Tag: Qatar

  • The Emirates Strategic Charm Offensive in Africa

    The Emirates Strategic Charm Offensive in Africa

    Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two ambitious nations seeking superpower status, have invested heavily in this pursuit, leveraging their immense wealth. Both have utilized Islam as their principal tool of influence, channeling resources into spreading their interpretations of the faith worldwide. Their efforts have included significant investments in conversion campaigns, mosque construction, and the global promotion of their ideologies. In addition, they have financed a variety of political and extremist groups, strengthening their foothold in numerous countries across the globe. More recently, however, the two states have turned to sports as their latest vector for influence. Qatar’s successful bid to host the FIFA World Cup stands as a remarkable testament to this strategy, while both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have secured high-profile sports deals and events. Beyond these pursuits, the Gulf states continue to invest in myriad ways—enhancing their soft power, cementing their global stature, and attempting, with varying success, to stake their claim as new superpowers.

    However, there is another country in the Gulf region that employs strategies to increase its soft power in a quieter, more effective way: the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Often seen in the shadow of Saudi Arabia, the UAE has pursued its own distinct agenda. Over time, it has crafted a positive image, positioning itself as a force separate from the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Today, the UAE is the most invested and influential country in Africa, gradually establishing itself as a superpower through calculated diplomacy and strategic investments.

    The influence of the United Arab Emirates in Africa has grown unmistakably in recent years, as it has quietly cemented itself as the leading backer of new business ventures across the continent.  With many African nations eager to meet their urgent development needs, the UAE has positioned itself as a key partner, offering substantial investments with a sharp focus on green energy and infrastructure. Between 2019 and 2023, Emirati companies committed $110 billion to various projects, $72 billion of which was dedicated to renewable energy, according to FT Locations, a data firm owned by the Financial Times. This surpasses the combined pledges of the UK, France, and China, whose investments in African infrastructure have waned due to disappointing returns. As many African leaders grow increasingly disillusioned by the underwhelming climate finance commitments from Western governments, the UAE’s persistent investment strategy has earned it a reputation for reliability. At the COP29 conference, while Western nations promised a mere $300 billion annually—far less than the $1.3 trillion requested by developing countries—the UAE’s ongoing contributions stand as a clear and deliberate contrast, signaling not only economic strength, but an increasingly strategic diplomatic footprint across the African continent.

    The UAE’s influence in Africa has grown with subtlety and purpose, particularly in North and East Africa, where it has been an unspoken yet significant actor in the conflicts that have plagued Libya and Sudan. Unlike the international powerhouses of China and India, the UAE has kept a low profile in the global superpower race, often escaping the glaring scrutiny of the Western media or outlets such as Al Jazeera. This relative invisibility, in fact, has worked to the UAE’s advantage. Far from courting attention or controversy, it operates in the shadows, its investments flowing with far less opposition or critique, thus allowing its strategic engagement across Africa to unfold with remarkable ease.

    The UAE’s influence in Africa has grown with quiet determination too, largely through the early efforts of Dubai’s port and airline companies, which were among the first to establish a robust presence on the continent. Emirates, the airline controlled by the Dubai royal family, now services 20 African nations, a footprint that underscores its growing reach. Similarly, DP World, a state-owned giant, has been a fixture in the region since 2006. It currently oversees six ports and is planning to expand its footprint with two more. Abu Dhabi Ports has also made significant inroads, managing Kamsar Port in Guinea since 2013, and recently securing new concessions in Egypt, the Republic of Congo, and Angola. Angola stands out as the only country where both DP World and Abu Dhabi Ports are active. The UAE has not been swayed from its commitment to East Africa, but rather is seeking to extend its influence and connectivity toward the Americas, particularly Latin America.

    The UAE’s economic interests are equally broad, as Emirati firms diversify investments across sectors like agriculture and telecoms. Notably, since 2022, Dubai royal Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook al-Maktoum has brokered deals to sell carbon credits from vast forests in several African nations—spanning 20% of Zimbabwe, 10% of Liberia, 10% of Zambia, and 8% of Tanzania. The UAE’s investments are shaping a new kind of geopolitical engagement—strategic, expansive, and far-reaching, yet executed largely beneath the radar.

