Friday News Roundup — April 9, 2021
U.S. Response to Uyghur Genocide; Jordan's Foiled Coup; Roundup on Military Tech; Amazon and American Unionism
Happy Friday from Washington, DC. This week, there was another “security incident” at the U.S. Capitol. A man drove his car into a barricade and lunged at Capitol Police officers with a knife, killing one officer in the process. So soon after the January 6 insurrection, many were quick to draw a political connection — a reminder of the growing extremism in our politics. Yet, regardless of the driver’s motives, it is just a tragedy: for Officer Evans’s family; for the USCP service that has endured so much in recent months; and for a city that is ready to return to normal, a normal that includes the fences around Capitol Hill coming down.
This week, Joshua reviewed The Changing of the Guard: The British Army since 9/11 by Simon Akam in Diplomatic Courier. He also called for reforming the U.S. military’s acquisition processes for the Space Force in Breaking Defense.
In the Roundup this week, Dan looks past the cynicism as we hold Beijing to account on human rights. Michael looks at recent events in Jordan, while Ethan has a roundup-in-a-roundup of defense innovation developments. Finally, our intern Sarah Naiman looks at what the Amazon union vote means for labor relations in America. As always, we wrap with news you may have missed.
Great Power Competition & the Foreign Policy Toolbox
Dan Mahaffee
To take you behind the curtain a bit here at CSPC, each Friday roundup begins to take form at a Wednesday meeting (Zoom call for the past year-plus). These meetings often have some very frank discussions, and one was prompted by the growing international response to the genocide of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. Along with Canada, the EU, and the United Kingdom, the United States levied sanctions against a range of Chinese officials linked to Xinjiang. China responded in kind with its own sanctions. Furthermore, the Uyghur genocide has started to weigh on commercial ties — international clothing chain H&M being the most recent and prominent example — as well as discussions about a potential boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games.
Within our discussions, there was a clear sense of cynicism about what these actions, generally symbolic, can do in terms of helping the Uyghurs, or even some skepticism about human rights in great power competition that so often is framed in conventionally realist terms. At the same time, there is cynicism about how far our allies are willing to go when it comes to confronting China in terms of human rights. This week, during a call between Chancellor Merkel and General Secretary Xi, the pressure on Europe from Beijing was clear. Beijing has released its readout, while Berlin has not. While one could understand Merkel’s reluctance to box in her successor, they are both boxed in by Sino-German business interests — though those interests increasingly diverge between big business and many of the small and medium firms that makeup the majority of the German economy.
All too often, we find ourselves reaching back to the Cold War comparisons, especially when it comes to the future of U.S.-China competition. However, we must also remember that many of these Cold War comparisons rest on shaky understandings of the Cold War. While it is true that the current circumstances of globalization and economic interdependence make impossible a return to the blocs of the Cold War, the history of the Cold War is not one of two rigid, unchanging blocs of countries. Battles for influence and power around the world reflected this very fluidity, and those lessons — about bringing all the tools of national power to play and the role human rights plays within that toolbox — are important.
During the Cold War, there were many times where the realities of geopolitics, international law, and superpower politics left little for the United States and our allies to do in terms of an immediate human rights response. Be it Budapest in 1956 or Prague in 1968, the west could do little to stop those brutal crackdowns. Yet, there were also long term measures like the Jackson-Vanik amendments or even the Helsinki Accords — criticized at the time but an eventual beacon for Eastern Bloc human rights campaigners — shaped the playing field and put Moscow on its back foot in the competition for culture and values. Soft power.
And there is always the tu quoque response from our adversaries. The haranguing of Chinese diplomats in Anchorage is not at all dissimilar from the Soviets saying, a u vas negrov linchuyut. When we hear that from our adversaries, it is a challenge, but also a reminder that we have a system where we can do better than mere whataboutism. In our system, we can understand the flaws of our history, hold our leaders to account, and change course when we stray from our principles. As we hold our adversaries to account, we can also hold ourselves to account. That becomes harder though, if we fall victim to the cynical logic that foreign policy realpolitik or dealmaking with autocrats makes us no better than anyone else, or, on the other hand, that our past history is so burdensome that America is somehow irredeemable. It finally requires us to break through the political deadlock driven by those who profit from our cultural wounds festering rather than healing.
