GEOPOLITICA DEL MONDO MODERNO

Category archive

Asia @en

Ankara e la ricerca dell’equilibrio geopolitico

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan makes a speech during his meeting with mukhtars at the Presidential Palace in Ankara, Turkey, March 16, 2016. REUTERS/Umit Bektas – RTSAPB4

In occasione della imminente visita di Putin in Turchia il Presidente Erdoǧan ha dichiarato l’intenzione di svolgere il ruolo di mediatore nell’ambito del conflitto ucraino facendosi promotore di una possibile situazione negoziale tra le due parti.

L’iniziativa sembra voler sottolineare la volontà della Turchia di riprendere a svolgere quel ruolo di grande potenza regionale che rappresenta il disegno geopolitico di Erdoǧan, conferendo alla diplomazia del Paese il ruolo di garante degli equilibri regionali.

Il tentativo di rientrare a pieno titolo nelle dinamiche geopolitiche dell’area euroasiatica, quale protagonista, è stato determinato dalla necessità di ribilanciare la posizione di flessibilità pragmatica caratteristica della Turchia di Erdoǧan compromessa dall’atteggiamento unilaterale fortemente critico espresso nei confronti di Israele nell’ambito del conflitto in atto a Gaza.

Il criterio che ha guidato la politica estera turca sotto la presidenza di Erdoǧan è stato quello di una diplomazia pragmatica volta ad accrescere l’importanza e il prestigio della Turchia al fine di svolgere un ruolo centrale, non solo nel bacino mediterraneo orientale, ma estendendo tale ruolo a tutta l’area euroasiatica.

Il concetto di proiezione geostrategica della Turchia, che ha visto il Paese intervenire in tutti gli scenari di crisi dall’area, Libia, Siria, Ucraina, Caucaso, è stato permeato dal criterio dell’adozione di una visione  realista e sempre attenta a essere percepita, quando possibile, nel ruolo di mediatore o garante di un equilibrio volto ad evitare profondi sconvolgimenti.

Il caso più emblematico di questa linea diplomatico strategica è l’atteggiamento che Erdoǧan ha assunto nei confronti della crisi ucraina.

La Turchia ha sostenuto la sovranità ucraina, non ha riconosciuto l’annessione della Crimea, ha aspramente criticato le azioni russe ed è stato il primo Paese a supportare con aiuti militari l’Ucraina.

Tuttavia, ha controbilanciato queste sue attività ponendo la massima attenzione a mantenere stabili i legami di natura economica con la Russia, ha appoggiato in maniera tiepida le risoluzioni internazionali di condanna contro Mosca, si è opposto alle sanzioni e agli sforzi per isolare diplomaticamente Putin, incrementando gli scambi e le relazioni economiche con la Russia.

Inoltre, a più riprese, ha svolto il ruolo di mediatore sfruttando la posizione di grande potenza (regionale) in grado di riscuotere la fiducia di ambedue i contendenti, portando a termine accordi importanti come le condizioni di esportazione del grano e lo scambio di prigionieri.

Anche la posizione assunta nei confronti della annessione della Svezia alla NATO deve essere interpretata alla luce della volontà di ricercare un equilibrio dell’intero sistema favorevole agli interessi della Turchia e propedeutico al suo ruolo di Paese leader. Il veto è caduto quando sono stati conseguiti i due obiettivi di Erdoǧan: assunzione di una linea di condanna della Svezia dell’organizzazione del PKK e avvio del processo di acquisizione di un lotto di F16 da parte USA.

Il tutto ribilanciato dall’apertura diplomatica nei confronti della Russia concretizzata nel summit di questi giorni, che rappresenta l’occasione per riprendere il ruolo di mediatore, oltre a far coincidere l’evento con la prima visita di Putin in un Paese dell’Alleanza Atlantica dopo l’inizio della crisi e nonostante la richiesta di provvedimenti coercitivi emessa da organismi internazionali nei confronti di Putin stesso.