    Emirati investments are reshaping long standing power dynamics in the mining sector too. One of the more surprising moves came when International Resource Holdings (IRH), a company controlled by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed, Abu Dhabi’s national security adviser, secured a $1.1 billion deal to acquire a 51% stake in Zambia’s Mopani Copper Mines. The announcement caught many off guard, as the shortlist of potential investors had long been expected to feature China’s Zijin Mining and South Africa’s Sibanye Stillwater. This shift occurred after Zambia’s state-run mining company, ZCCM, took over the ailing Mopani Copper Mines from Glencore in 2021, a transaction weighed down by crippling debt and the need for a fresh infusion of capital. Despite Sheikh Tahnoon’s company having no prior mining experience, the deal ultimately won over Zambian officials. IRH’s promise to invest heavily in the mine while maintaining jobs, coupled with its recruitment of world-class expertise, proved a compelling combination that outweighed conventional expectations. The transaction not only symbolized the UAE’s growing role in the sector, but also reflected a shift in how capital from the Gulf is infiltrating industries long dominated by larger, more established players. And there is the growing amount of illegally smuggled gold from African countries to Dubai. Research by the NGO Swissaid revealed a significant discrepancy between official exports from African nations to Dubai and the emirate’s actual imports. From 2012 to 2022, this difference amounted to 2,569 tons of gold, valued at an astonishing $115.3 billion. This surge in illicit gold trade further exemplifies the UAE’s influence in Africa.

    There is little doubt that pouring money into sporting events like the World Cup has granted Saudi Arabia and Qatar significant attention and influence, particularly within global sporting bodies. This is a form of influence, yes, but one rooted in wealth rather than subtlety. What sets the UAE apart is how its investments have drawn politicians, not only to its coffers, but also closer to its vision for regional and global dominance. In Africa, it can be argued that UAE influence is more refined and effective than that of its neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The latter maintains control over some of the most conservative Islamic nations, but it is the UAE’s diverse portfolio—spanning trade, infrastructure, and energy—that has given it the upper hand.

    While investment from traditional Western powers such as the United States and Europe has dwindled, often discouraged by the outspoken stances of African leaders, and the investments from China, India, and Russia have similarly faltered amid American political concerns, a perfect opening has emerged for the UAE. With fewer competitors and a clearer path forward, the UAE has seized the opportunity. As it continues to amplify its investments and diplomatic strategies, the Emirates have become arguably the most influential Gulf state in Africa, marking a significant shift in the region’s geopolitical landscape.

  • Has Qatar Failed as a Mediator?

    Has Qatar Failed as a Mediator?

    In the Middle East, there are a lot of Islamic militant groups working in almost every country. To be free from the risk they offer, you need to be rich and an ally of the US. Qatar is one of them; it is rich and a US ally. But This Gulf country is more strict on Islamic laws, a demand of many militant groups in the region. They even follow Islamic way of labor practices that some critics liken to a form of slavery. Qatar’s fondness for Islamic rule has allowed various terrorist organizations to establish offices within its territory, including Hamas, the group that caused the ongoing war of Israel in Gaza. While most Western and Arab countries have shown little interest in supporting the Iran-backed militia, Qatar has often provided a haven for Hamas.

    While Hamas conducted a brutal terrorist attack in Israel and captured many hostages, Many political analysts believed that Qatar could help Hamas negotiate with Israel with the lives of hostages. However, as Israel prioritized war over negotiations, Qatar’s role in brokering a resolution favoring Hamas has diminished. Qatar tried for over a year to save Hamas. And now, after a year, it looks like they are getting out from the side of Hamas. This shift, coupled with Qatar’s realization that its controversial support for Hamas, has threatened its international image, which it built through massive investments, including bribes for securing the World Cup.

