'' We accept India’s national interests and security in the region.” Anura Kumara Dissanayake, leader JVP

 NPP leader vows to build corruption-free country and foster national harmony

Anura Kumara Dissanayake, leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) led National People’s Power (NPP), flew to Sweden on Friday to take part in events arranged by party followers there.

This is his latest foray after his China, Russia, India and Canada visits that came amidst reports of his party being touted as a frontline contender at the upcoming presidential election. Just last week, a Chinese Communist Party delegation led by Vice Minister Sun Haiyan called on him in Colombo.

Dissanayake, due to return ahead of May Day, declared in a Q&A, “No country can exist in isolation. There are several powerhouses being formed.” The NFF will hold four different May Day rallies -– one in Jaffna and the others in Anuradhapura, Colombo and Matara. “Conducting one major rally in any town will be a logistical nightmare when one thinks of the large crowds and the vast number of buses needed to transport them,” he pointed out.

Significantly, Dissanayake did not hide NPP’s foreign policy goals when he declared that “we need to maintain a balanced foreign policy with powerful countries.” He said our immediate neighbour India is engaged in a geopolitical race whereas Sri Lanka is not. They expect Sri Lanka not to take any decision or engage in anything that threatens India’s national interests and security in the region. We accept it.”

He added, “Therefore, I believe that since we are located within the Indian geopolitical region and India’s broader concerns about its national security, we must maintain political and economic relations with India. Unless we have such support, we cannot overcome the present crisis. We need foreign investment; we need technology, and we need access to foreign markets. Therefore, we need a strong foreign policy. We have been open, and we have no hidden agenda. We engage in a transparent dialogue with all foreign dignitaries who visit us.”

sundaytimes.lk/240428/ Columns

Here are edited highlights of the Q&A:

There has been no response from the NPP on its position on the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Can you explain what it is?

On several occasions, we have stated our position on the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and the provincial councils. Our policy document published in 2019 also contained our stand on the provincial councils. Nevertheless, let me explain it once again.

We don’t believe that the Provincial Council system is a complete solution to the ethnic problem in the country. However, the provincial councils have been in existence for over three decades, and our party is also contesting at provincial council elections. People in the North and East consider the provincial council is one of their rights. They think that the provincial council is a victory they have got after many years of demand. Hence, we are of the opinion that we should continue with the provincial councils, yet our opponents express different opinions on that.

How will the NPP focus on the Tamil Ethnic Issue?

I have already explained to you that the provincial council system alone cannot find solutions to the ethnic issue. Politics in Sri Lanka for a long time has been instigating one community against the other. For example, in 2019 at the presidential election, Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory was completely based on a slogan that was against the Muslim community. Throughout the political history of our country, the usual practice has been organising one section of people against the other for political gains. Political parties, whether they are Muslim, Tamil or Sinhalese, in certain instances, have created dissension among communities at times to gain power.

Our politics is completely different from theirs. Even in the most difficult times, we are a party that has always stood for national unity and ethnic harmony among Tamil, Muslim, and Sinhala communities. Therefore, the first step to solving this ethnic issue is to establish a political system that integrates all communities rather than using divisive politics. We are doing it.

Then, how can we find solutions to the problem?

We know there are certain identical issues that Tamil-speaking people are facing just because of them being Tamil. It may be language, culture, freedom of religion, right of fair access to power and so on. These have to be addressed.

Though there are certain provisions in the constitution. They are not being followed. It has been 15 years now after the end of the separatist war, but no genuine solutions have been found to the problems that Tamil-speaking people are facing.

We believe in a two-way approach. Firstly, the political issue. We ensure the Tamil-speaking people’s fair right to have access to power which has been denied over the years by successive governments. Secondly, there are certain identical issues that Tamil-speaking people are facing. Similarly, there are several other common issues that they too are facing like the other people in the country.

We ensure that we find solutions for all those problems. Otherwise, the divisive political culture inciting one against the other cannot find solutions to the ethnic problem. Therefore, we believe as a party we can find lasting solutions to the ethnic issue in Sri Lanka and rebuild the nation.

What is your policy in respect of the Executive Presidency? Will you abolish or continue with it?

The Executive Presidency should be changed and we are very clear about our stand. Since the introduction of the executive presidency, we have believed it is not a suitable model for us. Even after 46 years of its existence, the executive presidential system has repeatedly proved that it is not suitable for a country like ours. Therefore, it should be abolished.

The deals of the government with the IMF. Will you retain them or propose changes? How will they come?

