New York and Mamdani: Stranger than fiction
Al-Ahram, Egypt, July 4
New York, the capital of fashion and trends, wealth and billionaires, the beating heart of global capitalism through Wall Street, and a hub for technology and major corporations, is once again capturing the world’s attention – but this time for something entirely unprecedented, something few could have imagined: a Muslim figure, perhaps the soon-to-be mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, whose star and ideas have suddenly ignited support and propelled him forward with the approval and votes of his enthusiastic followers.
US President Donald Trump has accused him of being a communist, an allegation Mamdani firmly denies, describing himself instead as a democratic socialist. He has already advanced more than a third of the way toward victory by defeating former Republican candidate Andrew Cuomo, who had previously served as mayor from 2011 to 2021 [Editor’s note: Cuomo is a Democrat and served as NY governor from 2011 to 2021, not mayor].
I believe that Mamdani has captured the attention of the world before even captivating the famed ancient city itself, managing to triumph over the Republicans in the primaries [Editor’s note: The primary election was among Democratic candidates] and positioning himself as the potential next mayor of New York in the final elections this coming November.
I also believe that this city of wonders is witnessing a new kind of miracle, not in economics but in politics – Mamdani, a mayoral candidate who openly criticizes Israel and defends the Palestinians. When asked if he would visit Jerusalem, he replied: “I will stay in New York, walk through its alleys and streets, and speak only to its people.” He went so far as to pledge that if he becomes mayor, he will arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and hand him over to justice should he visit the city.
Here we have a mayoral candidate who dares to challenge billionaires, the wealthy elite, and even Israel, a subject so often considered untouchable across the globe.
Trump could do little against him other than threaten to cut off federal funding if Mamdani refuses to comply with his policies, as the Mamdani phenomenon has sparked fear in many quarters, even within his own Democratic Party, which is now treading carefully and worrying that this momentum could spread across all 50 states, igniting a new social and political revolution.
So we are indeed confronted with a new and strange phenomenon that deserves to be closely studied and examined before we rush to judgment, for it suggests that the sweeping changes transforming our world are not confined to artificial intelligence and the digital realm, but extend to politics, ideology, and justice as well. – Osama Saraya, former editor-in-chief, Al-Ahram
The horrors of war: Between Hobbes and Kissinger
Asharq Al-Awsat, London, July 5
Wars throughout history have often been driven by profound and decisive motives that must, at times, be confronted after all political and diplomatic options have been exhausted. Negotiation itself stands as a distinct discipline within political science, and it is nearly impossible to reach a resolution without a willingness to make concessions or without fully grasping the nature of the problem and then devising an appropriate solution.
The tragedy is that what has unfolded in the region since Oct. 7, 2023, is a spectacle of pure absurdity. In truth, the reckless adventurers of Iran and its cronies have handed Israel a gift on a silver platter, one it has exploited and continues to exploit with great skill. It is easy to ignite an event but ending it within the desired objectives is nearly impossible, as evidenced by the recent declarations from Hamas and Hezbollah, which reflect a sense of collapse.
Negotiation has always been integral to the logic of warfare throughout history. These reckless actions may, paradoxically, open the door to a developmental transformation across the region.
It is no secret that the ambiguous status of militias, and their penetration into the institutions of states, has been a persistent source of deep concern. Containing these forces has never been simple, but as their recklessness has exposed their vulnerabilities, opportunities have emerged for establishing a sustainable arena of peace rooted in civilized values, and even for fortifying and reaffirming the legitimacy of the state itself, placing all arms firmly under state control rather than in the hands of rebels.
The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who lived through the horrors of the 17th-century English Civil War, approached these dilemmas with both wisdom and pessimism. That experience shaped his entire philosophy, especially his landmark work Leviathan. Hobbes’s political theory has become the most celebrated element of his thought, summarized by two famous sayings: “man is a wolf to man” and “every man is an enemy to every man,” concepts fundamental to understanding what he called the “state of nature,” meaning the condition before the rise of organized government.