Ultimately, being strong on human rights at home and abroad is part of the tools of power and influence we can use in competing with China and holding the abuses of its leaders to account. Boycotts and sanctions may not have the bite that they want, but it draws the attention to Beijing and its crimes that the CCP so desperately seeks to redirect elsewhere.
While military might and economic competitiveness are often the provenance of the elites, our values, culture, and principles can demonstrate universal appeal. While the competition with China will not be another Cold War, history tells us the role human rights played in the fall of the Iron Curtain.
While some try to frame this competition as something other than a competition of ideologies, the ideological component is fundamental to this. Do Olympic boycotts make a difference? Not really, and it would likely lead to the unraveling of the games. Do brand boycotts work? Maybe, as it could encourage business leaders to seek alternatives to China. Yet, the Chinese Communist Party has made the shape of its genocidal, techno-authoritarian model abundantly clear to those willing to see it. Standing up for our values is not only a matter of winning this geopolitical competition, but also ensuring that humanity can live to its potential, in dignity.
Jordan Seized by Coup Plot
Michael Stecher
On Saturday, security forces in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan made a series of arrests, charging a group of prominent Jordanians with “undermining the security” of the state. Among those implicated was 41 year old Prince Hamzah bin Hussein, the younger half-brother of the sitting king, Abdullah II bin Hussein. The foreign minister claimed that Prince Hamzah had been in discussions with leaders of an influential tribe and a former royal official who is now an advisor to Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, and implied that there was a foreign dimension to this seditious conspiracy.
Nearly a week later, evidence of foreign involvement has not really materialized, but the United States has made it clear that it supports Jordan and King Abdullah’s leadership. On Wednesday, King Abdullah released an open letter to his subjects that, from the palace’s perspective, the crisis has passed and that “sedition has been nipped in the bud.” That may be true in a narrow sense, but the strains on the internal cohesion of the Hashemite family and their political legitimacy must have been extreme to take such public action against one of their own. This might be the most dangerous period of Jordanian history in the last 50 years, as political and economic tensions are breaking into the open.
It is difficult to understand exactly what is going on in Jordan this week, since so much of the actual movement has been hidden behind the doors of the royal palace. This is a problem endemic in monarchies, where managing factions takes place through informal channels and the major players understand that airing their grievances will prevent them from succeeding. David Ignatius compared the situation to the Netflix show “The Crown”, the Christian Science Monitor used a “Game of Thrones” analogy, but your mileage may vary. What is clear is that this is not the way that politics is supposed to go in Jordan: usually, even major events like changes to the line of succession take place without much of a ripple in public.
What appears to be different this time is Prince Hamzah. While members of the royal family normally steer clear of politics, Hamzah has taken a different path. He has been a vocal opponent of corruption, and not just the penny-ante corruption of low-level bureaucrats, but the way that major state financial deals are done and with whom. He has also drawn obvious comparisons with his father, King Hussein, by building political alliances with members of Jordan’s tribal community.
Jordan’s population is split between people whose families trace their descent in the country beyond 1948, called “East Bankers” because they are from the east bank of the Jordan River, and the descendents of Palestinian families who migrated to the country while the West Bank was under Jordanian control (1948–1967) and/or were refugees from the Arab-Israeli wars or the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. West Bankers are probably a plurality of the population. The exact lines are not easy to draw because West Bankers have become more integrated, especially in the cities, and there have been more intermarriages. Also, the Jordanian government is very sensitive to calls from the Israeli and American political right that the country is already the nation-state of the Palestinian people, and is cautious about calling some of its Palestinian population citizens.
East Bankers have always been the core of the Jordanian state, with most of the high-ranking positions in the civil service, military, and intelligence services. This was reinforced after Palestinian militants attempted to overthrow the monarchy in 1970 in the Black September uprising. In recent years, however, some East Bank tribal leaders have expressed that King Abdullah has lost touch with them, while Prince Hamzah is, in the words of University of Waterloo Professor Bessma Momani, “the kind of person who will sit on the floor and eat with you.”