    Qatar has decided to step back from its mediation efforts and allow other parties to take over. The Qatari government informed the U.S., Israel, Hamas officials, and Egypt that it would no longer facilitate negotiations to halt the Gaza conflict, citing a lack of good faith among the parties involved. According to The Guardian, This decision followed a recent visit by a U.S. delegation, including CIA Director Bill Burns, for meetings in Doha that ended without progress.

    Qatar concluded that both sides seemed more focused on political optics than on achieving genuine security solutions. This decision is a significant setback to mediation efforts, which had produced minimal results since a temporary ceasefire and limited hostage release deal nearly a year ago.

    Many believe Qatar is engaging in a strategic power play to raise its regional profile and bolster its importance in the eyes of the United States. With upcoming president Donald Trump expected to strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia, Qatar seems uneasy with Saudi dominance in the region, despite the official reconciliation between the two countries.

    Though Israel shows little interest in ending the war,  Trump may eventually pursue negotiations, which could necessitate indirect talks with Hamas. Given Iran’s support for Hamas, it cannot serve as an impartial mediator, and it’s uncertain whether Turkey or Egypt would step into that role. In this context, Qatar could reemerge as the “Rescuer,” promoting itself as a responsible mediator. Al Jazeera, Qatar’s influential media outlet, could showcase Qatar’s efforts, reinforcing its image as a “Good Muslim Ally.”

    With a new U.S. administration set to take office in a couple of months, Qatar has indicated to American contacts that it would be open to resuming mediation if both sides demonstrate genuine interest in reaching a deal. Qatar tried a similar approach months ago, though it fell short of producing any results. This marks the second time Qatar has publicly warned it will not support stalled talks indefinitely.

    The Hamas office in Doha, established in 2012, has served as a critical communication channel  for over a decade, including during last year’s negotiations for a Gaza ceasefire and the release of more than 100 hostages. However, the October 7th attack by Hamas has severely damaged its reputation, and Qatar has faced growing criticism from Israel and segments of the U.S. political establishment for hosting the group.

    As a close U.S. ally that hosts a major American military base, Qatar has previously maintained a positive diplomatic relationship with Donald Trump during his first term. However, its perceived “double game” on terrorism and concerns over its human rights record have made Qatar increasingly unpopular among U.S. senators. Last Friday, a group of Republican senators urged Washington to seek the extradition of Hamas officials from Qatar and freeze their assets.

    These criticisms, especially regarding an initiative that Qatar launched at the U.S.’s request, have caused friction in Doha and influenced Qatar’s decision to distance itself from Hamas and mediation efforts. U.S. officials have reportedly briefed American media that Washington requested the closure of the Hamas office, although the Biden administration has not yet commented publicly on the matter.

    However, some Western and regional diplomats argue for keeping the Hamas office in Qatar, warning that pushing Hamas out would limit engagement with figures potentially open to compromise. Yet, Qatar’s continued support arguably empowers Hamas rather than encourages moderation. For Hamas, there is hope that Qatar might broker a deal with Israel, leveraging hostages, including women and children, to meet its demands. But Qatar has struggled to engage Israel effectively or include other mediators in negotiations, and it now appears uncertain about risking its international reputation for an organization closely tied to Iran.

    Meanwhile, with many key Hamas leaders lost, Hamas itself may be reconsidering its reliance on Qatar and is reportedly more inclined to look to long-standing allies like Turkey, who could be more effective in brokering a truce. Qatar’s wealth may have helped to uplift them in football, but they failed in the game of geopolitics in the Middle East they craved to win.

  • Why Doesn’t the Islamic World Have a Superpower to Challenge Israel?

    Why Doesn’t the Islamic World Have a Superpower to Challenge Israel?

    The conflict between Muslims and Jews has historical roots extending over centuries, primarily driven by religious differences rather than just territorial disputes. This is why the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict attracts worldwide attention and involves Muslims and Jews globally. Social media is abuzz with propaganda from both sides. However, on the ground, Israel has a significant advantage as a sovereign state with advanced project management, while Hamas, which governs Gaza and initiated the fresh wave of conflict with terrorist attacks in Israel, finds itself on the defensive with only weakened support from Iran. The conflict appears to be heavily skewed in favor of one side, with the Hamas side suffering greatly.

