Connect with us

Washington

Washington must recalculate its strategic approach to the Middle East – opinion

Published

on

Washington must recalculate its strategic approach to the Middle East – opinion


Subject to decisions pending in Tehran in response to the double-targeted killings of senior Hezbollah and Hamas officials, Israel now seems on the brink of a multi-front regional conflagration.

Is victory assured? At what cost? Could White House Special Envoy Amos Hochstein’s diplomatic ploy eventually prevail? The initiatives are left to Iran and its proxies, but should Israel identify imminent preparations for attack, it will likely act to preempt.

Advertisement

To date, Israel and Hezbollah have been engaged in a limited war of attrition. On October 8, 2023, Hezbollah joined Hamas in waging war on Israel. Lebanon’s Iranian proxy declaratively sought to apply tactical pressure on Israel’s Northern front.

It seemingly succeeded, effectively forcing the IDF to split its forces, with a recorded northern deployment of between three to five Divisions, manned by a reservists call-up, amounting to a force of roughly 300-thousand troops.

During the initial stages of the war, Jerusalem’s War Cabinet deliberated whether to launch a two-front offensive against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Herzi Halevi and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant voted in favor, while former War Cabinet Ministers Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot voted against.

Advertisement
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Ministers and MK’s at a 40 signatures debate, at the plenum hall of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem, on July 17, 2024. (credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)

Netanyahu and the US

Ultimately, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ruled in favor of the latter position after President Joe Biden held a phone conversation with the Israeli premier and threatened to pull US military support unless the IDF limits its retaliatory strikes to territories south of the Litani River and refrain from targeting Lebanon’s critical infrastructure, altogether.

Nine months later, the Biden Administration remains proactively determined to de-escalate daily cross-border hostilities, leveraging crucial ammunition shipments as one of its methods to effectively control Israel’s battle intensity versus Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Advertisement

In doing so, Washington hopes to buy enough time to secure a temporary arrangement, utilizing Parliament Speaker Nabi Berri, leader of the Shi’ite Amal Movement, as a mediator.

However, a senior Israeli intelligence official ascertained, “Berri has no leverage over Hezbollah,” rather, “it is the other way around.” Hezbollah evidently maintains the upper hand in negotiations, irrespective of the Biden Administration’s hopes and aspirations.

The majority of Israel’s defense and political elites seemingly believe the rationale articulated by Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah.

Advertisement

“On that day, when the shooting stops in Gaza, we will stop the shooting in the south [of Lebanon],” Nasrallah insisted in one of his many televised addresses. In daily conversations with Israeli intelligence officials and military officers, broad sentiments of wishful thinking linger vis-à-vis achieving a negotiated solution.

“Even Netanyahu hopes for a diplomatic outcome”, one official told me, as he subsequently professed that Jerusalem would much rather fight Hezbollah once fully equipped with a long list of new military technologies on the verge of operational integration.

Advertisement

Nevertheless, despite hopes for a peaceful resolution, no one in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv is under delusion. Tens of thousands of displaced Israelis will not return to their homes unless a sense of security is achieved.

Moreover, in stark contrast to popular belief regarding Iran supposedly restraining Hezbollah, the Ayatollah regime has a vested strategic interest in fueling the war within current established parameters, as it remains evasive of paying any substantive toll for its belligerent activities, while its heavily armed Lebanese proxy showcases battle-discipline, worthy of most Western militaries, with clear pre-planned objectives. Nevertheless, prospects for miscalculation are seemingly intensifying with every passing day. 

Despite popular belief, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah’s intensive efforts to catalog regional hostilities as a response to the Palestinian plight is a cheap ruse. The current multi-front Mideast war is not a simple case of causality rooted in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Advertisement

Rather, we’re witnessing the prudent implementation of Iran’s strategic schemes, as was envisioned by its slain IRGC Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani, as part of which Hamas is a key factor in Iran’s ars bellica, for both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, as well as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Last week, in a conversation with Major General (Res) Gershon Ha-Cohen, a former General Staff and Northern Corps’ commander, he cautioned that US White House Envoy Amos Hochstein was seeking to formulate a deal that would undoubtedly spell ‘defeat marred by painful concessions for Israel.’

Advertisement

Hochstein essentially seeks to force Israel’s hand to concede border-lands in exchange for a temporary withdrawal of Hezbollah operatives several miles northward. “What’s to stop those operatives from returning to the south [of Lebanon], five minutes after an agreement is signed?” General Ha-Cohen questioned with an evident sense of frustration. “They demand of us an irreversible concession in exchange for a reversible act.” 

Purportedly ignoring Iran’s grand strategy, the Biden Administration is doubling down on pressuring Israel to accept the proposed deal for a Northern ceasefire. Israeli National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer met with US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, during the course of which they demanded assurances.

