Latest news with #MohamedChebaro
Arab News
30-04-2025
- Business
- Arab News
Will US solve the Iran nuclear conundrum?
So far, three rounds of indirect US-Iran talks have taken place in Oman and Italy, with more on the way. It is like the two sides are exploring the art of the possible, aiming to strike a deal without a long list of conditions or conclusions — the style of negotiations long favored by Tehran. At the same time, the negotiations seek to avoid putting off a US administration that is light on depth and substance but seems desperate to demonstrate to the world that it is in charge and has what it takes to apply the 'art of the deal,' as championed by President Donald Trump. For now, this is proving elusive. Aside from the consensus that the three rounds of talks have been 'positive and productive' and that further rounds will be held to narrow their differences on a range of subjects, last Saturday's meeting delved into some technical matters, we were told. The technical discussions will resume in the fourth round in the coming days. The highest-level contact between these long-time foes in years is chasing a new deal that would stop Iran developing nuclear weapons — an objective Tehran denies ever pursuing — in return for sanctions relief. But what would form a good deal for Iran, the US, Israel and the countries of the region and the world that are in a state of flux? Limiting the enrichment of uranium to 4 percent purity — which is maybe what Iran would acquiesce to, while keeping its ability to ramp up production if needed — would be ideal. Leaving intact its updated centrifuge systems and maybe accepting in return a monitoring and inspections regime would be a victory regardless of what happens to its advanced ballistic missile program. Of course, all sanctions would also have to be lifted. Some of the factors at play are domestic Iranian considerations, while others are international geopolitical factors Mohamed Chebaro A worse deal from Iran's perspective, but which would keep Israel happy, would be one that removed all of its nuclear infrastructure and all uranium enriched up to 60 percent purity. This would be similar to the 2003 agreement that Libya made with the West, under which it gave up its nuclear, chemical, biological and ballistic missile programs in return for total rehabilitation. Others in the region, namely Arab countries, have long wished for a far-reaching deal that could see Iran end its meddling in neighboring countries' affairs and use of armed proxy militias to spread its influence. This was an issue that the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal overlooked, meaning it was seen as being in favor of Tehran. Several factors are at play, simultaneously competing and urging such different deals to be concluded. Some of these factors are domestic Iranian considerations, while others are international geopolitical factors that could ensure a deal that ends up being in favor of Iran. That is why Tehran seems to be dangling many carrots, aiming to reduce or neutralize the rhetorical US-Israeli sticks of military destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities. On the domestic Iranian level, the crippling sanctions have piled pressure on the regime, whose deliverables to the citizens of Iran have long been shrinking by the day, exposing it to uprisings such as that of 2022, which was sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody. The deadly explosion on Saturday of what is believed to be a shipment of ballistic missile fuel and chemicals at Shahid Rajaee port does not bode well for a regime that is careful to cultivate a professional image among its people. This comes on the back of a series of blows suffered since its tit for tat strikes with Israel in support of Gaza last year. These include the routing of Hamas and Hezbollah and the end of the Assad regime, which the Iranian rulers often paraded domestically as a sign of its prowess. On the wider geopolitical level, Iran is trying to benefit from the influence Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to have on Trump, whose second term reached the 100-day landmark this week. Nowhere is this clearer than in Trump and his administration's adoption and parroting of the Kremlin's narrative vis-a-vis Moscow's invasion of Ukraine being the fault of Kyiv. Iran is trying to benefit from the influence Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to have on Trump Mohamed Chebaro Another indication is that the US envoy leading nearly all the White House's initiatives and talks, Steve Witkoff, has been having regular audiences with Putin in Moscow. These are surely not only focused on the Ukraine war. They could also be touching on the geopolitical flashpoints between the superpowers — and the Iran nuclear file is likely among them. Talking to Iran experts these days, one senses that dangling the carrot of Tehran buying American, and not European, might attract the Trump administration to strike any deal as long as it offers the prospect of an elusive Nobel Peace Prize. This could even come at the cost of US officials ignoring intricate details related to the threat a revitalized, reenergized and replenished Tehran might pose to peace and security in the Middle East and the wider world. It could be sweetened by a promise from Tehran to spend billions of dollars acquiring Boeing airplanes to renew its fleets, while also realigning its oil industry and infrastructure development along US lines of investment. Trump whisperers in the Kremlin and beyond are no doubt encouraging him down that path. But some Iran skeptics in Europe are holding their breath over the eventuality — which is not remote — that Trump rushes to sign a deal that is worse than the original JCPOA. Many observers believe that the world changed as a result of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. It has changed even more since Trump returned to the White House. But I am afraid the Iranian regime's maximalist approach has not changed even slightly, as it still believes it can have its cake and eat it too. It is refusing to remove its religiously fueled gown of extremism for the benefit of peace and prosperity and less militarism and meddling. Yet why should it, as the world, from America to China, is lurching rightward and toward stringent conservative and populist rhetoric-fueled politics?