    In terms of international politics, Israel receives support from superpowers like the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, while countries like Russia, China, and India maintain a more neutral stance. This support provides Israel with a substantial advantage. On the other hand, Hamas and Gaza mainly receive backing from Iran, whose capabilities are in question. This raises the question: why are there no superpowers in the Arab or Muslim world capable of challenging Israel?

    The answer lies in U.S. supremacy in a unipolar world. Although there is widespread anger and calls for solidarity with Hamas across the Islamic world, which stretches from Morocco to Indonesia, these are largely limited to public statements. This situation represents a clear victory for U.S. diplomacy, which has either aligned powerful countries with U.S. interests or severely weakened others. A powerful or superpower country typically has strong leadership, economic influence, political influence, strong international alliances, and a strong military, but few countries in the Islamic world possess all these features combined. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey are considered powerful countries within the Islamic world today, but they are all aligned with the United States. Turkey is a NATO member with tight ties to the U.S., while Saudi Arabia and the UAE are highly reliant on business with the U.S., and their leadership maintains strong connections with U.S. diplomats. They also have military defense pacts with the U.S. Qatar, one of the wealthiest Islamic countries, also maintains a close relationship with the U.S. Despite their connections with Islamist leaders and organizations, and their roles in mediating with groups like Hamas and the Taliban.

    All the countries that previously challenged Israel are now weakened and humbled by U.S. strategies and diplomacy. Egypt, home to the largest army in the Middle East and the leader of last century’s Arab movements against Israel, along with Libya, Iraq, and Syria – countries that once challenged Israel—have lost the leadership capable of making such decisions. They are experiencing severe economic decline and face significant domestic challenges. Now, it seems that the Islamic Republic of Iran is currently the only major power from the Muslim world still challenging Israel. However, Iran has also been economically weakened by strong U.S. sanctions and faces serious domestic issues. Iran has been stunned and humbled by Israel through severe attacks. While Iran has vowed revenge, it has not taken any significant actions that are visibly effective. Nonetheless, Iran has not completely withdrawn from its ideological commitment to opposing Israel, unlike other states. Iran continues to fund organizations fighting against Israel, and Qatar is also reported to be providing support. Despite these efforts, no one is currently able to effectively challenge Israel, highlighting the weakness of the Islamic world outside of its elaborate organizations.

    As Israel is not ready for a truce, it seems likely that Gaza will be systematically annexed by Israel. This outcome appears inevitable. The stance of Islamic countries, which avoids a regional war, may bring peace, but it is clear that the position of Muslim governments does not reflect the sentiment of their populations. This could lead to a revival of terrorist organizations like ISIS in the Islamic world, which would bring more challenges in the region.

  • Will the Gaza Conflict Cause ISIS and Al-Qaida Revival?

    Will the Gaza Conflict Cause ISIS and Al-Qaida Revival?

    Palestine is an emotional issue for global Muslims. People who support Muslim solidarity across borders, from the United States to Indonesia, are now feeling angered. So-called rich Islamic countries and secular nations can’t do anything about the Gaza conflict, while the media in these countries continue to report Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide. The governments follow the strategy of avoiding animosity with Israel or the United States, but they are not blocking media coverage of the conflict in Gaza, and the media continue to celebrate it as usual. While Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, the state outlets of Middle Eastern governments, strongly propagate the Gaza issue, their own governments can’t do anything about it. Political analysts believe this situation will drive more young Muslims, who are desperate due to various conditions including the situation in Gaza, towards radical Islam, and they are easily swayed by Islamist organizations that fight against mainstream opinions, laws, and governments. The Islamic population feels betrayed by the world, and the media stoke emotional factors, which, combined with tough living conditions and unemployment, as well as patriotic far-right movements opposing Islamism in the West, create what is considered the perfect ground for the revival of the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, and similar groups.

