Middle East
EU divided over defence funding
Although increasing EU defence production has been on the agenda of EU leaders since the start of the war in Ukraine, the issue has been slow to gain traction.
The most sensitive issue is how to finance further defence investment in the future. EU leaders agreed on Thursday (21 March) to force the European Investment Bank (EIB) to ‘adapt its policy on lending to the defence industry and its current definition of dual-use goods, while maintaining its financing capacity’.
They also made progress on using proceeds from frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine within months, under a plan to use most of the money to buy arms for Kiev.
The European Commission had proposed that 90% of the proceeds from frozen Russian assets be used to finance Ukraine’s defence production and military aid, while the remaining 10% would be given to Kiev as budget support.
European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the idea of using the proceeds from frozen Russian assets to benefit Ukraine had broad support among EU countries.
Concerns of ‘neutral’ countries
But the use of this money to buy weapons is a problem for some countries, including militarily neutral states such as Austria, Ireland and Malta.
“For us neutrals, it must be ensured that the money we approve is not spent on arms and ammunition,” said Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer. Michel said Brussels could find ways to address their concerns.
“Russia must feel the real cost of war and the need for a just peace,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said, urging EU leaders to go further and use the assets themselves, a step the bloc has not yet considered.
Proposal for joint defence borrowing rejected
At the same time, EU leaders disagreed on a broader initiative for European financing of arms for Kiev, such as the ‘Eurobond for defence’ requested by Estonia and France.
Member states such as the Netherlands and Sweden are sceptical about joint borrowing on the financial market for defence purposes.
“The urgency of the issue means we have to consider options we don’t like,” an EU diplomat told Euractiv.
The leaders asked the European Commission to “explore all options for mobilising financing and report back by June”, a choice of words pushed by the Baltic states, Poland and Greece.
Leyen told reporters that the discussion was still at an early stage.
Fear of ‘power grab’
Although there is no coherent plan for new funding, the Commission has recently outlined plans for a European defence strategy.
These include Leyen’s idea of a new defence (industry) commissioner for the next term, more defence funding, an expansion of the bloc’s defence industrial base and the use of frozen Russian assets.
The plan even goes as far as the EU executive being prepared to place arms orders with member states to support joint arms procurement.
But this is where the controversy erupts. Leyen’s plan for a European defence industrial strategy is drawing criticism from some EU countries, including Germany, which supports strengthening the sector but fears the plan involves usurping national competences.
EU diplomats said there was considerable scepticism during Thursday’s summit discussions.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told EU leaders that the bloc did not need ‘another state-like structure for defence’ or the creation of new powers that would amount to a power grab, two people familiar with the talks told Euractiv.
While Scholz stressed the need to develop the bloc’s potential for joint procurement, he rejected the idea of the Commission as a mediator that could slow down processes.
“She wants to be a war president but forgets that the EU is not a state,” an EU diplomat said of Leyen, suggesting that critics of her using the defence issue to win a second term were right.
Member states still opposed to investment programme
In recent months, many EU countries have raised concerns about the Commission’s intentions behind the European Defence Investment Programme (EDIP), the bloc’s ambitious framework for strengthening the military-industrial complex.
As the programme will give EU member states and the Commission the power to redirect industrial priorities, finance arms production and give the EU body an overview of production capacities and supply chains, often protected by governments for national security reasons, some measures are considered ‘sensitive’ by member states.
Presenting the text, internal market commissioner Thierry Breton said his organisation was not interested in a ‘power grab’ and rejected a loose interpretation of EU treaties prohibiting the transfer of EU funds to military operations.
To avoid this accusation, the European Commission based its industrial policy proposal on Article 173 of the EU treaty, which allows the bloc to work on industrial competitiveness.
The Commission’s directorate-general in charge of implementing the programme (DEFIS) recently sent envoys to prepare the ground with EU countries to avoid potential problems.
Despite concerns, EU leaders on Thursday instructed their ministers to examine the EDIP text ‘without delay’.
Negotiations on technical details are expected to start in early April, with the European Council due to adopt its position in June, before the new European Parliament convenes in the summer.
Middle East
Iran resumes ballistic missile assembly using stockpiled parts
Iran has resumed ballistic missile production in underground facilities, despite statements by Israeli and US authorities asserting that this capacity had been completely eliminated.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal citing US and Middle Eastern officials, the Tehran administration is utilizing pre-stockpiled components in the manufacturing process.
Officials report that despite strikes on missile sites and industrial installations at the beginning of the war, Iran continues the assembly of both solid- and liquid-fuelled missiles.