We have now entered into an IMF programme. If we had not agreed, we could have looked at an alternative. Since we have agreed now, whoever comes to power cannot leave the IMF programme. We know that not all countries could overcome their crises by going to the IMF. For example, Argentina, Greece and many other countries have not been successful in following IMF conditionalities. Also, there are a handful of countries which have been successful. The IMF can intervene to manage the crisis. However, its involvement will not be sufficient to solve the inherent problems in our economy. Therefore, our policy is to have a dynamic economic programme that enhances the production of goods and services, that people are actively involved in the production process, and that people enjoy fair distribution of such goods and services. Therefore, we strongly believe that unless there is a sound economic policy, we cannot overcome the economic crisis just because of being in the IMF programme.

What is the NPP’s policy towards the minority communities, like Tamils and Muslims?

We don’t need a government that acts against one community. We need a government that represents all communities. We have been talking with the political parties in the north. Also, we hope to negotiate with the political parties in the upcountry and with Muslim parties. We need not build a government only for Sinhalese, nor that people in the north feel it is a Sinhala government. We need a government that safeguards the rights of Sinhala, Tamil, and Muslim people in the country. We need the support of all communities to form a government and also, we need them to represent our government. Therefore, we are having a broader dialogue with the three main communities and their political leaders in this regard.

What are the main NPP pledges to the public during the presidential election campaign?

We believe that there are two main causes for the present crisis. First, our country’s political culture which is full of corruption, mismanagement, and inefficiency. One main pledge that we give to our people is that we eliminate this corrupt political culture. This political culture has not enabled economic democracy in the country. The access to economic activities is determined to what extent the private sector is connected to politicians. As such, it has been impossible to run a business without soliciting the blessings of politicians. Therefore, our second pledge to the people at this election is that we establish economic democracy in the country whereby there will be a level playing ground. We also know that many people in society have been impoverished owing to the crisis. Recovering those affected is also one of our priorities.

There are moves for a debate between you and SJB leader Sajith Premadasa. What about one with UNP leader Ranil Wickramasinghe? Should you not be debating with him?

We have been explaining to people our political practices. Our opponents too are doing the same and people in the country have experienced their political behaviours over the years. We have been engaging with people, explaining our policies and programmes, and they have witnessed our practices. The SJB, which does not have an identity of its own, has been repeatedly challenging us for a debate. We have accepted the challenge. Honestly, our dialogue is not with them but with the people. However, now we have proposed a few dates for the debate, but they have rejected those dates. We have once again informed the SJB leader to give us a few convenient dates for him before 20th May. If the debate does not happen on or before 20th May, the talk on this matter should come to an end.

What about a debate with President Ranil Wickremesinghe or the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna?

We are also prepared to have a debate with Ranil Wickramasinghe as well.

How do you propose to cope with bribery and corruption when you are in power?

The first proposal that we make is to eliminate the political culture that nurtures bribery, corruption and nepotism. The main thing that is required to stop corruption is that the rulers do not engage in corruption. Rulers must not rob public money. This is the first step we need to take to stop corruption. The NPP is the only party that can do that. We will do it. That is not sufficient. The investigation arms, the legal system and the judiciary should be made efficient. We are a country that should not face a calamity like this. This is not a result of a natural cause. This is a result of corrupt political regimes that have robbed billions in public money. Therefore, people expect us to stop this corruption and mismanagement.

Hence, first, we must free the political authority from corruption. None of my party members or I have selected this political movement to waste or rob public money. Next, an uncorrupt political movement can build an uncorrupt government. We are such a party that proved to be uncorrupt through our practices over the last few decades. While strengthening the law enforcement agencies and eliminating corruption, we at the NPP will build a country that is free from corruption, mismanagement, and nepotism.⍐

NYT TELLS JOURNALISTS TO AVOID WORDS “GENOCIDE,” “ETHNIC CLEANSING,” AND “OCCUPIED TERRITORY''

LEAKED NYT GAZA MEMO TELLS JOURNALISTS TO AVOID WORDS “GENOCIDE,” “ETHNIC CLEANSING,” AND “OCCUPIED TERRITORY”

Amid the internal battle over the New York Times’s coverage of Israel’s war, top editors handed down a set of directives.

THE NEW YORK TIMES instructed journalists covering Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip to restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to “avoid” using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept.