At the same time, the economic situation in Jordan is parlous. The economy shrank in 2020 and unemployment hit nearly 25%, as the COVID-19 pandemic prevented tourists from coming to the country. While the country had initial success containing the COVID outbreak, they have had a very bad second wave this winter. A hospital outside Amman ran out of oxygen for patients in March, which also prompted outcry among Jordanians and a visit from King Abdullah. Over the longer term, the International Monetary Fund has been pushing economic reforms that are hitting the public sector hard, while youth unemployment was over 35% even before the outbreak. The country also hosts more than 500,000 Syrian refugees, which strains national resources.
While there are reasons to doubt that there was actually a foreign hand involved in the conspiracy that may have grown up around Prince Hamzah, Jordan’s political position has also deteriorated in recent years. Jordan has played an important role in Israeli-Palestinian relations for decades and the Israeli government recognizes the King of Jordan as the official custodian of the Muslim holy places on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. While the military and intelligence relationship between Israel and Jordan remains strong, the political relationship has become even more sour in recent years as Israel has grown more willing to take risks in the relationship by expanding settlements and flirted with outright annexation of parts of the West Bank. It is notable that the official Israeli statement of support for King Abdullah came from Defense Minister Benny Gantz, rather than Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi.
Jordan has always been a centerpiece of U.S. strategy in the region: from Washington’s perspective it was on the right side of every important regional issue and, critically, it was politically stable. Jordan is a Major Non-NATO Ally and a substantial recipient of U.S. military assistance. As the U.S. role in the region has diminished, however, the U.S.-led security architecture is being partly replaced by a Saudi-led one (or at least the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is trying to build such a thing). In this new setup, the primary interlocutor for Arab-Israeli dialogue is the United Arab Emirates, not Jordan, and the Palestinian issue is has taken a backseat to the competition with Iran. Jordan faces a future in which it is just another peripheral nation, with particular risks from its lack of natural resources and climate fragility, rather than one in a special position because of its close ties to Washington.
We cannot understand why the royal palace acted so publicly without zooming out to look at these structural issues. From their perspective, at a time when the country is under strain, Prince Hamzah was setting himself up as a plausible alternative to King Abdullah, making inroads into the state’s most important power base and possibly building connections in regional capitals. I suppose I would tell the Christian Science Monitor that the parallel is not Princess Margaret or Ned Stark, but Richard Duke of York, who kicked off the Wars of the Roses.
Arresting Prince Hamzah and his associates, however, does not alleviate the structural problems the country faces. A persistent worry in Washington has been that, while Jordan is very stable, there does not seem to be a very good reason why it ought to remain that way. One observer remarked to me once that they feared that Jordanian stability was like Wile E. Coyote, who is able to continue running despite having gone past the edge of the cliff as long as he does not look down.
Making sure that Jordan remains stable will require political and economic reforms in the country. Fighting corruption and creating more political space for legitimate dissent are important steps, but so is greater engagement from the United States that ensures that Amman continues to play an important role in regional politics. Once Israel’s own multi-year political crisis comes to an end (whenever that may be), getting those two countries to a place where they can cooperate on energy and water issues, rather than just security issues, will also be important. Jordanian stability is too important in a region that has too little of it.
Defense Innovation on all fronts
Ethan Brown
Technology and innovation will dominate the competition paradigms of our national security architecture in the coming years. While the United States and its allies seek to retain the upper hand in warfighting capabilities, that pursuit must be carefully balanced against negligent and wanton spending. There have been several trend areas that I’ve kept an eye on over the past few years, those which I see as reflecting the priorities of the defense department in a better manner than the top-level elevator pitches like “lethality”, “readiness”, and other trope-y buzzwords that don’t lend useful data to strategy discussions.
Among those meta priorities worth covering, coincidentally those that garnered headlines in defense media this week, the Air Force’s 6th-gen, AI-driven RPA “Valkyrie” conducted Drone inception, while the Army has narrowed its bracket to the final two offerings for its future Arctic transportation, Tyndall Air Force Base is using 3D-digital engineering to rebuild a smart base better prepared for things like Hurricane Michael, and our allies are modulating their assault vehicles for offensive firepower and connecting military bases to the 5G Internet of Things. Let’s dive in… its spring cleaning for the defense strategy notebook.