    Security services across the Middle East, including the Gulf countries, fear that the ongoing conflict may lead to a flow of radicalized youth to ISIS and al-Qaeda through social media groups. These individuals might travel to regions controlled by these groups, where they could receive training and indoctrinate more young people to conduct terrorist attacks. The United Nations has published a series of reports highlighting how major extremist groups are exploiting the war in Gaza to attract new recruits and mobilize existing supporters, even though both al-Qaeda and ISIS have condemned Hamas as apostates for decades.

    Officials and analysts are reporting an increase in Islamic militant extremism in various areas. An ISIS branch in the Sinai desert has recently become more lethal, and rising attacks by the group in Syria have raised concerns, with several plots thwarted in Jordan. In a recent attack, seven Syrian soldiers were killed in an ISIS ambush in Raqqa province, northern Syria, with 383 fighters from government forces and their proxy militias killed since the beginning of the year, according to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Last month, Jordanian security services uncovered a plot in Amman when explosives detonated while being prepared by extremists in a poor neighborhood. Subsequent raids led to the detention of a network of predominantly young men who were apparently radicalized by ISIS propaganda. Reports from India indicate that the Islamic State is trying to recruit Muslim youth willing to fight against the nation and Israel. In Turkey, authorities arrested dozens of people last month to combat an increased threat from an ISIS affiliate with a strong presence there. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda’s branch in Yemen has launched a new effort to inspire followers to attack Western, Israeli, Jewish, and other targets. The issue extends beyond existing terrorist organizations, as increasingly radicalized youth may choose to join new groups or form their own in areas historically free from such threats, due to the borderless nature of the internet.

    The Gaza war may serve as a seminal cause for radicalizing the next generation of jihadis, as they are increasingly exposed to volatile images and videos from Gaza through the internet. Although the immediate consequences may not be apparent, they are likely to manifest over the coming years. The conflict has significantly heightened the terrorism threat and elicited a strong emotional reaction. Regional officials emphasize the impact of continuous exposure to images of suffering from Gaza, available 24/7 on television and the internet, describing the conflict as a ‘Push Factor’ that encourages extremist violence across the Middle East and beyond. According to Palestinian health officials, more than 38,000 people have died in the Israeli offensive into Gaza, with about half of those identified being women and children. 

    A vast regional occupation by the Islamic State, similar to their previous control stretching from Iraq to Syria, is expected to reestablish itself. Despite the opposition forces in this area being highly equipped and prepared for battle, ISIS has launched over 100 attacks on government forces and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Syria in recent months, with violence peaking in March at levels not seen in several years. ISIS cells are operating at higher levels than before. Kurdish forces opposing ISIS face severe challenges from the armies of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. In this complex war zone, combined with poor governance, the presence of individuals willing to fight and die for the cause could contribute to the creation of a caliphate and expansion into new areas. As more Islamic factions demand separate regions and attempt to overthrow democratic governments, anarchy is resulting. Consequently, the emergence of a more effective caliphate can be expected.

    Islamic extremist groups are inundating the internet with material that supports Gaza, Hamas, and Islam, while inciting anger towards Jews, Israel, the United States, and even Islamic Gulf countries. They are spreading instructions for bomb-making, violence, coups, and Islamic methods of killing, which easily influence the youth. The foundational ideas of Islamizing the world and killing infidels are more aggressively propagated through the internet than ever before. A new generation is growing up with an ideology that threatens peaceful coexistence in many countries. As more Muslim countries descend into anarchy, radicalization becomes increasingly feasible, and the revival of notorious Islamist terrorist organizations seems imminent, posing a growing risk to global stability.

  • Iran Is Forced, But Are They Capable?

    Iran Is Forced, But Are They Capable?

    Iran is deeply humiliated by Israel’s killing of the Hamas chief in Tehran. Although it was anticipated that Israel might target him, the attack did not occur while he was in Gaza or Qatar. Instead, Israel chose to act when he arrived in Iran for the new president’s inauguration. As a major player in the Islamic world and the only country actively opposing Israel, Iran views this as a significant humiliation. This incident is not unprecedented; Israel has previously targeted several high-ranking Iranian officials, and some experts even speculate that Ebrahim Raisi might be a target. Iran’s regime feels compelled to retaliate to maintain its strong image domestically and its status as a defender of Islam globally. While previous responses have involved ceremonial missile launches, such a response may no longer suffice. But are they capable?