The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine “except in very rare cases” and to steer clear of the term “refugee camps” to describe areas of Gaza historically settled by displaced Palestinians expelled from other parts of Palestine during previous Israeli–Arab wars. The areas are recognized by the United Nations as refugee camps and house hundreds of thousands of registered refugees.

The memo — written by Times standards editor Susan Wessling, international editor Philip Pan, and their deputies — “offers guidance about some terms and other issues we have grappled with since the start of the conflict in October.”

While the document is presented as an outline for maintaining objective journalistic principles in reporting on the Gaza war, several Times staffers told The Intercept that some of its contents show evidence of the paper’s deference to Israeli narratives.

“It’s the kind of thing that looks professional and logical if you have no knowledge of the historical context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”

“I think it’s the kind of thing that looks professional and logical if you have no knowledge of the historical context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” said a Times newsroom source, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal, of the Gaza memo. “But if you do know, it will be clear how apologetic it is to Israel.”

First distributed to Times journalists in November, the guidance — which collected and expanded on past style directives about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict — has been regularly updated over the ensuing months. It presents an internal window into the thinking of Times international editors as they have faced upheaval within the newsroom surrounding the paper’s Gaza war coverage.

“Issuing guidance like this to ensure accuracy, consistency and nuance in how we cover the news is standard practice,” said Charlie Stadtlander, a Times spokesperson. “Across all our reporting, including complex events like this, we take care to ensure our language choices are sensitive, current and clear to our audiences.”

Issues over style guidance have been among a bevy of internal rifts at the Times over its Gaza coverage. In January, The Intercept reported on disputes in the Times newsroom over issues with an investigative story on systematic sexual violence on October 7. The leak gave rise to a highly unusual internal probe. The company faced harsh criticism for allegedly targeting Times workers of Middle East and North African descent, which Times brass denied. On Monday, executive editor Joe Kahn told staff that the leak investigation had been concluded unsuccessfully.

WhatsApp Debates

Almost immediately after the October 7 attacks and the launch of Israel’s scorched-earth war against Gaza, tensions began to boil within the newsroom over the Times coverage. Some staffers said they believed the paper was going out of its way to defer to Israel’s narrative on the events and was not applying even standards in its coverage. Arguments began fomenting on internal Slack and other chat groups.

The debates between reporters on the Jerusalem bureau-led WhatsApp group, which at one point included 90 reporters and editors, became so intense that Pan, the international editor, interceded.

“We need to do a better job communicating with each other as we report the news, so our discussions are more productive and our disagreements less distracting,” Pan wrote in a November 28 WhatsApp message viewed by The Intercept and first reported by the Wall Street Journal. “At its best, this channel has been a quick, transparent and productive space to collaborate on a complex, fast-moving story. At its worst, it’s a tense forum where the questions and comments can feel accusatory and personal.”

Pan bluntly stated: “Do not use this channel for raising concerns about coverage.”

Among the topics of debate in the Jerusalem bureau WhatsApp group and exchanges on Slack, reviewed by The Intercept and verified with multiple newsroom sources, were Israeli attacks on Al-Shifa Hospital, statistics on Palestinian civilian deaths, the allegations of genocidal conduct by Israel, and President Joe Biden’s pattern of promoting unverified allegations from the Israeli government as fact. (Pan did not respond to a request for comment.)

Many of the same debates were addressed in the Times’s Gaza-specific style guidance and have been the subject of intense public scrutiny.

“It’s not unusual for news companies to set style guidelines,” said another Times newsroom source, who also asked for anonymity. “But there are unique standards applied to violence perpetrated by Israel. Readers have noticed and I understand their frustration.”

“Words Like ‘Slaughter’”

The Times memo outlines guidance on a range of phrases and terms. “The nature of the conflict has led to inflammatory language and incendiary accusations on all sides. We should be very cautious about using such language, even in quotations. Our goal is to provide clear, accurate information, and heated language can often obscure rather than clarify the fact,” the memo says.

“Words like ‘slaughter,’ ‘massacre’ and ‘carnage’ often convey more emotion than information. Think hard before using them in our own voice,” according to the memo. “Can we articulate why we are applying those words to one particular situation and not another? As always, we should focus on clarity and precision — describe what happened rather than using a label.”

Despite the memo’s framing as an effort to not employ incendiary language to describe killings “on all sides,” in the Times reporting on the Gaza war, such language has been used repeatedly to describe attacks against Israelis by Palestinians and almost never in the case of Israel’s large-scale killing of Palestinians.

In January, The Intercept published an analysis of New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times coverage of the war from October 7 through November 24 — a period mostly before the new Times guidance was issued. The Intercept analysis showed that the major newspapers reserved terms like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” almost exclusively for Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians, rather than for Palestinian civilians killed in Israeli attacks.

The analysis found that, as of November 24, the New York Times had described Israeli deaths as a “massacre” on 53 occasions and those of Palestinians just once. The ratio for the use of “slaughter” was 22 to 1, even as the documented number of Palestinians killed climbed to around 15,000.

The latest Palestinian death toll estimate stands at more than 33,000, including at least 15,000 children — likely undercounts due to Gaza’s collapsed health infrastructure and missing persons, many of whom are believed to have died in the rubble left by Israel’s attacks over the past six months.

Touchy Debates

The Times memo touches on some of the most highly charged — and disputed — language around the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The guidance spells out, for instance, usage of the word “terrorist,” which The Intercept previously reported was at the center of a spirited newsroom debate.

“It is accurate to use ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ in describing the attacks of Oct. 7, which included the deliberate targeting of civilians in killings and kidnappings,” according to the leaked Times memo. “We should not shy away from that description of the events or the attackers, particularly when we provide context and explanation.”

The guidance also instructs journalists to “Avoid ‘fighters’ when referring to the Oct. 7 attack; the term suggests a conventional war rather than a deliberate attack on civilians. And be cautious in using ‘militants,’ which is interpreted in different ways and may be confusing to readers.”

In the memo, the editors tell Times journalists: “We do not need to assign a single label or to refer to the Oct. 7 assault as a ‘terrorist attack’ in every reference; the word is best used when specifically describing attacks on civilians. We should exercise restraint and can vary the language with other accurate terms and descriptions: an attack, an assault, an incursion, the deadliest attack on Israel in decades, etc. Similarly, in addition to ‘terrorists,’ we can vary the terms used to describe the Hamas members who carried out the assault: attackers, assailants, gunmen.”

The Times does not characterize Israel’s repeated attacks on Palestinian civilians as “terrorism,” even when civilians have been targeted. This is also true of Israel’s assaults on protected civilian sites, including hospitals.

In a section with the headline “‘Genocide’ and Other Incendiary Language,” the guidance says, “‘Genocide’ has a specific definition in international law. In our own voice, we should generally use it only in the context of those legal parameters. We should also set a high bar for allowing others to use it as an accusation, whether in quotations or not, unless they are making a substantive argument based on the legal definition.”

Regarding “ethnic cleansing,” the document calls it “another historically charged term,” instructing reporters: “If someone is making such an accusation, we should press for specifics or supply proper context.”

Bucking International Norms

In the cases of describing “occupied territory” and the status of refugees in Gaza, the Times style guidelines run counter to norms established by the United Nations and international humanitarian law.

On the term “Palestine” — a widely used name for both the territory and the U.N.-recognized state — the Times memo contains blunt instructions: “Do not use in datelines, routine text or headlines, except in very rare cases such as when the United Nations General Assembly elevated Palestine to a nonmember observer state, or references to historic Palestine.” The Times guidance resembles that of the Associated Press Stylebook.

The memo directs journalists not to use the phrase “refugee camps” to describe long-standing refugee settlements in Gaza. “While termed refugee camps, the refugee centers in Gaza are developed and densely populated neighborhoods dating to the 1948 war. Refer to them as neighborhoods, or areas, and if further context is necessary, explain how they have historically been called refugee camps.”

The United Nations recognizes eight refugee camps in the Gaza Strip. As of last year, before the war started, the areas were home to more than 600,000 registered refugees. Many are descendants of those who fled to Gaza after being forcibly expelled from their homes in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which marked the founding of the Jewish state and mass dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

The Israeli government has long been hostile to the historical fact that Palestinians maintain refugee status, because it signifies that they were displaced from lands they have a right to return to.

Since October 7, Israel has repeatedly bombed refugee camps in Gaza, including Jabaliya, Al Shati, Al Maghazi, and Nuseirat.

The memo’s instructions on the use of “occupied territories” says, “When possible, avoid the term and be specific (e.g. Gaza, the West Bank, etc.) as each has a slightly different status.” The United Nations, along with much of the world, considers Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territories, seized by Israel in the 1967 Arab–Israeli war.

The admonition against the use of the term “occupied territories,” said a Times staffer, obscures the reality of the conflict, feeding into the U.S. and Israeli insistence that the conflict began on October 7.

“You are basically taking the occupation out of the coverage, which is the actual core of the conflict,” said the newsroom source. “It’s like, ‘Oh let’s not say occupation because it might make it look like we’re justifying a terrorist attack.’”⍐

உல்லாச புரியாகும் மைய மலையகமும், Spain இல் உல்லாசத் துறை எதிர்ப்பும்.

Thousands protest in Spain's Canary Islands over mass tourism

By Borja Suarez  April 21, 2024 

SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE, Spain, April 20 (Reuters) - Thousands of people protested in Tenerife on Saturday, calling for the Spanish island to temporarily limit tourist arrivals to stem a boom in short-term holiday rentals and hotel construction that is driving up housing costs for locals.

Holding placards reading "People live here" and "We don't want to see our island die", demonstrators said changes must be made to the tourism industry that accounts for 35% of gross domestic product (GDP) in the Canary Islands archipelago.

A woman uses a megaphone during a demonstration for a change in the tourism model in the Canary Islands, in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, April 20, 2024. REUTERS/Borja Suarez

"It's not a message against the tourist, but against a tourism model that doesn't benefit this land and needs to be changed," one of the protesters told Reuters during the march in Tenerife's capital, Santa Cruz de Tenerife.

Smaller marches were held elsewhere in the island group and other Spanish cities, all of them organised by about two dozen environmental organisations ahead of the peak summer holiday season.

A man plays instruments as he displays a sign during a demonstration for a change in the tourism model in the Canary Islands, in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, April 20, 2024. REUTERS/Borja

The organisations say local authorities should temporarily limit visitor numbers to alleviate pressure on the islands' environment, infrastructure and housing stock, and put curbs on property purchases by foreigners.

"The authorities must immediately stop this corrupt and destructive model that depletes the resources and makes the economy more precarious. The Canary Islands have limits and people's patience too," Antonio Bullon, one of the protest leaders, told Reuters.

A man plays a conch in a traditional way during a demonstration for a change in the tourism model in the Canary Islands, in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, April 20, 2024. REUTERS/Borja Suarez

The archipelago of 2.2 million people was visited by nearly 14 million foreign tourists in 2023, up 13% from the previous year, according to official data.

Authorities in the islands are concerned about the impact on locals. A draft law expected to pass this year toughening the rules on short lets follows complaints from residents priced out of the housing market.

 A woman shouts next to a banner with the word "tourism" during a demonstration for a change in the tourism model in the Canary Islands, in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, April 20, 2024. REUTERS/Borja Suarez

Israel assassinate 18 IRGC members since December!

Israel strikes Iran consulate in Syria’s capital Damascus: 

What we know

Iran has promised a response after an alleged Israeli attack on its consulate killed seven including two top commanders.

Iran has promised a response after its consulate in the Syrian capital Damascus was destroyed in a suspected Israeli missile attack, killing seven people including a top commander and his deputy.

Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a senior commander in the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and his deputy General Mohammad Hadi Hajriahimi were killed in Monday’s attack, the IRGC said in a statement.

Israel has long targeted Iran’s military installations in Syria and those of its proxies but Monday’s attack was the first time it had targeted the embassy compound itself.

Here’s what we know:

What happened?

The consulate, which is next to the main embassy building in Damascus’s Mezzeh district, was struck at about 5pm (14:00 GMT) on Monday.

Photos from the scene showed piles of rubble and twisted steel with an Iranian flag still hanging from a pole nearby.

Who was there?

Several IRGC military advisers were in the building at the time of the attack and seven were killed, according to the IRGC statement.

The statement said Zahedi and Hajriahimi were among the dead.

Zahedi was the leader of the Quds Force in Lebanon and Syria until 2016, it said.

The United Kingdom-based war monitor, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said as many as 11 people had been killed, including eight Iranians, two Syrians and one Lebanese, all of them fighters.

How has Iran reacted?

Iran’s Ambassador to Syria, Hossein Akbari, who was not injured in the attack, said Tehran’s response would be “decisive”.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian described the attack “as a violation of all international obligations and conventions” and blamed Israel.

In a separate statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanani said that Iran “reserves the right to carry out a reaction and will decide on the type of response and the punishment of the aggressor”.

Iran’s mission to the United Nations said the strike was a “flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the foundational principle of the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises”.

Saying the strike was “a significant threat to regional peace and security”, the Iranian mission urged the UN Security Council to condemn the attack and said Tehran reserved the right “to take a decisive response”.

Protesters took to the streets of Tehran to condemn Israel over the attack.

How have others reacted?