Drone Inception
The idea of overpopulating an adversaries target array has been the lynchpin for this trend-shift towards drone swarms; these remote-piloted and semi-autonomous fleets also serve as a means of off-setting the limitations of the manned-aircraft inventory. The Air Force and Army both employ diverse Remote-Piloted Aircraft (RPAs) hordes, but those systems are inevitably handcuffed to control systems (read, aircrews and launch & recovery sites) that require a diverse and complex command and control which is susceptible to enemy interference. Not only are the services constrained by the limited number of pilots available (to the point that the Air Force re-activated its enlisted pilot pipeline to augment the flying corps).
Delivering the goods to the battlespace, especially a denied adversary region, challenges the infrastructure capacity to put these swarms in those forward areas. Unless you have a delivery drone that is already capable of flying at speeds and maneuver-thresholds that exceed human physical tolerances. The Kratos XQ-58A Valkyrie, a digitally-engineered supersonic RPA, just demonstrated the ability to deliver another drone from its payload-bay, an ALTIUS-600 sUAS — an attritable (military jargon: “throw away”) platform that can provide a myriad of capabilities including electronic warfare, signals collection/ISR, and kinetic effects. The Valkyrie is already being used by the Air Force Research Lab to further communications bridges between the F-22 and F-35, fly as an independent wingman to human fighter pilots via the Skyborg AI system, and now, small RPA delivery just made this futuristic RC-plane even more modular and thrifty.
Army Land Transportation bracketology: the final two
Strangely enough, the U.S. Army’s current overland arctic transportation inventory consists of things that you might find Kurt Russel using to navigate a frigid wasteland in search of an alien invader. Archaic, slow, two-tracked, and painted in that trusty old vietnam-era BDU pattern (despite environments of an Arctic or Desert variety), the Small-Unit Support Vehicles, or SUSVs, are simply a rebranded Swedish Hägglunds BvS-206D, probably svelte and cutting-edge in the 1980s when they were first contractually appropriated, but desperately in need of modernization. As in, out of production and unsustainable per the Army’s Program Executive Officer for Combat Support, Tim Goddette speaking recently to Defense News.
Over the preceding months, some final contenders to replace the ski-resort style crawlers for getting soldiers around the frozen battlefields of tomorrow have emerged to redefine the arctic overland travel methodology (spoiler, they are still big clunky tracked vehicles). Oshkosh Defense (of MATV notoriety) and ST Engineering (in partnership with BAE Systems) have submitted designs and prototypes by the monikers Bronco III (Cold Weather All-Terrain Vehicle/CATV) and the Beowulf, respectively.
The Bronco has an articulated drivetrain, making the vehicle and its attached trailer propelled, a huge traction advantage over previous era’s of snow-vehicles where the towing vehicle alone provides traction and contact support. Following a rigorous feedback loop in partnership with the British military, the Bronco features rubber tracks, a v-shaped hull, and spacious interior cavities to support a myriad of mission sets, including medical (which necessitates more space for equipment and treatment over a simple soldier dispenser).
Meanwhile, the Beowulf (which is really just the new-era BvS-206D of aforementioned obsoletion), offers a top speed of 40mph, rubber tracks for improved all-terrain performance, a single-tank range of 250 miles, and is already in service with multiple European partners. Both offerings are capable of being sling-loaded by current rotary wing platforms (although the Bronco III must be separated and reassembled to be supported by a UH-60), and can be modularized to support a variety of functions and capabilities unique to the Arctic and beyond. Bottom line, the Army needs a new fleet capable of operating at -50℉ and much like the other modernization platforms I’ve been following, this will be fun to see how this shakes out.
Concurrently, our British allies are looking to upgrade their Boxer fleet (a cousin of the U.S. Stryker, an up-armored, 8-wheeled personnel carrier) with an improved array of weapons, making the Boxer all but guaranteed to be the sole placeholder of U.K. armored personnel transport, replacing the older yet venerable Warrior-class IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicles). The MoD’s ambitions for the Boxer is to turn it into a hyper-modular, multi-purpose vehicle that can apply its considerable bulk and survivability to a future warfare landscape, lethality-focused of course. Australia and Lithuania have already developed offensive strike variants of the Boxer design, and the British Army is looking to put their stamp on this particular piece of modernization (read here for Joshua’s recent in-depth look at the U.K. Integrated Defense Review).