Arab News
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Pope Francis a voice of reason in an increasingly unreasonable world
It is no exaggeration to say that on Easter Monday the world united in feeling a great loss with the passing of Pope Francis. His followers had hardly digested his appearance among the faithful a day earlier, as if to reassure them that, despite his illness and frailty, he wanted to underline that he lived for them and to alleviate the suffering of all, especially the marginalized and the weak of all faiths. There is a consensus that Pope Francis was a force for good despite being an outsider, as the first pope to hail from the Global South and the first non-European pope for more than 1,000 years. The lists of his firsts and his breaks with tradition are long. The most symbolic was his choice to live in a modest two-room papal guest house and never move into the official residence at the Vatican. Though the Argentine pontiff was seen as progressive and fought to influence issues such as migration and the protection of the environment, he also fought for a more modern, less rigid Roman Catholic Church. Above all, Pope Francis brought an outsider's eye to the Vatican and the church, with a focus on justice, ecology and humanity. One hopes that the conclave will produce a like-minded successor, as the world is crying out for voices of reason amid today's ever-increasing social, economic and political discord. But for all his 'political genius and charisma,' as described by his biographer, it did not serve him to, on the one hand, reform and modernize a church hierarchy that he viewed as remote and self-satisfied. Nor was he capable, on the other hand, of tilting the church's energies in favor of the marginalized, while challenging the power of the entrenched interests of its traditionalists, conservatives and liberals. Pope Francis brought an outsider's eye to the Vatican and the church, with a focus on justice, ecology and humanity Mohamed Chebaro His famous words 'who am I to judge?' skirted the doctrinal debates, demonstrating an inkling to promote greater tolerance and understanding in a complex culture war that focused on the questions of sexuality, faith and marriage in a church that was struggling to hold on to its relevance. He sought to raise the tone of its moral voice beyond the controversial family and moral affairs of the modern world, preferring to debate the moral need to protect the environment and to heal the world of its addiction to consumption — a key driver of climate change. His outspoken interventions in support of migrants won him a huge following the world over, as well as enemies and condemnation by none other than the Trump administration. For Pope Francis, climate change, migration, global poverty and conflicts were interconnected. He chose to repeatedly visit migration hot spots like Lampedusa in Italy and Lesbos in Greece to shed light on the global indifference to their plight and the efforts of governments to send them back. He also regularly spoke of his distress at conflicts around the world, especially Ukraine and Gaza in recent times. But his pleas for peace fell on deaf ears, despite his clear pattern of choice of overseas trips, as he sought to make a difference to victims of wars recent and old. He chose to visit Jerusalem, Bosnia, Egypt, Iraq and South Sudan, to mention just a few, highlighting his fearlessness and reminding the world of the need to end suffering, regardless of the faith of the victims. His outspoken interventions in support of migrants won him a huge following the world over, as well as enemies Mohamed Chebaro In an era when the postwar legacy of international human rights and the rule of law is waning, the death of Pope Francis means the loss of yet another voice of reason in a world that is increasingly light on reason. His vision and mission will be missed not just by Catholics around the world but by all humans, particularly those living in increasingly inward-looking, nationalist-dominated countries. Certain states are today dragging the social and political compass increasingly to the right, aided by a weaponized tech realm and regulation-light exercises of freedom of expression. The world has changed from one that upheld, to a large extent, a respect for universal human rights to one led by the kind of populism and polarization that last rose to prominence in the 1930s. Pope Francis' voice of reason tried to prevent the slip toward identity politics and the weaponization of Christianity by the populist forces of the ultra-right in America, Europe and elsewhere. But it is still hoped that his messages of humility, inclusion and doing good will reverberate around the world and limit the damage of the culture wars that are threatening the planet and its people. An ironic coincidence is that the pope's final public engagement before his death was a meeting with the Catholic US Vice President J.D. Vance, an advocate of 'America First' and US isolationism whose views on migration and the fueling of culture wars were criticized by the pope before he fell ill. It is hoped that some of the reasoning of the late pope will echo in Vance's mind and he will work to curb his views. Populism and polarization only make the rich richer and leave the poor poorer, which is contrary to the aspirations of all the poor voters of all religions who last year voted for Donald Trump in the hope of salvation.