In the event that Hezbollah breaches the terms of a proposed US-led arrangement, the United States would support Israel in waging a full-scale war against Hezbollah, with the aim of destroying the Iranian proxy once and for all. ‘Without such an assurance,’ Hanegbi and Dermer insisted, Israel’s ‘northern residents would not gain the sense of security necessary to return to their homes,’ a Jerusalem pre-requisite for any diplomatic solution. 

Advertisement

Washington must recalculate its strategic approach to the Middle East. It cannot push to de-escalate the region without asking some tough questions on a so-called ‘strategic day after.’

Does the Biden Team’s approach benefit US strategic interests for decades to come? Or does it play into the hands of its adversaries, including Iran, Russia, and China? Despite the Biden-Harris Administration’s evident conviction of the former, regional actors, including allies and adversaries alike, are seemingly convinced of the latter.

Advertisement

The only way forward is for Washington to reassert its dominance in the Middle East. To do so, without the need to commit additional military assets to the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR), it should reinvigorate tangible support for its Mideastern allies and partners, including Israel, in confronting the so-called Axis of Resistance led by Iran.

The United States must counter Tehran’s grand strategy by pushing for an expansion of the Abraham Accords and reviving military support for its regional partners, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to confront Iran’s regional encroachment via its proxies.

Washington must revitalize its maximum economic pressure campaign against the Islamic Republic proper and enforce its sanctions by all means necessary. European powers, for their part, must stand in support of the United States by triggering the snap-back mechanism before it expires in October of 2025, aimed at derailing Tehran’s nuclear train as it races at full steam ahead.

Advertisement

As for Israel and the pragmatic Arab camp, they must join forces to implement a campaign of reality-building to push back on Iran’s malign encroachment by effectively inserting much-needed hope for a future of peace and prosperity for all peoples of the Middle East.

Jonathan Hessen is a nonresident senior fellow at the Washington-based Hudson Institute, editor-in-chief of TV7 Israel, and CEO of HGS. He specializes in geostrategy and security issues related to the Middle East and Europe.





Source link

Advertisement

Washington

Washington Watch: CCAMPIS grant competition announced – Community College Daily

Published

on

Washington Watch: CCAMPIS grant competition announced – Community College Daily


The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “on behalf of the Department of Education (ED),” on Monday released a Notice Inviting Grant Applications for the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program. Applications are due by May 29.

Last November, ED announced that it had entered into an interagency agreement with HHS to administer the CCAMPIS program. This is the first CCAMPIS competition conducted under this arrangement.

Approximately $73.5 million will go to institutions of higher education that awarded at least $250,000 in Pell grants to enrolled students in FY 2025. HHS will award about 148 grants, ranging from $150,000 to $1 million.

The terms of the grant competition are not significantly different than prior competitions. As before, there are two absolute grant priorities that every application must address – leveraging non-federal resources and utilizing a sliding-fee scale for low-income parents.

Advertisement

This year’s competition includes only one invitational priority that reflects the Trump administration’s general educational policy. The new priority, entitled “Expanding Education Choice in Early Learning Settings,” encourages applications that “expand access to education choice … including by empowering parents in choosing the early learning setting that best meets their family’s needs.” Flexible childcare programs that include drop-in care and care during nontraditional hours are also encouraged.

One other notable difference from prior competitions is an expanded “Terms and Conditions” section that not only requires compliance with applicable civil rights laws, but also refers to Trump administration Executive Orders and guidance on racial discrimination that clarify “the application of federal antidiscrimination laws to programs or initiatives that may involve discriminatory practices, including those labeled as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) programs.” This includes any “discriminatory equity ideology [as defined in Executive Order 14190] in violation of a federal antidiscrimination law.”

The exact scope of these terms is unclear because courts have not found many of the practices described in these Executive Orders and guidance documents to be violations of federal law.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Washington

A look at the roots (and routes) of immigration to Washington

Published

on

A look at the roots (and routes) of immigration to Washington


The Newsfeed

This week, the team brings you stories about how communities including Filipino immigrants, Sephardic Jews and Somalis arrived in the Pacific Northwest

Advertisement

Each week on The Newsfeed, host Paris Jackson and a team of veteran journalists dive deep into one topic and provide impactful reporting, interviews and community insights from sources you can trust. Each day this week, this post will be updated with a new story from the team.

Group hopes to boost recognition for Seattle’s Filipinotown 



By Venice Buhain

The group Filipinotown Seattle hopes to make sure that the legacy of Filipino Americans in Seattle’s Chinatown-International District isn’t forgotten. 

One of the group’s current projects is pushing for a Filipinotown placemarking sign in the CID. 

“Filipino Americans have had a presence here for over 100 years in Seattle,” said Filipinotown Seattle Executive Director Devin Israel Cabanilla.  

He said that the signage is important to remind people that “the International District is not just Chinatown. Japantown. Filipinotown is here as well.” 