Intelligence data indicates activity at numerous underground centres, including the Khojir complex in the southeast of the country, along with efforts to establish additional underground assembly points to protect against new air strikes.
Current assembly operations are being maintained at lower volumes compared with pre-war levels, as US and Israeli operations destroyed several facilities and a naval blockade has impeded the import of components and solid-fuel ingredients.
Assessing the process, Tal Inbar, a senior analyst at the US-based Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, stressed that damaged infrastructure can be repaired during periods when facilities are not targeted, and parts procured from other countries can be stored there.
Inbar noted that it would be naive to believe Iran is not rebuilding its missile production capacity.
Arguing that the facilities were destroyed and Tehran has suffered severe losses, the official stated that Iran remains weaker than ever before, and US President Donald Trump will never permit the country to acquire nuclear weapons.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated that the US has destroyed up to 90% of Iran’s drone, ballistic missile, and naval industrial infrastructure, severely degrading Tehran’s ability to launch missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Another US government official pointed out that the Tehran administration may have revived production, albeit on a low scale, following preliminary talks conducted in mid-June with the Trump administration regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war. The official noted that existing stockpiles are sufficient to assemble at least two hundred missiles.
A CNN report in late May indicated that the Tehran administration was attempting to reopen underground missile shelters, struck by the US and Israel with costly munitions, using bulldozers and dump trucks.
Excavation activities accelerated after the April ceasefire decision; out of 69 tunnel entrances struck across 18 distinct locations, 50 have been made accessible again.
Experts stressed that it is impossible to destroy missile power solely by bombing tunnel entrances, underlining the limitations of such bombardments.
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed in April that they had effectively ended Iran’s missile programme. However, an NBC News report noted that Tehran utilized the ceasefire period to reconstitute its military strength.
Middle East
Mohammed bin Salman urges Trump to strike Houthis after Mokha falls
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has requested that US President Donald Trump launch air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.
According to two US officials who spoke to Axios, Trump rejected the request, and US officials emphasised that the administration has no plans for direct intervention against the Houthis for now.
Oil prices surged on Thursday after the resistance led by Houthi militias (Ansarallah) seized the strategic coastal city of Mokha in Yemen.
This development brought the Yemeni resistance one step closer to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which is vital for global trade and Saudi oil exports.
With Iran already disrupting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Houthi control over Bab el-Mandeb could provide Tehran with powerful new leverage over the US and its Gulf allies.
On Thursday, as Houthi forces advanced towards the coastal city of Mokha and Saudi-backed Yemeni forces retreated, bin Salman telephoned Trump to brief him on the deteriorating situation.
A few hours later, the prince called again to request that Trump carry out US air strikes against the Houthis.
Trump declined, but a US official stated that the administration would provide Saudi Arabia with intelligence and targeting data on the Houthis.
The official noted that approximately 200 US military personnel are currently stationed in Saudi Arabia, providing non-military support.
A senior Trump administration official indicated that Washington’s priority is keeping the Red Sea open, while leaving the broader fight to regional partners.
“We are in continuous dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the Government of the Republic of Yemen regarding regional stability,” the official said.
The official continued:
“The US remains focused on protecting our core national security interests, such as ensuring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, while empowering our regional partners to take the lead in managing and resolving regional security challenges.”
The US is concerned by the rapidly escalating conflict in Yemen and is seeking to avoid direct military intervention while increasing its support for Saudi Arabia.
According to two sources familiar with the matter, Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), travelled to Saudi Arabia on Thursday for urgent coordination meetings.
The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemeni resistance forces reignited in July after Riyadh blocked an Iranian aircraft carrying senior Houthi officials from landing in Sanaa following their return from Ali Khamenei’s funeral.
Bin Salman requested Trump’s political support to strike Sanaa airport, but made clear that Saudi Arabia did not require US military assistance. Trump granted his support.
The Houthis subsequently retaliated by attacking Saudi tankers in the Red Sea. These strikes threatened a route crucial to the kingdom’s oil exports, and the group later expanded its attacks to Saudi energy facilities.
Saudi Arabia and its Yemeni allies responded with air strikes and ground operations against Houthi positions.
Saudi Arabia’s request for direct US military intervention marks a sharp reversal from July, when Riyadh informed Washington that it could manage the Houthis on its own.
As clashes intensified, the Saudis began seeking progressively greater support from the US.
Sources close to the discussions noted that in recent weeks, US military and civilian officials informed their Saudi counterparts that Trump’s directive is to keep American forces focused on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, and to avoid opening a new front.
