
Airlines scramble to stay out of new war area An Emirates flight from Manchester that was due to fly to Dubai had to be diverted to Istanbul. File photo: AFP Airlines cleared out of the airspace over Israel, Iran and Iraq and Jordan on Friday after Israel launched attacks on targets in Iran, Flightradar24 data showed, with carriers scrambling to divert and cancel flights to keep passengers and crew safe. Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport was closed until further notice, and Israel's air defence units stood at high alert for possible retaliatory strikes from Iran. Israeli flag carrier El Al Airlines said it had suspended flights to and from Israel. Iranian airspace has been closed until further notice, according to state media and notices to pilots. As reports of strikes on Iran emerged, a number of commercial flights by airlines including Dubai's Emirates, Lufthansa and Air India were flying over Iran. Air India, which overflies Iran for its Europe and North American flights, said several flights were being diverted or returned to their origin, including ones from New York, Vancouver, Chicago and London. Emirates and Lufthansa did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Iraq early on Friday closed its airspace and suspended all traffic at its airports, Iraqi state media reported. Eastern Iraq near the border with Iran contains one of the world's busiest air corridors, with dozens of flights crossing between Europe and the Gulf, many on routes from Asia to Europe, at any one moment. Flights steadily diverted over central Asia or Saudi Arabia, flight tracking data showed. Jordan, which sits between Israel and Iraq, closed its airspace several hours after the Israeli campaign began. "The situation is still emerging – operators should use a high degree of caution in the region at this time," according to Safe Airspace, a website run by Opsgroup, a membership-based organisation that shares flight-risk information. Several flights due to land in Dubai were diverted early on Friday. An Emirates flight from Manchester to Dubai was diverted to Istanbul and a flydubai flight from Belgrade diverted to Yerevan, Armenia. Budget carrier flydubai said it had suspended flights to Amman, Beirut, Damascus, Iran and Israel and a number of other flights had been cancelled, rerouted or returned to their departure airports. Qatar Airways cancelled its two scheduled flights to Damascus on Friday, Flightradar24 data shows. Airspace in the Middle East last year was crossed daily by 1,400 flights to and from Europe, Eurocontrol data show. (Reuters)
Asia Times
2 hours ago
- Asia Times
The power calculus driving Trump's tariffs
Despite dire predictions that US President Donald Trump's foreign policy, dominated by real and threatened manipulations of American tariffs and trade practices, US inflation rates and other measures of American economic vigor do not yet give cause for alarm. Indeed, at this writing US-China trade talks seem productive enough so that spokespersons for the European Union say they hope their trade talks take on a similar format. Trump's approach to tariffs has been anything but static—shifting abruptly like a spotlight sweeping across a stage. Yet beneath the political theater lies a calculated strategy with far-reaching implications. While critics assume tariffs invariably raise consumer prices, the reality is more nuanced. Trump's policies appear designed not just for economic leverage but as an extension of his foreign policy vision, particularly in Asia and the Western Hemisphere. Whether this constitutes strategic brilliance or overreach is debatable, but the mechanics of tariffs—and who ultimately bears their cost—demand closer scrutiny. The impact of a tariff hinges on market dynamics, competition and geopolitical leverage. Consider a US$100 product imported from Country X. If the US imposes a $25 tariff, the seller faces a choice: absorb the cost by cutting their price to $75 (keeping the consumer's total at $100) or pass the expense to buyers and risk losing market share. In competitive markets—like coffee from Colombia, Brazil, or Mexico—sellers often absorb tariffs to retain customers. But the calculus shifts when alternatives are scarce. A monopolist, such as OPEC in the oil markets, can dictate prices precisely because competitors lack the capacity to undercut them without facing ruin. This imbalance of power invites broader consequences: nations disadvantaged by such asymmetries may resort to political or even military retaliation, as nearly occurred during the 1970s oil crises. Tariffs also reshape local economies. A Mexican manufacturer facing US tariffs might offset losses by raising prices for domestic consumers or slashing wages. A Canadian auto supplier could lobby for government subsidies to preserve jobs while lowering export prices. Meanwhile, China's state-influenced exporters might reduce prices to maintain access to the elastic US market, repurposing tariff revenue for Chinese domestic projects. Trump's tariffs align with a modern revival of the Monroe Doctrine, which asserts US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Recent maneuvers, such as discouraging Chinese influence over the Panama Canal, signal that the administration views tariffs as both economic tools and geopolitical signals. The message is clear: the US will enforce its sphere of influence, and trade policy is one lever to do so. It is possible to imagine Trump's 'super big picture' plan as a compressed version (spanning three years) of the 150-year evolution of the British Empire, beginning with Mercantilism and culminating in free trade. At first, Trump treats the rest of the world as composed of client states, whose economies are tied tightly together with the 'mother ship', the dependent states all at first directed by force majeure to contribute to the greatness of the Metropolitan Authority. Later on, when the dependencies have grown to maturity, a managed form of free trade emerges, and wealth becomes more widely shared. Ultimately, outcomes will be determined by raw power—economic, military and diplomatic. While Trump's aggressive posture may yield short-term gains, inconsistency risks undermining his objectives. China, the primary challenger to this strategy, may currently perceive his actions as domestically focused rather than existential. But if tariffs become an erratic flicker rather than a steady beam, the US could squander its leverage. In an era where trade is war by other means, Trump's tariffs are less about economics than they are about reasserting American primacy. The question isn't whether the world will adapt—it's who will blink first.
