Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Bocharov Ruchei state residence in Sochi, Russia September 12, 2019.

The post Russia wants to show who’s the boss – Analysis first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Over 63,000 migrants and refugees reached Europe by crossing the Mediterranean Sea through 18 September this year, some 20 percent less than during the same period in 2018, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) reported on Friday.

“IOM reports that 63,417 migrants and refugees have entered Europe by sea through 18 September, roughly a 20 percent decrease from the 78,372 arriving during a similar period last year”, the statement says.

The migrant flow intensified in recent weeks, with almost 20,000 arrivals registered just over the past month, it says.

The number of migrants and refugees who died or disappeared in the Mediterranean trying to reach Europe has reached 950 people so far in 2019, almost by half less than in the same period last year.

“Deaths recorded on the three main Mediterranean Sea routes through almost nine months of 2019 are at 953 individuals – or about 52 percent of the 1,839 deaths confirmed during the same period in 2018,” the IOM said.

Since 2015, Europe has been experiencing its worst migration crisis in recent history, struggling to accommodate hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants fleeing hostilities in Middle Eastern and North African countries. However, over recent years the flow of migrants has been steadily going down due to various factors, including the winding down of the war in Syria and a number of European countries embracing a stricter border security and immigration policies.

Source: https://sputniknews.com/europe/201909201076853711-over-63000-migrants-reach-europe-via-mediterranean-so-far-in-2019—iom/

The post Over 63,000 Migrants Reach Europe Via Mediterranean So Far in 2019 – IOM first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

March 15 marks seven years since the beginning of the Syrian war. Few words can convey the atrocities that the Syrian people continue to endure, in particular those unable to flee the war.

In the summer of 2015, the influx of refugees trying to reach Europe peaked when more than a million asylum seekers, mostly from Syria, arrived by land and sea in search of a better life.

Since then the number of asylum seekers has decreased drastically due to the 2016 EU-Turkey deal, and now only a trickle make it through.

The European Union’s response to dealing with the humanitarian crisis has divided and created tensions among its members, leaving refugees to face legal and social challenges. This has also manifested itself in the rise of anti-refugee and far-right sentiments across Europe.

Divided European Union

The European Union’s way of dealing with the influx of refugees is based on the Dublin Regulation, which dictates that individuals who petition for asylum must do so in the country where they first enter the EU.

Greece, Italy and Spain, as the primary entry points, have had to disproportionately deal with the processing and hosting of refugees. In addition to these countries, Germany bypassed the Dublin Regulation and opened its borders, giving refugee status to 250,000 asylum seekers in 2016 despite facing opposition from several other EU members.

In 2015, the EU’s response to the unequal distribution of refugees among its members was to establish quotas for each EU member, which was aimed at relocating 120,000 refugees by 2017. EU members, however, failed to meet this goal, as exemplified by Hungary and Poland’s refusal to accept any refugees and the Czech Republic accepting only 12 since 2015. They claimed that refugees posed a threat towards their security and cultural integrity.

These three countries have been referred to the EU Court of Justice for failing to comply with EU laws. Ongoing negotiations could result in reform of the Dublin Regulation, as well as getting rid of refugee quotas altogether.

The precarious life of refugees and asylum applicants has created a pool of vulnerable people – in particular women and children – who face falling prey to forced labour, sexual trafficking, and other forms of exploitation.

Navigating restrictive refugee policies  

Most refugees want to go to the UK, Germany or Scandinavian countries where socio-economic conditions and refugees are treated better than in other EU member states. However, for many refugees seeking to leave camps and detention centres they need to navigate a complex bureaucratic system with ever-tightening asylum policies.

Greece, one of the poorest countries in the EU and in the midst of a financial crises has shouldered significant social and economic costs in hosting thousands of refugees.

According to the UNHCR there are more than 48,500 refugees, of which 14,500 are stuck in various Greek islands, waiting for their asylum petitions to be processed.