    Iran is undeniably a superpower in the Middle East, boasting a formidable military force. As of 2024, the Iranian Armed Forces are the second-largest in the region, surpassed only by the Egyptian Armed Forces in terms of active troops. Iran’s military consists of approximately 425,000 active-duty personnel and an additional 100,000 reserves and trained personnel available when needed. These numbers do not include the Law Enforcement Command or the Basij. Despite its numerical advantage over Israel, Iran faces more challenges than opportunities. 

    Most of Iran’s imported weapons are American systems acquired during the shah’s regime before the Islamic Revolution. Following international sanctions, Iran initiated a strong domestic rearmament program, resulting in an increasingly indigenous military inventory. By the 2000s, Iran had become an exporter of arms, although the effectiveness of its domestically manufactured items remains. The country has invested significantly in an ambitious ballistic and cruise missile program to enhance its mid-range strike capability, though updates on its progress are scarce. Additionally, Iran produces a variety of arms and munitions, including tanks, armored vehicles, drones, and an array of naval assets and aerial defense systems, which could be crucial in a conflict.

    Iran has purchased some munitions from Russia in addition to its indigenous weapons. However, since Russia is currently at war, it cannot meet Iran’s demand. It is uncertain whether other superpowers in Asia, such as China and India, will supply munitions to Iran. Supplying munitions would likely invite U.S. sanctions, so Islamic countries will probably refrain from doing so.

    The biggest challenge for Iran is that it does not share a border with Israel, so the size of its army does not provide an advantage. War through waterways is possible, but on all the routes through land and sea, U.S. allies are present and will likely stop them. Through the air, missiles are available, and they have been launched at Israel before, but Israel successfully blocked them. The only way that might work for Iran now is a joint attack with its allies in the region. However, there are doubts that these countries will cooperate with Iran now because they would suffer more than Iran if they intervened. However, it is certain that militant groups in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen will fight alongside Iran, and a joint attack with them is the only possibility for Iran. Iran is trying its best to partner with Islamic countries.

    Iran has called in foreign ambassadors to Tehran to assert its moral duty to hold Israel accountable for what it views as provocations and violations of international law following the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. Tehran has also requested an emergency meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on Wednesday to seek backing from Arab states for potential retaliatory measures against Israel. Many Gulf leaders have expressed their condemnation of Israel’s actions but are advising Iran to show restraint.

    Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s Security Council Secretary, arrived in Tehran on Monday for talks with Iranian leaders, including President Masoud Pezeshkian. While discussions are advancing quickly, it remains uncertain how many countries will support Iran in its war against Israel.

    Experts suggest that Iran is striving to maintain its image. To potentially promote peace, the U.S. might indirectly assist Iran by allowing a token attack, enabling Iran to claim retaliation. Iran could then shift blame to other Gulf states. At this stage, a full-scale war seems unlikely, as Iran recognizes the significant challenges and potential internal problems that such a conflict would create. Although missile strikes or proxy attacks might continue, the likelihood of a direct confrontation between Iran and Israel remains low. 

  • What’s next for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Republic?

    What’s next for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Republic?

    It was a significant week for Israel; they humiliated Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Republic all in the same week. They killed Hamas’s political chief, Ismail Haniyeh, at a safe house during his visit to the Iranian capital, Tehran, just hours after killing Hamas’s military commander, Mohammed Deif, at a safe house in the Lebanese capital, Beirut. The Qatar-based official’s death is likely to affect progress in talks for a ceasefire and hostage release deal, which were already faltering. It appears that Israel is gaining the upper hand, with Arab countries uninterested in regional escalation, and the UN is a big humor.

