New York Quake Overdue (The Sixth Seal) (Rev 6:12)

New York City Is Overdue For Large Earthquake: Seismologist

http://www.gothamgazette.com/graphics/2008/09/skyesfig3_cropped.gif

Won-Young Kim, who runs the seismographic network for the Northeast at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said the city is well overdue for a big earthquake.

The last big quake to hit New York City was a 5.3-magnitude tremor in 1884 that happened at sea in between Brooklyn and Sandy Hook. While no one was killed, buildings were damaged.

Kim said the city is likely to experience a big earthquake every 100 years or so.

“It can happen anytime soon,” Kim said. “We can expect it any minute, we just don’t know when and where.”

New York has never experienced a magnitude 6 or 7 earthquake, which are the most dangerous. But magnitude 5 quakes could topple brick buildings and chimneys.

Seismologist John Armbruster said a magnitude 5 quake that happened now would be more devastating than the one that happened in 1884.

Iran’s Nuclear Horn Continues to Grow (Daniel 8:5)

Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium increased 25%

Iranian technicians work at the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facilities (UCF), 420 kms south of Tehran, 03 February 2007. [AFP PHOTO/BEHROUZ MEHRI / Getty]

August 19, 2019 at 9:24 am

The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI) announced yesterday that its stockpile of enriched uranium had increased from 300 kilogrammes to 370 kilogrammes, Arabi21 reported.

According to the AEOI, Iran is to continue developing its nuclear programme.

During a parliament meeting, MP Hussein Naqawi Husseini reported the Chief of the AEOI Ali Akbar Salehi stressing on the implementation of all the directives issued by the Supreme Revolutionary Guide Ali Khamenei following the US’ withdrawal from the internationally backed nuclear deal.

The MP also said the AEOI is now developing its centrifuges.

Under that 2015 JCPOA deal, Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear programme to satisfy world powers that it would not be used to develop weapons. In exchange, Iran received relief from sanctions, most of which were lifted in January 2016.

JCPOA was never ratified as a treaty by the US, although after its negotiation by the Obama administration it received backhanded approval by Congress. Lawmakers never voted to approve the deal, but narrowly voted not to reject it.

Current US President Donald Trump called the agreement “the worst deal ever” and withdrew from it, reimposing sanctions on to Iran. However the other countries who helped negotiate its terms – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom plus Germany – continue to support the deal and have been working to ensure JCPOA remains intact saying it has helped control Iran’s nuclear arsenal.

Israel Strikes the Iranian Horn

Netanyahu hints Israel behind strikes on Iraq, says Iran not immune anywhere

Babi Yar is for Jews an ‘eternal imperative,’ Netanyahu says at Holocaust mass killing site in Kyiv; refuses to condemn Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea

By Raphael Ahren Today, 1:55 am

KYIV, Ukraine — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday hinted that Israel was behind recent airstrikes on Iranian targets in Iraq, stressing that the Jewish state will continue to act militarily whenever and wherever there is a need to do so.

“Iran has no immunity, anywhere,” he told reporters during a briefing in his Kyiv hotel, responding to a question about various recent attacks on military installations in Iraq, which are attributed to Israel.

The Iranians continue to threaten Israel with annihilation and are building military bases across the Middle East intended to carry out that goal, Netanyahu said, blaming the 2015 nuclear deal for Iran’s increasing aggression. “We will act — and currently are acting — against them, wherever it is necessary,” he declared.

Last week, a former Iraqi deputy prime minister indicated Israel was responsible for a massive explosion in a weapons depot controlled by an Iranian-backed Shiite militia in Baghdad.

“We believe they are weapons we were holding onto for a neighboring state and they were targeted by an oppressive colonial state on the basis of a treasonous Iraqi act,” former deputy prime minister Baha al-Araji wrote on Twitter.

According to foreign reports, Israel has been increasingly active in carrying out airstrikes against Iran-backed militias in Iraq, shifting its focus after years of reported raids aimed at keeping Tehran from gaining a foothold in Syria.

Israeli officials have identified Iraq as a likely growing base of operations for Iran-backed efforts against the Jewish state. But Israeli officials have so far neither confirmed nor denied responsibility for the strikes.