Ma è nell’area mediorientale dove questa posizione di equilibrio è stata completamente offuscata e messa in discussione a seguito della dura presa di posizione di Erdoǧan nei confronti di Israele e del suo leader Netanyahu.

Gli interessi turchi nell’area sono estesi e abbastanza articolati.

In primo luogo, vi è il rapporto stretto con il Qatar, che rappresenta il partner economico più importante per finanziare i progetti di crescita della Turchia.

In secondo luogo, ci sono le attività condotte nello scenario siriano volte sia a contrastare l’ISIS, sia a circoscrivere il fenomeno dell’autonomia curda. Qui l’intesa con la Russia e la possibilità di una sovrapposizione di interessi con l’Iran fanno da bilanciere alla posizione di membro della NATO che, se pur in alcuni casi tiepida e sfumata, rimane, comunque, un punto non in discussione.

In terzo luogo, deve essere considerato il rapporto con i restanti Paesi del Golfo che è contraddistinto da una alternanza di aperture e di parziali chiusure diplomatiche, ma che persegue l’obiettivo di affermare la Turchia come un Paese capace di assicurare la stabilità dell’area in alternativa a un predominio iraniano.

Da ultimo, ma sicuramente non meno importante, vi è la questione religiosa, dove l’avvicinamento di Erdoǧan verso una visione meno laica del Paese e più orientata ad una maggiore ortodossia, conseguenza delle alleanze politiche interne che hanno reso possibile le ultime due elezioni del presidente, consente alla Turchia di aspirare al ruolo di guida del mondo islamico.

Tuttavia, nonostante le critiche dirette di Erdoǧan nei confronti di Israele e le dichiarazioni di supporto alla comunità palestinese, la Turchia è fuori dal contesto diplomatico che lavora per giungere a una soluzione mediata della crisi.

Malgrado, infatti, le buone relazioni con il Qatar la diplomazia turca è stata esclusa dal processo dove, invece, sia Egitto che Arabia Saudita svolgono un ruolo principale. Questo fattore ha sbilanciato la posizione di Ankara privandola della possibilità di influenzare gli eventi e relegandola ad un ruolo sussidiario che mette a serio rischio le sue aspirazioni di leadership.

Per poter comprendere tale situazione di impasse è utile fare le seguenti considerazioni.

Dopo una età dell’oro nelle relazioni turco – israeliane contraddistinte da iniziative diplomatiche quali il riconoscimento quasi immediato di Israele e la non partecipazione al ciclo delle guerre arabo – israeliane e proseguite anche da Erdoǧan nei suoi mandati iniziali, sia con un intenso scambio commerciale e con intese di carattere economico, sia con una proattiva azione diplomatica mirata a raggiungere una soluzione al problema palestinese sostenuta da una collaborazione attiva con le fazioni moderate di Hamas e dell’Autorità Palestinese, i rapporti hanno iniziato a intiepidirsi per sfociare in una serie di azioni politiche decise nei confronti di Israele che hanno creato profonde divergenze tra i due Paesi.

L’acuirsi delle relazioni diplomatiche è stato sottolineato da una serie di prese di posizioni intransigenti e dirette da parte di Erdoǧan che hanno interessato gli ultimi dieci anni e che sono determinate del crescente supporto alla causa palestinese espresso dal Presidente turco.

La decifrazione di questa linea politica del Presidente è particolarmente complessa se consideriamo i seguenti fattori critici.

Nonostante la maggioranza della popolazione sia a favore di una posizione di mediazione o di neutralità nei confronti della crisi tra Hamas e Israele, le azioni di Erdoǧan hanno indirizzato la sua politica in senso opposto, privando Ankara della libertà d’azione e della flessibilità necessarie a prendere parte al processo di mediazione in atto.