    Hamas, which began the conflict with a brutal attack on October 7th by crossing into Israeli territory, is now facing severe repercussions. Their leaders are being consistently assassinated, even as they flee to Syria, Iran, or Qatar. Hamas’s plan to negotiate using hostages has already failed, and the people of Gaza, who initially celebrated the attack, are now suffering the most. According to Hamas authorities, the death toll in Gaza has approached 40,000 and the situation seems far from being resolved, as indicated by Netanyahu’s address to the U.S. Congress.

    Ismail Haniyeh, who lost all his family members in Israel’s retaliatory actions, was an important figure in the Hamas movement. While Hamas will likely regroup and survive, this war has left them with a leadership vacuum. Salah al-Arouri, considered one of Haniyeh’s deputies, was killed in a strike in Lebanon in January, and Marwan Issa, Hamas’s deputy military chief, was reportedly killed in Nuseirat in March. On Thursday, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed that an airstrike in Khan Younis last month successfully targeted Hamas’s military chief, Mohammed Deif.

    In the past, Hamas used a secret ballot in Gaza, the West Bank, Israeli prisons, and abroad to choose their political chief, but that is currently impossible. Instead, Khaled Meshaal, who is currently the head of the Hamas office in the Palestinian diaspora and was Haniyeh’s predecessor, is likely to step back into the role, at least as the acting politburo leader. Khalil al-Hayya, a Qatar-based deputy who has led Hamas’s ceasefire negotiation team, is from Gaza and is reportedly well-regarded by officials in Tehran, which positions him well to succeed Haniyeh.

    Even if a peace-seeking leader were to emerge within Hamas, peace in Gaza remains elusive. Prime Minister Netanyahu has consistently affirmed that the military operation will continue until all Hamas militants are eliminated. Israel claims to have eliminated half of the leadership of Hamas’s military wing, including six senior brigade commanders and more than 20 battalion commanders, and to have killed or wounded 14,000 militants. With the collapse of the hostage deals Hamas was relying on, it is becoming evident that this is the endgame for Hamas.

    Hezbollah, engaged in conflict with Israel alongside Hamas, is facing significant setbacks despite their control over certain territories. They have suffered major losses from Israel’s targeted strikes, with the most recent incident involving the death of a key militant leader who was believed to be secure in a residential area of Beirut. This event is a humiliation not only for Hezbollah but also for Lebanon. Last week, Hezbollah reportedly sent a warning through U.S. mediators that any strikes on Beirut would cross a red line and lead to retaliation against Tel Aviv. Despite this warning, Israel seems to have disregarded it and continues its hunt of Hezbollah leaders, exacerbating the group’s troubles.

    The Guardian of Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei, led the prayers over the coffins of Haniyeh and his bodyguard, who were draped in traditional black and white Palestinian scarves. Iran is also facing turmoil due to escalating tensions with Israel. Many believe that the death of former Islamic Republic President Ebrahim Raisi was planned and executed by Israel, along with other reported deaths from targeted killings. Despite attempts at retaliation, Iran has been unable to take effective action against Israel. However, Iran appears to be increasingly enraged. Speakers at Haniyeh’s funeral, which was attended by Khamenei, Iran’s new president Masoud Pezeshkian, Revolutionary Guards chief Gen. Hossein Salami, and senior members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, vowed to avenge his death. While Israel has already launched a new wave of attacks in Lebanon, Iran’s response is of significant interest. It remains to be seen whether Iran will continue its proxy warfare using militants in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, or if it will escalate to a direct conflict with Israel or engage in combined warfare similar to the 1960s.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t have any worries on escalating situations and they announced on Thursday that his  country is fully prepared to respond to any aggression from any party. Although international officials have limited influence over Israel and Iran, they are working to de-escalate the cycle of retaliation and prevent a broader conflict.

  • Why Is GCC Not Evolving Like The European Union?

    Why Is GCC Not Evolving Like The European Union?

