Young Diplomats

Britain has left the European Union. The process of leaving the leaving the European Union defined the premiereship of Theresa May, as well as Boris Johnson. It resulted in the downfall of Jeremy Corbyn, the near destruction of the Liberal Democrats, and the rise of the Scottish National Party, as well as other secessionist movements.

But, with Brexit over, what is the future of British politics? The various political parties that make up the House of Commons?

Well, despite being handed a major victory, the work is not yest over for Boris Johnson. His handling of coronavirus has proven to be very unpopular, giving the new leader of the Labour Party, Kier Stramer, much needed breathing room to recover from their devastating loss in the December 2019 elections.

But, the real question, is, what of the Scottish National Party? Could Scotland once again become an independent nation for the first time since 1707? Would this start a chain reaction that would lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom?

Britain may have achieved Brexit, but it cost her everything in the process.

The worldwide famous American flag could soon have an extra star. In fact, one of the most pressing issues that has echoed amidst the corridors of power in Washington, D.C. for a long time is that of the district’s statehood. The city’s Mayor, Muriel Bowser, has showed an unwavering commitment to the cause, pointing out that “Washington is the only capital of a democratic nation that denies its residents a vote in the federal legislature”. More specifically, the local population has neither a Senator nor a House member in Congress, but just a delegate – Eleanor Norton Holmes – who, like delegates from other areas without statehood such as Guam and Puerto Rico, can only draft legislation and consider it in Committees, but cannot vote on final passage of bills on the House floor.
In addition, residents of D.C. pay the highest federal taxes per capita but still are denied voices and votes, thus making the current situation a perfect example of ‘taxation without representation’. But the reasons to embrace a changing of status for D.C. don’t stop here. Firstly, the District of Columbia is large enough to be a state, since the area counts around 712,000 residents, more people than Vermont and Wyoming. Secondly, a favorable point toward creating a new state is its adherence to constitutional principles. The U.S. Constitution says indeed that the Congress has the authority to redefine the borders of the federal district and shrink its size. Such act has already been done in 1846, when the portion west of the Potomac river was returned to Virginia. Following this frame, there would be a resizing of the federal capital to a small area which encompasses, among others, the White House, the Capitol building, the Supreme Court and the National Mall. The rest of the city would become the 51st state, named the Washington, Douglas Commonwealth after abolitionist Fredrick Douglas.

Even though not brand new in the political landscape of the capital, the fight for granting statehood has recently returned into the spotlight. The racial justice turmoil following George Floyd’s death and the assault of Capitol Hill advanced by pro-Trump demonstrators put an even stronger emphasis on the need to provide safety and independence for Washingtonians. While the recent attack took place, Mayor Bowser promptly requested to the federal government to dispatch the district’s National Guard, but the response was quite slow. Contrary to governors who can summon the Guard of their states at will, the District’s one can only be deployed after approval given by both the Pentagon and the President. Despite the particular circumstance of the mob, Donald Trump did not sign off on the deployment, and proper aid arrived only after a joint consultation of the Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and the Vice President Mike Pence.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is not astonishing that Mayor Bowser, along with a lot of high-profile D.C. politicians, endorse the cause of statehood. For instance, in a tweet that was referring to the House Resolution 51 – the Washington D.C. Admission Act, passed by the lower chamber of the Congress with a vote of 232-180 on 26 June 2020, the new President claimed: “D.C. should be a state. Pass it on”. Kamala Harris, the first woman ever to be elected Vice President, also wrote on the famous social media, stating that lack of representation for the people from the district “it’s undemocratic and it must end.” Previously, both former Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama supported the legislation to give birth to the 51st state. But the path to realize D.C. sovereignty is clearly marked by sharp obstacles. Notably, Republicans expressed vehement opposition to the Resolution 51, labelling the attempt as an act that “would empower the most radical agenda in modern American politics”. However, it is worth noticing that this resistance to the bill occurred last summer, when Republicans fully controlled the Senate. Now, the unexpected capturing of the upper chamber by Democrats following the runoff elections of Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in Georgia, means that Democrats hold 50-50 majority. Joe Biden can therefore implement his legislative agenda more easily, with vice President Harris able to cast any tie-breaking vote.

Despite this remarkable accomplishment, the topic of statehood, which quoting again the words of Mayor Bowser “must get on the president’s desk within the first 100 days”, could cross the so called ‘filibuster’, a tactic largely used in the U.S. Senate which consists of trying to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on a specific measure. This obstruction could seriously impede any progress to make D.C. a state, considering that the ‘cloture rule’ would come into play, hence requiring 60 votes to cut off debate and moving to the voting procedures. In order to curtailing the use of filibuster, the Senate can adopt options such as setting a new precedent, placing restrictions on its use or even changing the rule itself. Nevertheless, those scenarios are inevitably destined to clash in an arena of contrasting views. On one hand, it is undeniable that being a state would give to the District of Columbia considerable advantages in terms of representation, as well as a highly probable progressive track that would see Senators engaging on workers protection, paid sick leave and police reform. On the other hand, there are still strict constitutionalists who highlight that this possibility constitutes a contradiction with the intent of the Founding Fathers, who decided that the center of the government did not have to reside in a state. They wrote in Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that “the congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation…over such district, as may become the Seat of the Government of the United States”. The battle for statehood is fierce, the managing of the problem complicated, so only time will tell whether the 117th Congress will be capable of calming Washingtonians’ grievances, turning the dream into a reality.

Coronavirus has hit the world hard this year. Though not being the first pandemic for the world to face in modern history, the level of severity is astonishingly high even comparing to past cases, mostly due to the openness of our society and to the wide range of possibilities a modern person has that could easily accelerate the spread of the disease. This unexpected turn of events required some strict measures and immediate implementation of new policies, sometimes quite unpopular with the population.

Israel managed to become an ultimate leader of this struggle in the first half of 2020. Setting an example for the rest of the world, they have instantly anounced new restrictions that were supposed to hold the virus back from spreading fast among the people, such as limiting social gatherings down to 10 people at first while obliging the attendees to keep a distance of 2 metres between each other, and then even declaring a national state of emergency, banning Israelis from leaving their homes unless necessary, closing up entire cities with spiking coronavirus diagnoses and introducing fines for the violators. Those measures have even put them on the first place in Coronavirus Health Safety Countries Ranking by Deep Knowledge Group (as of March 30, 2020).

Nevertheless, as of the moment of this publication, Israel appears to have fallen hard down this list, now holding 24th place by the number of positive cases in the world, with around 4 thousand new cases every 24 hours. So how did it happen?
Religious pressure
It’s impossible to talk about Israel’s social issues without mentioning religion and culture. They both play an important role in everyday life of Israel’s population and stand high above many other things in people’s list of priorities, meaning that there are traditions and customs that Israelis will never give up on, no matter the circumstances. No wonder that one of the biggest difficulties for the government when forming an anti-pandemic policy was the negotiation process with religious authorities regarding prayers and holidays’ celebrations.