I rapporti tra Autorità Palestinese e Turchia, sebbene, non critici non hanno mai rappresentato il cardine della politica di Ankara e il sostegno dato alla causa palestinese non è mai stato determinante e incisivo, inoltre, anche i rapporti tra Hamas e la Turchia non sono stati caratterizzati da una visione coincidente, infatti, pur essendo di credo sunnita, Hamas ha legami molto più stretti con l’Iran che rappresenta l’antagonista principale della Turchia nell’area specifica.

Inoltre, all’inizio della crisi di Gaza Erdoǧan ha mantenuto una posizione di neutralità offrendosi come mediatore per raggiungere una possibile soluzione negoziale, per poi abbandonare repentinamente questa linea di condotta equilibrata e prediligere atteggiamenti di critica feroce nei confronti di Israele.

Alla luce di tali fattori la linea politica di Erdoǧan può essere perciò, motivata dalle seguenti considerazioni.

In primo luogo, il supporto alla questione palestinese è dettato da considerazioni esclusivamente personali che ne influenzano la visione politico-diplomatica.

In secondo luogo, il supporto alla causa palestinese deriva anche dalla necessita di gestire la componente islamica della sua compagine di governo al fine di non essere schiacciato da pressioni interne che potrebbero compromettere la sua posizione di forza e la stabilità del governo stesso.

In terzo luogo, l’ostilità e il risentimento per essere stato messo ai margini del processo di distensione tra i Paesi del Golfo e Israele, avviato e sostenuto da USA e Arabia Saudita prima della crisi.

Da un ultimo, ma non meno importante, un errore di valutazione nell’aver voluto assumere un ruolo intransigente e decisamente ostile verso Tel Aviv nell’ottica di cogliere l’opportunità di rilanciarsi come leader della comunità islamica regionale che appoggia e sostiene Hamas.

Le conseguenze diplomatico-politiche di queste linee di azioni hanno posto la Turchia, e a maggior ragione il suo leader, in una situazione precaria rischiando di vanificare le aspirazioni di Ankara a poter ricoprire il ruolo dichiarato di potenza regionale

Indubbiamente la sensibilità politica di Erdoǧan gli ha consentito di comprendere che questa situazione ha compromesso l’equilibrio del suo baricentro politico e che il persistere in una tale direzione avrebbe comportato una serie di conseguenze negative e quindi ha immediatamente invertito la tendenza.

Se le dimostrazioni di supporto per la causa palestinese fanno riferimento a una retorica altisonante, l’approccio diplomatico sta mutando, nell’ottica di proporre una Turchia interessata alla collaborazione e alla ricerca di soluzioni negoziali.

In attesa di poter svolgere un ruolo più attivo nella crisi di Gaza, Erdoǧan ha puntato su un altro teatro, quello ucraino, dove proponendo una sua ipotesi di soluzione alla crisi ha rilanciato immediatamente l’immagine di una Turchia disponibile al dialogo e alla mediazione in grado di poter svolgere quella funzione di garante dell’equilibrio geopolitico adeguata a interpretare il ruolo di grande potenza regionale che rappresenta il disegno geostrategico di Erdoǧan.

India and China for a news Leadership on the Climate?

Asia @en di

The world is changing rapidly. Until not long ago, the United States of Barack Obama, in the role of the virtuoses, pressed on India and China, the “big polluters”, to renew their environmental policies and join the ranks of countries engaged in combating climate change. The Paris COP 21 agreement, which was signed in 2015 by all the major players in the game, had, despite the many downward compromises, represented a favorable outcome for environmental issues and a success of the American democratic administration.

Less than two years later, Trump is ready to get out of the agreement, and India and China are willing to lead the fight against pollution, without saving sharp criticism to the new presidency’ choices.

None of the two countries, however, seems to be ready to assume a real leadership in the fight against global warming and fill the void that will inevitably be left by USA discharge.

The two Asian governments are gradually taking on more strong positions, on the public level as well, against fossil fuels, as their respective populations are going to directly suffer, more and more, from the adverse effects of climate change and poisoning of natural resources. Beyond reassuring positions, China and India are, at least for now, unable to offset the strong weakening of the economic incentive system the US offered to developing countries in exchange for a greater control over their levels of pollution.

The change of route in Asia is, however, evident and should not be underestimated. For decades, the governments of India and China had looked with suspicion and annoyance at the appeals of the first world countries for a reduction in polluting emissions. The countries which have based their development on wild industrialization without posing too much doubts about the climatic consequences, asked the poorer countries to limit their growth capabilities to preserve the health of the planet. What pulp came from the sermon?

Today, however, both Indian President Modi and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping seem to have adopted a different vision of the world. Modi called a “morally criminal act” to not stick to the commitments assumed on the climate front. Jinping addressed all signatories to the COP 21, recalling that it represents “a responsibility we must assume for future generations”.

Trump’s choice could have dramatic consequences for that same future. In addition to the reduction in economic incentives and technological equipment supplies (the US alone would have to contribute for about 20% of the total), American withdrawal could entice other countries to do the same. The Paris agreement, moreover, had been considered by many to be a downward result, unable to effectively contain global warming in the coming years. There would be much more substantial emissions cutbacks in order to reverse the route, but the American turnaround may also weaken the current deal, encouraging more hesitant states to loosen the ties of their engagement.

The United States is also the second most polluting country in the world, and with the Paris agreement they pledged to reduce 26 to 28% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. Without their contribution, experts are asking, will it be possible to meet the objective of limiting the rise in temperature, compared to the pre-industrial era, below the two degrees, as established by the Paris Agreement?

It’s hard to say, but things are neverthless moving. If India is committed to meeting its objectives, despite the fact that 240 million people in the sub-continent still have no access to electricity, China seems to have rapidly traveled to its commitments and started a financing project on the renewable energies ($ 360 million by 2020) that makes the Asian giant the new industry leader, globally.

New environmental policies, according to scholars, have already begun to have some tangible consequences in the two countries. China has slowed down its consumption of carbon and India is about to reduce its construction projects for new coal-fired power plants. New Deli then accelerated investments in wind and solar energy, moving to the target set for 2022: to bring its capacity from renewable sources to 175 gigawatts.

The words of Indian Energy Minister Piyush Goya sound clear and strong: “We are not addressing climate change because somebody told us to do it, it is an article of faith for this government .”

The jibe for the most industrialized countries is also a paradigm shift: “Sadly the developed world does not show the same commitment to fulfill their promises, which could help speed up the clean energy revolution .”

Will the Asian powers therefore be able to fill in the American shortages and load this revolution on their shoulders? The commitment is evident but the economic problem remains. American leadership on the environmental front, in the Obama era, was expressed through a $ 3 billion loan in favor of the poorest countries to support them in the development of alternative energies. This fund has been reduced by two-thirds by Trump and neither Beijing nor New Delhi intend to put all this money on the table. Rather, the two giants seem willing to play a coordinating and addressing role, strengthening the sharing of technology-based knowledge among the nations involved.

Using the words of Varad Pande, an ex-consultant at the Indian Ministry of Energy, the one that is being built todaywill be a different flavor of leadership“.

Intense and spicy, hopefully, like curry.

IF PYONGYANG PUTS BEIJING NEAR WASHINGTON

Asia @en di

1280px-The_statues_of_Kim_Il_Sung_and_Kim_Jong_Il_on_Mansu_Hill_in_Pyongyang_(april_2012)

The tone escalation in Northeast Asia is alarming the chancelleries of the region and beyond. The fragile equilibrium on which the peace lies in the Korean peninsula is put to the test on both sides. Trump threatened to send a naval “armada”, putting Pyongyang under pressure during the celebrations for the 105th anniversary of the birth of Kim Il-Sung, founder of the country. Kim Jong-Un, on the opposite side, renewed its threats to the United States and its South Korean and Japanese allies, claiming to be ready to use all of its offensive potential in the event of a conflict. The North Korean nuclear dossier, therefore, is again on the top of the agenda, raising the alarm level of the international community.

The nuclear project is for Pyongyang absolutely strategic in terms of detriment of external threats and for this purpose it funds the program with $ 700 million annually, to advance on the technological ground and equip medium- and long-range ballistic vectors  on which, one day, install atomic warheads. The six nuclear tests so far conducted and the progressive technical improvements have allowed the regime to strengthen its position in the chain of regional relations and in the confrontation with the great American enemy, with whom, it should be remembered, a peace treaty was never signed after the end of the Korean War in 1951.

It is not possible to verify Pyongyang’s proclamations and no one knows for sure when Kim will be able to rely on the hydrogen bomb or on a ballistic missile capable of reaching the American West Coast. This uncertainty, however, plays in favor of the regime, which shows the muscles without the enemy being able to understand with certainty whether they are made of flesh or fake.

Nuclear rhetoric is an important instrument of control and affirmation also on the domestic front, as it allows Kim to consolidate its authority both in the eyes of the population and the bureaucratic-military establishment that plays a central role in the country. When he succeeded his father in 2011, Kim was almost unknown at home. Therefore, he immediately had to  exacerbate his rhetoric to build the image of an authoritative and determined leader, relying on the powerful propaganda machine and the systematic cleanup of internal opponents. Paradigmatic example was the physical elimination of Jang Song-taek, uncle of the young leader who had climbed the military hierarchies during the reign of Kim Jong-il and who, in the first months after the succession, played the role of de facto regent of the Regime.

Jang had also become the principal referent of Beijing, the main, if not unique, North Korean ally. And, on the Chinese model, Jang wanted to bring Pyongyang on the road to economic reforms and greater openness . Jang’s specific weight in the power system and his plan to transform the country, moving away from the dynastic and personalistic model in favor of a more collegial conception inspired by the Beijing example, have been probably the origin of its end. Progressively marginalized by the new leader after 2011, he was arrested in 2013 and killed along with other members of his circle.

This demonstration of strength, while serving as an example to other possible internal opponents, marked the beginning of a new phase of isolation of  the country from the rest of the international community. Subsequent nuclear tests and the aggressive rhetoric of Kim have provoked a strong exasperation towards the Pyongyang regime, even in the Chinese ally, traditionally available for patience. After Jang’s execution, Beijing lost its reference man and no longer found trusted interlocutors north of the 38th parallel, losing part of his role as protector and regime controller.

If for a long time North Korea has been a pressure instrument on the international community and a buffered state between Beijing and the Asian allies of the United States, it is now likely to be a risk factor for Chinese interests in the region. North Korean intimidations has had the effect of releasing the arming race in neighboring countries, thus altering the traditional balance in the Pacific and putting Beijing in a situation of unprecedented difficulty. Pyongyang’s defense may therefore be counterproductive for China, which could ultimately opt for pragmatic convergence with the United States, South Korea and Japan.

In 2016, for the first time, China joined the sanctions system against the North Korean government, marking a major breakthrough. Beijing is in fact the first trading partner for Pyongyang and hosts a large number of bank accounts, companies and firms that manage the regime’s legal and illegal activities. In 2017 coal imports from North Korea will drop by about 50%, with estimated economic damage of about $ 700 million, equal to the entire budget for the nuclear research program.

This change of route does not, however, result in a Chinese flattening on American positions. Beijing did not appreciate at all the explicit threats put forth by Trump against North Korea and, at the March bilateral summit in Florida, Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated the need to find a diplomatic solution and avoid a dangerous escalation in the region. Beijing could not afford to remain a passive spectator in the face of any US military action that would have a direct impact on its national security.

The economic and commercial leverage could allow China to re-enforce its influence on the North Korean military and bureaucratic elites, who base their prosperity on the ability to do business with the powerful neighbor. However, it will be necessary to locate new contact persons in Pyongyang so that it can return to influence the regime’s policy and best manage, in the event of a fall of current leadership, the transition phase. A recaptured influence would also allow China to get a new exchange currency in the relationship with Trump administration, in a delicate historical stage for the relations between the two global giants.

The need to limit the unpredictability of Kim Jong-Un’s regime could be the common ground on which to redefine the boundaries of the relationship between China and the United States. A more assertive role of Beijing towards the regime could therefore be the result of an agreement between the two sides of the Pacific, with a possible marginalization of the role played by Japan and South Korea in determining a new strategy.

Tokyo and Seoul would be on the front line in a possible armed conflict with Pyongyang. If, however, Japan appears ready to support the Trump administration’s muscular approach, Seoul continues to push for the search of peaceful and diplomatic solutions. In the midst of a political crisis that led to the resignation of former President Park, South Korea is likely to find itself without a strong government when crucial decisions are taken, with direct consequences on its national security.

 

Image: Wikimedia

North Korea launches a warning to Trump and Xi Jinping

Asia @en di

 

A few hours before the summit between US President Donald Trump and his Chinese equivalent Xi Jinping, in Florida, the North Korean leader has ordered the launch of a KN-15 medium-range which missile which concluded its trajectory in the Sea of ​​Japan waters, after a short flight of about 60 kilometers.

South Korea strongly condemned the new provocation of Pyongyang, and the US Defense Secretary, Rex Tillerson, coldly addressed the episode: “The United States has spoken enough about North Korea. We have no further comment.” The most decisive response came instead from Tokyo, speaking through Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga: “Japan can never tolerate North Korea’s repeated provocative actions. The government strictly protested and strongly condemned it. “

After five nuclear tests, two of which were conducted in 2016, today’s launch has renewed fears of the international community on the North Korean missile program. Pyongynag is still far from the objective of realizing a long-range warhead that can deliver a nuclear weapon on American soil , but analysts have speculated that the KN-15 missile was propelled by a solid propellant, easy to handle and transport, which would increase the striking capacity of the Asian regime.

The show of force occurs in the aftermath of two events that Pyongyang interpreted as serious threats. In recent days, Trump launched its warning: if China decides not to cooperate in containing the inconvenient regional ally, the US is ready to act alone against the enemy. At the same time, a joint military drill between the US, Japan and South Korea, which Pyongyang sees as a rehearsal for a possible invasion, just came to an end.

According to a spokesman for the North Korean Foreign Ministry, the actions of enemy powers are bringing the Asian Peninsula on “brink of war”.

The current crisis, which undoubtedly will be the focus of talks between Trump and Jinping, was preceded, in February, by the launch of four ballistic missiles by North Koreans who have fallen close to the Japanese coast, and from an SLBM ( Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile) launch system test that would allow Pyongyang to bring its warheads into enemy waters and have an unprecedented second-strike capability, in case of destruction of its terrestrial arsenal. However, this hypothesis, according to analysts, is currently only theoretical and years will occour before Kim Jong Un will be able to rely on such an offensive capability.

In an increasingly overheated scenario, the Chinese government try to throw water on the fire. On the eve of Jinping and Trump summit, at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, owned by the US president, a spokesman for the Beijing Foreign Ministry has denied any link between the North Korean missile launch and the meeting between the two powers, urging all actors involved to avoid any further escalation.

China, at this moment, seems to be the only force able to put a stop to the conflict between Pyongyang and its many enemies.

Iraqi Forces Reach Vicinity Of Mosul Airport

Asia @en di

The Iraqi military said in a statement that U.S.-backed Iraqi forces reached the vicinity of Mosul airport on Monday (February 21) after dislodging Islamic State fighters from a nearby hill which is close to Albu Saif, a village two miles from the airport. “We are in Albu Saif and we started to clear houses from bombs, and we are conducting house-to-house search”, said Police Lieutenant Colonel Hussein. The Iraqi forces aim to take the airport, just south of Mosul, and turn it into a close support base for the offensive into the city itself.

