Israel's security… and the ambassador's statements – behind the news – ✍️ Muhammad Wadaa
*Iran's threat against Israel (if there is one) does not require Sudan's facilitation*,
Sudan's established policy is to reject foreign interference in its internal affairs.
*If Israel attacks Sudan, it will benefit the Rapid Support Militia*
*The granting of military installations and bases to any country is a sovereign and exclusive right of the host country*
Sudan's representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Al-Harith, said yesterday in his speech to the Security Council that Iran is not participating in the war in Sudan and that the restoration of diplomatic relations with Iran does not affect Israel's security). his speech was taken out of context and may have caused harm. With his speech which seemed coherent, no one knows why he came in this form, and why before the Security Council? Why this link between Iran's alleged participation in the war in Sudan and Israel's security? Does Sudan have information on possible Israeli attacks? Are such statements appropriate to negate the malicious rumors circulating that Sudan is granting logistical facilities to Russia or Iran on the Red Sea?
The entire world saw the role of the Iranian threat against Israel in its response to the bombing of its consulate in Damascus, and informed America that its response would be limited and announced the launch of its attack on Israel in 72 hours. and used drones and missiles that took hours to reach Israel, and in addition, Israel attacked with missiles without explosive warheads. These projectiles passed through the airspace of Iraq, Syria and possibly Jordan, as well as Sudanese airspace or territorial waters. were not the starting point of this attack. Therefore, Iran's threat to Israel (if there is a threat) does not require Sudan's facilitation.
Accordingly, the first part of the statement is indisputable, as it is consistent with Sudan's policy of rejecting foreign intervention in the war, especially since the ambassador reminded the Council of a complaint he had filed against the UAE for its blatant intervention and unlimited support for the war. and naming it as the regional sponsor of the war, accusing it of prolonging the war as a direct participant and rejecting its presence as a mediator in Jeddah for its role in the aggression. reject any foreign interference in its internal affairs.
However, this statement is inappropriate and discredits assessments of Sudanese diplomacy, because if Israel targets Sudan, it will not do so because the return of Sudanese-Iranian relations poses a threat to it. If Israel moves to target Sudan, this will be the case. in the interests of the rapid support militia and under pressure from the regional sponsor of the war, Sudan will be forced to defend itself, especially since Sudan's borders extend to a distance of more than 700 km on the Red Sea, which will constitute Sudan will not be the focus of conflict in the region for an indefinite period and will not pay the price for improving the Iranian-Israeli theater.
Although the (peace) agreement with Israel, signed by the Hamdok government's Justice Minister, Nasr al-Din Abdel Bari, was disastrous for Sudan and was rejected, it stands to reason that any Israeli aggression against Sudan will be tantamount to a declaration of war, and it is likely that this alleged aggression is unlikely at this time. The ambassador should have gone ahead and warned of the consequences of any Israeli targeting of Sudan under any pretext. country is a sovereign and exclusive right of the host country, and it cannot be decided in the absence of Parliament. Therefore, talking about it is premature and unacceptable because it conflicts with the desire of the Sudanese people.
April 22, 2024 AD
Follow us
Source link