Arab News
18-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Last chance for Lebanon, a country at war with itself
For years I have been arguing that Lebanon has been at war since 1975, and maybe before then. The hyped idea that peace has prevailed since 1990 is a myth: the Taif agreement led to a long ceasefire and paved the way for a coexistence formula that at times has proved short of accommodating the many national, regional, and international divides. Unlike what many Lebanese people tell you, the war is mainly Lebanon vs. Lebanon: a country that is not at peace with itself, with its national identity, with its minorities' many identities, religious and sectarian, even communitarian and ethnic. All that before even addressing Lebanon's relationships with long-term Palestinian and more recent Syrian refugees within its borders, or its relationship with its immediate neighbors Syria and Israel, or with the wider Arab world, or with countries such as France and Britian that for centuries were involved in protecting some of its minorities. More than a century since the establishment of greater Lebanon and nearly 80 years since its independence, Lebanon is again at a crossroads — with an opportunity to find its feet, and for the new government to usher in a new era of healing and push toward a balanced and stable future. Last weekend's commemoration of the start of the civil war 50 years ago should be the catalyst to realize that Lebanon is finally free of Assad regime diktats, and that its government is free of the pro-Iran Hezbollah militia, weakened and nearly eclipsed after the war with Israel. The government marked last Sunday's anniversary with a small ceremony and a minute's silence. It was a rare official acknowledgement of the legacy of Lebanon's civil war. Citizens remembered the strife that killed more than 150,000 people and left 17,000 missing, with trench warfare in towns and cities, massacres, snipers, assassinations and car bombs. There have been many efforts to define the root causes of the civil war and why Lebanese failed to avert it, but consensus remain elusive. Some reduce the problem to a Christian-Muslim divide over the need to defend Palestine at the expense of Lebanese sovereignty. Others blame the Cairo Arab summit in 1969, permitting the Palestinians to arm and resist Israel from inside Lebanon. Many even believe that the war began in 1973, when the Lebanese armed forces backed down from taking control of Palestinian refugees camps. Some argue that was the brief civil strife of 1958, when Lebanon was split along pro-Nasser and anti-Nasser lines, and people skirmished in street battles while the army tried to hold the peace. For years I have been arguing that Lebanon has been at war since 1975, and maybe before then. The hyped idea that peace has prevailed since 1990 is a myth. Mohamed Chebaro After April 13, 1975, the war unfolded and alliances shifted, with new factions formed. Israel and Syria occupied parts of the country. The US intervened, and the US Embassy and Marine barracks were bombed. Beirut was divided between Christian and Muslim sectors. Later Syria dominated the country only to cede its control to Hezbollah. That was followed by waves of assassinations of politicians, journalists and activists. Fast forward to today, and Lebanon is still grappling with that legacy, as every community has a different set of memories. But while people may disagree about history, they all ought to focus on the current opportunity and try to determine the country's future. The election of a president and appointment of a prime minister free of Syrian or Iranian influence should be grasped, despite unfair accusations of undue French and American influence. The new government needs to be judged on how it tackles urgent and sensitive issues. Among those is the course of Lebanese-Syrian ties since the overthrow of the Assad regime, which exercised decades-long hegemony over Lebanon and is accused of assassinating numerous Lebanese officials who opposed Syrian rule. A new draft banking law seem a step in the right direction to unlock international aid to emerge from an economic crisis it has suffered since 2019. New banking laws could return lost trust, refloat the economy, and release all or part of depositors' savings that the previous government used to prop up ruling elites and their cronies. Finally, one must not belittle the news that most Hezbollah military sites in south Lebanon have ceded to the army. The Nov. 27 ceasefire that ended more than a year of conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, including two months of full-blown war, required that only UN peacekeepers and Lebanon's army should be deployed south of the Litani River, about 30 kilometers from the Israeli border. All this looks like a promising departure from Lebanon's recent history, critical and timely steps in the right direction. Policy making in Lebanon has always been challenging as the limited resources of a small nation have often left out a player, as in musical chairs, when the music stops. In his speech marking the anniversary of the outbreak of the civil war, President Joseph Aoun renewed his appeal for Hezbollah to lay down its weapons. Heeding the president's call will be crucial if Lebanese people hope to abandon the state of perpetual war and embrace a peaceful future.
