The Gulf's concerns, Iran's conflicting messages, and the preparations of pro-Iranian militias in Iraq: a possible Israeli attack on Iran is stoking fears across the Middle East about a wider regional conflict.

According to Arab reports, Syria's Fourth Division, part of Bashar al-Assad's regime, has taken new measures to avoid Israeli strikes. The division, commanded by Maher al-Assad, the brother of the Syrian dictator, has ordered a halt to the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah or the hosting of Hezbollah operatives and pro-Iranian militias in its bases and headquarters. Another directive prohibits pro-Iranian elements or those affiliated with Hezbollah from approaching the Golan Heights border.

Simultaneously, sources in Sana'a informed the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, which is close to Hezbollah, that the Houthis are preparing militarily for a direct maritime confrontation with Israel as part of a "new phase of escalation." According to the report, the Houthis are targeting American naval forces and the Israeli navy. Additionally, Hezbollah and Iraqi militias are expected to participate in such attacks. The Houthis view the preparations by Israel and the US for a strike on Iran as a "new escalation" and are readying themselves for a response.

Similar threats are emerging from Iraq. An Iraqi military expert confirmed to Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that Shia militias in the country have displayed various types of drones launched from Iraqi territory toward Israel. According to the expert, these militias are now employing larger drones carrying more explosives. Arab sources indicate that the main militias behind the "Islamic Resistance in Iraq," which has claimed responsibility for the drone launches, include Kata'ib Hezbollah in Iraq, Sayyid al-Shuhada Brigades, Imam Ali Brigades, the al-Nujaba Movement, and Ansar Allah Brigades. Some of these groups have threatened to attack U.S. bases if Israel strikes Iran.

Today, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi visited Iraq, stating that the purpose of the trip was to consult and coordinate positions with Iraq. He claimed the coordination was aimed at "curbing Israel and its attempts to escalate tensions in the region. We do not wish to expand the war, but we are prepared for any scenario." Araghchi added that "Iran will have no red lines when it comes to defending its citizens." In contrast, diplomatic sources reported an Iranian message indicating that Tehran would respond to a limited Israeli attack.

Meanwhile, Gulf states are applying pressure on the US to prevent Israeli strikes on Iran's oil facilities. In Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Gulf nations, there are concerns that their oil installations could become targets if tensions escalate. According to Reuters, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar are refusing to allow Israeli aircraft to fly over their airspace for any potential strikes on Iran. These messages have been relayed to the Biden administration.

The post From the Houthis in Yemen to the militias in Iraq: Iran's proxies prepare for Israeli strike appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Three European powers said on Tuesday "we are rapidly reaching the end of the road" to save the 2015 Iran nuclear deal as Tehran accused Western powers of engaging in a "blame game" and a Gulf Arab summit in Saudi Arabia urged Tehran to take concrete steps to ease regional tensions.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

The comments from Britain, France and Germany suggest indirect US-Iran talks on preserving the pact under which Iran limited its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions may be approaching collapse, with all sides seeking to avoid being held responsible.

"Iran's continued nuclear escalation means that we are rapidly reaching the end of the road," France's ambassador to the United Nations, Nicolas de Riviere, said at the world body, reading a joint statement from the three European powers.

"We are nearing the point where Iran's escalation of its nuclear program will have completely hollowed out the JCPoA," he added, referring to the pact, named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Iran cast itself as the aggrieved party as a result of then-US President Donald Trump's 2018 decision to abandon the deal and reimpose harsh US sanctions, a move that prompted Tehran to begin violating its nuclear restrictions about a year later.

On Twitter, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Bagheri Kani, wrote: "Some actors persist in their blame game habit, instead of real diplomacy. We proposed our ideas early, and worked constructively and flexibly to narrow gaps."

Referring to the 2018 US withdrawal, he wrote: "Diplomacy is a two-way street. If there's real will to remedy the culprit's wrongdoing, the way for a quick, good deal will be paved."

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Washington continues to pursue diplomacy with Iran because "it remains, at this moment, the best option," but added that it was "actively engaging with allies and partners on alternatives."

The stakes are high. Failure would carry the risk of a new regional war. Israel, which has twice attacked the nuclear facilities of Arab nations, is pushing for a tough policy if diplomacy fails to rein in Iran's nuclear work.

Indirect talks between Iran and the United States started in April but stopped in June after the election of hard-line cleric Ebrahim Raisi, whose negotiators returned to Vienna after five months with an uncompromising stance.

Iran's Ambassador to the United Nations Majid Takht Ravanchi said Tehran exercised "maximum restraint" after the US withdrawal and "paid a heavy price" to try to preserve the deal.

"Asking for objective and verifiable guarantees from the party responsible for the whole mess before us is absolutely warranted and necessary," he told the world body.

Iran's clerical rulers believe a tough approach, spearheaded by their strongly anti-Western Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, can force Washington to accept Tehran's "maximalist demands," analysts and diplomats said.

"But it could backfire. This is a very dangerous and sensitive issue. Failure of diplomacy will have consequences for everyone," said a diplomat in the Middle East, speaking on condition of anonymity.

During the seventh round of talks, which began on Nov. 29, Iran abandoned any compromises it had made in the previous six, and demanded more from others, a senior US official said.

With significant gaps remaining between Iran and the United States on some key issues – such as the speed and scope of lifting sanctions and how and when Iran will reverse its nuclear steps – chances of an agreement seem remote.

Iran insists on the immediate removal of all sanctions in a verifiable process. Washington has said it would remove curbs "inconsistent" with the nuclear pact if Iran resumed compliance, implying it would leave in place others such as those imposed under terrorism or human rights measures.

Iran also seeks guarantees that "no US administration" will renege on the pact again. But US President Joe Biden cannot promise this because the nuclear deal is a non-binding political understanding, not a legally binding treaty.

Dramatically upping the ante, Iran has also limited access given to UN nuclear watchdog inspectors under the nuclear deal, restricting their visits to declared nuclear sites only.

However, a spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry told state-run Press TV that an understanding with the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency could come soon.

In Riyadh, meanwhile, Gulf states also reiterated a call to include the region in the Vienna talks.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told the annual gathering of Gulf leaders before the final communique was issued that the nuclear and missile programs of longstanding adversary Iran should be handled "seriously and effectively."

"So far the reports show there is some stalling by Iran and we hope this will turn to progress in the near future," Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud told a press conference after the Gulf summit.

He said that while Gulf states prefer to be part of the talks they would be "open to any mechanism" that addresses their concerns, which also include Iran's regional proxies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria.

Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran are vying for influence in a rivalry that has played out across the region in events such as Yemen's war and in Lebanon, where Hezbollah's rising power has frayed Beirut's Gulf ties.

Riyadh and the United Arab Emirates are both engaging with Iran in a bid to contain tensions at a time of deepening Gulf uncertainty over the US role in the region, and as the oil-producing states focus on economic growth.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Prince Faisal said the talks had seen no "real change on the ground" but that "we are open, we are willing."

Iran's president has said his foreign policy priority would be improving ties with Gulf neighbors.

The Saudi crown prince toured the Gulf in a show of solidarity ahead of the summit, which took place nearly a year after Riyadh put an end to a 3.5-year Arab boycott of Qatar.

Saudi Arabia and non-Gulf Egypt have restored diplomatic ties with Doha but the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have yet to do so, though Abu Dhabi has moved to mend fences.

The four boycotting states had accused Qatar of supporting Islamist militants, a charge Doha denied.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have shifted away from hawkish foreign policies to a more conciliatory approach as they vie to lure foreign investment, and win over US President Joe Biden.

The UAE has acted faster to improve ties with Iran and Turkey, while also re-engaging with Syria after forging relations with Israel last year.

The post European powers: Chances of salvaging nuclear deal 'rapidly reaching end of road' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

On Feb. 15, 2017, then-US President Donald Trump hosted then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the first time at the White House. They had known each other for years, but now they were both heads of state.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Two years earlier, at the height of the Obama years, Netanyahu and his advisers had reached the conclusion that the Middle East was ripe for the establishment of peace between Israel and the Gulf States. In direct contrast to what had been the prevailing thesis for decades both in Israel and the West, they believed that this could happen prior to an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Following the upheavals of the "Arab Spring;" the rise of Islamic State, the United States' withdrawal from the Middle East; the reduction of global dependence on oil; Iran's growing power on the one hand, and Israel's on the other; and Netanyahu's 2015 speech to Congress, Jerusalem had received clear messages from the Gulf States regarding their desire for closer ties.  Cooperation under the table also increased.

But the Americans rejected Netanyahu's thesis. Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, actively worked to prevent a breakthrough, inter alia, because they didn't want Israel to receive any remuneration from the Arab states without first paying in hard currency to the Palestinians.

Trump and his advisers, even though they were very pro Israel were also sceptical initially. During that first White House meeting with Trump, Netanyahu brought up the secret meeting that had taken place on board the USS Quincy on the Great Bitter Lake along the Suez Canal between President Theodore Roosevelt and Ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi Arabia. It was at that meeting that the alliance between Saudi Arabia and the United States was born (although Ibn Saud rejected Roosevelt's request that the king acquiesce to 10,000 permits for Jews to enter Palestine). Netanyahu told his hosts "Take us (meaning him, to Mohammed Bin Salman, the Saudi Crown Prince, and Mohammed Bin Zayed, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates) to a ship on the Red Sea and let's sit together. You will make history."

Trump and his entourage were sceptical. They lacked diplomatic experience and what they were familiar with was the prevailing opinion that there can be no deal without the Palestinians. There were also good souls such as the president's friend Ronald Lauder, who visited the White House several times and repeated the message that an agreement with the Palestinians could be achieved, and that Netanyahu was simply stalling.

Trump, as he indeed stated publicly, very much wanted to achieve what he labelled the "deal of the century" – a deal he had begun working on with his peace team headed by Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt. Over the course of two years of work on the plan, they met with many regional leaders. Over the course of those talks, as trust grew and masks were unveiled, Kushner and Greenblatt began to see what the Gulf states were really seeking.

A senior Israeli official involved in the contacts said that "it took two whole years for the Americans to be persuaded that the Arab rhetoric on the Palestinian issue was mostly just lip service."  The Palestinian refusal to talk with the Trump administration contributed to the sobering of American opinion. "Unlike Obama's people, who were very set in their ways, Kushner and his team had an open mind. They were willing to listen and then check out the direction we had suggested," says the Israeli official.

Setting a high bar

But Trump was determined to push forward a move vis-a-vis the Palestinians, and it was clear to the Israeli side as well that in order to make it easier for the Gulf states to make their ties with Israel public, they too had to do something on the Palestinian front – even if an agreement could not be reached.

Israel's then-ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, the person closest to Netanyahu on the issue, presented Israel's position several times during the period from 2018-2019. At the American Jewish Committee convention in June 2019, Dermer said:

Incidentally, Dermer was first seen in public with UAE Ambassador to Washington Yousef al Otaiba at an event held by the Odaiba Jewish Institute for National Security of America in November 2018. It was the first public sign, and it was one of many, that Israel and the UAE were moving closer.

The messages coming from Arab states led Netanyahu and his advisers to the conclusion that in order to make things easier for the Arabs, any peace plan with the Palestinians had to include three elements: The words "Palestinian state" – even if the term "state" was emptied of any meaning; Israeli concessions in Jerusalem as part of a permanent status agreement – which was how the idea of handing over to the Palestinians the two and a half Arab neighborhoods within the city, but beyond the security fence, and even then under strict conditions, came about; and the third component, maintaining the status quo on the Temple Mount.

The Israeli side was certain beyond doubt that the Palestinians would reject the plan, and that its main advantage would be in the following stage: Normalization with Arab countries. Early contacts by the Americans with the Arab side indicated that a breakthrough was possible.

The Israeli's didn't know which country would be the first to jump on the bandwagon. "The assumption was that the UAE was the most likely candidate, but there was no secret agreement with MBZ (Mohammed Bin Zayed) or any other leader," says the former Israeli official.

The Americans saw things differently. For them the Palestinians were the goal, not the means. A former senior White House official, who played a major role in the normalization process, tells Israel Hayom that the US intention when it published the peace plan in January 2020 was to reach an agreement that included the Palestinians, which was what they were focused on. "Nobody thought and nobody knew that things would work out as they did eventually," he says.

"Even the issue of sovereignty wasn't included so that we could get something for that later. At the time we were already working on normalization between Israel and the Arab state, but there was no connection between things, and the Emirates weren't the first candidate. If you would have asked me in January 2020, I would have said Morocco."

The American administration had intended to present the "Deal of the Century" at the beginning of 2019. According to the original timetable, from the Israeli perspective at least, the Arab countries would give the Palestinians a few months to digest the plan. If by chance the Palestinians came to the negotiation table – all the better. If not, the Gulf countries would say something along the lines of "we've waited for the Palestinians long enough; they have a reasonable American offer on the table. We are progressing to normalization with Israel."

An election minefield

There was another thing. Following the presentation of the plan and normalization, a third stage was planned – sovereignty. The understanding between the Israelis and the Americans was that after the plan had been presented, and after the hoped-for breakthrough with the Gulf states, the administration would let Israel extend Israeli law to parts of Judea and Samaria in line with the Trump map.

"Such a step taken at the right time would in no way have led to the collapse of agreements with the Gulf states," says a senior Israeli official who was in the loop on the contact. "They did want to see progress on the Palestinian issue, but they were not willing to give [Abbas] veto power over their progress on ties with Israel. That was the core of the matter. We understood that from talks with them. Especially from 2015 onwards, we knew it was possible and that contrary to what others thought and said, a breakthrough with the Gulf states was not dependent on an agreement with the Palestinians."

Israel's slide into an election campaign at the beginning of 2019 played havoc with the timetable. The administration didn't want to be seen as interfering with internal Israeli political affairs and therefore decided to postpone the launch of the "Deal of the Century."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

But then came a second election campaign, and the administration again decided to wait. However, in order to get the process in motion, Kushner convened an "economic workshop" in Bahrain in the summer of 2019. Israelis. Arabs, and international representatives publicly discussed massive plans for the development of the Palestinian economy. Abu Mazen and his people boycotted the event, which was a milestone in the emerging process.

At the end of 2019, when it transpired that Israel was sliding toward a third election, and with the US presidential elections also approaching, the Trump team came to the realization that it was now or never. They decided to present the plan they had been working on, but the implication was that a process that had been planned to take place over a period of at least two years now had to be compressed into a few months.

The more dramatic development was bringing forward the sovereignty move and normalization of ties with the Arab countries. The Americans and Israelis agreed that immediately after the presentation of the peace plan, Israel would apply sovereignty to some 30% of the territory of the West Bank designated to it under the Trump plan. On the flip side, Israel would not apply sovereignty to any additional territories (some 70% of the West Bank designated for the Palestinians under the Trump plan) for a period of at least four years, in order to enable negotiations. This dramatic event was not supposed to prevent the UAE or any other country from making peace with Israel.

"Their interest in peace with Israel doesn't change because of the application of sovereignty," says an Israeli source. "It's true that the political process in Israel and in the United States changed the original timetable. But as long as there was a political program for the Palestinians supported by the United States and other elements in the international community, and that the Arab states did not reject it, and that Prime Minister Netanyahu was talking publicly about his willingness to give them a state as part of a true peace agreement – they could have lived with it."

On Jan. 28, 2020, a ceremony was held in the White House to present the peace plan. Three Arab ambassadors, from Oman, Bahrain, and Yousef al-Otaiba from the UAE, honored the ceremony with their presence. Two hours after the ceremony, a member of Netanyahu's close circle called a senior official from one of the Gulf countries and made it clear what Israel planned to do. "We plan to pass a resolution on sovereignty. The quicker we do it, the less pressure there will be on you. After that you do what you need to," he said to the Gulf official who replied, "that sounds reasonable." The tacit understanding between the two was that a while after the application of sovereignty, but before the elections in the US his country and perhaps others would declare their desire for reconciliation with Israel.

Sunday never came  

Application of sovereignty ran into trouble for a variety of reasons. We can now reveal that one factor that contributed to the misunderstandings between the government in Jerusalem and the administration in Washington was a snowstorm in Switzerland. Jared Kushner was in Davos with Trump at the World Economic Forum and had planned to fly from there to Israel to coordinate the final details with Netanyahu. The weather prevented him from doing so.

Cancelation of the meeting, along with the fact that no final coordination meeting was convened at the White House on the eve of the ceremony, as well as other factors, led to serious differences in understanding between Netanyahu and Kushner. The prime minister had received an explicit promise from Kushner and others that sovereignty could be applied immediately. Kushner on the other hand claimed that he had spoken of a slower process, and had even made his position clear in the American media. While Netanyahu was briefing the Israeli media about "sovereignty on Sunday," Kushner was speaking about "sovereignty after the elections."

The differences in their positions were clear for all to see and caused Netanyahu enormous embarrassment. He operated according to the understandings that had been made. But a communications short circuit inside the administration led to him being presented again and again as someone who was making false promises.

The anger within Netanyahu's entourage was palpable. One of his close advisors held a tough conversation with a senior Trump team official and demanded that he take responsibility and go to the president to clarify that the misunderstanding had been on the American side, and that it was thus incumbent on the White House to rectify the situation and enable Israel to apply sovereignty as had been agreed. However, the senior American official declined to do so. Despite the severe blow, the Israeli side hid its criticism from the media which was covering events closely.

Netanyahu returned to Israel, stopping on the way to pick up a young Israeli woman, Naama Issachar, who had spent several months in a Russian jail and was being freed after a pardon given by Russian President Vladimir Putin in a complex diplomatic exchange . Over the coming months, the Americans and Israelis tried to reach new understandings over application of sovereignty. Meanwhile, in Israel, the coalition agreement with Benny Gantz stipulated that as of July 1, Netanyahu could present to the Cabinet the annexation framework he had agreed upon with the American administration. It was the only issue that had been exempted from the coalition protocol that all issues on the unity government's agenda must be agreed on. Various propositions were raised, among them two-stage application of sovereignty, and partial and symbolic application in Maale Adumim, a city east of Jerusalem.

Three weeks prior to that date, on June 12, 2020, Al-Otaiba surprised everyone by publishing an extraordinary op-ed in Yedioth Aharonoth in which he warned that application of sovereignty would threaten the possibility of closer ties between his country and Israel. However, the threat did not achieve its purpose. Despite Otaiba's warnings, the American's decided to progress with sovereignty and in late June, Trump's special envoy Avi Berkowitz travelled to Israel. In meetings with Gantz and Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi, he was told they opposed sovereignty. Netanyahu, on the other hand, was demanding that the administration keep its word.

The meetings with Netanyahu weren't leading to progress, says the senior American official. He wanted sovereignty but wasn't willing to make any counter gestures to the Palestinians that Berkowitz wanted in exchange, he adds.

After each meeting with Netanyahu  , Berkowitz updated Kushner on developments. During one of their meetings the idea of Israel giving up on application of sovereignty in exchange for normalization of relations with the UAE came up for the first time. Kushner authorized Berkowitz to pursue the idea with Netanyahu, although he too brought it up during the discussions.

At that stage, at the end of June, the whole thing was completely speculative, says the former senior American official. At that stage, he adds, there had been no concrete offer from the Emiratis.

Suspension, not cancellation

Berkowitz returned to the United States, and on his way from the airport to the White House, he received a call from Otaiba with a concrete proposal of normalization for annexation – the Emirates would normalize ties with Israel if it gave up on annexation. It wasn't clear from the conversation what exactly normalization would include and what exactly Israel would have to drop in regards to sovereignty. But the call led to a marathon of meetings throughout July and the beginning of August in which the details were hammered out.

The talks were led by Berkowitz on the American side, Dermer for the Israelis, and Otaiba on the part of the Emiratis. In Israel, only two people were in the loop: Netanyahu and his national security adviser, Meir Ben-Shabbat.

The Emiratis were demanding that the idea of sovereignty be called off once and for all, but the Americans and Israelis rejected their position. After some back and forth, the term "suspension" was adopted. In exchange, the Emiratis at first wanted to make do with just partial normalization. Here as well the Americans and Israelis put up a united front, demanding full normalization.

One thing that wasn't discussed with the Israelis during those intense days at the White House was the UAE's expectation that it receive advanced American weaponry, including the F-35 stealth fighter jet. The Israelis were aware however of the issue. "The Emiratis had been asking for those kinds of systems for years. We knew that as soon as we normalized relations, they would bring it up again and try to get what they had tried to in the past. For that reason, we didn't agree to discuss it prior to the signing of the peace accords," says a senior Israeli official.

To make its message clear, Netanyahu, prior to the White House talks, sent a letter to then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stating categorically that Israel continued to oppose the sale of arms that would counter the American obligation to maintain its qualitative edge vis-a-vis the rest of the region, a statement whose significance was a clear objection to sale of the fighter jets. Israel refused to even discuss ways to maintain its qualitative edge  until the official White House ceremony was over.

Toward mid-August conditions had matured for an agreement. Aryeh Lightstone, a senior adviser to Ambassador Friedman, says that the title given to the agreements, "Abraham Accords," only came up an hour before the three-way call between Trump, Netanyahu and MBZ on Aug. 13, 2020. All the rest is history.

We wanted this to be a peace agreement between peoples, one that would lead to business ties and entrepreneurial connections – not just an agreement between ministers or leaders, recalls the American official.

In that spirit, Berkowitz insisted that the agreement include direct flights between the two countries. "That proved itself. Over 200,000 Israelis flew to the Emirates that year.  Despite COVID, there are agreements and collaborations between the countries and between individuals in a wide range of fields. That is something we are going to be proud of all our lives."

The post Behind the scenes: How the Abraham Accords came into being appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

It was during Operation Cast Lead in December 2008. The Israeli Embassy in Britain was surrounded by demonstrators, some of whom became violent. They climbed the fence, threw Molotov cocktails and rocks. Tension was running so high that Yuval Diskin, then-head of the Shin Bet security agency, which is in charge of security at Israel's embassies and consulates abroad, recommended closing all diplomatic missions to keep their staffs safe.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Ron Prosor, who was serving as Israeli Ambassador to Britain at the time, rejected the idea.

"No embassy will close on my watch and under my command," he told Diskin. "As far as I'm concerned, they can take the staff out in APCs," he added. The embassy continued to operate. A few days later, clad in a flak jacket, Prosor took part in a pro-Israel demonstration held by the local Jewish community.

This story, which does not appear in Prosor's new book Undiplomatically Speaking (Yedioth Books, Hebrew, English translation scheduled for 2022) reflects the approach of one of Israel's outstanding diplomats of the past few decades: initiative, offense, standing up for Israel's national honor and battling for the justness of Israel's path on all fronts. It should be required reading for any Israeli who wants to understand what is happening to us in the international arena.

In the book, Prosor sums up 30 years at the heart of diplomatic activity. From the secret contacts he helped build with the Gulf states to dealing with the global media in London and the ceaseless struggle against the UN's hypocrisy and triple standards. The book includes anecdotes, including one time when Prosor noticed an unusually unattractive woman sitting next to him on a flight. On second glance, it turned out that "she" was none other than then-head of the Mossad Meir Dagan.

Prosor sits down with Israel Hayom to discuss the new governments in Israel and the US.

Q: Will you briefly explain the importance of diplomatic activity?

"The security aspect is important, of course, but it's not the whole picture. Diplomatic context and activity integrates other vital interests. For example, when [former] Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi said in 2012 that 'the peace treaties with Israel were forced on Egypt,' it was a hint that he wanted to cancel them. It took a lot of hard diplomatic work with the Americans to make him not repeat that statement, and of course, not cancel them.

"Or, for example, the affairs of the deal pushed by the defense establishment to sell Falcon aircraft to China against the recommendations of the diplomatic echelon, which knew how strongly the Americans objected to it. Then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak was forced to cancel the deal and Israel paid a $300 million fine. We lost a few billions that could have gone to our defense industries but gained billions in American aid, and especially the continued alliance with the US, which is a cornerstone of our relations."

Q: Still, the qualities you need in a diplomat today aren't what were taught in the Foreign Ministry training in the 1980s.

"True. A 21st century diplomat isn't a lone actor or his country's sole representative. International relations are no longer just between governments, but rest on civil society. Diplomacy has undergone a change. A good diplomat today needs to seek out every opportunity to take the initiative, locate coalitions that will strengthen his options, and present his stance. A good diplomat is one who takes the initiative and thinks outside the box. Diplomatic war is being waged against Israel that no other country in the world is subject to. Every Israeli diplomatic mission is a frontline command center. These forward positions are often fighting without ammunition."

Q: There has been criticism that former PM Netanyahu hurt relations with the Democratic Party that is now in power in the US. Does the fact that Israel now has a new government, under a right-winger like PM Naftali Bennett, help turn over a new leaf with them?

"Every system, certainly a political one, needs to undergo change from time to time and bring in new people who will espouse a new approach and new possibilities. The new blood now in power here, and the refreshing approach of the government and its leader, are giving them opportunities to tighten the bonds between Jerusalem and Washington and pave a new way forward for the two countries."

In his book, Prosor describes UN Resolution 2334, which defined Israeli control over Judea and Samaria, including east Jerusalem, as violations of international law, as a hit below the belt. Since it was passed, led by former President Obama at the end of his administration, Israel's problems with the Democrats have only worsened.

""We need to take a lot more intensive action when it comes to the Black and Hispanic communities, and the entire progressive public in the US in general," Prosor says. "We need to invest in that. It's a battle. We have something to say and we can and should present our positions. I think that more can be done to stop this wave."

Q: Do you support criticism of Netanyahu and Ron Dermer, who was ambassador to the US while Netanyahu was prime minister, when it comes to losing Democratic support?

"First of all, it must be said that there are many Democrats who support us. True, there are some who don't, but they're still a minority, even if they're a vocal one. The role of a prime minister is to form an intimate relationship with US presidents. Ties like these existed in the past, even when there were disagreements. So I think that better work should have been done with the Democrats, and they [Netanyahu and Dermer] bear some of the responsibility. But as I say in the book, this doesn't detract from Dermer's historic successes as ambassador, first and foremost the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem and the Abraham Accords. He is one of the most knowledgeable people about Israel-US relations in the diplomatic service, and he has paid a personal price more than once for his total loyalty to Netanyahu."

Prosor, the son of a diplomat, grew up in the foreign service. In his last diplomatic posting, he served as Israeli ambassador to the UN from 2011-2015. Prior to that, his career took him to Britain, Washington, and Switzerland. He experienced first-hand historic processes and events such as secret meetings with Arab leaders, or the evacuation of the Israeli Embassy in Washington on 9/11.

He was in the room when the 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip was implemented. "The idea was for the Palestinians to take charge of their own fate," he says. "Our assumptions did not live up to reality. We were mistaken when we assumed that the Arab states would want to help build Gaza, or when we hoped that the Palestinians would seize the opportunity to develop Gaza. We were wrong when we thought that Palestinians public would appreciate a voluntary withdrawal, from a position of power. For Hamas, the Israeli move was a retreat of weakness that confirmed that they could and should continue their violent ways," he says.

Prosor also had his eyes opened about supposedly enlightened European countries. "We thought that the nations of the world would look favorably on the Israeli step and change to some degree their anti-Israel paradigm. So, we thought it."

His disappointment in western democracies that supposedly embrace liberal values, is the main message of both the book and the interview.

"The international community doesn't have a double standard, it has a triple one. One for most countries in the world that aren't democratic, from which nothing is expected. The second for the democracies. But Israel is held up to a third and special standard. It's a unique demand, one that is so high it can't be met," he says.

Q: For example?

"If rockets are fired at Israel, they say Israel has the right to defend itself. But then they don't really allow you to strike at the terrorists. You do everything with one hand tied behind your back, with a threat hovering overhead that your soldiers and officers will be arrested if they leave the country. Or take Hezbollah's tunnels – a clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions, but the UNSC is silent.

"Or UNIFIL, who are in Lebanon on behalf of the UN and regularly report Israeli flights in Lebanese airspace. But like the three monkeys, they never notice even a single one of Hezbollah's ceasefire violations. I can give you a long list of things that are just unbelievable, that only Israel is subject to."

When Prosor discusses other standards to which Israel is held, he links them to "western European hypocrisy."

"There are three layers. The first layer is latent, inherent antisemitism. That's part of Europe's DNA. The second layer is the double guilt complex. Some of the system is flagellating itself for what it did to the Jews in the Holocaust and about colonialism. Europe projects these guilty feelings on Israel. The third layer has to do with discrepancies of perception. Like Europe, Israel embraces democratic, pluralistic ideals. But when it comes to the nation state, which Israel supports and the Europeans have reservations about, there is a clash. There is also a clash about the values of individual liberty and national security."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

"When UNESCO votes in favor of a resolution declaring that the Jewish people has no ties to the Western Wall and the Old City of Jerusalem – it's simply inconceivable," Prosor says.

Q: While you were at the UN you refused to accept the situation.

"Right. When I realized what was happening in that arena, my instructions to the mission were clear. We were not going to leave any attack unanswered. The time was over when the Israeli diplomat would note down what was said in the meeting and report it to Jerusalem. I demanded that everyone respond on the spot, and go on the offensive. With wit, with sarcasm, but to make them pay a price – and if possible, do so in the language of a nation attacking us. We had several of Arabic speakers in the mission, and they embarrassed Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Syria, as well as other Arab countries, more than once."

Q: When it comes to Arab countries, you argue in the book that there is no peace between Israel and Jordan or Egypt.

"I define our relations with those two countries as a state of non-military fighting. Of course, there are security ties, and they are very important. But what is needed there, which is the basis for our relations with the Gulf countries, is contact between the peoples, interpersonal contact. Tourism, academia, youth exchanges, business – this is all a fabric that needs to be woven over time."

Q: Jordan and Egypt aren't interested.

"A way must be found so it's worth their while. We can't give up."

Q: Why does national honor matter?

"We tend to ascribe patriotic significance to that concept, but national honor has both domestic and foreign significance. When you apologize for a just act, like stopping the Marmara flotilla for example, what message does that send to the soldiers and commanders who fought there? In international terms, what people remember is 'Israel apologized.'"

Q: Obama demanded the apology.

"In hindsight, I think that Israel shouldn't have apologized."

The post 'Every diplomatic mission is a frontline command center' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Arms imports to the Middle East rose by a quarter in the decade to 2020 even though arms sales globally remained stable over the same period, a Swedish watchdog said Monday.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, or SIPRI, said the Middle East figures were driven chiefly by the world's largest arms importer, Saudi Arabia, which increased its purchases by 61%. Egypt's imports rose 136% and Qatar's 361%.

SIPRI said the international sale of major arms stayed at the same level during the period from 2011-2020. The watchdog said "substantial increases in transfers by three of the top five arms exporters – the United States, France and Germany – were largely offset by declining Russian and Chinese arms exports."

For the first time since 2001–2005, the volume of deliveries of major arms between countries had not increased, SIPRI said, but added that international arms sales remain close to the highest level since the end of the Cold War.

"It is too early to say whether the period of rapid growth in arms transfers of the past two decades is over," said Pieter D. Wezeman, a senior researcher with SIPRI in a statement.

"For example, the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic could see some countries reassessing their arms imports in the coming years. However, at the same time, even at the height of the pandemic in 2020, several countries signed large contracts for major arms."

Middle East countries imported 25% more arms in the second half of the decade than they did in the first, SIPRI said. It said it was chiefly due to regional strategic competition among several Gulf region states.

In its report, the body said that the United States remains the largest arms exporter and had increasing its global share of arms exports from 32% to 37% between the first and second halves of the decade. That further widened the gap between the US and second largest arms exporter Russia.

France and Germany were the third and fourth largest exporters and they, too, experienced substantial growth.

SIPRI is a Stockholm-based independent think tank, partly funded by the Swedish government. Created in 1966, its research is focused on global security, arms control and disarmament.

 Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Watchdog: Middle East arms imports ballooned by 25% in 10 years appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In addition to joint ventures in technology, tourism, energy, and security, new bilateral relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates are expanding opportunities for veterinary care, as well.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Israel's Biogal-Galed Laboratories announced Tuesday that it has partnered with Eurovets Veterinary Suppliers to bring Biogal's veterinary diagnostic solutions to the UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, and Qatar.

According to one marketing report from 2019, while cats are preferred as pets in the UAE, the country has seen a growing rate of dog ownership in the past few years, due in part to a growing population of expatriates who are encouraging the trend of dog ownership in the country.

Biogal CEO Marcela Raisman said, "We are thrilled to announce that Eurovets has joined Biogal's ecosystem, and are proud to be among the first Israeli companies to form such an alliance following the Israel-UAE peace treaty.

"Together with Eurovets, we are showing support for the new agreement between the countries and can only hope it inspires other companies to do the same. Through our collaborative work together, we believe we'll create sustainable value for veterinarians worldwide and for their patients," Raisman added.

Eurovets shareholder Dr. Martin Wyness said that "by bringing together the industry leader in veterinary and diagnostic solutions with the leading veterinary supply and support solutions for the UAE's animal health industry, we are offering added value for customers, partners, and of course, for the patients themselves."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Fluffy and Fido can benefit from warm peace, too appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In the past few weeks, officials in Israel have been preparing for the sweeping policy changes expected with the start of the Biden administration, the top priority issue being the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Jerusalem is very concerned by statements from US President Joe Biden and other senior members of his administration that he intends to rejoin the 2015 deal, from which Biden's predecessor withdrew in 2018.

 Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated publicly a number of times that it would be a mistake for the US to rejoin the 2015 deal. Israel Hayom has learned that Netanyahu has underscored his position in closed-door talks, in which he said that the new US administration must refrain from lifting the harsh economic sanctions currently in place on Tehran until Iran agrees to significant changes to the original Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement.

Biden has made it clear that he is seeking a stronger, more long-term nuclear deal with Iran that would address issues not covered by the original JCPOA – particularly, Iran's ballistic missile program, its nuclear warhead project, and its regional aggression. Biden agrees that the US needs to handle these issues, but the question of what the administration's first step will be remains open.

Last month, Israel Hayom reported that some of Biden's people are of the opinion that prior to the US lifting its sanctions against Iran, agreements must be reached on changes to the deal. However, other senior staffers say that to stop Iran's recent regional provocations – including stepping up its uranium enrichment to 20% -- the US must first re-adopt the original deal and reopen negotiations between Iran and the world powers, to be led by the US, for a "stronger, more long-term" nuclear deal.

Israel categorically rejects the second approach. Netanyahu and other senior officials are convinced that the US rejoining the JCPOA in its original format would be a huge prize for the Iranians, who would give nothing in return but who would enjoy in influx of cash into their shattered economy

"Past experience teaches us that Iran doesn't use this money to benefit its people, or fight COID, but to spread terrorism and regional aggression," a high-ranking official told Israel Hayom.

Another reason Jerusalem opposes the US lifting sanctions against Iran immediately is the loss of the leverage the US currently holds. According to one government official, without the crippling sanctions currently in place, Iran will have no reason to change the nuclear deal. Given that, Israel intends to present an unequivocal stance to the new administration opposing the removal of US sanctions until and unless the nuclear deal is altered.

New US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said this week that the administration would consult with Israel before deciding on a policy toward Iran.

Blinken told the Senate that the US was seeking a long-term Iran deal that would remain in place, and would consult with its "allies" in the Middle East, including Israel and the Gulf states, before beginning any discussion of a return to the nuclear deal.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Israel's message to Biden: No removal of Iran sanctions without a new nuclear deal appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The list is to be submitted to the United States government, which is expected to approve the sale of F35 fighter jets and other advanced military technology to the United Arab Emirates under the Israel-UAE normalization deal.

 Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to broach the subject in an upcoming meeting with US President Donald Trump.

Israeli officials are worried about the US selling advanced military technology to the Emiratis, particularly the F35 stealth fighter, which thus far has been used in the Middle East only by Israel. The concern is not that the Emiratis would employ the aircraft, as well as other military technology they are slated to receive, against Israel, but rather that the sale of the F35 to the UAE will spark a Middle East arms race that would lessen Israel's qualitative strategic advantage.

Another concern, which is not being publicly voiced, is that a different government could take power in the Emirates or other Gulf states.

"Right now, we are benefitting from the winds of peace, but we live in an unstable region in which the winds can change quickly," said a senior defense official involved in these developments. "Therefore, we always take care to be at least one step ahead of all the other countries in the region, and preferably, more than that."

However, Israel understands that Washington is determined to sell the F35 to the Emiratis, and possibly to Saudi Arabia at some point in the future. Given that, recent weeks have seen a round of meetings and consultations that resulted in a decision not to "sit by" but to take action to ensure that Israel's retains its strategic advantage.

The defense official said the matter had already come up in meetings between high-ranking Israeli and American officials. A number of American officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have made statements affirming the US commitment to Israel retaining its strategic advantage in the Middle East.

The leader of the IDF team is head of the Force Design Directorate, Maj. Gen. Tomer Bar, and includes senior commanders from a few IDF branches, with special emphasis on the Israeli Air Force. Bar himself is an IAF man and considered a leading candidate for the top IAF position when Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin's term is over.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

So what does Israel plan to ask for? An idea was floated to request F22 aircraft, but tossed because of the planes' high cost and expensive maintenance. The team is now looking into asking the Americans to approve the supply of advanced weapons systems to Israel, and move up the delivery date on which various other defense requests from Israel were due to be delivered, including fuel aircraft, V-22 Osprey helicopters, and another squadron of fighter planes, most likely F15s.

Until the list is finalized, it will not be approved by the political leadership. However, Netanyahu, Defense Minister Benny Gantz, and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochaci have approved the work of the team itself and the general direction it is taking.

The official who spoke to Israel Hayom said that during Netanyahu's meetings with Trump, he would bring up the subject and that some of the subjects could be moved forward at a later date.

Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats have called on Trump to ensure Israel's Qualitative Military Edge (QME) in any weapons sales to the United Arab Emirates.

The letter from nine congressional Democrats makes the legal and foreign-policy arguments for maintaining Israel's QME and reminds the administration that Congress must approve any pending arms sales that could have a detrimental effect on Israel's security.

"While we celebrate the recent agreement brokered between Israel and the UAE, and resolutely want it to succeed, we have to also ensure that Israel maintains its QME," the Democrats said.

"We must, therefore, carefully scrutinize any proposed sale of advanced military technology like the F-35 to any nation in the region and make certain that we will continue to fulfill our legal and strategic QME commitment to Israel's basic security needs," they wrote.

"This is especially troubling given the years of opposition to such a sale by the Israeli national security community, including strenuous opposition voiced recently by both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Benny Gantz."

The letter was signed by Reps. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), Ted Lieu (R-Calif.), Elaine Luria (D-Va.), Max Rose (D-NY), Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.) and Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.).

Part of this article was reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Israel drawing up a defense tech wish list appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Relations between Israel and the Gulf Emirates began to thaw back in 2015, from nothing. In 2010, the Dubai police exposed the targeted execution, supposedly by Mossad agents, of arch-terrorist Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. The Emiratis were outraged. They ceased to trust the few Israelis with whom they had secretly maintained ties. Cooperation was frozen. The Emirati police, via Interpol, issued an arrest warrant for 33 Mossad personnel whom they suspected of carrying out the mission.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The affairs caused waves in the Mossad. Its tactics had been exposed, its people were grounded and at risk of arrest. No less serious – Israel had lost a vital relationship with an Arab nation. Not only were defense ties severed, so were the quiet business dealings that had been going on for years.

Change became possible when Netanyahu addressed the US Congress in March 2015 and spoke against the Iran nuclear deal. Like other Gulf states, the Emiratis felt bet rayed by then-US President Barack Obama. The stance Netanyahu took, against the deal and against Iran, as well as against the US administration, impressed Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed Bin Zayed. Since taking over in 2005, Bin Zayed has spearheaded a process of modernization, increased openness to the world, and tolerance in the UAE. He has labeled Iran, as well as radical Sunni Islam, dangerous.

'A life of their own'

It was Blair who identified an opportunity to build cooperation with Israel based on this shared outlook. When he stepped down as British prime minister in 2007, he said it was his life's dream to bring peace to the Middle East. He was appointed envoy to the Middle East Quartet (representing the US, Russia, the United Nations, and the European Union), but it 2015 resigned, having reached a clear conclusion.

"I have thought for a long time that the whole position that you have to have a peace deal [between Israel and the Palestinians] first, and then you open up relations between Israel and the Arab world … needed to be turned on its head and do it the other way around. I believe strongly you will not have a solution to the Palestinian issue unless it's with the full cooperation and participation of the Arab world," Blair tells Israel Hayom from London.

When he was free from pressure from foreign countries, Blair began leading the process according to his own outlook. Coincidentally or not, that happened to be similar to that of Netanyahu, with whom Blair had a strong relationship going back a few years. Netanyahu, too, had been arguing since 2015 that Arab states would bring the Palestinians to peace, not the other way around. Blair courted Arab states, and found the UAE most willing to listen. Still, in order to get the Emirates to renew contact with Israel, the Mabhouh affair had to be overcome.

Even five years later, the Emiratis were still furious with Israel. They called the killing "disrespectful" and demanded guarantees that Israel would not use their territory for targeted killings ever again. Israel agreed, and apparently shared sensitive information with them to demonstrate its sincerity. That was the icebreaker.

But Blair wasn't alone. To solidify faith in the conciliatory messages he was sending, Netanyahu enlisted his confidant, Yitzhak Molcho. Blair introduced Molcho to one of Bin Zayed's junior ministers. The two first met in London at the end of 2015, with Blair sitting in, and the meeting went well. It led to contact that included many meetings between Molcho and the Emirati minister in both Cyprus and Abu Dhabi, as well as numerous phone conversations.

Secret meetings in Jerusalem

In the talks between Molcho and the Emirati minister, Israel made a commitment not to operate on Emirati soil without coordinating with the government. A deal was also struck that in future, both countries' security apparatuses would work together when it came to "security challenges" such as Mabhuh. Israel's approach suited the Emirati ruler, who had already identified the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islam as bitter enemies. Words transitioned into action, and Netanyahu approved the sale of various civilian and defense systems to the UAE.

The most important sign that the process was succeeded was the Emiratis agreeing in 2016 to cancel the Mossad agents' arrest warrant. That was an important coup for Israel, and it was down to Molcho.

Once that initial and major stumbling block was removed, relations between the two countries continued to grow warmer. At the end of 2016, the same Emirati minister began holding meetings with Netanyahu. At first, the talks were held in Cyprus, but then moved to the Prime Minister's Residence in Jerusalem. The trust being built eventually to contact with the Emirati crown prince himself. It started with telephone calls, which became more frequent. Netanyahu and Bin Zayed spoke once every few weeks and exchanged opinions about and analyzed regional processes.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Blair says that Bin Zayed turned out to be "an exceptional political and leadership talent." The more they were in contact, the more it became clear that he and Netanyahu held similar worldviews. When Netanyahu said dozens of times in the past few years that his opposition to Iran reflected the position of other regional leaders, he was talking about Bin Zayed, and not only him. No less importantly, the crown prince talked with Netanyahu about the future of the region and the need to use modern tools to solve the problem of the young, unemployed generation in the Middle East.

In 2018, Netanyahu visited the Emirati capital twice, on an Israeli flight that crossed Saudi airspace. Given the close ties between Bin Zayed and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, it seems highly likely that Riyadh knew that the place crossing its skies was carrying the Israeli prime minister.

From an idea to shared interests

Netanyahu met with Bin Zayed for a few hours, and the two formed immediate, excellent, ties. During one of the two meetings in Abu Dhabi, Netanyahu even took a tour of the city even though time was short.

What began as similar outlooks on the regional situation slowly became intertwined interests in a wide variety of fields. As a great believer in science and technology, Bin Zayed found common ground with Netanyahu on these subjects, too. It was not by chance that one of the five meetings in Abu Dhabi last week was devoted to space. The Emirates, believe it or not, have already sent a spacecraft to Mars.

Blair emphasizes that two major factors were necessary to reach a breakthrough: "Creating the political framework for such discussions. Of course there are security reasons why it is important that Israel and the Arab states cooperate. They all face the threat of extremism, whether of the Shia variety promoted by [Iran] or the Sunni variety, promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood through the spectrum of various groups. The common security threat is one essential part of the discussion."

But Blair says the political framework wasn't enough.

"Relations with Israel needed to become a priority," he says. "The second thing is that you need to take the practical steps of engagement. Those practical steps were over a period of years, building trust, making sure that the two sides believed they could have meetings, confidentially, making sure they discuss things openly. Making sure that individual people within each system go to know each other and trust each other. That has been the work of these last years, building up to this point."

Blair stresses that it wasn't only the danger from Iran that brought Israel and the Emirates closer together.

"The single most important thing to realize about all of this is that it's not just about security. The conversation was about the region, how it's developing, the economy, culture," he says.

Blair praises Netanyahu's leadership (calling him a "remarkable politician"), as well as the White House and Jared Kushner and Bin Zayed, and emphasizes that in the UAE, "It wasn't only the royal family, but key officials."

Blair says that the actual breakthrough, the historic announcement of normalization, happened because the opportunity presented itself to link Israel postponing its plans to apply sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and settlements in Judea and Samaria to normalization with the Emirates. "That opportunity was able to be taken because of this long process of engagement," he explains.

The post Exclusive: Former world leader played key role in Israel-UAE deal appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Gulf states had long channeled funds to Beirut but have grown alarmed by the rising clout of Iran's ally in the country, the Shiite terrorist organization Hezbollah. Lebanon's rich Gulf neighbors now appear loathe to help it out of an unprecedented economic and financial crisis.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The heavily armed Hezbollah backed Diab's cabinet after efforts failed to strike a deal with Saad al-Hariri, a traditional Western ally who stayed out of the new government.

The economic crisis came to a head last year as slowing capital inflows led to a liquidity crunch and protests erupted against the ruling elite. Banks are curbing access to cash, the Lebanese pound has slumped and inflation has spiked.

Foreign donors have said they will only help after Lebanon enacts reforms.

However, analysts say Hezbollah's role in forming the government, which took office last month, could impede securing Western and Gulf aid.

Iranian speaker Ali Larijani said in a news conference that Iran stood ready to help Lebanon.

In response to a question on whether this would close the door to any Western aid, he said: "We express our full readiness to support but we do not force this on anyone."

Mohanad Hage Ali, a fellow at the Carnegie Middle East Center, said Larijani's visit may not help bolster the new Lebanese government's image.

"It's not very helpful at this stage as Lebanon seeks foreign aid and a bailout and the help of Gulf Arab states. This is not the message you want to send," he said.

Diab has said his first trip abroad would be to the Arab region, particularly the Gulf monarchies. But none of them have officially commented on the government nor extended public invitations to Diab.

An Arab diplomat in the Gulf said only Qatar had invited Diab to visit so far. "No other government in the Gulf will invite him," the diplomat said.

Lebanese President Michel Aoun's office said he received an invitation to Tehran during his meeting with Larijani on Monday.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said on Sunday that the cabinet was not "Hezbollah's government" and that opponents who described it that way were damaging Lebanon's ties to foreign states and making it harder to combat the crisis.

A team of International Monetary Fund experts will begin consultations with Lebanon's government in Beirut on Thursday, a source familiar with the matter said. The heavily indebted state formally requested the IMF's technical help last week.

On the parallel market – now the main source of hard currency – the price of US dollars hovered around 2,400 Lebanese pounds on Monday, 60% beyond the official peg of 1,507.5 in place since 1997.

The post Snubbed by Gulf, Lebanon's PM Diab hosts Iranian official appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.