For instance, Judaism requires a certain minimal amount of people (a minyan) to be present in a synagogue during a public prayer. Now, this quorum is actually ten Jewish adults, which means that ten was the only possible ammount of people attending the synagogue that wouldn’t contradict neither with the law nor with the Jewish tradition. However, since the 2-metre distance requirement was also introduced, most of the synagogues were simply uncapable of meeting all the limitations due to lack of indoor space. The solution was suggested by the two Chief Rabbies of Israel, which called for Jews to close all the synagogues and pray outside. Unfortunately, cities like Bnei Brak, a center of Haredi Judaism, were too concervative to change their way of perception of Judaism, so they refused to abandon their traditions. This included ignoring both the word of the Chief Rabbies and the Health Ministry restrictions. The results were catastrophic: the number of new positive tests has risen sharply, which caused the total isolation of Bnei Brak by police, as well as some other strongly religious cities and districts.

Another powerful factor is the religious lobbying in the government. Netanyahu, being strongly supported by the religious population, has made a Hasidic politician, Yaakov Litzman, a Minister of Health. Many blame Litzman for his exceptionally lenient attitude toward enforcing health guidelines in ultra-Orthodox communities from the start of the pandemic, which might have been a major cause for the thrive of COVID-19 among religious communities. Although, it didn’t take long before he was caught violating his own restriction during the prayer, and immediately after that becoming the first Member of Parliament of Israel being tested positive for the virus.
National treasure
Another important factor that had its influence on the matter was the population’s unwillingness to accept the new way of everyday life. The newly introduced restrictions were mostly met as if they were pure violation of basic human rights and were strongly opposed by Israelis, which only turned into more gatherings in a form of protests and demonstrations.

In addition to that, Israel was the first country to openly use its Security Agency technology to control the monitor the movement of its citizens in order to inform the people if they were in touch with a confirmed infected person and if they are obliged to enter a 14-day quarantine at home or in specially designated areas after being in contact with one. Those measures lead to many people making less money and sometimes even losing their jobs. The percentage of unemployment skyrocketed and caused even more unrest.

It is important to understand that the economic effects of those policies were absolutely devastating. The forecast of closing businesses for 2020 made by Bank of Israel was twice worse than for the previous year, and the forecast made by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development projected negative growth of 6.2%. According to the latter, the second wave of COVID-19, if happens, may cause the economy to shrink by 8.3%, and will not recover before 2022. The unemployment rate has risen from 3.3% in February 2020 up to 4.9% in August 2020. Although the government tried to calm people down by giving each citizen a one-time grant worth 750 shekels (about 215$), it obviously didn’t help much, concerning the fact that 750 shekels is equal working only 26 hours on minimum hourly wage.

All those measures and their consecuences angered people so much that they basically started to ignore them on purpose. The beaches were crowded with swimmers and surfers, parks were full of BBQ-lovers, and night clubs and restaurants, though being regularly fined for violating restrictions, were thriving with clients. So, this is not surprising at all that the virus has managed to spread within the population as if the restrictions never existed.
What should we learn from Israeli example?
Without a doubt, COVID-19 and the world’s battle against it is a complex and unprecedented issue that simply cannot be tackled without some casualties on the way. But Israeli policy did not only miss the objective, which was to hold back the virus from affecting its citizens, but has also managed to lead to the aftermath that Israel will have to deal with even long after the pandemic ends. So yes, Israel has set a good example. An example of how a country should not deal with such a disasterous situation.

The world today is witnessing many areas that suffer from conflicts with different causes of conflict from one region to another, and among those areas that suffer from conflict, the Eastern Mediterranean region, this region is currently experiencing intense conflict due to the discovery that that region contains large quantities of natural gas And oil, according to studies from specialized agencies that the eastern Mediterranean basin is a region rich in oil and natural gas, and the amount of natural gas is estimated at approximately 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Therefore, the eastern Mediterranean region has gained great importance among the countries bordering it and among many From international actors such as Russia and the European Union, and accordingly, the countries of that region began to accelerate the definition of their maritime borders, in order to determine the maritime areas in which the countries can exploit their discovered wealth, which led to the outbreak of conflict between the countries of that region due to the disagreement over the determination of maritime borders from The point of view of each country, this is in addition to the fact that there are countries in that region that did not sign the law of the sea, such as Turkey, and this complicates the conflict in that region and increases its intensity, in addition to the lack of most of the countries of that logic Energy sources of natural gas and oil, which makes it dependent on importing these sources, which constitutes a burden on those countries that view the recently discovered resources in the Eastern Mediterranean region as a ray of hope and a lifeline that will enable them to help achieve many goals such as moving towards Achieving economic development by reducing imports of energy sources and exploiting the newly discovered resources that fall within the maritime borders of each country, all of this has led to the escalation of conflict in that region due to the previous reasons and we will review through this study the following axes.

The strategic importance of the eastern Mediterranean region.
Axes of conflict and the direct parties to it.
Other international actors in the East Mediterranean equation.
A vision for the future of the conflict in the eastern Mediterranean.

The strategic importance of the Eastern Mediterranean region:

The Eastern Mediterranean region has become of great importance to the countries of that region and to other parties such as Russia and the European Union, for example. The importance of that region has increased dramatically after the US Geological Survey published a study in 2010 stating that the eastern Mediterranean region has a huge wealth of oil. And natural gas is estimated at 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.7 billion barrels of oil reserves. Estimates of gas exploration indicate that this region has much greater quantities, which makes this region a great importance, and accordingly the countries bordering that region hastened By demarcating its maritime borders in order to secure its share of those wealth that lies within its borders and work to exploit and benefit from it, which led to the outbreak of conflict in that region and although the natural gas wealth of that region is approximately 122 trillion cubic feet, yet the discovered fields And that is being worked out is estimated at 68 trillion cubic meters, and one of the most important fields discovered in the eastern Mediterranean region, which are distributed among the countries of the region as follows:

Israel:

Israel has a share of the wealth discovered in that area, and its most important fields are:

A / Tamar field: The Tamar field is located at a distance of 90 km from the coast off Haifa, and the storage of that field is estimated at 10 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and it was discovered in 2009 .

B / Tanin field: This field is located west of Haifa and is approximately 120 km from the coast, and it is estimated that it contains natural gas reserves estimated at 1.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas .

A / Leviathan field: The Leviathan field is 130 km away from the coast, which was discovered in 2010 and it is estimated that it contains natural gas reserves estimated at 535 billion cubic meters of natural gas, or approximately 18 trillion cubic feet.

Gaza Strip:

Gaza has a share of the wealth discovered in the eastern Mediterranean, and one of its most important fields is:

A / Gaza Marine Field: It is a field that was discovered by the British company (British Gas) in 2000 AD and the volume of natural gas reserves in it is estimated at 1.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and it is located in the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip and is 35 km from the coast .

Cyprus:

Cyprus has a share of the wealth of the Eastern Mediterranean, and among the most important discovered Cypriot fields:

A / Aphrodite field: It is a field located in the southeast of the island of Cyprus in region 12 and the discoverer of this field was the American company (Noble Energy) in 2011 AD. The volume of gas reserves in this field is estimated at 127.4 billion cubic meters of natural gas.