Arab News
21-03-2025
- Science
- Arab News
Make every hour Earth Hour to save the planet
Everywhere you look, Planet Earth seems to be changing: sea water getting warmer, glaciers melting, forests retreating, temperatures rising. All that is leading to ecosystems, creatures, and seasons changing, with more intense flooding, more extreme storms, irregular weather systems, hard-hit agricultural cycles and poorer staples, impacting humanity with higher prices and shortages and even pushing communities into the misery of displacement as they try to find food security and places to subsist and provide for loved ones. We should remember all this every time we mark Earth Hour, which has brought the world together once a year since 2007 to shine a spotlight on nature's loss and the climate crisis, and inspire millions to act and campaign for urgent change. This year's Earth Hour on Friday coincides with the UN revealing that in 2024 there were more than 150 unprecedented climate disasters ranging from floods, heatwaves and supercharged hurricanes, and scientists confirmed that it was the warmest year ever. In 2024 there were more than 150 unprecedented climate disasters ranging from floods, heatwaves and supercharged hurricanes. Mohamed Chebaro It is not an exaggeration to propose that maybe the world needs an earth hour every day to focus minds and push us all into action to preserve our fragile planet: particularly since geostrategic, political and economic considerations are reducing multilateralism and support for multiparty efforts to protect the planet through international cooperation. Earth Hour should be used to remind doubters and waverers of the need to embrace climate plans, harness links between science and artificial intelligence, society, government and businesses to mediate damage to the environment, and capitalize more on cheap and renewable energy where possible to save the planet before it is too late. In its annual State of the Climate report, the World Meteorological Organization laid bare all the signs of an increasingly warming world with oceans at record high temperatures, sea levels rising and glaciers retreating at record speed. The top 10 hottest years were all in the past decade, and planet-heating carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are also at an 800,000-year high. Warnings from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres that 'our planet is issuing more distress signals' have become cliche in a world where such narratives have been drowned out, and not only by rollbacks on climate commitments by the US administration under Donald Trump. Skeptics cast doubt on all climate science, replacing it with a stance that surrenders us all to a sense of powerlessness, as if humanity were doomed and that the cost of protecting the environment as a priority impoverishes us all. The danger is that the US, the world's second biggest current polluter and the largest emitter of greenhouse gases historically, was also until recently one of the biggest enablers of the global technological and financial climate transition efforts. A US retreat would certainly lead other countries to become less ambitious, cancellng many of their green targets as a result. Many still believe that the international goal of limiting warming to 1.5C above the pre-industrial era is still possible if leaders step up and cooperate to make it happen through seizing the benefits of cheaper, cleaner renewable energy. The science is still clear despite all the distorting noises: the warming of the planet is man made, due to industry, lifestyle, and economic activity including the reliance on fossil fuel. The planet is fragile and its damage affects us all, rich and poor, old and young, powerful or weak. Mohamed Chebaro To better celebrate Earth Hour we should all do so on a daily basis: each committing according to their capacity to do something to mitigate the negative impact on the planet or to aid the transition to a more sustainable existence for all. The planet is fragile and its damage affects us all, rich and poor, old and young, powerful or weak, from the global south or the global north, the old Western industrialized world or the global ascending majority. In the uncertain world of today, with the increased geopolitical divide, the dangers of a weakened sense of a common world governance, and erosion of multilateral institutions, we should have an Earth Hour every hour every day, to remind us of the need not only to protect and preserve the planet, but also to celebrate its diversity and riches in the service and to the benefit of us all.
Arab News
05-02-2025
- Business
- Arab News
Daunting times for Starmer as UK caught between US and EU
If only those who conceived and pushed through the UK's Brexit adventure could have allowed themselves to hear the voices of reason that warned against leaving the EU both before and after the referendum, including today, five years on from the divorce taking effect. The UK has always had euroskeptics among its society, but it seems today that they are a small minority, as the population overwhelmingly believes that Brexit has been more of a failure than a success. In 2016, many of the 52 percent who voted 'leave' were surely duped into doing so. The other 48 percent struggled to make the rest understand that breaking away from the EU would weaken us all. Those words were repeated by Starmer this week, when he became the first UK prime minister since Brexit to attend a pre-summit dinner of the 27 EU heads of state. Starmer called on the gathered leaders to 'maximize the industrial weight and clout that we have together,' amid the unfolding and ever-evolving threats to Europe blowing from the East, as well as from across the Atlantic. Since claiming a landslide election victory in July last year, Starmer has worked to improve ties with the EU following years of toxic relations under the previous Conservative governments. He is hoping to agree to scrap some of the red tape that is hampering trade in a bid to recover some of the economic growth the UK has lost as a result of Brexit. Starmer has worked to improve ties with the EU following years of toxic relations under the previous Conservative governments Mohamed Chebaro During his visit to Brussels, Starmer urged the EU leaders to reengage with the UK. But no one knows how far he will go, trapped as he is by the fear of reneging on his election manifesto promise that the UK will not rejoin the EU customs union or allow freedom of movement. And there is also the fear of drawing the wrath of the unpredictable US presidency of Donald Trump. The European leaders must have rolled their eyes when Starmer claimed that the UK is not choosing between the US and the EU. London could surely choose to maintain its long-ambivalent role of keeping one foot in Europe and the other in America. But times have changed and the risk of tripping up in this endeavor due to the imbalances in today's world are greater than ever. The bare-bones Brexit trade deal saw the UK leave the EU's single market and customs union. It meant goods could continue to move without tariffs or quotas, but it brought new red tape, costs and delays for businesses, especially for small and mid-sized companies, whose costs have increased and their competitiveness reduced. The Conservative leadership at the time ignored all warnings by experts, including the government's own Office for Budget Responsibility, which maintains that UK exports and imports will both be about 15 percent lower in the long run than if the country had remained in the EU, with economic productivity 4 percent less than it otherwise would have been. Brexit supporters often argued that any short-term pain would be offset by the country's new freedom to strike trade deals around the world. Since Brexit, the UK has signed trade agreements with countries including Australia, New Zealand and Canada, with only minor effects on its overall growth. Now, however, the most hardcore advocates of Brexit, like Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, have changed their position and admitted that the benefits of leaving the EU have so far failed to materialize. To be fair, Brexit has not played out as either its supporters or opponents anticipated, despite the facts of common sense and pure mathematics that have prevailed in recent years. Being a member of an economic grouping of more than half a billion consumers and part of a 28-country trading bloc surely offer more than a lone Britain can attain in a highly politically and economically competitive and divided world. Yes, no one saw the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions coming or Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but Brexit made everything harder for the UK. Trump has raised the stakes for Britain, which is now caught between its near neighbors and its transatlantic 'special relationship' Mohamed Chebaro The desire to reduce migration was a major reason many Brits voted to leave. But Brexit has had the opposite impact five years on. Net migration is today far higher than before 2020 because the number of visas granted for workers and students from around the world has soared. And the figures that ought to encourage Starmer's government to forge ahead with seeking a more aligned position with the EU on trade and commerce are everywhere. Brexit has cost the City of London 40,000 financial services jobs, according to its lord mayor, while the fishing industry is on course to lose £300 million ($374 million) by next year as a result of being outside the EU. Maybe the government is being extremely careful and mindful of the new tariffs being imposed by America in a world that is ushering in more protectionist political leaders. Trump has raised the stakes for Britain, which is now caught between its near neighbors in Europe and its transatlantic 'special relationship.' Starmer and the UK cannot be envied as, on one side, we have America, with which we do 17.6 percent of our trade, threatening to impose destructive tariffs if London makes any steps that are deemed below par for Trump. On the other, we have the EU, with which we do more than 46 percent of our trade, offering to boost our trade ties, as well as improving relations in terms of security and defense in an increasingly volatile world. For me, the choice is a no-brainer, but for Starmer it must be a daunting period, as there is a risk of getting the country into trouble whatever he does.