Middle East
Netanyahu ignored MBZ warning on Hamas 7 October plan, report says
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly ignored a direct warning from UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the run-up to 7 October 2023, according to an investigation by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
The report states that the UAE leader, widely known as MBZ, was convinced in September 2023 that an explosion was imminent in the region, particularly given the escalating tensions in the West Bank.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who maintains close ties with bin Zayed, recounted: “In the months leading up to the war, he spoke with me about this issue frequently. He consistently conveyed the message that the situation needed to be de-escalated. He even dispatched a special envoy to Israel who met with the prime minister. The emir appeared to sense that the region was on the verge of erupting.”
MBZ also engaged in direct discussions with Netanyahu. These exchanges followed a standard operational protocol: a representative from the United Arab Emirates embassy would arrive at the prime minister’s office equipped with a specialised, secure telephone device to ensure confidentiality.
However, according to the newspaper, the call initiated by bin Zayed on this occasion was extraordinary in nature.
A week and a half before 7 October 2023, the UAE ruler placed a call to Netanyahu from the Presidential Palace in Abu Dhabi, and the two leaders spoke for 45 minutes.
During this conversation, bin Zayed warned that Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, was planning a major operation against Israel.
Bin Zayed voiced deep concern that such an event would not only lead to significant bloodshed, but would also destabilise the entire region and undermine the Abraham Accords.
Haaretz reported that three senior foreign sources possess direct knowledge of the call’s contents, marking the first public disclosure of the conversation’s existence.
A close Palestinian adviser to bin Zayed, who had emigrated from Gaza to Abu Dhabi years earlier and maintained extensive connections across the Gaza Strip, was also present during the exchange.
According to the adviser, the UAE ruler stressed to Netanyahu that Israel needed to prepare for this specific threat.
The adviser stated:
“The emir explained that, according to his assessment, Sinwar was preparing for a major event. He told Netanyahu that Israel had to be prepared. At the same time, he proposed working towards an economic solution for the Gaza Strip to prevent escalation, alongside calming the situation in the West Bank.”
Bin Zayed urged Netanyahu to take the matter seriously. Yet, to the emir’s surprise, the prime minister reacted with relative calm.
Netanyahu told bin Zayed that, in his own assessment, Hamas was planning to operate in the West Bank area. Reassuring the Emirati leader, Netanyahu insisted that Israel was prepared for any scenario.
The UAE leader later recounted his conversation with Netanyahu and his subsequent warning to CIA Director William J. Burns.
Bin Zayed shared with Burns the intuitive alarm he had sought to convey to Netanyahu—that “something over there is about to blow”—and noted the Israeli prime minister’s conviction that the unstable theatre was in fact the West Bank.
“The emir hoped that, despite Netanyahu’s reserved reaction, he would take the message seriously and take action,” the adviser said.
However, neither anticipated that the prime minister would hear the warning without briefing the heads of his defence and security establishments: neither the director of the Shin Bet, nor the director of the Mossad, nor the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces was informed of MBZ’s warning.
Haaretz noted that Gaza-related negotiations between Israel and Hamas had been proceeding smoothly in early 2023, providing the context in which the Emirati ruler’s concerns emerged.
The report received swift corroboration from the Israeli political opposition. Former prime minister and leader of the B’Yachad party, Naftali Bennett, stated that he knew the warning issued by UAE leader Mohamed bin Zayed to Netanyahu concerning Hamas’s plans prior to 7 October was genuine.
Speaking to 103FM, Bennett said: “I am telling you: I know this to be true.”
Bennett continued:
“Mohamed bin Zayed of the UAE warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was planning an operation. The head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate, Abbas Kamel, also notified Netanyahu a few days before the massacre that a major operation was being planned. I do not wish to discuss my sources with anyone. I am telling you: I know this fact to be true.”
Contending that Netanyahu had led Israel “blindly into this horrific disaster,” the opposition figure asserted: “He was so deeply captive to the conception that Hamas was an asset that, despite receiving explicit warnings, he did nothing.”
Bennett maintained that Netanyahu bears direct responsibility for 7 October, not merely by virtue of being prime minister, but because “he spent 15 years strengthening Hamas and doing nothing.”
-
Europe5 days agoGermany’s CDU drafts tougher citizenship rules to counter AfD
-
Russia2 weeks agoWhat to know about Russia’s upcoming State Duma elections?
-
Europe2 weeks agoMarine Le Pen leads all 2027 French presidential scenarios, poll shows
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
Middle East2 weeks agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Europe1 week agoGerman industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia warns NATO over Arctic militarisation and conflict risks
-
Asia2 weeks agoBOJ faces critical rate decision as US presses for faster hikes