B / Calypso field: This field was discovered by the Italian company (Eni) and (Total) France, and the volume of reserves in this field is estimated from 6 to 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Egypt

Egypt has many fields in that region, which makes it have a large share in the wealth of the Eastern Mediterranean region. Among the most important Egyptian fields are:

A / Zohr field: The Zohr field is 150 km away from the Egyptian coast and has a reserve volume of 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and it is the largest natural gas discovery in Egypt and the Mediterranean.

Atoll field: This field is located in the North Damietta marine concession area. The volume of reserves in this field is estimated at 1.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Because of the discovery of wealth in the eastern Mediterranean region in huge quantities, and because of the overlapping of the maritime borders of the countries of the region and their dispute over determining those borders to determine the share of each country of that wealth in addition to the existence of conflicts older than the struggle for that wealth in an eastern region such as the Turkish-Greek conflict, and the Arab conflict. The Israeli, Turkish-Cypriot conflict, in addition to the presence of some countries that did not sign the law of the sea, such as Turkey, all of this led to an increase in the intensity of the conflict in the eastern Mediterranean region and led to an increase in the scope of the conflict in that region, which threatens serious consequences if it is not agreed by peaceful means about determining the borders. The maritime region between the countries of that region in order to determine its wealth in a manner acceptable to all concerned parties without affecting the utilization of the resources of the Eastern Mediterranean region, and the aforementioned discoveries in the Mediterranean region did not gain importance to the countries bordering on it only, but also gained importance to other international parties such as the European Union. Which relies heavily on Russia to supply it with natural gas. The European Union found the newly discovered Eastern Mediterranean gas an opportunity to diversify the sources of natural gas that come to it from abroad, which is a dangerous matter. For Russia, which is one of the largest exporters of natural gas to Europe, which makes it use natural gas as a pressure card in the face of the European Union in some files, and accordingly, the importance of the Eastern Mediterranean region has increased for both Russia, which seeks to invest in the eastern Mediterranean region, to also benefit from Eastern gas. The Mediterranean, and the European Union, which seeks to diversify its natural gas exports to avoid Russian pressure.

Parties to the conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean:

The conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean is characterized by the overlapping and multiplicity of dimensions and parties to the conflict between direct parties and other international parties. The pace of the conflict began to accelerate after a report by the US Geological Survey in 2010 that there were 3455 billion cubic meters of gas and 1.7 billion barrels of oil. The most geostrategic region that poses a threat to the future of international peace and security, and this geopolitical importance may cause an increase in the rates of regional conflict and an increase in the level of differences between the countries of this region, and this importance has prompted the countries of the region to legalize their status legally regarding the delineation of maritime borders according to the United Nations On the other hand, Turkey sought to explore for gas in the economic zones of Cyprus and Greece without regard to the international laws regulating these operations, and it resorted to legalizing this by signing two agreements to demarcate the maritime borders with Libya, and then the tensions escalated in the countries concerned. And related to the disputes over the maritime borders of each country

Axes of conflict and direct parties to it:

Conflict between Turkey and Greece

Turkish-Greek relations have witnessed many periods of ebb and flow since Greece gained independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1832 A.D. The problems between the two countries are old and extended for a long time, and relations between Turkey and Greece have witnessed many wars such as:

A / The Turkish-Greek War of 1897 AD.

B / The first Balkan war in 1912.

C / World War I (1914/1918).

D / The Greco-Turkish War (1919/1922).

The relations between the two countries are neither stable nor proceeding on the same pace, just as the relations between Turkey and Greece witnessed periods of war, and the relations between them witnessed periods of peace, and the current relations between Turkey and Greece are witnessing many files such as the Cyprus island file and the maritime border demarcation file. Also between Greece and Turkey and the conflict between Turkey and Greece in the eastern Mediterranean cannot be presented and understood in isolation from the two previous files, and accordingly we will present a summary of the previous two files:

A / The Cyprus Island file:

The island of Cyprus is the third largest island in the Mediterranean after the islands of Sardinia and Sicily, and that island enjoys an important strategic location for the parties to the conflict, whether Turkey or Greece, and this conflict is an obstacle to improving relations between the two parties now, and the problem on the island of Cyprus is due to the state of conflict The conflict increased between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots due to the difference in the viewpoint of the two sides, and the intensity of the conflict increased due to the Greek Cypriots’ call to join Greece, which is what Turkey sees as a blockade of the Turkish maritime borders and sees it as a threat to its interests and national security, which prompted Turkey to intervene in Cyprus and occupy the northern third of it 1974 AD and the clash with Greece and the declaration of that part as an independent state, which is Northern Cyprus (Turkish Cyprus), which is a state that only enjoys international recognition from the state of Turkey, and the other part of the island, which represents two-thirds of the island is the state of Cyprus, which is a country that enjoys With international recognition, the conflict on that island between Greece and Turkey is one of the most important points of disagreement between Turkey and Greece, and it is what also raises a conflict about the rights to explore for wealth discovered in the eastern Mediterranean, which is what we will refer to in Mo Put subsequent .

B / File of demarcating the maritime boundaries between Turkey and Greece:

This file represents one of the important points in understanding the conflict between Turkey and Greece in the eastern Mediterranean, as this file raises a conflict over the rights to explore for wealth in various marine areas such as the state’s exclusive economic zone. In that file, the two countries are competing to demarcate the maritime borders, whether defining regional waters or the shelf Continental. That the Turkish-Greek conflict cannot be understood in isolation from the two previous files, because they transfer the conflict between Turkey and Greece to the conflict over the discovered wealth in the eastern Mediterranean, according to the conflict raised by the two files about the rights to prospect for those discovered wealth. The Turkish-Greek conflict is driven by another motive, which is the lack of resources. Energy in Turkey and Greece and the desire of each of them to control the wealth discovered in the eastern Mediterranean and to explore for them to benefit from them and secure sources of energy in the future.

Turkish-Cypriot conflict:

The conflict between Turkey and Cyprus extends for long decades, and one of the most prominent points of conflict between the two countries was Turkey’s occupation of the northern part of the island of Cyprus, which represents a third of it in 1974 AD, and the division of the island into two parts, as the northern part, which represents almost a third of the area of ​​the island of Cyprus and represents the state of Northern Cyprus Turkish) and it is a country that does not enjoy international recognition except from Turkey, and the other part of the island represents the state of Cyprus, whose capital is Nicosia, and it is a sovereign state that enjoys international recognition and is a member of the European Union. It also deepens the conflict and ignites it in the eastern Mediterranean region because of the disputes it raises over the demarcation of the maritime borders between the two countries and the struggle over the rights to explore the wealth of that region. It should be noted here that although the conflict between Turkey and Cyprus is an old conflict that spanned for many decades, The struggle over the resources and wealth of the Eastern Mediterranean is a relatively recent struggle between the two countries. In 2009, the Aphrodite field was discovered, 180 km from the southwestern coast of Cyprus, with a total stock of 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and the Italian company Eni announced in February 2018 the discovery of the Calypso field in the disputed area between Cyprus and Turkey.

Conflict between Egypt and Turkey:

In 2015, Egypt discovered the largest gas reserves in the eastern Mediterranean in the “Zohr” field, enabling Egypt to meet domestic consumption, which increases annually by about 5%, as gas is used to generate 85% of the country’s electricity. And it provides a surplus for it to export. The demarcation of maritime borders between countries is based on the International Treaty on the Law of the Sea signed in 1982, but Syria, Israel and Turkey did not sign this treaty, and the maritime borders between Egypt and Cyprus were demarcated in 2003 and then in 2013, and Israel signed an agreement to export gas with Egypt in 2018 and protest Turkey is on the borders of the Egyptian economic zone overlooking Cypriot waters, which Cairo rejected as interference in its sovereign affairs. In order to cut off the Turkish hopes for the Mediterranean gas and oil, Egypt and Greece signed an agreement to demarcate the maritime borders between them. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan described this agreement as “worthless.” The Turkish Foreign Ministry stated that the agreement violates the Turkish continental shelf, and Turkey sent its ships to explore near the Greek islands .

Egypt entered the gas market at the end of 2014 and early 2015 when the discovery of the Zohr field was announced by an Italian exploration company.

This discovery strengthened Egypt’s role in the natural gas market in the region, especially since Egypt has two liquefaction plants for natural gas. This discovery has preceded and since In 2014, a noticeable improvement in the Egyptian-Greek-Cypriot-Greek relations, with the holding of several tripartite meetings, in addition to the restoration of the Egyptian-Israeli relations.

The dispute over the maritime borders between Lebanon and Israel

The crisis in the conflict between Lebanon and Israel is focused on a part of Block No. 9, located at the border line between the two countries. Lebanon rejected the Israeli-Cypriot agreement due to its disagreement on the triple point between the three countries, which led to the attack on nearly 850 square kilometers of the economic area. Own exclusive. The series of conflict between the two countries continued on February 9, 2018, when Lebanon announced the signing of two agreements with the French companies “Total” and “ENI” Italy and “Novatek” for exploration and production of oil and gas at sea in Block 4 and Block 9, part of which is located in the disputed waters. On her with Tel Aviv

The maritime agreement between Cyprus and Lebanon confirmed that neither party had agreed with a third party without returning to the second party to obtain his prior approval, but Nicosia later took the initiative to agree with Tel Aviv and demarcate the borders of its exclusive economic zone with it without informing Lebanon, The United States tried to play the mediating role, but to no avail, as the American negotiator demanded political conditions for Lebanon to present them, which led to the faltering of negotiations, as Lebanon rejected the American demands.

The Syrian share of the wealth of the Eastern Mediterranean

It is not possible to understand the Syrian share in isolation from the Russian role in the region, as well as its presence on the ground, as Russia controls the Syrian coast, and therefore Syria is outside the equation so far, and the initiative is in Russia’s hands in this regard.

The US Geological Authority estimated Syria’s reserves of natural gas in the Mediterranean at 700 billion cubic meters, while the total Syrian reserves of gas after adding many new discoveries reached 28 trillion cubic meters, and the Ferrell Center for Studies in Berlin expected that Syria would occupy the third place. In the world in producing gas, if it were able to raise its production capacity to its maximum.

Likewise, Syria did not sign the International Law of the Seas, and in 2011, when the revolution broke out, the issue in the eastern Mediterranean was taking shape and thus it is outside the conflict and outside the demarcation of the borders, so that the initiative will remain in Russia’s hands. And Turkey – Syria with the Assad regime.

Other international actors in the East Mediterranean equation:

Exploration operations in the Eastern Mediterranean are managed by Italian, French, American and Russian companies, and this puts the countries of these companies within the circle of economic competition over the wells discovered, and the European Union also seeks to enhance energy security by diversifying sources of imports and supply methods, as Eastern Mediterranean gas contributes to reducing dependence Nearly the whole of the countries of Eastern and Southern Europe is about Russia, and that is why the Union is keen to achieve the maximum possible benefit from the region and also cares about the interests of member states such as Cyprus and Greece. Moscow is also present in this file through exploration companies in the case of Lebanon, providing financial financing to Cyprus and Greece, and the military presence and bilateral agreements with Syria.

A future vision of the conflict in the eastern Mediterranean:

Most of the estimates agree on the difficulty of decisively predicting the security situation in the eastern Mediterranean region, in light of the current security liquidity in the eastern Mediterranean and given that most of the cases are still unstable, and it is not possible to bet on the stability prospects that seem less than the possibilities of more explosions There are three scenarios that may lead to the conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean region, at least in the short term.

The scenario of forming and building multi-lateral relationships:

A scenario that includes a formula for stability and cooperation between some forces in exchange for opposing forces as a result of the conflict of interests of the two parties. The owners of this trend do not prefer to call this type of inter-relations completely alliances, but rather multi-lateral relations, especially since there are challenges related to the strategic requirements for building alliances, including There is no complete match in the views regarding many issues .

Hence, Ankara seeks to lure the invading partners in the eastern Mediterranean to the dialogue table by pressuring to send drilling ships, accompanied by warships off Cyprus and some Greek islands, on reconnaissance missions  and thus it is possible that Turkey does not intend to engage in a losing military battle with its neighbors, but rather looms With this skirmish to improve the terms of negotiation with the countries of the region, to be part and partner in this project.

Hence, this scenario assumes that Turkey will continue to pursue its escalatory policies and create its own alliances, and therefore that, in light of the existence of the Eastern Mediterranean Forum, which is supported by the United States of America, which includes (Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Israel, Cyprus, Greece, and Italy), it is noticed that it is not invited. Turkey and Russia to participate in it, so we can say that this forum represents an axis that could be matched by another axis that Turkey seeks to form by attracting Lebanon to this axis, especially since Lebanon did not join the forum, and it may not be able to reach a settlement guaranteeing its right to Block 9 disputed with Israel. There is a possibility that Palestine will join this axis. Although Palestine is in the Mediterranean forum, it is not yet able to exploit its wealth, in addition to the difficulty of demarcating the maritime borders with Israel, at least in the short term and finally

The state of Iran could join the Turkish axis as an energy-producing country, and therefore it is in its interest to maintain its share in the global markets. Iran is a supporter of the Lebanese Hezbollah, which makes it a part of this axis.

Compatibility scenario:

This scenario assumes the possibility of consensus among the countries of the region regarding the delineation of maritime borders in accordance with the rules of international law and in light of the United Nations Convention of the Seas, through positive roles for either the European Union or the United Nations, American mediation or international arbitration. Also, Erdogan’s announcement of the discovery of a huge gas field in the Black Sea, which contains 320 billion cubic meters of gas.

Assuming the correctness of this discovery, the rules of the equation in the eastern Mediterranean will change slightly, as this reassures Ankara that it has natural resources far from the eastern Mediterranean region, and thus this may reduce its hostile policies, but it is difficult to verify the validity of this disclosure because it was made by the Turkish National Oil Company. TPAO

There may be an international role capable of convincing Turkey of the need to stop its efforts to evade international agreements that it signed in the past, and to stop its efforts to expand its influence in the region, in order to end the state of tension and move towards calm, in a way that helps to benefit from the region’s wealth, especially since all International parties need to. Greece is keen to benefit from this wealth to overcome its continuing economic difficulties, and countries such as Egypt seek to maximize its role as a regional gas hub, while Washington wants American companies to obtain exploration rights in the region. As for Europe, it seeks to reduce Russian pressure on it with the gas paper, and its attempts to diversify energy supplies, and considers that a new gas export center in the eastern Mediterranean is attractive to it, and Turkey may find a formula through which it can benefit from the state of calm and stability that will prevail in the region.

Scenario of escalation and military confrontation:

The eastern Mediterranean has turned into a new arena for a number of international and regional parties because of the gas fields, and thus this scenario assumes the possibility of an escalation between economic and political sanctions and military skirmishes until it reaches the level of direct military confrontation between some countries bordering the Mediterranean, and one of the most important potential confrontations will be between Turkey and Greece on the one hand, and between Lebanon and Israel on the other hand, especially since in the past the colonial competition for oil was confined to the major countries. Now, in light of the market economy, global companies see wealth comparable to the wealth of countries, they also have a role in the field of competition, even if they stand behind countries In search of influence and control, a topic that further complicates the conflict.

What may increase the intensity of the conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean is that it is not the only one affecting the nature of the tense relations between the countries of the region, but rather nurtures historical roots of the conflict, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict in the case of Lebanon and Israel, and the Cyprus island problem is also present in the case of Turkey and Greece, and we find that the Egyptian-Turkish dispute over Turkey’s support for groups Political Islam that threatens Egyptian national security has a role, and hence, mainly old political differences play a role in increasing the intensity of conflicts.

In addition to the high indications of militarization, the American and Russian military presence (Tartous and Hmeimim), the Egyptian armament, the repeated military maneuvers between the countries of the region, the continuation of Turkish harassment in Cypriot waters, and the corresponding French escalation.

Conclusion

The Middle East region, with its intertwined conflicts and interests as well as conflicts, opens its arms again to host more, and that is after the discovery of new wealth in the eastern Mediterranean, we have presented in our study the economic importance of these discoveries as well as the strategic importance of the region, then move to present the position of four parties The equation is directly, namely Egypt, Cyprus, the Gaza Strip and Israel, then moving to present the rest of the parties, respectively, by reviewing the axes of the conflict in the region, so the Turkish side was presented in the axes of the conflict with Cyprus, Egypt and Greece, as well as referring to the roots of conflicts that go back to pages of a history of tension in relations in particular Between Turkey, Cyprus and Greece, then the recent entry of the Egyptian side into this conflict, and how the conflicts in these axes are exacerbated by the difference in ideologies between the parties due to the new discoveries.

The region does not tolerate more conflicts, and the content of the expected scenarios does not accept a lot of options. Either sit at the negotiating table and make concessions from all parties in order to liquidate old issues and move towards exploiting new wealth and opening the door to development, or more tension and reaching the edge of an abyss may be In the form of a series of direct and proxy wars, its victims will not be lost and the cost will only be borne by the people who destroy their resources and countries and migrate their homelands, to other peoples who share their resources, oppose their ideas, corrupt societies, and more terrorism appears.

Source:https://democraticac.de/?p=72082

The worldwide famous American flag could soon have an extra star. In fact, one of the most pressing issues that has echoed amidst the corridors of power in Washington, D.C. for a long time is that of the district’s statehood. The city’s Mayor, Muriel Bowser, has showed an unwavering commitment to the cause, pointing out that “Washington is the only capital of a democratic nation that denies its residents a vote in the federal legislature”. More specifically, the local population has neither a Senator nor a House member in Congress, but just a delegate – Eleanor Norton Holmes – who, like delegates from other areas without statehood such as Guam and Puerto Rico, can only draft legislation and consider it in Committees, but cannot vote on final passage of bills on the House floor. 
In addition, residents of D.C. pay the highest federal taxes per capita but still are denied voices and votes, thus making the current situation a perfect example of ‘taxation without representation’. But the reasons to embrace a changing of status for D.C. don’t stop here. Firstly, the District of Columbia is large enough to be a state, since the area counts around 712,000 residents, more people than Vermont and Wyoming. Secondly, a favorable point toward creating a new state is its adherence to constitutional principles. The U.S. Constitution says indeed that the Congress has the authority to redefine the borders of the federal district and shrink its size. Such act has already been done in 1846, when the portion west of the Potomac river was returned to Virginia. Following this frame, there would be a resizing of the federal capital to a small area which encompasses, among others, the White House, the Capitol building, the Supreme Court and the National Mall. The rest of the city would become the 51st state, named the Washington, Douglas Commonwealth after abolitionist Fredrick Douglas. 
Even though not brand new in the political landscape of the capital, the fight for granting statehood has recently returned into the spotlight. The racial justice turmoil following George Floyd’s death and the assault of Capitol Hill advanced by pro-Trump demonstrators put an even stronger emphasis on the need to provide safety and independence for Washingtonians. While the recent attack took place, Mayor Bowser promptly requested to the federal government to dispatch the district’s National Guard, but the response was quite slow. Contrary to governors who can summon the Guard of their states at will, the District’s one can only be deployed after approval given by both the Pentagon and the President. Despite the particular circumstance of the mob, Donald Trump did not sign off on the deployment, and proper aid arrived only after a joint consultation of the Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and the Vice President Mike Pence. 
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is not astonishing that Mayor Bowser, along with a lot of high-profile D.C. politicians, endorse the cause of statehood. For instance, in a tweet that was referring to the House Resolution 51 – the Washington D.C. Admission Act, passed by the lower chamber of the Congress with a vote of 232-180 on 26 June 2020, the new President claimed: “D.C. should be a state. Pass it on”. Kamala Harris, the first woman ever to be elected Vice President, also wrote on the famous social media, stating that lack of representation for the people from the district “it’s undemocratic and it must end.” Previously, both former Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama supported the legislation to give birth to the 51st state. But the path to realize D.C. sovereignty is clearly marked by sharp obstacles. Notably, Republicans expressed vehement opposition to the Resolution 51, labelling the attempt as an act that “would empower the most radical agenda in modern American politics”. However, it is worth noticing that this resistance to the bill occurred last summer, when Republicans fully controlled the Senate. Now, the unexpected capturing of the upper chamber by Democrats following the runoff elections of Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in Georgia, means that Democrats hold 50-50 majority. Joe Biden can therefore implement his legislative agenda more easily, with vice President Harris able to cast any tie-breaking vote.
Despite this remarkable accomplishment, the topic of statehood, which quoting again the words of Mayor Bowser “must get on the president’s desk within the first 100 days”, could cross the so called ‘filibuster’, a tactic largely used in the U.S. Senate which consists of trying to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on a specific measure. This obstruction could seriously impede any progress to make D.C. a state, considering that the ‘cloture rule’ would come into play, hence requiring 60 votes to cut off debate and moving to the voting procedures. In order to curtailing the use of filibuster, the Senate can adopt options such as setting a new precedent, placing restrictions on its use or even changing the rule itself. Nevertheless, those scenarios are inevitably destined to clash in an arena of contrasting views. On one hand, it is undeniable that being a state would give to the District of Columbia considerable advantages in terms of representation, as well as a highly probable progressive track that would see Senators engaging on workers protection, paid sick leave and police reform. On the other hand, there are still strict constitutionalists who highlight that this possibility constitutes a contradiction with the intent of the Founding Fathers, who decided that the center of the government did not have to reside in a state. They wrote in Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that “the congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation…over such district, as may become the Seat of the Government of the United States”. The battle for statehood is fierce, the managing of the problem complicated, so only time will tell whether the 117th Congress will be capable of calming Washingtonians’ grievances, turning the dream into a reality. 

Nowadays, community colleges are not what they used to be – in fact, and there are significant benefits to attend a junior community college. There are a lot of reasons associated with attending a local community college to begin your college education. Many parents prefer to send their children to a community college rather than going to private college because of the advantages it has to offer. Students having a dream school in their mind might not be thinking of enrolling in a community college. But when it comes to paying hefty money for those dream colleges, a community college can be a good start. Besides, students with an excellent academic record at these colleges can get transfer to other renowned institutions around the world. Here are some benefits of enrolling in the community college:

Save on tuition fees

Generally, private college tuition fees are hefty as compared to community college. The private colleges charge thousands of dollars more than the community college for a four-year degree, which not everyone can afford. According to a community college review, the average published fees of a community college for a two-year degree is just $3200. Financial advantage is the most obvious reason that students go for public education. If you plan on transferring to a good institute for further studies, your parents get the chance to save for your 4-year degree.

Better transfer opportunities

It works as a perfect solution for students who don’t score well coming out of high school. You can simultaneously obtain an associate degree while working on your GPA and resume. If you are ready to commit to attending regular classes, then you can build up your GPA. Even many renowned universities offer graduate admission program where you are offered direct admission to a 4-year degree course after completing your education at community college successfully. Almost every student who attends a community college has an intention to get transferred to a four-year institution. Everyone wants to get admission in top universities after a two-year degree, so getting admission in a community college can help you attain that milestone.

Smarter classes and increased flexibility

Community colleges are known for their flexible academic curriculum and schedules. It provides more options than any private institute in terms of class schedules, educational opportunities, and other curricular activities. You will get an excellent opportunity to explore a variety of majors program. So, if you think of switching to a private school, it will be more comfortable as the risk involved is smaller. Studying in community colleges is very advantageous as you come across a bounty of activities and opportunities to explore and change your mind.

Qualified professors

You will get to meet the best teachers from your town at the community college. Some of them might have come directly after completing their master’s, but mostly you will find Ph.D. holders at public institutions. When parents choose a college for their child, they want them to get educated by the best professors in the region. They all want devoted and committed educators who can teach them through their past experiences. These colleges are not only beneficial for their students but teachers also in terms of salaries and job satisfaction. On the other hand, teachers in private colleges don’t have the same level of education, experience, and commitment.

Personalized attention

Many community colleges have less class strength, which gives each student more attention from the teachers. It can be a plus point for students who need special attention and extra care because every student is unique. Some students have excellent grasping power, and others learn at their own pace. If your child needs special one-on-one attention from the instructors, then community college is the best choice for them. Therefore, they are preferred by most of the parents so that their child gets more personalized attention from the teachers.

The bottom line

Experience a different educational environment while studying in community college. These benefits mentioned above of the community college are sufficient to convince anyone to attend it. No matter what people say, but community college has better education standards than private ones, and this is one of the most significant advantages it holds over private college.

The worldwide famous American flag could soon have an extra star. In fact, one of the most pressing issue that has echoed amidst the corridors of power in Washington, D.C. for a long time is that of the district’s statehood. The city’s Mayor, Muriel Bowser, has showed an unwavering commitment to the cause, pointing out that “Washington is the only capital of a democratic nation that denies its residents a vote in the federal legislature”. More specifically, the local population has neither a Senator nor a House member in Congress, but just a delegate – Eleanor Norton Holmes – who, like delegates from other areas without statehood such as Guam and Puerto Rico, can only draft legislation and consider it in Committees, but cannot vote on final passage of bills on the House floor. 
In addition, residents of D.C. pay the highest federal taxes per capita but still are denied voices and votes, thus making the current situation a perfect example of ‘taxation without representation’. But the reasons to embrace a changing of status for D.C. don’t stop here. Firstly, the District of Columbia is large enough to be a state, since the area counts around 712,000 residents, more people than Vermont and Wyoming. Secondly, a favorable point toward creating a new state is its adherence to constitutional principles. The U.S. Constitution says indeed that the Congress has the authority to redefine the borders of the federal district and shrink its size. Such act has already been done in 1846, when the portion west of the Potomac river was returned to Virginia. Following this frame, there would be a resizing of the federal capital to a small area which encompasses, among others, the White House, the Capitol building, the Supreme Court and the National Mall. The rest of the city would become the 51st state, named the Washington, Douglas Commonwealth after abolitionist Fredrick Douglas. 
Even though not brand new in the political landscape of the capital, the fight for granting statehood has recently returned into the spotlight. The racial justice turmoil following George Floyd’s death and the assault of Capitol Hill advanced by pro-Trump demonstrators put an even stronger emphasis on the need to provide safety and independence for Washingtonians. While the recent attack took place, Mayor Bowser promptly requested to the federal government to dispatch the district’s National Guard, but the response was quite slow. Contrary to governors who can summon the Guard of their states at will, the District’s one can only be deployed after approval given by both the Pentagon and the President. Despite the particular circumstance of the mob, Donald Trump did not sign off on the deployment, and proper aid arrived only after a joint consultation of the Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and the Vice President Mike Pence. 
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is not astonishing that Mayor Bowser, along with a lot of high-profile D.C. politicians, endorse the cause of statehood. For instance, in a tweet that was referring to the House Resolution 51 – the Washington D.C. Admission Act, passed by the lower chamber of the Congress with a vote of 232-180 on 26 June 2020, the new President claimed: “D.C. should be a state. Pass it on”. Kamala Harris, the first woman ever to be elected Vice President, also wrote on the famous social media, stating that lack of representation for the people from the district “it’s undemocratic and it must end.” Previously, both former Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama supported the legislation to give birth to the 51st state. But the path to realize D.C. sovereignty is clearly marked by sharp obstacles. Notably, Republicans expressed vehement opposition to the Resolution 51, labelling the attempt as an act that “would empower the most radical agenda in modern American politics”. However, it is worth noticing that this resistance to the bill occurred last summer, when Republicans fully controlled the Senate. Now, the unexpected capturing of the upper chamber by Democrats following the runoff elections of Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in Georgia, means that Democrats hold 50-50 majority. Joe Biden can therefore implement his legislative agenda more easily, with vice President Harris able to cast any tie-breaking vote.
Despite this remarkable accomplishment, the topic of statehood, which quoting again the words of Mayor Bowser “must get on the president’s desk within the first 100 days”, could cross the so called ‘filibuster’, a tactic largely used in the U.S. Senate which consists of trying to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on a specific measure. This obstruction could seriously impede any progress to make D.C. a state, considering that the ‘cloture rule’ would come into play, hence requiring 60 votes to cut off debate and moving to the voting procedures. In order to curtailing the use of filibuster, the Senate can adopt options such as setting a new precedent, placing restrictions on its use or even changing the rule itself. Nevertheless, those scenarios are inevitably destined to clash in an arena of contrasting views. On one hand, it is undeniable that being a state would give to the District of Columbia considerable advantages in terms of representation, as well as a highly probable progressive track that would see Senators engaging on workers protection, paid sick leave and police reform. On the other hand, there are still strict constitutionalists who highlight that this possibility constitutes a contradiction with the intent of the Founding Fathers, who decided that the center of the government did not have to reside in a state. They wrote in Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that “the congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation…over such district, as may become the Seat of the Government of the United States”. The battle for statehood is fierce, the managing of the problem complicated, so only time will tell whether the 117th Congress will be capable of calming Washingtonians’ grievances, turning the dream into a reality. 

A EUROPE IN HIGH TENSION 
Europe knows tensions since almost two months now. It all begins in August during Belarus’ presidential election for which the president Loukachenko is accused for fraud and provoked a popular uprising to denounce what just happened. At the same time, Turkey is accused of violation international law by crossing the European sea zone.

The European Union is challenged facing a dilemma. The institution has to deal with what happened in Belarus but is also confronting a military tension with Turkey. The other side, is that the European Union is front of other global power such as the USA and Russia. These neighbour crisis split the old continent. On one hand, Poland and Baltic countries see in the Belarus a priority whereas the south of Europe sees it in the incident with Turkey an emergency. In order to figure it out and find some sustainable solution, the European Union reunited the 1st October to discuss about sanctions and potentially put efficient plans into action to answer these questions. This is a crucial point because it represents a kind of challenge  for the institution which has been a lot criticised these last years. Paris talks about a « Powerful Europe »  which is able to stand out by its choices and geo-strategical measures. E.Macron, the French President, through the OSCE supports the democratic transition of Minsk, in the same time, Turkey lead by Erdogan it’s not considered as being a partner by the European Institution, which brought a reaction from the Turkish president. Therefore, the tone rises between both Turkish and french president. In reaction and because the alliance principle (mostly to show its influence) France sent to Greece some military equipment such as military flight, helicopter carrier, and frigate. Turkey took the occasion to declare that is about to be a military incident in the area.

How the European Union handles this situation ? 

Germany, which is the rotating chairmanship with the mediation role in the Turkish case, doesn’t think sanctions are necessary. Why ? Simply because Erdogan has proved his good faith toward the European Union, but is this really enough ? As we know, relations between Turkey and Europe has known some tensions and Turkey leads controversial policies according the European institution. To remind, Turkey is candidate for the European Union since 2007 and because of many criteria has not become a member of the organisation yet.

More than the geo strategical challenge, the situation marks a turning point in the European Union institution showing up, for the first time since a while, a division of roles between the 27 members. Thereby the traditional Europe is faded to highlight these new measures which are more in the age of time. However, as in any State’s  institution, organisation we can see the problem due to the Veto Right.

In fact, to take any decisions and apply any measures the European Union needs the absolute majority of members which means if in the 27 states, there is one only against, there nothing we can do , but to discuss as long as needed to get any agreement and then take decisions. Precisely, in this Case Cyprus has put its VETO about decisions targeting Belarus while Turkey is not hit by any sanctions  from the European Union institution. In the same time , State members of the European Union do not recognise the elected president Loukachenko in Belarus, and they have been in touch with the figure of the opposition Svetlana Tikhanovskaïa.

What is going on in Belarus leading Europe to take measures ? 

As we could see, the elected president Loukachenko is accused of electoral fraud and popular movement has been striking all around the country each Sunday since the 7th of August 2020. At the head of the state since 1994, he’s now a controversial president especially by Svetlana Tikhanovskaïa who is a big figure of the opposition now exiled in Latvia. She’s calling the county to a general strain on the 25ht of October and asks Loukachenko to quit his function as president until this date. To give a context, since the protests about the election has begun, Belarus is using repressive forces against its population and all figures of the opposition. There are two exits, on the one hand, they go straight to prison (political prisoners ) or they can escape and be exiled to neighbour country such as Latvia has Svetlana Tikhanovskaïa did.

The challenges are big, because Belarus represents one of the country member of the Ex-USSR, in democratic transition and also represents a strategic place both for the EU and Russia.

Today, Belarus is targeted by the European Union for not respecting the Human Rights but also because of the political context. As mentioned, European countries do not consider Loukachenko as president. Moreover the European Union denounces the practices of the Belarus government toward its population for not being democratic. For the moment, the European union is watching closely the situation in here and is waiting to see which direction all of this is about to take. The other side of the problem if we can say, is that Putin has shown a big interest about Belarus, which permits him to get closer of the Europe and as we know Belarus used to be a strategic point of the Ex-USSR. The situation between Turkey and the European Union highlights the differences of ideology , strategy and diplomacy because it turns to a balance of power. Meanwhile, the situation in Belarus tends to political strategy with on the one hand we have the European Union watching the situation and having an institutional point of view linked to its values such as human right and democratic practices, and on the other hand we have russia getting closer of Belarus.

This a crucial situation in Europe, not only because it happens in the European continent, but also because it directly involves Poutine and we know how much he is controversial in Europe.

President Donald Trump’s term as that president is about to end on 20 January 2021. But as a President, Trump imprints a visible and efficacious Foreign Policy. Pres. Trump has taken plenty of decisions that impact the geopolitics of the globe. In this blog, we are going to recall some of his important decisions that President Trump took in his term.
Trump Altered Nato Post World War-2 Policy
During the NATO 2018 summit, President Trump publicly stated the disparity of NATO’s military budget that many countries are not paying what they should. There is no need for many European countries to spend because under Article 5 of NATO when any country is attacked, the USA will be bound by this Article to protect them. President Trump cites a valid point as the United States spends 3.58% of its GDP on Defence. According to the Nato Guidelines, the members of the group are to spend at least 2% of their total GDP on defense.

Only four NATO Members USA, Britain, Estonia, and Greece are exceeding the recommended target, with the US spending the most. Donald Trump said that the USA is suffering a lot because of this and he further said that he wants the rest of the countries to increase their spending so that further pressure on the USA can be worked out and NATO work more fluently.

In particular, Donald Trump targeted Germany at a summit, why? Because Germany is Europe’s largest economy and thus it is expected that Germany contributes more to NATO, but they contribute almost the least.

In his administration, Trump also allegedly threatened to pull out the United States of America from NATO.
US Relation with China
In his 4-year term, Trump has not been so angry at any other country than China. There was a time when it seemed that the cold war could instigate between the USA and China. In his regime, Trump started a Trade War with China to benefit local American Manufacturers.

He’s one of the greatest achievements was his blunt recognition of China as the new geopolitical threat of the 21st century. The Trump administration placed sanctions on many top Chinese companies. The USA also banned Huawei from setting up a 5G network in the US and modified the export rule to target Huawei’s acquisition of semiconductors.

This thing did not end here, after Covid 19, Trump’s antagonism against China has been moved to the next phase. President Trump starts calling Coronavirus as a China Virus. After Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, the USA started backing Taiwan including selling arms and setting diplomatic ties. Trump also abandoned missile deals with Russia because China was covered on it.
Isolationism
In Trump’s tenure, the United States started the following Isolationism. Prez Trump pulls out the US from multilateral agreements like

The Iran Nuclear Deal
The World Health Organization
The UN Human Rights Council
Paris Climate Accord

Blessing for Israel
Israel will be the biggest success of Trump’s foreign policy.  In fact, after losing the election, Israel President personally thanks Donald Trump for his commendable approach to normalizing Israel’s diplomatic ties with middle east countries. In his administration, Donald Trump recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and recognized the Golan. His administration also helps to broker historic deals between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, and Sudan to normalize relations.

No doubt in the last 40 years, the relationship between Israel and America has been the best during Donald Trump’s term. In which the biggest decision is to shift the US embassy to Jerusalem.
Other Remarkable Decisions
Trump delivered on a campaign promise to bring American troops home from “endless wars”, particularly in Afghanistan. He also made up peace deal negotiations with the Taliban

Donald Trump is the first president to hold talks with a North Korean leader. It is a historic engagement with Kim Jong Un.

In January following the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the Iraqi parliament voted unanimously for the removal of the remaining U.S. troops in the country. The non-binding resolution was encouraged by Shiite political factions outraged by the killing of Iran-backed militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in the same airstrike.

The resolution was subsequently passed without minority Sunni or Kurdish lawmakers present. However, Iraqi-U.S. relations have improved since the selection of a new prime minister in May, Mustafa al-Kadhimi. This selection came about after a leadership vacuum plagued Iraq for four months, following Adil Abdul-Mahdi’s resignation in November 2019. As the country’s former intelligence chief, Kadhimi has good relations with U.S. officials but emphasises his desire to take back sovereignty from foreign powers.

On June 11 the United States and Iraq began strategic talks covering the future of the 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and the economic situation following a collapse in oil prices and the developing Covid-19 pandemic. Iran-backed forces in Iraq have been applying pressure for U.S. military withdrawal through relentless shelling of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

The U.S. have an important decision to make on how to withdraw troops from the region without undoing years of hard work since the U.S. first began engaging in Iraq in 2003. However, as conflict between U.S. and Iranian proxies accelerates a path toward two alternatives is developing; all-out war or a fast US withdrawal.

Here, I will briefly outline what I perceive to be the outcomes from the U.S. choosing to either withdraw, partly withdraw or remain in Iraq.

Firstly, the option to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq would avoid further conflict and all-out war in the region with Iranian proxies. However, this undermines the U.S. efforts to counter Iranian influence in the region. The U.S. acts as a counterweight to Iran and once withdrawn would expose an economically hurt Iraq to the more powerful Iran. The increasing Iranian presence is likely to spark yet more protests against foreign interference following protests in October 2019, resulting in the death of 420 Iraqi protesters and the resignation of prime minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi. Furthermore, the U.S. has held an important role in training and funding Iraq’s counterterrorism service. Peter Neumann, the founding director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation claims this service is “multi-ethnic and largely incorrupt”. The U.S. withdrawal from the region would lead to this counterterrorism service being merged with the Shiite Iranian-backed militias also fighting ISIS. Without the funding and training towards counterterrorism from the U.S. there is the possibility of an ISIS resurgence in Iraq and with it a threat to U.S. national security.

A second approach to U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be to transfer troops to military bases in the autonomous Kurdistan region in the north, at the request of the Kurds. The presence of US forces acts as an insurance policy for Sunni’s and Kurds against a rejuvenation of ISIS and help to strike a balance between all Iraqi religious sects and political powers. Galip Dalay, a fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs noted that a U.S. withdrawal would mean that “the Kurds would be more at the mercy of the militias, Iran and the central government”. This option would likely relinquish Iraq’s ability to resist Iran and so surrender the majority of Iraq to Iranian influence in the same way as in the previously explained option. In addition, would U.S. bases in Kurdistan afford the Kurds the strength to apply pressure in disputed regions, leading to increasing tensions between Kurdistan and the ceded pro-Iran Iraq region?

Moreover, the U.S. may choose not to withdraw and remain a presence in Iraq but levy significant economic sanctions on Iran leading to a defunding of the militias in Iraq. The U.S. policy of “maximum pressure” imposing economic sanctions on Iran, has led to an inflationary recession in the country and the Iranian currency to fall two-thirds of its value. Despite food and medicine being exempt from sanctions the lack of Iran’s access to the global financial system has led to shortages in these necessities. Although the sanctions are failing to bring Iran back to the negotiating table or trigger unrest in the country and an overthrow of the regime, the sanctions are successfully cutting funding to Iran-backed militias in Iraq. Earlier this year the new commander of the Iranian Quds Force, Esmail Ghaani, had to substitute the usual cash handouts to Iraqi militias for silver rings. The reduction in funding has led to divisions emerging in the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), the umbrella group of mainly Shia fighters. Could economic sanctions on Iran lead to a breakup and loss in cohesion between the Pro-Iran factions responsible for attacks on U.S. forces?

The final option occurs where the U.S. does not withdraw from Iraq and the U.S. are unable to sufficiently thwart Iran economically leading to a continuing of the current status quo of retaliatory conflict in Iraq between militias and U.S. However, is it impossible to conceive of a “hot war” between the U.S. and Iran in the future if tensions rise and the Iranian regime is not brought to its knees? Despite the U.S. comparatively dwarfing Iran militarily with the U.S. military budget being over 57 times larger than Iran’s, the challenges of increasing competition with Russia and China makes conflict with Iran unappealing. Therefore, if the U.S. were to maintain their presence in Iraq, they should do so by continuing with the small force currently stationed there focused on training and support of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Of the options discussed here I would suggest maintaining the U.S. presence in Iraq with a focus on avoiding conflict and training Iraqi Security Forces. By staying in the region the counterweight the U.S. holds against the increasing Iranian presence in Iraq and against the rejuvenation if ISIS is maintained. Furthermore, the insurance the U.S. provide to minority groups is not threatened and conflict is not heightened by moving U.S. troops to the Kurdistan region.