Syria said “innocents” had been killed in the strike.

“We strongly condemn this atrocious terrorist attack that targeted the Iranian consulate building in Damascus and killed a number of innocents,” said Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad who visited the scene of the attack along with Syria’s interior minister.

Russia, an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, also joined the condemnation.

“We strongly condemn this unacceptable attack against the Iranian consular mission in Syria,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Lebanon’s Iran-backed Hezbollah group warned that Israel would pay for the attack.

Hezbollah has exchanged near-daily cross-border fire with Israel in support of its ally Hamas since the Gaza war erupted in October.

“Certainly, this crime will not pass without the enemy receiving punishment and revenge,” Hezbollah said in a statement on Tuesday. It added that Zahedi was “one of the first to support, sacrifice, and persevere for many years to develop and advance the work of the resistance [Hezbollah] in Lebanon”.

Muslim countries including Iraq, Jordan, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also condemned the attack.

In the United States, meanwhile, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told reporters that Washington remained “concerned about anything that would be escalatory or cause an increase in conflict in the region”.

When asked about the attack, an Israeli military spokesperson told journalists: “We do not comment on reports in the foreign media.”

The New York Times cited four unnamed Israeli officials as acknowledging that Israel was responsible for the attack.

What could the consequences be?

The attack appeared to signify an escalation of Israel’s targeting of military officials from Iran, which provides money and weapons to hardline groups fighting Israel in Gaza and along its border with Lebanon.

But analysts appear divided over whether the action would bring about a regional war.

Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC, said Israel probably saw the strike more as a deterrent.

“The Israelis are convinced that if they seek to hang back, the threat will grow and not diminish,” he said. “They are persuaded that as long as they do something like this periodically, their adversaries will be deterred.”

However, Steven Cook, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, said there was a danger of escalation.

“The IRGC can loosen restraints on proxies in Iraq and Syria, placing American forces in jeopardy again,” he said. “The Iranians could also direct Hezbollah to escalate its attacks on Israel, which have been growing bolder and more numerous.”

The chief spokesman for Israel’s army, Daniel Hagari, said a drone attack on a naval base in southern Israel later on Monday was “directed by Iran” and caused no injuries.

Early on Tuesday, the Israeli military said some kind of weapon fired from Syria towards Israel crashed before reaching its intended target.

Ali Vaez, the director of the International Crisis Group’s Iran Project, agreed there was a risk of expanded conflict but that it might not be of too much concern to Israel.

“[This] puts Israel in a win-win situation because Israel knows Iran doesn’t want to get dragged into a regional war, so if it escalates its attacks against Iranian assets and personnel in Syria, it probably will be cost-free and if Iran does respond and retaliate, then it becomes a justified pretext for expanding the war.”⍐

Oil Prices Start the Week Lower Despite Iran Attack on Israel

 

Crude oil prices began trade today with a decline following Iran’s retaliatory strike on Israel that the latter said had only done limited damage.

https://oilprice.com/ By Irina Slav - Apr 15, 2024

"An attack was largely priced in the days leading up to it. Also, the limited damage and the fact that there was no loss of life means that maybe Israel's response will be more measured," ING’s Warren Patterson said, as quoted by Reuters.

"But clearly, there is still plenty of uncertainty and it all depends on how Israel now responds," the Dutch bank’s head of commodity strategy also said.

Indeed, the degree of geopolitical uncertainty rose

significantly despite the fact that Iran’s retaliation was a non-surprise, as the West seeks a diplomatic way out of a further escalation while both Iran and Israel vow to respond to each other’s next moves reciprocally.

ING’s Patterson and commodity strategist Ewa Manthey said in a note from earlier today that Iran had signaled the drone strike “concluded” the whole affair for it but it was not certain whether Israel saw things the same way.

Naturally, this has heightened risks around oil supply from the Middle East, and especially Iran, which despite sanctions has boosted its output to some 3 million barrels daily and is currently the fourth-largest producer within OPEC.

In this context, according to the Dutch bank, there were two risks inherent to oil supply in the situation. First, the U.S. could tighten the sanction noose because of the strike on Israel and prompt cuts in output. Second, Israel could retaliate by targeting Iranian energy infrastructure, again affecting supply.

Sanctions could take some Iranian output off the market, per ING, but an Israeli attack on infrastructure could cause more significant supply losses. Should this happen, oil prices will have much higher to go, even though the ING analysts pointed to a possible new release of oil from the U.S. SPR and OPEC’s spare capacity.⍐