 

 

Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan are a West-East ‘bridge’ located in the center of the world energy

Asia @en/BreakingNews @en di

Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan must use potential and advantages for the expansion of economic integration, Faruk Ozlu, Turkish minister of science, industry and technology, said. Ozlu made remarks at the fifth Turkey-Azerbaijan-Georgia business forum in Istanbul Feb. 17. The minister added that Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan are located in the center of the world energy and transport corridor and are a ‘bridge’ between West and East due to the favorable geographical location and Ankara is ready to take any actions to strengthen trade and economic ties with Georgia and Azerbaijan.

OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs do not accept the results of the February 20 referendum, undermining the legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh

Asia @en/BreakingNews @en di

The Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group met Feb. 16 with the Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandian and the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov, separately and then jointly, said a statement of the OSCE MG co-chairs Feb. 17. The OSCE MG co-chairs underscored again that no countries, including Armenia and Azerbaijan, recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent and sovereign state, according to the statement. “Accordingly, the co-chairs do not accept the results of the referendum on Feb. 20 as affecting the legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The co-chairs also stress that the results in no way prejudge the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh or the outcome of the ongoing negotiations to bring a lasting and peaceful settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict”, said the statement. “The co-chairs plan to travel to the region in March”.

Qassemi: Trump and Netanyahu unworthy allegations against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program

Asia @en/BreakingNews @en di

Bahram Qassemi said on Thursday that the recent anti-Iran remarks by US President Donald Trump and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu contain nothing except a repetition of bogus and unworthy allegations against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. The accusations against Iran are in contradiction to multiple reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which have confirmed the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities. His comments came after Trump and Netanyahu at a joint press conference in Washington, DC, on Wednesday hammered Iran for its nuclear program.

30 dead, over 100 injured in a suicide attack in Jamshoro

Asia @en/BreakingNews @en di

JAMSHORO (Pakistan)– A strong blast ripped through Lal Shehbaz Qalandar shrine in Sehwan Sharif on Thursday, killing at least 30 people and injuring more than 100 others. A stampede followed the blast occurred in the premises of the shrine where a large number of devotee, including women and children, were present. Rescuers are shifting the bodies and injured to nearby hospitals Contingents of police have reached the shrine that is situated slightly off the Pakistan Super Highway in Sindh province. Hundreds of people gather at the Sufi saint’s shrine every Thursday for religious rituals.

Nasrallah: must dismantle the Dimona nuclear reactor that poses a threat to Israel's existence

Asia @en/BreakingNews @en di

Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Thursday called on Israel to “dismantle the Dimona nuclear reactor” warning that it poses a threat to Israel’s existence if hit by Hezbollah’s missiles in any confrontation.“Israel is continuing to launch threats against Lebanon and speak of the third Lebanon war and of what it will do during this third war. This intimidation is not new and it seems that there is a permanent Israeli objective to pressure the resistance community in Lebanon, and after (Donald) Trump was elected U.S. president, this intimidation has returned” said Nasrallah in a televised speech commemorating Hezbollah’s slain leaders. Trump’s election does not scare us, even if claims that he will give (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu the green light to wage a war on Lebanon turn out to be true, seeing as the issue of war on Lebanon is not hinging on the American permission, Hezbollah’s chief noted. Commenting on an Israeli court’s order that an ammonia container in the northern city of Haifa be emptied of its toxic content, Nasrallah also advised Israel to “dismantle the Dimona nuclear reactor” warning that it poses a threat to Israel’s very existence if hit by his group’s missiles. Nasrallah added: “The resistance must remain prepared and ready and the enemy understands this because this is what’s deterring it”.

1 2 3 11
Redazione
0 £0.00
Vai a Inizio
×