    While countries rapidly raise tariffs and sanctions, markets have become even more valuable. Forming a stable market with shared interests is seen as the solution to these increasing trade wars. The European Union, with its single market formed by the economic union, serves as a role model even in the most challenging times for international trade. Forming unified markets can bind nations together and provide more opportunities. This is evident in the growing desire to join the European Union, which continues to expand into new regions, leading them all towards economic prosperity. Together, they can compete with economic giants with massive markets like the United States and China. By taking the European Union as a model, many economic cooperation are evolving now. The Gulf countries, who formed the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), are among them. Even though they started decades ago and began implementing measures like a single visa and free border, they are still far away from forming a single market and creating a strong body like the European Union.

    Challenges make countries cooperate. After the disastrous World War and the subsequent Cold War, Europe collapsed, and outsiders became prominent decision-makers in the region. To overcome these challenges, the long-time rivals of Europe began considering European cooperation by raising European identity and past European glory; eventually, this move led to the formation of the European Union and the Single European Market. They grew economically together and have now become a powerful entity capable of negotiations. The European Union, the multinational economic and political union comprising 27 European member states and is further expanding to more countries. The cooperation started with the Customs Union and then grew to establish a strong internal single market following a standardized legal framework and legislation applicable to member states. The States already joined, and Any state wishing to join the EU must agree to its policies, which ensure the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital within this “Pan-modern State”. Consequently, passport controls have been abolished at the borders within the EU. Among the European member states, twenty have formed a central bank and adopted a single currency, the Euro, which is one of the most valuable currencies now. While the European Union is progressing in economic terms, they are also developing foreign and security policies and agreements that benefit all member states. The EU maintains permanent diplomatic missions worldwide and has representatives in key organizations such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and groups like the G7 and G20.With increasing influence and acceptability, many consider the European Union a superpower, demonstrating lobbying capacity through their combined strength. 

    Some Arab think tanks frequently accused the EU, as a Christian Union reminiscent of Medieval Europe who fought with Muslim countries, citing the delayed entry of Turkey and Albania despite them applying years ago. They frequently promote the establishment of a counter-Arab union that would grow into a strong economic union and possibly divide the wealth of nations like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with less wealthy surrounding Arab states.  In the same way that France and Germany help the poorer European nations. Many experts think that such a union may oppose the diverse interests of the area  and create an Islamic superpower.  The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a regional political and economic union formed in 1981, comprises Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait. It is the closest multinational intergovernmental body resembling the EU and one of the first to mimic it. Discussions have taken place regarding the potential future membership of Jordan, Morocco, and Yemen. The GCC could further expand to include many Islamic countries in Asia and Africa. While the GCC has not advanced as cohesively as the EU, in earlier times, Saudi Arabia proposed transforming the GCC into a Gulf Union similar to the European Union, with tighter economic, political, and military coordination. However, objections arose from other countries due to their disapproval of leadership. And all member countries prioritized construction projects that stunning the world and hosting the glamorous events over regional interests. It’s evident that the leaders hindered the evolution of the GCC akin to the EU. While a Customs Union was established in January 2003, it has yet to thrive like the EU’s single market. The idea of a common currency also faltered due to conflicts of interest. UAE, Oman announced it would not meet the target date for a common currency, Due to the decision to locate the central bank for the monetary union in Riyadh instead of the UAE. If it was realized, the GCC monetary union would rank as the second-largest supranational monetary union in the world by GDP. It’s sure the GCC has high potential like the EU. But there are not many politicians capable in GCC.

    The Gulf region boasts some of the fastest-growing economies in the world and the highest GDP per capita. This growth is largely due to a surge in oil and natural gas revenues, combined with a construction and investment boom, and an increase in the hospitality business, all supported by decades of accumulated petroleum wealth. While the Middle East faces numerous issues, ranging from the Palestine conflict to increasing foreign influences, the idea of more cooperation between the countries evolving as a European Union-like body is indeed plausible for the GCC. However, the countries do not appear inclined to set aside individual interests in favor of collective growth. If the GCC formed an Arabian superpower, capable of successfully intervening in Middle Eastern issues, including the Palestine conflict, but the lack of willingness to cooperate remains a curse for Arab countries, often relegating them to mere satellites of powerful countries.