Earlier on Monday, Netanyahu indirectly addressed Iran’s threats against Israel at a speech at Babi Yar, the Kyiv ravine where the Nazis committed one of their deadliest shooting massacres.

“In this grave, the mass grave here behind me, tens of thousands of Ukrainian Jews and many non-Jews were murdered… I say in a clear voice, precisely in this place, that it is our constant duty to stand against murderous ideologies in order to ensure that there will never be another Babi Yar,” he declared.

At Babi Yar, the Nazis and their local collaborators shot more than 33,000 Jews in September 29-30, 1941. Tens of thousands of non-Jews were killed at the ravine as well.

“For humanity, Babi Yar is a warning sign. For Jews, Babi Yar is an eternal imperative. We will always defend ourselves by ourselves against any enemy,” Netanyahu said, speaking in Hebrew.

PM Netanyahu, his wife Sara and Ukrainian President Zelensky lay wreaths at a monument for Jewish victims killed at Babi Yar in Kyiv, Ukraine, August 19, 2019 (Amos Ben-Gershom (GPO)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also attended the event, describing the mass killings the Nazis and their local collaborators carried out there as “impossible to understand, impossible to forget and impossible to forgive.”

There are two monuments at Babi Yar, one usually visited by foreign dignitaries that commemorates all victims of Nazism who were killed at the site, and another, built specifically to commemorate the Jews killed at the site.

Zelensky is believed to be the first Ukrainian head of state to accompany an Israeli dignitary to the second site, marked by a giant menorah.

In his speech, he highlighted the fact that Ukraine is the country with the fourth-highest number of Righteous Among the Nations, who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust.

“The memory of the victims should serve as a warning that the ideology of intolerance and violence takes away the most precious and valuable — human life,” Zelensky, who is Jewish, said. “Today, in Babi Yar, we call on the international community to unite efforts to prevent any manifestation of anti-Semitism and intolerance on racial or national grounds.”

During Monday’s press briefing, Netanyahu also refused to condemn Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea or to explicitly back Ukraine’s claim to the peninsula.

During his meeting with Zelensky earlier during the day, the Ukrainian president thanked Israel for its “continued support of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and for an unwavering stand on the war in the east of our country and the annexation of Crimea.”

PM Netanyahu, left, and Ukrainian President Zelensky address the press at the presidential residence in Kyiv, Ukraine, August 19, 2019 (Amos Ben-Gershom (GPO)

But, in fact, official Israel never formally expressed support for Kyiv’s position on its ongoing conflict with Russia, but rather stayed neutral.

Jerusalem has attempted to massage ties with Russia, which is a major player in Syria, where Israel has acted militarily to keep Iran from gaining a foothold.

In 2014, the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem issued a toothless statement expressing the hope the the matter “will be handled through diplomatic means and will be resolved peacefully.”

Israel has remained neutral in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, refusing to explicitly condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. At the time, the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem issued a toothless statement expressing the hope the the matter “will be handled through diplomatic means and will be resolved peacefully.”

Israel in March 2014 also abstained on a United Nations General Assembly resolution condemning Ukraine’s “partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including any attempts to modify Ukraine’s borders through the threat or use of force or other unlawful means.”

Russian soldiers guard the center of Simferopol, Crimea, March 27, 2014. (AP/Max Vetrov/File)

The US-sponsored resolution passed with 100-11, with 58 abstentions.

“I have nothing to add to what was done at the time,” Netanyahu told The Times of Israel Monday.

The prime minister also refused to say whether Zelensky asked him to mediate between him and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“For anyone to become a mediator, you need three parties — Russia, Ukraine and the mediator,” the prime minister says. “It takes three to tango. And I don’t think we have the three at this point.” He declined to answer a follow-up question whether Zelensky asked him to play mediator rule in the future.

Times of Israel staff contributed to this report.