Tyndall AFB gets digital rebuild
Tyndall Air Force Base is undergoing a complete and total rebuild, but not the kind you’re thinking. Rather, engineers are patrolling the units, roads, flightlines, and integrated layout in order to create a three-dimensional replica of the base for Booz-Allen Hamilton to create a ‘digital twin’, allowing for efforts to suggest architectural changes that better sustain the installation. This is particularly interesting for Tyndall, since the base suffered catastrophic damage following a direct-hit by Hurricane Michael in 2018. Your’s truly had the distinct, if awkward privilege of being in the last NCOA-class to attend the Paul Airey NCO Academy at Tyndall, a month before that Hurricane made landfall, and it struck me as curious that an installation with such precious tenants as the F-35, the F-22, and other critical air and space infrastructure, that the airstrip just sat there, on the water, completely exposed to whatever torrential assaults nature might contrive.
In a new paradigm of defense thinking where climate change is becoming increasingly critical in DoD decision matrices, this 3D-rebuild of the base easily at risk for climatological impacts portends a radical, but exciting new approach by the military towards making its bases more efficient. It is as comprehensive as incorporating designs for extreme weather resilience, while being as mundane as infrastructure connectivity to account for potholes in the streets with an AI-managed maintenance system. This 3D-engineering will allow technical experts to put Tyndall on a new level of connectivity and efficiency that may well become the standard for U.S. military installations.
On brand with modernizing and hyper-connecting smart-installations, Latvia is similarly equipping one of its sites to become a hub for 5G military systems in Europe. While not quite as all-encompassing as Tyndalls google-earth style mapping, Latvia forces utilized virtual augmentation during a medical readiness training exercise as well as implementing an IoT portal to support remotely controlled systems. These recent engagements are admittedly “low hanging fruit”, per Ingmārs Pūķis, VP for marketing at LMT (Latvia’s biggest telecommunications provider) and key conspirator in this 5G experiment at Ādaži Military Base, just outside the city of Riga. Latvia is rapidly pushing its connectivity clout, with eyes on bordering Estonia as the next step in command and control connectivity through a potential coalition mesh network that is sourced by non-Huawei providers.
Drones launching drones, new snow-crawlers and APCs, minecraft-style base reconstruction, all signs point to U.S. and allied defense ministries looking to maximize the buying power of technology as these states pivot to changing threat paradigms in the national security environment. I’ll be monitoring each of these programs in turn and further exploring their roles in great powers competition in the months/years to come, but this week they all popped at once which made for a compelling perspective on how revolutionary technology is rapidly reshaping our military.
Amazon and the Revival of American Unionism
Sarah Naiman
Labor leaders, activists, and supporters anxiously await the results of last week’s showdown between Amazon and the employees of its Bessemer, Alabama facility. In the face of an aggressive anti-union campaign waged by Amazon, these Alabamans engaged in a historic vote: if the pro-union forces are successful and gain facility representation from the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU), they will become the first unionized Amazon employees in the United States. As a result, parties concerned with the future of labor relations should watch for the outcome of last week’s vote, which has the potential to bring about the meaningful revitalization of American unionism and therefore improve the quality of life for blue-collar workers across the country.
Bessemer’s organizing effort is the largest union drive in Amazon’s 25 year history, but it is only the first step in reforming the Amazon workplace; if a majority of the facility’s 6,000 employees vote for union representation, the RWDSU would then engage in negotiations with Amazon. These negotiations would focus primarily on issues of workplace respect and dignity. Bessemer employees complain that — in a warehouse the length of 15 football fields — they receive only 30 minutes for lunch. During a ten hour shift, workers receive just one other 30 minute break in addition to lunch. Moreover, their bathroom breaks are reportedly watched very closely, leading to last week’s Twitter debate over the use of empty bottles as makeshift toilets. Amazon also uses technology to track workers’ “Time Off Task,” moments when they are not physically engaged in their work. Employees find this type of surveillance to be dehumanizing and anxiety-producing.
It is this dystopian reality that has motivated the organizing drive at the Bessemer facility, but now is the perfect time for a grand organizing effort beyond this one facility. In addition to being supported by a markedly pro-labor administration, the blue-collar workers of Amazon and elsewhere also have public opinion on their side; as of August 2020, 65% of Americans supported labor unions. With the days of Jimmy Hoffa and the teamsters decades in the past, there appears to be few downsides to unionization in an increasingly automated and dehumanizing working world. According to the Economic Policy Institute, in 2012, union members’ wages were 13.9% higher than their unaffiliated counterparts. Similarly, unionized employees are nearly 30% more likely to have work-sponsored health insurance and 54% more likely to have a work pension.
The Center for American Progress found significant data about the relationship between unions and economic inequality: a 10% drop in American union density has led to the top 10% of Americans earning 5% more in gross income. Moreover, unions can play a key role in lifting people out of poverty; employees at the bottom of the wage scale saw their pay increase by 20% when they joined unions. One study performed by professors Patrick Flavin and Gregory Shufeldt indicated that union members have better qualities of life than unaffiliated workers. This occurs for four reasons: organized employees gain more satisfaction from their work, feel their positions are secure, are provided with greater opportunity for social engagement, and benefit from their democratic involvement in the workplace.
Companies like Amazon and other anti-labor critics argue that unions are broadly unnecessary. In Bessemer, for example, Amazon already provides benefits and pays its workers $15/hour, double Alabama’s minimum wage. Critics also claim that union dues will leave employees without funds for basic necessities. While wages and benefits are important (and Amazon should be recognized for its policies in both areas), workers nevertheless deserve fundamental respect from their employer. As demonstrated by the ability of union organizers to gain enough support for last week’s vote — a sufficient number of signatures must be submitted to the National Labor Relations Board so it can determine whether a vote is viable — Amazon’s employees do not feel that their pay compensates for their labor and treatment. For Bessemer employees, the organizing effort is about respect and dignity, not just wages.
As the pro- and anti-union forces wait for the NLRB to release the results of last week’s vote, bystanders cannot help but wonder if success in Bessemer could lead to a new age of labor. Victory at a facility run by the nation’s second-biggest employer that famously crushes unions — all in Alabama, an anti-union state — would certainly provide a morale boost to blue collar workers seeking to unionize around the country. With a pro-union presidential administration and public support on its side, it seems that now is an unprecedented moment in labor’s history. Success at the Bessemer facility should empower blue collar employees to work with unions and fight for greater representation, economic equality, and respect in the workplace.
News You Might Have Missed
US to Renew Aid to Palestinian Refugees
Sarah Naiman
This week, the Biden administration reversed yet another Trump-era piece of foreign policy: the U.S. will renew its $235 million commitment to Palestinian refugees. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made this announcement as the administration begins positioning itself to resume talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders on a two-state solution. The $235 million aid package is a combination between direct U.S. aid and the UN’s Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA); it can be broken down into humanitarian, economic, and development assistance. UNRWA, which focuses on assisting Palestinian refugees, is a point of contention, as Israeli officials have repeatedly called for its dismantling. The Biden administration does not support such drastic measures, but has called for reforms to the agency. This week’s recommitment to aiding Palestinian refugees indicates that President Biden plans to walk a fine line and rekindle delicate negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders.
Iranian Spy Ship Attacked in Red Sea
Miles Esters
On Tuesday, an Iranian cargo ship believed to be utilized as an intelligence vessel by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was attacked off of the western coast of Yemen. The Iranian Foreign Ministry has since confirmed the attack saying the MV Saviz was hit with an unknown explosion that caused minor damage around 6am local time in the Red Sea on Tuesday, close to the shores of Djibouti. The Iranians have denied assertions that the MV Saviz was an intelligence vessel as they have claimed that the ship was registered with the International Maritime Organization and it acts as a “logistics station” in the region providing “anti-piracy services.” According to the New York Times, an unnamed American official has said that “the Israelis had called the attack a retaliation for earlier Iranian strikes on Israeli vessels, and that the Saviz had been damaged below the waterline.” For the past 18 months, Israel has engaged in a clandestine war attacking Iranian commercial ships carrying oil and weapons through the Red Sea and Eastern Mediterranean to Syria. It is aimed at limiting the country’s military influence throughout the region and mitigate its efforts to evade devastating U.S. sanctions on its oil industry. Nevertheless, this recent attack on the MV Saviz comes at a speculative moment as the United States and Iran recently agreed on a pathway to revive the nuclear deal through indirect negotiations in Vienna, Austria.
The views of authors are their own and not that of CSPC.