Those refugees whose goal is to reach the UK face strict domestic obstacles. According to the Dublin Regulations, refugees have the right to be reunified with their extended family members; however, the UK’s domestic law only allows reunification between children and parents.

The UK also promised to accept 3,000 unaccompanied minors after ‘the Jungle’ refugee camp in Calais, France was violently shut down. The UK eventually accepted 350 before the programme was shut down last year.

Whereas Germany, despite accepting thousands of refugees, has also restricted its immigration and refugee policies. In 2017, parliament passed stricter laws related to the monitoring, deportation and access to personal information of asylum seekers – which includes accessing their smartphones for security checks.

These laws have also led to the rejection of many asylum applications and hastened the deportation process.

Germany has faced criticism for offering to pay Afghan refugees to return to their own country despite the fact that Afghanistan is still a country at war.

Similarly, Scandinavian countries – particularly Norway, Sweden and Finland – which rank among the top five European countries to receive the highest number of refugees proportional to their population – have been a hopeful destination for asylum seekers because of their generous refugee polices and a social welfare provisions.

Since 2015, however, these countries have also tightened their asylum policies by restricting family reunification, duration of stay and cutting benefits. Additionally, in December 2016, Denmark passed a controversial law, which authorised the police to seize assets from refugees worth more than $436 in return for the housing facilities they’re provided with.

Right-wing populism across Europe 

The increasing influence of far-right parties in several European countries has further complicated the settlement of the refugees.

The arrival of a large number of refugees has helped far-right parties to increase their electoral base through anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and populist rhetoric, catapulting otherwise fringe groups into parliaments across the EU.

Seeking to fighting fire with fire, many centrist parties have adopted the rhetoric of the far right and sought to cultivate a similar language to the extremist groups.

Populist leaders like Marine Le Pen of France’s National Front and Geert Wilder of Freedom Party in the Netherlands may not have won elections, but their anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric has moved the centre ground to the right. As a result governments have tightened their immigration policies.

In December last year, the leader of the Austrian People’s Party and current Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurtz formed a coalition with Heinz-Christian Strache’s anti-immigrant Freedom Party. Both parties have been vocal against the refugee influx in 2015 when Austria received 90,000 refugees. While the Freedom Party openly campaigned against Muslims and immigrants during the 2017 elections, Sebastian Kurtz subtly promoted anti-immigrant rhetoric and cutting benefits for asylum seekers.

A similar scenario exists in Germany with the entry of Alternative for Germany (AfD), a far-right party, into the German parliament. AfD’s gaining of seats has been considered as a reaction to Angela Merkel’s open-border policy of Willkommenspolitik. The immigration quota was a central topic in the coalition talks that lasted over four months.

Whereas in Poland last year 60,000 white supremacists and radical Islamophobes marched in the streets of Warsaw chanting “Pure Poland, white Poland!” and “Refugees get out.”

The march, organised on the eve of Poland’s Independence Day, reflects how racism and hatred are openly expressed and are gradually becoming the new normal.

Finally, the results of Italy’s elections this month is further proof that the wave of far-right populist parties continues to grow. The far-right, populist, and anti-establishment Five Star Movement came out on top by capturing more than 30 percent of the vote. Regardless of the parties that will form Italy’s next government, the success of right-wing populist parties in the election is likely to result in a greater demand to tighten and reform the country’s immigration and refugee policies.

An uncertain future

Refugees risk their lives by embarking on dangerous journeys to reach Europe, but once they arrive, they are greeted with a new set of hardships. Refugees are forced to live in inhumane conditions in unsanitary and overcrowded camps in various European countries. To escape such conditions, they have to navigate the complicated bureaucratic labyrinth of the refugee centres and restrictive asylum policies.

In addition, they have to face the changing social context of Europe where far-right parties are increasingly mobilising anti-refugee sentiment for political gains, while some central European leaders are openly rejecting the idea of accommodating refugees.