The Antichrist’s Men (Revelation 13:18)

Image result for peace brigades iraq

The Future of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces

Facing the existential threat of the then-rapidly expanding Islamic State in 2014, former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki officially established the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) to assist in the defense of Iraq. Ayatollah Sistani, a prominent Shia cleric, called for volunteers to fight in the militias. The Sunni jihadis threatened Iran as well, so Iranian-backed militias operating in Iraq joined the fight, too. The PMF is a collection of roughly 50 paramilitary militias of different sizes and with varying political interests.

The PMF is officially part of the Iraqi security forces and received $2.16 billion dollars from the defense budget in 2019, yet it is independent from any control or oversight by the Iraqi Defense Ministry because the forces report to the office of the Prime Minister directly. In reality, the PMF doesn’t take orders from the Iraqi government because the government is not a unified entity, and the PMF brigades have a variety of political goals and alignments. While the PM legally commands the PMF, many brigades take orders from particular parties or competing government officials, the most powerful of whom is Hadi Al-Amiri the Minister of Transportation. Amiri is the commander of the Badr Organization, a large Iranian-backed militia with ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Until the territorial defeat of ISIS, the Iraqi government needed the PMF and allowed their operational independence. Now, without a common enemy, these militias have no explicit purpose, yet most refuse to disband and relinquish control over areas they control. The future of these militias is unclear, and the Iraqi government needs to take control of them or risk losing authority to militia leaders who act as Iranian proxies and regional warlords with personal armies.

On July 1, 2019, Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi decreed that the Popular Mobilization Forces must integrate into the Iraqi Military by July 31, 2019. This decree maintains the PMF commission, but consolidates leadership over the militias. In coordination with a previous decree issued two weeks earlier, this is part of a greater effort to restrict the autonomy of the militias by outlawing the movement of forces and stockpiling of weapons without the defense ministry’s knowledge and permission. Some factions will resist and attempt to maintain independence from the Iraqi government or maintain their loyalty to Iran—further complicating the matter. With their loyalties to specific political groups, the militias could endanger the fragile Iraqi state and plunge the country back into war. It is important to understand what the motives of each of the militias are so they can be properly integrated into the military or be disbanded for the benefit of the recovering Iraqi state.

Who Makes Up the PMF?

As previously stated, many of the militias have a connection to Iran. This includes the largest of the militias, the Badr Organization, which officially makes up 11 brigades and controls several others that are meant to appear independent. The Badr Organization is the military wing of the Fatah Party, which holds 48 seats in the Iraqi parliament. Many Badr members have been a part of the official state security apparati, especially the Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Police. Badr affiliates and other Shia militias have and continue to abuse Sunni Arab civilians, especially Sunnis in former ISIS territory.

The Peace Brigades, which makes up at least three brigades, are the second largest contingent of the PMF. Shia fighters largely make up the Peace Brigades, but they are opposed to Iran and are loyal to the influential Shia cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr was the leader of the Mahdi army that resisted the American invasion, but has since publicly renounced sectarianism and has formed the largest party in the Iraqi parliament. The Forward Party, or Sairoun Party, is a multi-ethnic, non-sectarian (though mostly Shia) parliamentary coalition that is made up of anti-Iran Shia parties, the Communist Party, and a few other smaller parties. As the Sairoun Party’s military force, the Peace Brigades are anti-foreign influence, particularly to Iran and America.

The remaining militias operating in Iraq are made up of a few miscellaneous groups: Sunni militias that were opposed to ISIS, a Chaldean Christian militia, a Shabak militia, and a Turkmen militia. All of these militias mostly operate in their respective communities as security. These groups all have links to Iran and the Badr group.

Efforts to Integrate the PMF into the Iraqi Military

Mahdi’s executive order was designed to reign in rogue militias and assert control over the many Iranian proxy forces that make up a large part of the PMF. The Iraqi military is weak and continues to rely on decentralized militia forces to maintain control of Iraqi territory. Because the Iraqi military is weak, individual PMF brigades are largely autonomous and have used their freedom of action to establish local crime rings, rob civilians, and engage in mafia-like protection rackets. The Washington Post has reported that some Shia militias have abused (mostly) Sunni farming communities in what previously was ISIS territory.

The Peace Brigades were the most receptive to the executive order and immediately announced that they would now only be known by their assigned numbers: 313, 314, and 315. The brigade’s spokesperson, Safa’a al-Tamimi, announced that the brigades would put themselves directly under the control of the Prime Minister instead of answering to Sadr, though it is likely he will still have great influence over these militias. Formal integration into the Iraqi military is consistent with Sadr’s goal to strengthen Iraqi institutions, especially against Iranian influence, which manifests in the form of Shia militias that are also restricted by this decree.

Other militia groups have been less willing to integrate with the Iraqi military establishment. On July 30, one day before the deadline, Falih al-Fayadh, the head of the PMF commission, announced that the PMF would need two more months before giving up its autonomous leadership. Many of these militias have gained political influence by associating themselves with political parties in the parliament. Others have established alternative sources of income that they are unwilling to give up, including robbery, extortion, and scrap metal salvaging. Similarly, Iranian-backed groups are unwilling to subject themselves to any oversight or restriction by the Iraqi government. PM Mahdi has begun to crack down on uncooperative PMF units by arresting Hamza Shimmery, a wealthy and allegedly corrupt businessman with ties to several PMF leaders. Mahdi will likely continue to put pressure on criminal elements associated with militias who do not integrate.

What Should Iraq Do?

The Iraqi regime has a couple of options for how to deal with the militias operating within its borders now that collusion is no longer an effective strategy: integration, containment, or suppression.[1] All willing militias should be integrated into the Iraqi military following the example of the Peace Brigades. Those that do not cooperate tend to be militias that resemble criminal gangs and answer to Iran like Kata’ib Hezbullah, which has publicly rejected the decree. These groups should be contained, economically deprived, and shut down like the scrap metal militias operating in Nineveh. Because these militias are well funded and trained by Iran and the Iraqi military is comparatively weaker, they should not be violently suppressed especially because it could lead to escalation and war with Iran, which would be destructive to Iraq and its citizens. Iraqi forces should instead work to contain them.

[1] Staniland, Paul. “Militias, Ideology, and the State.” Journal of Conflict Resolution vol. 59, no. 5 (2015): 770-93. doi:10.1177/0022002715576749.

Philippe Atallah is a Middle East Program Intern at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is a Senior at the University of Pennsylvania, where he studies International relations focusing on the Middle East.

Trump is Clueless:Iran Won’t Talk

Trump Says ‘Iran Would Like To Talk’ But Does Not Know How

Radio Farda

As an Iranian oil tanker caught in a standoff between Tehran and the West left Gibraltar, Sunday night, August 18, U.S. President Donald Trump said that “Iran would like to talk,” attributing it to poor economic conditions in the country.

“But Iran would like to talk but they just don’t know how to get there.”

Referring to Iranians as a “very proud people,” President Trump noted, “But their economy is crashing, it’s crashing. Inflation is through the roof. They’re doing really badly.”

Insisting that “we can do something fast,” President Trump stressed, “They are not selling oil. Even, I mean we put the sanctions on, the oil is selling much less, I mean much less than what we thought. It’s like a trickle and they very much want to make a deal.”

President Trump’s comments echoed his earlier remarks that Washington is seeking a new round of talks with Tehran, while the Islamic Republic’s economy is collapsing.

The Trump Administration dropped the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Tehran’s nuclear deal with world powers in May 2018.

Immediately after the withdrawal from JCPOA, Washington re-imposed two batches of sanctions on Tehran, targeting the Islamic Republic’s banking system, oil exports and petrochemical industry.

Meanwhile, the United States has repeatedly voiced its readiness to negotiate without preconditions.

Nevertheless, the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has rejected the offer to renew talks with Washington, asserting, “Talking to Americans is a lethal poison, and talking to the Trump Administration is twice as lethal.”

President Hassan Rouhani, his U.S. educated Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and the Intelligence Minister have repeatedly joined voices with Khamenei in rejecting talks with Washington.

Iran warns Babylon the Great against oil tanker seizure

Iran warns US against oil tanker seizure as ship leaves Gibraltar

Vessel heads to Greece after UK rejects Washington’s request to detain it further

Dan Sabbagh Defence and security editor and agencies

Mon 19 Aug 2019 03.12 EDT

Iran has warned the US against attempting to seize an Iranian oil tanker in open seas after its release from Gibraltar.

The tanker, which has been caught in a standoff between Tehran and the west, was sailing for Greece on Monday, shipping data showed, hours after the British territory rejected a US request to detain the vessel further. MarineTraffic reported its destination as the Peloponnesian city of Kalamata.

Asked whether the US might renew its seizure request after the tanker sailed from Gibraltar, an Iranian foreign ministry said: “Such an action … would endanger shipping safety in open seas. We have issued a warning through official channels, especially the Swiss embassy.”

Switzerland represents US interests in Iran. Tehran has no official diplomatic relations with Washington.

The ship, formerly known as the Grace 1 but renamed by Iran as the Adrian Darya 1, is carrying 2.1m barrels of oil, a cargo is worth an estimated £115m.

Royal Marines seized the vessel off Gibraltar on 4 July, saying it was carrying oil bound for Syria in breach of EU sanctions.

That prompted Iran to seize the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero in the Gulf in retaliation a fortnight later, sparking a diplomatic crisis between the two countries. Britain responded by sending a second warship to the Gulf to offer greater protection to merchant shipping.

Iran has denied that its tanker was heading for Syria, and the vessel’s detention appeared to ended last week after Iran gave a written commitment to Gibraltar that it would not sail to Syria or anywhere else covered by EU sanctions.

There was fresh legal uncertainty on Friday, however, when a federal court in Washington issued a warrant for the seizure of the supertanker, the oil it carries and nearly $1m (£820,000), saying there had been a breach of US sanctions against Iran.

The US claims the tanker is controlled through a network of front companies by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which tWashington designates as terrorist organisation and is one of the targets of its sanctions.

Gibraltar said on Sunday it was unable to comply with the US request because it was bound by EU law. “The EU sanctions regime on Iran is fundamentally different to that the US,” Gibraltar said. The authorities also said the Revolutionary Guard was not designated a terrorist organisation under EU, UK or Gibraltar law.

Without the territory agreeing to the US request, there were no immediate legal obstacles left to the supertanker setting sail.

The Astralship shipping agency in Gibraltar, which has been hired to handle paperwork and arrange logistics for the Adrian Darya 1, told the Associated Press that a new crew of Indian and Ukrainian nationals were replacing the sailors on board.

The Iranian ship was detained while sailing under a Panamanian flag. Video footage and photographs taken on Sunday showed it flying the Iranian flag and with its new name painted in white over its previous one on the hull.

Reuters contributed to this report

The Beginning of Tribulations (Revelation 8)

India vs. Pakistan: The 1 Thing That Could Spark a Nuclear War (Billions Dead)

Despite steps to increase people-to-people links between India and Pakistan, the Pakistan Army and intelligence service—which exercise a monopoly over the nation’s foreign policy—have ensured that Kashmir remains a boiling issue between the two nations.

Recent India–Pakistan border skirmishes have brought the dispute over Kashmir to the world’s attention once again. While the latest crisis has abated for now, the issue still festers and is likely to lead to more clashes between these two nuclear-armed nations.

It’s important to understand the historical, political and ideological dynamics in play in Jammu and Kashmir because the crossroads that India and Pakistan currently find themselves at is the same one that’s bedevilled their relationship since 1947. Pakistan alleges that India’s ‘control’ of Kashmir is illegal and that the Indian government is brutally quashing the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination; India argues that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of the country. The roots of this conflict lie in the partition of the Indian subcontinent along religious lines by the departing British rulers in the late 1940s.

The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was an anomaly in the logic of the partition: it was a Muslim-majority state governed by a Hindu ruler. Even as the maharaja dithered about joining India or Pakistan or remaining independent, the Pakistan Army dispatched a band of guerrilla raiders, who infiltrated Kashmir in October 1947. The maharaja appealed to Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who made New Delhi’s intervention conditional on Jammu and Kashmir’s acceding to the Indian Union. The maharaja signed an instrument of accession to India in October 1947, and Indian armed forces thwarted the advance of the Pakistani infiltrators.

In January 1948, India took the matter to the UN but regretted the decision after the Security Council passed a resolution calling for a referendum to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide which country they wanted to join. The UN, however, made the referendum conditional on Pakistani forces vacating the region. By the time the UN-mediated ceasefire agreement came into effect in 1949, Pakistan had consolidated control over Gilgit-Baltistan (also known as the Northern Areas) and Azad Kashmir, which are today referred to as ‘Pakistan-administered Kashmir’. The two countries have since fought three wars over Kashmir, and cross-border shelling and aggression have been commonplace.

To add to the confusion, the eastern part of Jammu and Kashmir, known as Aksai Chin, is now under Chinese control, after Beijing seized most of it in the 1962 war with India. (Separately, Pakistan ceded the Shaksgam Valley to China under an agreement signed in 1963.) The remainder of the state has been governed by India since 1948. Nonetheless, the state has witnessed almost constant unrest due to India–Pakistan rivalry, Pakistan’s support for local extremist groups and the Indian government’s fraught relations with key Kashmiri political figures.

Two events in particular unleashed a series of crises that continue to affect Kashmir to this day: the 1987 state elections (which were allegedly rigged by New Delhi and locked in a culture of political unrest) and the spillover of the Afghan jihad into Kashmir (which exacerbated armed conflict in the region). The massacre and mass exodus of Hindu Kashmiri Pandits (the local Hindu community) in late 1989 and early 1990—a result of that spillover—was an especially difficult chapter in the troubled history of the state.

As a result, the Indian government enacted the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act in the state in 1990, granting special immunities to the military in the region. Kashmir has always had a heavy Indian military presence, and the army’s actions over the years have frequently been criticised as harsh. There’s been a rise in local militant activity (abetted by Pakistan) in the past decade that successive Indian governments have failed to quell; the execution of local terrorist Afzal Guru in 2013 and further such instances have caused massive unrest and disaffection with New Delhi over the years.

To add to the tensions, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party has promised to repeal articles 370 and 35A (which prevent migration into Kashmir from other states) from the Indian constitution. This has generated heated responses not only from the local Kashmiri parties but also from Pakistan. Overall, the crisis in Kashmir has been a vicious circle of violence, fuelled by Pakistan and crushed by India, that has engulfed the local populace for many decades now.

Ultimately, the conflict over Kashmir is an ideological one. Pakistan was conceptualised by the leaders of the Muslim League in pre-partition India on the assumption that the differences between Muslims and Hindus were irreconcilable, and that the former would never flourish in a Hindu-majority country. Historian Faisal Devji explained Pakistani nationalism as strongly rooted in the idea of rejecting a shared past with the Hindus of the subcontinent.

The absorption of the Muslim-majority state of Kashmir by India is an anathema to Pakistan’s raison d’être, under which a secular India is seen as a threat to the very existence of Pakistan. India’s role in aiding the creation of Bangladesh after 1971 further widened the gulf with Pakistan, which Pakistan expects to avenge by fomenting crises in Kashmir. New Delhi’s economic and conventional military superiority over Islamabad also adds to the latter’s threat perceptions.

Despite steps to increase people-to-people links between India and Pakistan, the Pakistan Army and intelligence service—which exercise a monopoly over the nation’s foreign policy—have ensured that Kashmir remains a boiling issue between the two nations. As C. Christine Fair writes:

Pakistan … has an army that cannot win the wars that it starts, and nuclear weapons that it cannot use, so it must demonstrate that India’s hegemonic goals are not unchallenged. This means that Pakistan must attack India through proxy actors under its nuclear umbrella, just to demonstrate that India has not defeated it or forced it into accepting the status quo.

The easiest setting for any such demonstration is Kashmir—and that means the issue isn’t going to be resolved anytime soon.

This article by Aakriti Bachhawat and Prateek Joshi first appeared in the Australian Strategic Policy Insitute’s The Strategist in 2019.

Aakriti Bachhawat is a researcher at ASPI and Prateek Joshi is a research associate with Vivekananda International Foundation, a New Delhi–based public policy think tank. Images courtesy of Simon Matzinger on Flickr and Wikimedia Commons.