Advertisement

The group held a poll on what signage might look like and where it might be located. It would be similar to the Chinatown sign on South Jackson Street and Fifth Avenue South, or the Wing Luke Museum  

In the early 20th century, the area now known as the CID was a hub full of businesses, entertainment, social groups and housing that served Seattle’s growing immigrant population from Asia and elsewhere. The communities all intermingled throughout the CID. 

“This area was a central place for Asian Pacific immigrants simply because of segregation,” Cabanilla said. 

Because the Philippines was a U.S. territory from 1898 to 1946, Filipino immigrants were unaffected by laws in the 1920s that restricted immigration from Japan or China. Many Filipinos came to study at the University of Washington or to work in burgeoning industries, like lumber, farming, canneries and factories.  

While the physical Filipino presence in terms of buildings and storefronts in the CID dwindled in the later 20th century with redevelopment, Seattle Filipinos and Filipino Americans continued to make impacts locally, regionally and nationally.  

Advertisement

“It may not have been in terms of storefronts, but our presence has always existed in terms of politics, culture as well,” Cabanilla said. 

The Seattle Department of Transportation said it is aware that the group is working on its signage request, but the Department of Neighborhoods has not yet received a formal request. They are also working to develop a clearer process for this and other similar neighborhood signage proposals. 

Filipinotown Seattle said it hopes that the sign helps remind Seattle of the CID’s unique designation as a neighborhood shaped by many immigrants and migrants to Seattle. 

“Is it Chinatown? Is it Japantown? Is it Little Saigon? It’s all those things. And I think re cultivating that this is a multicultural district, Filipinotown is helping establish: Yes, it’s more than one thing,” Cabanilla said. 

Advertisement
Venice Buhain

Venice Buhain is a multimedia journalist at Cascade PBS. She previously was the Cascade PBS’s associate news editor and education reporter. Venice has also worked for KING 5, The Seattle Globalist and TVW News.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Washington

The Church of Jesus Christ has announced its 384th temple

Published

on

The Church of Jesus Christ has announced its 384th temple


The state of Washington is getting a seventh temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Marysville Washington Temple was announced Sunday night during a devotional in the Marysville Washington Stake by Elder Hugo E. Martinez, a General Authority Seventy in the church’s United States West Area Presidency.

“We are pleased to announce the construction of a temple in Marysville, Washington,” the First Presidency said in a statement. “The specific location and timing of the construction will be announced later. This is a reason for all of us to rejoice and express gratitude for such a significant blessing — one that will allow more frequent access to the ordinances, covenants and power that can only be found in the house of the Lord.”

The other temples in Washington are the Columbia River, Moses Lake, Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma and Vancouver temples.

Advertisement

The church has 214 temples in operation. Plans for another 170 temples have been announced; many of those temples are in various stages of planning and construction.

Sunday’s temple announcement follows the new practice of the church’s First Presidency, which determines where temples will be built — and when and how they will be announced.

The First Presidency directed a General Authority Seventy to announce the first temple in Maine at a fireside there in December.

In January, church President Dallin H. Oaks said the Maine announcement set the pattern for future temple announcements.

“The best place to announce a temple is in that temple district,” he told the Deseret News.

Advertisement

The First Presidency will continue to decide where future temples will be built. It then will “assign someone else to make the announcement in the place where the temple will be built,” he said.

This pattern came to him as a strong impression after he assumed leadership of the church in October, following the death of his friend, President Russell M. Nelson.

This came as a strong impression to him shortly after he assumed the leadership of the church, President Oaks said.

The church remains in the midst of an aggressive temple-building era. President Nelson announced 200 new temples from 2018 to 2025. All but one were announced at general conference.

Five dozen temples are now under construction.

Advertisement

President Oaks now has overseen the announcement of two temples, neither at a general conference.

At the October conference he said that “with the large number of temples now in the very earliest phases of planning and construction, it is appropriate that we slow down the announcement of new temples.”

Ten new temples are scheduled to be dedicated in the next six months.

  • May 3: Davao Philippines Temple.
  • May 3: Lindon Utah Temple.
  • May 31: Bacolod Philippines Temple.
  • June 7: Yorba Linda California Temple.
  • June 7: Willamette Valley Oregon Temple.
  • Aug. 16: Belo Horizonte Brazil Temple.
  • Aug. 16: Cleveland Ohio Temple.
  • Aug. 30: Phnom Penh Cambodia Temple.
  • Oct. 11: Miraflores Guatemala City Guatemala Temple.
  • Oct. 18: Managua Nicaragua Temple.

Two-thirds of the 170 temples still to be built are outside the United States.

Temples are distinct from the meetinghouses where Latter-day Saints worship Jesus Christ each Sunday. Temples are closed on Sundays, but they open during the week as sanctuaries where church members go to find peace, make covenants with God and perform proxy ordinances for deceased relatives.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending