Poll: Arabs support Trump on Iran, but not on Jerusalem embassy move

The survey showed opinion in the Arab world overall is divided on the regional impact of the killing of Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani. AFP WASHINGTON, DC - September 29: President Trump, en route to Cleveland for the first televised debate with opponent Joe Biden, gestures to reporters as he departs the White House, in Washington, DC on September 29. (Photo by Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Short Url
Updated 30 December 2020
Follow

Poll: Arabs support Trump on Iran, but not on Jerusalem embassy move

  • Arab News/YouGov pan-Arab survey finds Trump much better known in the Arab region than rival Biden
  • Analysts say praises for Trump’s strong Iran stance drowned out by backlash against Jerusalem embassy move

BEIRUT: Regardless of the outcome of the Nov. 3 presidential election, US President Donald Trump does not have to worry about one thing: being accused of leaving the Middle East in a worse condition than he inherited it. Judging by the Arab News/YouGov pan-Arab survey’s findings, that dubious honor goes to his predecessor, Barak Obama, whose vice president Joe Biden is now Trump’s main challenger.
In a nutshell, the study shows that Arabs broadly support Trump’s iron-fist approach towards the Iranian regime, although they oppose his decision in 2018 to transfer the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And even though he is seen as not better for the Arab region than his Democratic opponent, far more respondents were aware of him than Biden. Some of his policies were also viewed favorably in specific parts of the Arab world.


While gone are the days when a White House occupant could run for a second term on their foreign-policy achievements, there is no denying that the US remains a global power whose decisions affect the lives of people from Central America to the Middle East. As such, the importance of understanding what the Arab world is anticipating from a future US administration cannot be overstated.
Covered extensively by the Arab news media, the first big news story of 2020 was the elimination of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) extraterritorial Quds Force. Soleimani was on his way to meet the Iraqi prime minister when he was killed in a US drone strike near Baghdad airport on Jan. 3.
According to the survey, opinion in the Arab world overall is divided on the regional impact of the killing.
Respondents in Yemen were very supportive of the action, with 71 percent approving it as a positive move, as were many residents of Saudi Arabia (68 percent) and Iraqi (57 percent). In contrast, some 59 percent of respondents in Lebanon and 62 percent in Qatar said it was a negative move for the region.

“The poll accurately assesses the interests of Arab states,” said Dr. John Hulsman, president and managing partner of John C. Hulsman Enterprises, a prominent global political risk consultancy.
“For people who knew Soleimani in Iraq, he was part of the problem … as a satrap (viceroy) of Iran. They are delighted in Iraq now they have a vaguely reformist prime minister who is vaguely tolerated by Iran and the US. And that couldn’t have happened with Soleimani there.”

On the other hand, Hulsman said, “If you live somewhere where there is an American base in the region (such as Qatar), then Soleimani’s killing might mean that you are next, because no one thinks the Iranians are going to forget that Soleimani died.”

Under the circumstances, why did 40 percent of the Arab News/YouGov survey’s respondents say Biden would be better for the Middle East, as opposed to the 12 percent who said the same thing about Trump?
For one thing, analysts point out, an even larger number, 49 percent, felt neither candidate would be better for the region.
For another thing, they note that just a little more than half of the respondents (53 percent) said they were aware of Biden compared to a massive 90 percent who were aware of Trump. Besides, they say, the points scored by Trump by taking a hard line on the Iranian problem are outweighed by the consequences of the Jerusalem embassy transfer decision, which was opposed by 89 percent of the respondents.


READ: The methodology behind the Arab News/YouGov Pan-Arab Survey


According to David Romano, Thomas G. Strong professor of Middle East Politics at Missouri State University, Iran remains the key issue in understanding the Arab world’s bad aftertaste from the Obama administration. “When it comes to the Arab states, Biden is a lot like Obama,” he told Arab News. “They are not sure if he’s the kind of president who will throw them under the bus like many feel Obama did to (former Egyptian President) Hosni Mubarak.”
Trump, by comparison, might represent stability for the Middle East. “Trump has come through on his word. He sent more troops to Saudi Arabia and he’s been harder on Iran,” Romano said.

Presumably, by the same token, about one fifth of GCC residents believe Trump’s withdrawal from the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal, has boosted safety in the region (led particularly by 49 percent of Saudi nationals).

Furthermore, residents of countries intimately tied without a choice to Iran said they want a combative stance from the next US president, including toughened sanctions and a war posture. These included: Iraq (53 percent), Yemen (54 percent) and Saudi Arabia (49 percent).
“The Trump team came in and decided that Obama’s efforts, particularly with the JCPOA, were a disaster because it bankrolled a whole list of people who want America out of the region and who don’t want stability in the region. They want to dominate the region,” Hulsman said.

The fear among many is that Biden may abandon Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran. “From the point of view of the Middle East, this is one of those moments that looks like whiplash. If you are living in the region, this is zig-zag diplomacy,” Hulsman said.
It is not just analysts who are deeply skeptical about Biden’s stance on Iran, fearing a return to the perceived weak-kneed and irresolute approach of Obama.
Agop K, a Lebanese-Armenian-American attorney who lives in Beirut but practices law in the US, said “we need an iron fist here in the Middle East, unfortunately. And Trump represents that.”
Speaking to Arab News, he said: “As long as the pressure is on Iran and Iran is being sanctioned and cut off from financing, this is what might help us down the line in Lebanon. If I wanted to vote for Trump, this is one of the biggest reasons I would do so.”

Twitter: @rebeccaaproctor


Hamas buries 2 leaders slain in Israel strike in Gaza months ago

Updated 3 sec ago
Follow

Hamas buries 2 leaders slain in Israel strike in Gaza months ago

Hundreds of people attended the funerals of Rauhi Mushtaha and Sami Mohammad Odeh during Friday prayers
The bodies, draped in the green flag of Hamas, were carried on stretchers from the mosque

GAZA CITY: Two senior Hamas members, whom Israel said it had killed months ago, were buried in Gaza on Friday after their remains were discovered under rubble during the truce, AFP journalists reported.
Hundreds of people attended the funerals of Rauhi Mushtaha and Sami Mohammad Odeh during Friday prayers in the courtyard of the Omari mosque, a historic landmark in the heart of Gaza City that has been heavily damaged by Israeli bombing.
The bodies, draped in the green flag of Hamas, were carried on stretchers from the mosque to their burial site, accompanied by around 16 masked members of the Ezzedine Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the Palestinian Islamist group.
The Israeli army announced in early October that it had “eliminated” Mushtaha and Odeh along with another Hamas leader “about three months earlier” during an air strike in the Gaza Strip.
Mushtaha, designated an “international terrorist” by the United States in 2015, was a member of Hamas’s political bureau in Gaza, responsible for finances.
Odeh was the head of Hamas’s internal security agency.
Hamas officially acknowledged their deaths in a statement on Sunday, saying that they had fallen as “martyrs.”

ADNOC shipping rules out quick return to Red Sea, CEO says

Updated 24 January 2025
Follow

ADNOC shipping rules out quick return to Red Sea, CEO says

  • Danish shipping company Maersk said on Friday it would continue to reroute around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope until safe passage through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden area was ensured for the longer term

DUBAI: Red Sea shipping remains risky despite the Gaza ceasefire and an announcement by Houthis to limit attacks, according to the CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company’s logistics and shipping arm.
Shipping executives remain cautious about a return to the Red Sea, given the risk to seafarers, cargo, and their assets.
Houthis have carried out more than 100 attacks on ships since November 2023, resulting in most shipping companies diverting vessels away from the Suez Canal to use the longer route around southern Africa instead.
“As we speak today, we cannot say it’s almost completely gone, and it’s a go-ahead for all the fleet to go inside the Red Sea. As I said, there is a people side to it, so we cannot risk our people going there while there may be a fragile ceasefire now,” said ADNOC Logistics & Services CEO Abdulkareem Al-Masabi.
Danish shipping company Maersk said on Friday it would continue to reroute around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope until safe passage through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden area was ensured for the longer term.
The Houthis will limit their attacks on commercial vessels to Israel-linked ships provided the Gaza ceasefire is fully implemented.
However, they have conditioned their halt in attacks on US or UK-linked shipping with various provisos, which has added to caution on any return, shipping and insurance sources say.
The Houthis on Wednesday freed the crew of the Galaxy Leader, a vessel that the militia seized more than a year ago.
In another development, the UN has suspended all travel into areas held by Houthis after the militia detained more of their staff.
The Houthis have already detained UN staffers, as well as individuals associated with the once-open US Embassy in Sanaa and aid groups.
“Yesterday, the de facto authorities in Sanaa detained additional UN personnel working in areas under their control,” the UN statement read.
“To ensure the security and safety of all its staff, the United Nations has suspended all official movements into and within areas under the de facto authorities’ control.”
Before Friday, the UN had a total of 16 Yemeni staff in Houthi detention.
Staffers were trying to get a headcount across the UN agencies working in the country and had halted their work, which provides food, medicine, and other aid to the impoverished nation.
In June, the UN acknowledged the Houthis detained 11 Yemeni employees under unclear circumstances as the militia increasingly cracked down on areas under their control.
Several dozen others from aid agencies and other organizations are also held.
The UN added that it was “actively engaging with senior representatives” of the Houthis.

 


Sudan army breaks paramilitary siege on key base: military source

Updated 24 January 2025
Follow

Sudan army breaks paramilitary siege on key base: military source

  • “Our forces were able to lift the siege on the Signal Corps,” the source in the Sudanese army told AFP
  • “This victory opens the way to link our forces in Bahri (Khartoum North) with our forces in the General Command“

PORT SUDAN: The Sudanese army broke a paramilitary siege on one of its key Khartoum-area bases on Friday, paving the way to also freeing the besieged military headquarters, a military source said.
The paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) had since the outbreak of the war with Sudan’s army in April 2023 encircled both the Signal Corps in Khartoum North and the General Command of the Armed Forces, its headquarters just south across the Blue Nile river.
“Our forces were able to lift the siege on the Signal Corps,” the source in the Sudanese army told AFP.
With a months-long communications blackout in place, AFP was not able to independently verify the situation on the ground.
The RSF could not be immediately reached for comment.
“This victory opens the way to link our forces in Bahri (Khartoum North) with our forces in the General Command,” the military source said, requesting anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
A military source had previously told AFP the army was advancing closer to Khartoum North following days of military operations aimed at dislodging the RSF from fortified positions in the city.
This comes around two weeks after the army reclaimed the Al-Jazira state capital Wad Madani, just south of Khartoum, securing a key crossroads between the capital and surrounding states.
The army and the RSF had seemed to be in a stalemate since the military nearly a year ago seized control of Omdurman — Khartoum’s twin city on the west bank of the Nile.
RSF has controlled Khartoum North on the east bank.
They have regularly exchanged artillery fire across the river, with civilians reporting bombs and shrapnel often hitting homes.
The military source said Friday’s advance “will secure Omdurman from the artillery shelling launched from Bahri.”
Seizing the General Command would signal a major shift for the army, securing its positions in all three districts of the capital.
Since the early days of the war, when the RSF quickly spread through the streets of Khartoum, the military has had to supply its forces inside the headquarters via airdrops.
Army chief Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan was himself trapped inside for four months, before emerging in August 2023.
Khartoum and its surrounding state have been torn apart by the war, with 26,000 people killed between April 2023 and June 2024, according to a report by The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
Entire neighborhoods have been emptied out and taken over by fighters as at least 3.6 million people fled the capital, according to United Nations figures.
Across the northeast African country, the war has claimed tens of thousands of lives and uprooted more than 12 million people in what the United Nations calls the world’s largest internal displacement crisis.
Famine has been declared in parts of Sudan but the risk is spreading for millions more people, a UN-backed assessment said last month.
Before leaving office on Monday, the administration of United States president Joe Biden sanctioned Sudanese army chief Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, accusing the army of attacking schools, markets and hospitals and using food deprivation as a weapon of war.
That designation came about one week after Washington sanctioned RSF leader Mohammad Hamdan Dagalo and said his forces had “committed genocide.”


Israeli refusal to fully withdraw from Lebanon sparks regional concerns

Updated 24 January 2025
Follow

Israeli refusal to fully withdraw from Lebanon sparks regional concerns

  • President Aoun holds talks with US, French officials to urge Israel to meet ceasefire deal criteria
  • GCC, Kuwaiti officials hold talks with Lebanese counterparts

BEIRUT: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Thursday Israeli troops would not withdraw from the border area of southern Lebanon in accordance with the time frame set in the ceasefire agreement with Hezbollah, amid claims that the Lebanese Army has not fulfilled its obligations.
Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun held talks with France and the US to urge Israel to fully implement the agreement and withdraw within the stipulated timeframe to prevent the situation from deteriorating.
Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati also called on the US to “intervene to ensure the implementation of Resolution 1701 and Israel’s withdrawal.”
On Friday, Netanyahu’s office said that “the gradual withdrawal from Lebanon will continue in full coordination with the US administration.”
However, the Israeli Cabinet decided that “the Israeli Army will remain in its current positions,” warning that “the Israeli Army is prepared for any scenario and will respond harshly and immediately to any violations by Hezbollah.”
Israeli media reports said “Israel is requesting an additional one-month delay in the withdrawal of its army from Lebanon and an extension of the ceasefire agreement.”
The Israeli Broadcasting Corporation said that “the political leadership has instructed the army to remain in the eastern sector of Lebanon,” noting that “the additional period before the complete withdrawal from southern Lebanon may range from days to weeks.”
The development accompanied continued Israeli operations in the border region, particularly in the eastern sector.
Army spokesperson Avichay Adraee claimed Israeli forces “uncovered several underground tunnel routes belonging to Hezbollah in Wadi Saluki, intended for the party’s members to take shelter,” asserting that “these routes have been destroyed.”
Adraee spoke about “the discovery of a stockpile of weapons inside a mosque, as well as a vehicle loaded with weapons, and hundreds of mortar shells, improvised explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades, rifles and other military equipment.”
He said: “In another operation by the Golani Brigade, trucks loaded with heavy rocket launchers were found, along with weapons depots that contained large quantities of rocket shells, mortars shells, shoulder-launched rockets, improvised explosive devices and military equipment.”
Calls intensified from border area residents following Israel’s announcement to gather on Sunday and demand to be allowed to return to their villages.
On Thursday, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri was informed by US Gen. Jasper Jeffers, head of the international committee monitoring the implementation of the ceasefire agreement, of “Israel’s intention to extend the presence of its forces in several locations in southern Lebanon,” according to information distributed about the meeting. Berri told the general “that people will head to their villages on Sunday.”
In a statement, Hezbollah said that “Israel’s failure to adhere to the 60-day deadline is an attack on sovereignty that requires the state to act and address it, using all international means and conventions to reclaim Lebanese territories and liberate them from the grip of occupation.”
At the political level, Lebanon received further Gulf support for its new leadership.
Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Abdullah Ali Al-Yahya and the Gulf Cooperation Council’s Secretary-General Jasem Mohamed Albudaiwi, along with a delegation from the Kuwaiti Foreign Ministry and the GCC, held meetings with Lebanese leaders in Beirut on Friday.
This visit, along with the visit of Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan less than 24 hours earlier to Beirut, where he met with Lebanese officials and emphasized the importance of implementing Resolution 1701, carry exceptional importance in light of the developments in Lebanon and the wider region.
During his meeting with Aoun, Al-Yahya reaffirmed Kuwait’s “support, endorsement and commitment to standing by Lebanon to provide all necessary aid in all fields.”
He stressed “activating the Lebanese-Kuwaiti joint committees to address the issues raised according to Lebanon’s needs” was of the utmost importance, recalling that Lebanon “was the first country to condemn the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait through the stance of late Prime Minister Salim Al-Hoss.”
Albudaiwi conveyed the GCC’s “unwavering support for Lebanon and its sovereignty,” emphasizing its commitment to “the non-interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs.”
He affirmed that “the GCC is moving toward helping Lebanon in terms of economic development projects after implementing the intended reforms,” noting that “a Gulf program for Lebanon is set to be developed in cooperation with the future Lebanese government.”
Aoun said he hoped “for Kuwaitis in particular and the Gulf people in general to come back and visit Lebanon,” stressing that “the Arab countries’ unity is the cornerstone for confronting current challenges.”
The president affirmed that “after forming the government, we will establish new foundations for cooperation with the Gulf countries,” adding that “the main titles of these new foundations were included in the inauguration speech, which set the rules for building the state.”
Both Gulf officials met with Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam, who affirmed “the importance of working to confront the internal challenges faced by Lebanon during this period.”
Salam stressed “the significance of restoring Lebanese-Gulf relations, which he sees as a priority in the near future.”
The Gulf officials also met with caretaker Mikati and Berri.
The Kuwaiti minister and the GCC secretary-general held a joint press conference with Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habibi following a meeting.
Al-Yahya said: “We reaffirm our solidarity with Lebanon, and our firm commitment to supporting its sovereignty and territorial unity, as well as the importance of implementing the UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1701, and the Taif Agreement.
“We look forward to building the best relations with Lebanon and strengthening security and stability in the region,” he added.
Al-Yahya affirmed that “the GCC had called for the full adherence to the ceasefire agreement and the cessation of Israeli hostilities against Lebanon and the UN peacekeeping forces,” pointing out “the importance of the role played by the army and the security forces to achieve security in the country.”
He said: “We encourage the implementation of the intended reforms. There’s a historical chance to overcome the past challenges and start the reconstruction and development process in a way that achieves the Lebanese people’s prosperity aspirations.”
Al-Budaiwi stated: “We are very pleased with what we heard from the Lebanese leadership and its keenness to achieve the needed reforms and the internationally-recommended programs to ensure the country’s stability.
“These reforms constitute the right path toward Lebanon’s recovery. We believe in the necessity to implement these mandatory reforms and the security council’s resolutions, namely Resolution 1701, and the Taif Agreement.”
He reiterated the final communique of the ministerial committee’s extraordinary meeting in regard to supporting the five-nation group on Lebanon.


Gaza life expectancy nearly half prewar levels: Study

Updated 24 January 2025
Follow

Gaza life expectancy nearly half prewar levels: Study

  • Data published in Lancet shows average life expectancy fell from 75.5 to 40.5 in a year
  • Figures could be worse due to collapse of Gaza’s health systems, researchers warn

LONDON: Israel’s war in Gaza has led to a drop in average life expectancy of 35 years in the Palestinian enclave, a new study has found.

The Lancet journal published data suggesting that life expectancy had dropped to 40.5 years by September 2024, having been 75.5 years before Israel began its invasion in October 2023.

Researchers for the study at the University of Pennsylvania said the true average age could be lower as only data from those killed by war injuries was considered rather than overall casualty figures, which were likely exacerbated by the collapse of Gaza’s health system.

Casualty lists from Gaza’s health authorities were cross-referenced with a UN refugee list and census data to arrive at the findings.

“Our life expectancy results show that the … war in the Gaza Strip generated a life expectancy loss of more than 30 years during the first 12 months of the war, nearly halving pre-war levels,” the study’s authors said.

Despite the logistical issues caused by the war, the UN considers the Gaza health data — which claims that 47,000 have died — accurate.

The UN Human Rights Office said it verified the identities of 8,119 people killed from November 2023 to April 2024.

It added that 44 percent were children and 26 percent were women, with the largest age bracket 5-9-year-olds, and that around 80 percent of people were killed in residential buildings.

“Our case-by-case evaluation of the Gaza Health Ministry list of killed individuals did not detect any substantial errors or signs of intentional inflation,” the researchers said.

“It is highly likely that our central estimates underestimate true losses, because they do not include individuals reported missing or under the rubble.

“Even more importantly, our results do not include the indirect effects of the war on mortality.”

A separate Lancet study published earlier this month suggests that the 47,000-casualty figure may be an underestimate by around 40 percent.