As the political divisions continue deepen, refugees are stuck in limbo, uncertain of what the future holds.

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of TRT World.

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Saudi-crown-prince-says-will-develop-nuclear-bomb-if-Iran-does-545188

The post Saudi Crown Prince says will develop nuclear bomb if Iran does first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The Trump administration should publicly warn Russia and Iran that the United States will respond forcefully to future threats in Syria.

The February 10 military clash between Iran and Israel ushered in a new phase of the Syrian war. Iran for the first time challenged Israel directly instead of attacking indirectly through surrogates, such as Hezbollah.

The Syrian civil war—the world’s bloodiest conflict in recent decades—has evolved into a proxy war that could easily escalate into a much broader regional war. Iran’s provocative violation of Israeli airspace with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) set off a chain reaction that is accelerating this transformation. The mission of the Iranian UAV—a Shahed 171, which Tehran apparently reverse engineered from a downed U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel drone that crashed in Iranian territory in 2011—remains unclear. Launched by Iranian Revolutionary Guards from the Tiyas air base in central Syria, the UAV crossed into Israel over the Jordanian border at an unusually low altitude, perhaps to avoid detection.

Although Hezbollah and Hamas have deployed Iranian-made UAVs over Israel in the past, this was the first known attempt by Iran to penetrate Israeli airspace.

The UAV was intercepted and destroyed by an Israeli Apache helicopter, and Israel responded with an airstrike on the Iranian command-and-control trailer in Syria that remotely controlled the UAV.

An Israeli F-16 fighter involved in that operation was shot down by Syrian anti-aircraft missiles and crashed inside Israel, injuring the pilot. It was the first Israeli fighter plane lost in combat since the 1982 war in Lebanon.

Israel responded by launching a second wave of attacks on twelve Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria. Among those hit were Syrian SA-17 and SA-5 anti-aircraft batteries and Iranian forces deployed in the country to support Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

The Israeli military estimated that the retaliatory strikes destroyed nearly half of Syria’s air defense missile batteries. The reprisals also hit Iranian and Syrian targets close to Russian military positions at Tiyas air base and elsewhere, a factor that led Russian president Vladimir Putin to call Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avert further escalation.

The Russian Foreign Ministry quickly issued a statement: “We urge all sides to exercise restraint and to avoid any actions that could lead to an even greater complication of the situation.”

The fact that Israel, Iran and Syria all subsequently de-escalated the confrontation underscored the fact that Putin’s assertive intervention in Syria has established Russia as the prime arbiter of Syria’s future. Israeli journalist Amos Harel wrote that: “The quiet after the Netanyahu-Putin phone call shows once again who’s the real boss in the Middle East.”

Moscow has its own reasons for tamping down Iranian-Israeli hostilities. It wants to avoid collateral damage to Russian forces, prevent further losses to its Syrian client regime and consolidate a more favorable military outcome in Syria. But Moscow’s agenda is jeopardized by Tehran’s competing goals, which have put Iran on a collision course with Israel and the United States in Syria.

Iran’s Rising Threat in Syria

Having tightened its grip on strategic areas of Syria, Iran now is willing and able to use these locations as staging areas for operations against Israel. Although direct action against Israel is risky, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards may have calculated that the presence of Russian military personnel at the Tiyas air base and elsewhere in close proximity to Iranian personnel would deter an Israeli counterattack.

Iran’s intentions were foreshadowed last month, when a senior Iranian official visited the Lebanese side of Lebanon’s border with Israel and made provocative comments about the liberation of Jerusalem.

Ayatollah Ebrahim Raisi— the hardline cleric who lost Iran’s presidential election last year but might still be in line to become the next supreme leader—was escorted within a United Nations buffer zone by Hezbollah officials who were uniformed and armed. This incident, which violated UN Security Council resolutions that established a demilitarized zone in Lebanon, prompted Israel to warn the Security Council that Iran was subverting the UN’s peacekeeping role in Lebanon and destabilizing the region.

Iran has replicated its proxy strategy of using Hezbollah in Lebanon, by creating a wide array of Shia militia groups directed by the Quds Force, the elite special forces of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. This foreign legion of militias recruited from pro-Iranian Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis has advanced closer to the Israeli border.

Harakat al-Nujaba (“Movement of the Noble”), an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia fighting in Iraq and Syria, announced that it stands with Syria to confront the Israeli “aggression and cowardly massacre.” The group—also known as Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba—is an independent unit that is part of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces, which was created in 2014 to fight ISIS.

The group operates in both Iraq and Syria under the control of the Quds Force. Last March it announced formation of a “Golan Liberation Brigade.” Its goal: to help the Syrian regime take back the Golan Heights, which Israel seized in the 1967 Six-Day War.

Israel’s “War Between the Wars”

Israel has avoided intervening in Syria’s complex, multisided civil war, but it has been drawn into a deepening confrontation with Iran and its Hezbollah surrogates, who have exploited the Syrian war to open up a new potential front with Israel and boost the flow of sophisticated weaponry to expand Hezbollah’s military threat to Israel.

In what Israeli military leaders have called “the war between the wars,” Israel has launched over one hundred air strikes to destroy Iranian-supplied arms inside Syria before they could be transferred to the Lebanon-based terrorist group. But none of those strikes was as large as the February 10 attacks.

Hezbollah has almost thirty thousand fighters—up to a third of them now deployed in Syria to prop up the Assad regime. The terrorist group is thought to have amassed an arsenal of up to 150,000 rockets, which it has dispersed amid civilian buildings and underground bunkers covertly built in Lebanon. Iran has provided the bulk of these weapons, including increasingly accurate longer-range missiles capable of targeting most of Israel.

Perhaps motivated by steady losses of arms and equipment due to Israeli air strikes, Iran reportedly is building at least two weapons factories in Lebanon to assemble advanced missiles, anti-tank weapons and UAVs. Israel is likely to target these facilities in future rounds of fighting with Iran and Hezbollah.

Iran’s Challenge to the United States in Eastern Syria

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards also have threatened U.S. military forces and their allies, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), in eastern Syria. On February 7, an armored column of Iranian-led militias, including Afghan Shia fighters and local Arab tribal fighters, advanced along with Russian private military contractors from the Wagner Group, toward a SDF base where U.S. special operations forces were stationed.

After the column fired artillery rounds toward the base, U.S. forces responded with air strikes, UAV missile strikes and artillery fire, killing scores of fighters, including many Russian military contractors.

In crossing the Euphrates River, the ground offensive violated the deconfliction agreement reached between Moscow and Washington. It also inserted Iran directly into the intensifying competition between the U.S.-backed SDF and the Iranian/Russian/Syrian forces trying to gain control over eastern Syrian oil fields formerly controlled by ISIS.

Moscow may have calculated that using military contractors in this Iranian-led operation would give it plausible deniability sufficient to avoid broader consequences for its actions. Washington cannot afford to let Russia or Iran off the hook for this direct challenge to U.S. forces.

The Trump administration should publicly warn Russia and Iran that the United States will respond forcefully to future threats in Syria and strongly support Israeli military efforts to blunt threats emanating from Syria. If Moscow is not willing or able to restrain Iran in Syria, it must share the responsibility—and bear consequences—for Iran’s destabilizing actions in Syria.

James Phillips is the senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies.

Image: An Israeli Air Force F-35 fighter jet flies during an aerial demonstration at a graduation ceremony for Israeli Air Force pilots at the Hatzerim air base in southern Israel, December 27, 2017. REUTERS/Amir Cohen

Source: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/irans-intensifying-war-israel-24592

The post Iran’s Intensifying War with Israel first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.