Latest news with #CouncilonForeignRelations
India Today
14 hours ago
- Business
- India Today
Dollars all the way: How the US has ‘financed' Israel over the years
The United States stands behind Israel as the nation exchanges strikes with Iran. Donald Trump has demanded Iran's unconditional surrender ( and has even explicitly threatened Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei ( is in line with the US backing Israel for years, both economically and militarily. According to the US Foreign Assistance database, Israel has been receiving American aid since 1951. In the initial years, the aid was entirely 1951, Israel received just $0.96 million in economic obligations from the US. This assistance continued throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, averaging between $0.4 and $0.6 billion annually. Military aid remained absent or negligible during this period. A shift began in the early 1970s. In 1971, military aid rose sharply to $3.20 billion, while economic assistance stood at $0.33 billion. By 1974, following the Yom Kippur War, military aid spiked to $12.45 billion, overtaking economic assistance, which remained at $0.26 billion. This marked the beginning of a long-term trend in which military assistance became the dominant form of US support to Israel. advertisement After 2008, economic assistance was nearly phased out. In contrast, military support remained stable, $3.29 billion in 2009, $3.83 billion in 2010, and continuing at over $3 billion annually through the 2024, military assistance reached $6.64 billion, while economic aid was just $0.01 billion. Cumulatively, between 1951 and 2024, Israel has received $305.5 billion in total from the US, of which $221.68 billion was military funding and $83.8 billion was economic support. Military assistance accounts for over 72 per cent of the total aid given to THIS THE SAME FOR OTHER COUNTRIES?Among the countries that have received significant US foreign assistance, several of them show a clear tilt toward military funding. Egypt and Afghanistan, for instance, have received high volumes of military aid — $93.93 billion and $109.88 billion, a major share of their total assistance. Vietnam, Ukraine, and Iraq also fall into this category, with military aid constituting more than half of their total US support. However, countries like India and Bangladesh have primarily received economic assistance. India has received $86.1 billion in total aid, of which only $1.18 billion was military, while Bangladesh has received $21.8 billion, with just $0.35 billion in military MILITARY RELATIONSadvertisementAccording to the Council on Foreign Relations ( a large share of Israel's military aid from the United States comes through the Foreign Military Financing programme, under which Israel receives approximately $3.3 billion annually in of October 2023, the Joe Biden administration reported that Israel had nearly six hundred active Foreign Military Financing cases, with a combined value of approximately $24 billion. Arms sales data from the US Department of Defence shows that from 1950 to 2022, Israel purchased a total of $53 billion in US weapons, making it one of the top recipients globally, second only to Saudi Arabia, which received $164 billion over the same InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Israel#Iran
18 hours ago
- Politics
What was in the Iran nuclear deal and why did Trump withdraw the US from it?
Nearly 10 years ago, the United States and other world powers reached a landmark nuclear agreement with Iran. Known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, the deal followed two years of negotiations. Then-President Barack Obama, who campaigned on resolving the Iranian nuclear threat, called the issue the "most consequential foreign policy debate that our country has had since the invasion of Iraq." Two years after the deal went into effect, President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the nuclear accord, in one of the most significant foreign policy actions during his first term as president. Iran's nuclear program is at the heart of its conflict with Israel, which has been engaged in aerial strikes with Iran in the days since a surprise attack on Tehran that Israeli officials said killed several nuclear scientists as well as high-ranking military leaders. Here's what to know about the Iran nuclear deal, which is now "essentially defunct," according to the Council on Foreign Relations. What was in the deal? The JCPOA, which imposed restrictions on Iran's civilian nuclear enrichment program in exchange for sanctions relief, was signed on July 14, 2015. It was agreed to by Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council -- China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States -- as well as Germany and the European Union. The JCPOA was designed to ensure that Iran's nuclear program would be exclusively peaceful and provided for the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions in order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "It blocks every possible pathway Iran could use to build a nuclear bomb while ensuring -- through a comprehensive, intrusive, and unprecedented verification and transparency regime -- that Iran's nuclear program remains exclusively peaceful moving forward," Obama's White House said at the time. Under the 159-page deal, Iran "significantly reduced its nuclear program and accepted strict monitoring and verification safeguards to ensure its program is solely for peaceful purposes," the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation said. "In exchange, Iran received economic sanctions relief from nuclear-related sanctions" only after the International Atomic Energy Agency verified Tehran had completed certain requirements under the deal. The deal went into effect on Jan. 16, 2016, after the IAEA verified that Iran had completed steps, including shipping 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium out of the country, dismantling and removing two-thirds of its centrifuges and allowing for more extensive international inspections of its nuclear facilities. The U.S. and many European nations lifted oil and financial sanctions and released about $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets. If all parties adhered to the deal, experts held that it likely would have prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon for more than a decade, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Should Iran try to build a nuclear weapon, sanctions would go back into effect. Many of the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program "have expiration dates," according to the Council on Foreign Relations, noting for example that centrifuge restrictions would be lifted after 10 years and limits on how much low-enriched uranium Iran can possess after 15 years. "Some of the deal's opponents faulted these so-called sunset provisions, saying they would only delay Iran building a bomb while sanctions relief would allow it to underwrite terrorism in the region," the organization said. Israel was among those who opposed the agreement, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling it a "historic mistake" at the time. Why did Trump drop out of the deal? Trump campaigned prior to his first election on pulling the U.S. out of the deal, and on May 8, 2018, he did just that, terminating U.S. participation in the JCPOA and reimposing economic sanctions on Iran. Trump argued at the time that the deal was so "horrible" it had to be discarded to move forward. "It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement," he said. "The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen." The Trump administration said at the time that Iran "negotiated the JCPOA in bad faith, and the deal gave the Iranian regime too much in exchange for too little." Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal after ignoring the advice of America's allies, who had urged him to stay in the agreement and build upon it. The leaders of France, Germany and the U.K. noted their "regret and concern" at Trump's decision, calling on Iran to maintain its commitments under the deal. What's happened since? After Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran's elite Quds Force, was killed in a U.S. airstrike in January 2020, the Iranian government announced it would no longer abide by any of the operational restraints on its nuclear program under the Iran nuclear deal. In early 2023, the IAEA reported they had detected traces of uranium at Iran's Fordow nuclear facility that was enriched to "near weapons-grade level that Iran claimed was accidental." "Since the United States abrogated the deal and Iran in turn stopped honoring some of its commitments, Iran has reduced its breakout time -- the amount of time it would take to accumulate enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon -- from more than a year to about 3-4 months, although the IAEA remains on the ground to verify the peaceful nature of its nuclear program," the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation said. As some provisions of the JCPOA were set to expire in October 2023, former President Joe Biden's administration imposed new sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile and drone programs, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Biden sought to negotiate a return to the JCPOA. However, in the last few months of his term last year, a State Department spokesperson said they were "far away" from returning to negotiations with Iran. During his second term, Trump has threatened potential military action against Iran to keep it from developing nuclear weapons. In recent weeks, delegations from Iran and the U.S. have met for multiple rounds of nuclear negotiations, though talks have stalled amid the conflict between Israel and Iran. On Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt read a statement from Trump in which the president said he believes there's a 'substantial chance of negotiations' in the near future. He also said he will make a decision "whether or not to go" within the next two weeks, though Leavitt did not clarify what that meant.
France 24
19 hours ago
- Politics
- France 24
Iran has just finished losing a war and is not in a position to dictate terms, analyst says
12:05 U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi have spoken by phone several times since Israel began its strikes on Iran last week, in a bid to find a diplomatic end to the crisis, three diplomats told Reuters. Speaking to FRANCE 24's Sharon Gaffney, Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, says Iran is not in a position to dictate terms in possible negotiations.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Despite close ties with Iran, Russia stands aside as Israel attacks
Iran aided the Kremlin with badly needed drones in the first year of its Ukraine invasion, helped Moscow build out a critical factory to make drones at home and inked a new strategic partnership treaty this year with President Vladimir V. Putin, heralding closer ties, including in defense. But five months after that treaty was signed, the government in Iran is facing a grave threat to its rule from attacks by Israel. And Russia, beyond phone calls and condemnatory statements, is nowhere to be found. Iranian nuclear facilities and energy installations have been damaged, and many of the country's top military leaders killed, in a broad Israeli onslaught that began Friday and has since expanded, with no sign that Moscow will come to Tehran's aid. 'Russia, when it comes to Iran, must weigh the possibility of a clash with Israel and the United States, so saving Iran is obviously not worth it,' said Nikita Smagin, an expert on Russia-Iran relations. 'For Russia, this is just a fact.' The situation reflects a dispassionate political calculus by Moscow, which is prioritizing its own war against Ukraine, as well as its need to maintain warm relations with other partners in the Middle East, which have helped Moscow survive Western economic sanctions, analysts say. Putin, the analysts add, doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and also wants to keep improving relations with President Trump, who has called on Iran to make a deal on its nuclear program to end the attacks. Russia is also benefiting from a spike in oil prices since the attack began. Analysts say Putin is unlikely to become involved militarily in the conflict or to arm Tehran too aggressively. In part, this caution arises from fear of alienating the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, two increasingly important partners for Moscow that wouldn't welcome a more powerful Iran. But it's also because his forces are already tied down in Ukraine. So instead, Moscow is positioning itself to be relevant in talks to end the fighting. That marks a shift from how Russia responded a decade ago, when another regional partner faced a dire threat. In Syria, the Kremlin mounted a military intervention to shore up the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. The effort ultimately failed in December, when al-Assad's rule collapsed. Half a year later, Moscow now faces a further possible erosion of its regional influence. 'The real issue for Moscow is what can they afford to send the Iranians at this point as far as military equipment is concerned, given the demands of the conflict against Ukraine?' said Thomas Graham, a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. In calls with Trump, Putin has offered to help with Iran negotiations, possibly in part to convince Washington that there are other benefits to normalizing relations with Russia, even if Putin won't grant the White House's demands to end the war against Ukraine. Putin called the leaders of both Iran and Israel after the attacks began and briefed Trump on the content of those conversations, the Kremlin said. In recent days, Russia's Foreign Ministry noted that the United States stood ready to continue talks with Iran over the nuclear program, hinting that Tehran should consider returning to the table. Russia has also offered to take Iran's highly enriched uranium. 'There is a desire to reset this relationship and present yourself to the Americans as an interlocutor on all things in global affairs, including the Iranian nuclear dossier, without actually talking about Ukraine with any kind of substance,' said Hanna Notte, director of the Eurasia program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif. But Putin risks alienating the Iranians, who have long distrusted Moscow and feared that the Kremlin could make a bargain with the White House and 'throw Tehran under the bus,' Notte said. Regardless, negotiations could still be far away, despite the Kremlin's offer to facilitate them. Israel expanded its targets on Monday to include the Iranian state broadcaster and Iran's elite Quds Force. Responding to a question at a news conference on Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel didn't rule out the possibility that Iran's government would collapse. Russia has long had a robust relationship with Iran, becoming the country's largest foreign investor last year. It has supplied arms to Iran for years but has stopped short of providing the full suite of weaponry that Tehran wants. Until recently, Putin cultivated friendly relations with Israel, complicating his provision of sophisticated arms to Iran. He also developed deeper ties with Gulf nations opposed to seeing Tehran amass greater military might. 'Iran has been asking Russia for weapons for the last few years,' Smagin said. 'It has been asking for aircraft, it has been asking for air defense syste Russia has given practically nothing.' 'Overall, this, of course, leads to the weakening of Russia's positions in the Middle East,' Smagin said. 'This is certain.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Darwin port dispute shows not all Chinese stakes pose security threat
Australia's northernmost maritime gateway has become a lightning rod for the fragile relationship between the US and China — but while national security concerns are warranted for many of the ports that Beijing controls or owns, this is hardly the one to worry about. President Donald Trump's trade war has meant that almost everything to do with China is now viewed through the lens of geopolitics. In 2015, the privately held Shandong-based Landbridge Group — a Chinese logistics, infrastructure, and petrochemical firm — secured a 99-year lease for the strategically significant Port of Darwin, located just off the coast of the Indonesian border and near military bases that routinely host rotations of US Marines in Australia. Beijing's ownership of critical infrastructure has been growing steadily over the years, but Trump's new administration is paying more attention. China operates or has ownership in at least one port on every continent except Antarctica, according to the Council on Foreign Relations tracker. Of the 129 projects, 115 are active. Beijing is also outpacing Washington in investments in global port infrastructure, which America deems critical to economic and military security. Key concerns include intelligence gathering, sabotage, and the pre-positioning of weapons and ammunition via critical infrastructure, notes Thomas X. Hammes, a non-resident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council. In theory, the world's second-largest economy could exploit this network to challenge the sea control essential to American success in an armed conflict, he adds. China has consistently denied these claims, saying they are yet another example of the US trying to contain its legitimate commercial ambitions. Amid Beijing's expanding influence, reclaiming control of Darwin has taken on renewed urgency in Australia, emerging as a rare point of bipartisan consensus. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government is working to find a new operator and to revoke the Chinese firm's lease. The port is a major export hub for live cattle, and the import and export of petroleum products. Discussions have intensified in recent months, with an American firm linked to the Trump administration reportedly encouraged to step in. Bilateral relations between Canberra and Beijing collapsed during the pandemic, when China imposed tariffs and trade barriers on Australian goods. Ties have been repaired, but are being tested since Chinese warships entered Australian waters earlier this year. The Albanese government has downplayed the incidents, but skepticism lingers over the true intention of the live-fire drills. Beijing hasn't done itself any favors, David Andrews, senior policy adviser with the National Security College of the Australian National University, told me, adding that even when Landbridge secured the lease, Australia was aware of the challenges that a rising China would pose. 'It's unlikely that a port with this strategic location would be leased or sold today,' he said. China has previously bristled at foreign interference in its overseas port stakes. It reacted sharply to US pressure over control of Panama Canal terminals, prompting Hong Kong-owned CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd. to consider selling its two operations there. Beijing has fiercely opposed the sale over worries it could affect its global shipping and trade ambitions. A similar backlash could loom for Albanese if the Chinese view moves to reclaim Darwin as politically motivated. Australia's balancing act needs to be delicate. The US is its top source of foreign investment and closest security ally, but China remains its dominant export destination. Avoiding knee-jerk reactions based on perceptions would help the Albanese government build goodwill and strengthen its credibility for when there are legitimate worries and it needs to negotiate with its trading partner. As the rivalry between Washington and Beijing deepens, the debate over national security in critical infrastructure should be grounded in fact, not fiction.