It is no surprise that Hobbes’s philosophy has been revived and reinterpreted in countless ways over the centuries. Some historians even regard him as the intellectual godfather of Anglo-American ideology, providing a justification for both the British and later the American empires. Hobbes’s central thesis, portraying humans as creatures motivated by fear of death – especially violent death inflicted by another – provides an anthropological perspective that stands in stark opposition to the Platonic belief in humanity’s fundamentally moral origins.
Henry Kissinger, whose thinking president Richard Nixon admired, reflected on Hobbes’s thesis by observing: “In its early practice, the Peace of Westphalia was a Hobbesian worldview. How can this new balance of power be created? A distinction must be made between the balance of power as a reality and the balance of power as a system. Any international system – to be worthy of the name – must, sooner or later, reach parity, or it will remain in a state of protracted war.”
In the final analysis, decisions to wage war belong to states, not to militias pursuing their own agendas. War is, and always has been, a tool of politics. The true danger lies in war for its own sake, waged in the service of ideology, sectarian passion, or justifications fueled by hatred and extermination.
The time of old wars has passed. Today, there are genuine opportunities for peace and negotiation; without seizing them, a warrior without purpose merely throws himself into the flames of his own destruction. – Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran
Will the Troika hasten to the Security Council?
An-Nahar, Lebanon, July 5
Iran’s decision to suspend cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors in response to the Israeli war and US strikes has thrust the European Troika – France, Britain, and Germany – into the heart of the unfolding crisis, compelling them to step up their efforts either to broker a compromise or to align more closely with Washington in escalating pressure on Tehran.
The Troika nations did not take part in the Israeli military campaign or in US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, but their governments voiced support for what they termed Israel’s right to self-defense.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz remarked that Israel “does the dirty work for all of us,” alluding to Israel’s objective of dismantling Iran’s nuclear ambitions. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen echoed this stance, blaming Iran for regional instability. Within hours of Iran’s announcement halting cooperation with inspectors, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar called on Germany, France, and Britain to act swiftly at the Security Council to “reimpose all sanctions on Iran.”
Sa’ar was invoking the so-called “snapback” or “trigger mechanism,” which allows for the restoration of UN sanctions on Iran if a signatory to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the formal name of the nuclear deal, petitions the Security Council over claims that Iran has breached its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It is widely understood that UN sanctions on Iran were lifted under Resolution 2231, and since the US unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear agreement in 2018 during President Donal Trump’s first term, Washington no longer has standing to request the snapback mechanism.
This leaves the European Troika as the leading candidate to pursue this course before Resolution 2231 expires this coming October. Crucially, neither Russia nor China holds veto power over a potential draft resolution to reinstate sanctions.
The Troika was instrumental in brokering the 2015 accord as part of the P5+1 group, and at the start of President Trump’s current term, the three countries acted as mediators during six months of indirect US-Iran talks that ultimately failed. When Trump returned to the White House, he sidelined the European role amid sharp transatlantic rifts over the approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and both Iran and Trump agreed to make Oman the principal mediator.
Even when two rounds of negotiations took place in Europe, Italy – not a Troika member – was chosen as host. In the wake of Trump’s initial withdrawal from the JCPOA, tensions between Iran and Europe intensified, as Tehran accused France, Britain, and Germany of shirking their responsibilities under the agreement, which required remaining parties to offset the effects of a withdrawal. Instead, European firms hastily exited the Iranian market to avoid the sweeping “maximum pressure” sanctions reimposed by Trump.
Now, under mounting Israeli and American pressure, will the Troika hasten to the Security Council? Just last month, it urged the IAEA’s Board of Governors to pass a resolution censuring what it described as Iran’s violations of its enrichment obligations under the nuclear accord. That censure was seen as an initial step toward elevating the issue to the Security Council. The situation has only grown more complex following the outbreak of war and the suspension of indirect US-Iran negotiations. – Samih Saab
Water is a basic human right
Al Mada, Iraq, July 6
In Iraq, a country historically known as “the land of the two rivers,” water scarcity and the intensifying drought have become the dominant topic of conversation, inextricably linked to the summer electricity crisis and posing a grave threat to national security, livelihoods, and the environment.
As Turkey and Iran press ahead with unilateral water policies that endanger the lives of millions of Iraqis, the glaring lack of effective governmental response stands out as one of the most significant drivers of the deepening catastrophe.
Legally and socially, the provision of water and food ranks among the most fundamental duties of any state. Water is not simply a natural resource; it is a basic human right, recognized in international accords such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and affirmed by environmental and water treaties including the 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses.
Yet this duty has become highly questionable in Iraq, as the country faces a dramatic drop in the levels of the Tigris and Euphrates, expanding desertification, shrinking agricultural lands, and a surge in internal displacement tied to water scarcity, particularly in the south.
There is no doubt that Turkey bears major responsibility for the worsening crisis, given its massive water projects, most notably the Ilisu Dam, launched without any coordination with Baghdad, despite severely restricting the Tigris’ flow.
Although Turkey has not ratified the 1997 convention, it is still bound by the principles of customary international law, which uphold fairness, non-harm, and prior consultation in joint river initiatives. Iran, meanwhile, has taken even harsher measures by cutting off or diverting rivers and tributaries that flow into Iraqi territory, showing no respect for legal or ethical norms, and worsening drought conditions in the provinces of Diyala, Wasit, and Maysan.
These policies, disregard for international law, and complex pressures from Turkey and Iran require the Iraqi government and its institutions to deploy all available means, including leveraging commercial and economic agreements as tools of pressure, to establish a permanent framework for monitoring and assessing water flows. This must be accomplished through updating bilateral treaties with Turkey and Iran and pursuing new binding agreements that secure Iraq’s rightful water shares, based on the principles of equity, non-harm, and fair distribution.
Domestically, the government must urgently reform water management, upgrade irrigation and storage infrastructure, promote smart agriculture adapted to the new water reality, and reduce waste in agricultural and industrial uses to lessen dependence on external sources.
Legally, national constitutions and international conventions, most prominently the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, oblige states to take the necessary measures to guarantee individuals access to adequate food and safe, clean water.
Failure to comply with these commitments is a flagrant violation of fundamental rights under the Covenant and could lead to legal accountability for those responsible for human and environmental harm. Ethically and socially, securing food and water is not a privilege or political favor, but a fundamental duty that reflects the core of the social contract between the state and its citizens. How the government meets this obligation is a crucial measure of its humanitarian commitment and respect for human dignity, particularly during crises or exceptional times.
Iraq’s water crisis is not just an environmental dilemma but an existential and sovereign challenge. Continued silence and reliance on empty diplomatic rhetoric will pave the way for a devastating collapse of the environment and livelihoods, worsening migration and internal conflict in the future.
Ensuring citizens’ right to water and food is therefore not merely a legal duty of the state, but a profound moral responsibility that embodies its very reason for existence and its social mission. There is no longer time for delay, courtesy, or half-measures in the face of the greatest water crisis in Iraq’s modern history. Continued failure to act amounts to a grave breach of the state’s sovereign and humanitarian duty, endangering the country’s demographic, food, and economic stability.
Across constitutions worldwide, water and food are among the most sacred and inviolable rights. Yet the reality in Iraq tells a different story. Today, millions of Iraqis face the threats of thirst, displacement, and livelihood collapse. The government must stand as the first line of defense for this right, not the first to neglect its duty as Turkey and Iran trample Iraq’s natural rights and blatantly defy international law.
Official negligence is evident not only in a lack of pressure but also in a lack of vision. To prevent Iraq from turning entirely into a desert, a swift and courageous national movement is desperately needed. This movement must demand immediate and decisive governmental action; otherwise, drought will not remain a passing season but will become a permanent feature of Iraq’s future. – Essam Al-Yasiri
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.