The Impact Of Bid Shopping On The Private Sector Of The Construction Industry: Fill & Download for Free

Let’s begin with the simpler answer to your tiered question: on a cultural basis, you will hardly see any change outside of Asia whatsoever. China’s influence within Asia will be confined to Tibet and to a lesser extent on the Korean peninsula. While its movie and entertainment industry is huge, it is still mainly geared to domestic audiences and the context post-the Long March and Communist control of the mainland is highly scrutinized, sanitized and all scripts must pass the “smell” test by government censors. Anything before the rise of the CCP from WWII and prior to the 1940s is pretty much allowed as it has no impact on the tightly controlled “message” the Communist Party wished to convey. Indonesia, the largest muslim populated nation in the world, and Malaysia, also a muslim nation but much more accommodating to other religions due to the influence of the days when it was a British colony, are less affected primarily because they have a religious perspective incompatible with communism. Only those countries where there is a Chinese heritage among those whose families immigrated show signs of any Chinese cultural influence. Among them you could include Singapore, but again, to a lesser extent because it is so multicultural and an open society and former British colony, and an international hum of trade and finance, does China exercise any cultural influence on that portion of its population which has a Chinese heritage. Even in Singapore, the Hallyu influence of South Korea has a larger impact.Vietnamese are openly hostile to the Chinese, and the Philippines, other than the Southern islands, is predominately Roman Catholic; those who are not, in the South, are muslim. In Thailand, its southern area is mostly muslim, but the rest of the country are by in large Buddhist. Japan is totally free of Chinese cultural influence as it exerts its own Shinto and nationalist influence, and again, the Hallyu movement from South Korea has more sway than any cultural influences from China.Within Europe, the Middle East, the Americas the strong nationalistic-based and religious infused cultures predominate and are unaffected by Chinese culture. That also goes for the Commonwealth nations such as Australian, New Zealand, India, (and Malaysia as I mentioned), South Africa and other African nations affected by past colonialism of the British, French and to a lesser extent, the Germans, Italians and Dutch. Their cultures are also infused with the influence of what the former colonists brought by way of their systems of governance, commerce and laws; along with the strong local indigenous cultures within their societies.To answer how China’s rise may influence the world economically, socially and politically would take a tomem and even then, there are so many convoluted possibilities that it’d be hard to pinpoint all the possible scenarios which would show an impact by China. But let me take Africa as an example here, since the Chinese have made a real concerted effort to gain a foothold in resource rich Africa for their future strategic interests of securing access to critical and essential minerals, agricultural products and markets for the finished goods.In Africa, regardless of the government’s make-up or level of corruption or be the government controlled by dictators or tribal loyalties, the Chinese have put down roots by offering in large part infrastructure and development projects which in the medium and long run will benefit the Chinese by more efficiently developing, transporting and distributing exported commodities and imported Chinese goods. These projects are financed by the Chinese, but often under non-transparent terms wherein the likelihood of corruption is rampant. More often than not, large numbers of Chinese workers are sent over to participate or at least manage and oversee the infrastructure improvements for each construction project, be it road building, port construction and modernization, building distribution and storage warehouses, opening mines or setting up oil wells. The more important the commodity is seen in strategic value to the Chinese economy, the more willing the Chinese are to “look the other way”, totally ignore basic environmental protections for the local population or show any interest in benefiting the average worker. So in this regard, the Chinese are actually now being seen as interlopers who are there to steal the natural wealth of the country to the benefit of the few corrupt politicians that control the agreement and the disbursement of money into their own coffers. We now are seeing locals rising up against the Chinese, with instances of brutal attacks on Chinese nationals working on these projects, even with fatalities. That has prompted China to begin to send troops in support of Chinese workers and managers responsible for the projects. The longer the Chinese are in a country, it seems the more the local population begins to see them in a different light—not there to help improve their lives, but to fill Chinese warehouses with critical commodities, and corrupt local politicians with pockets of tainted gold.In regards to the economic effects, they are interconnected with the political influence exerted by the Chinese on a bifurcated basis, each influencing the other. Certainly, no one can ignore the axiom: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The more money China has to throw around the more influence it exerts and the more political leverage it has within the country where its investments are being made. But this can be a double-edged sword which cuts both ways: the initial influence, and even fleeting goodwill, can quickly revert to skepticism and passive-aggressive reactions by local business interests and the general population when the subverting nature of Chinese investment starts to peek out. China is undergoing a learning curve in how to deal with the outside world, because they cannot operate the same way they do within China, in other countries.With each nuance they start to understand, they have, to their credit as astute business people, made adjustments. A good case in point is their acquisition of Volvo. The Chinese auto industry just did not have the depth of experience in designing and manufacturing the complexities of consumer cars—both from an advanced technological basis, or a marketing basis. The Swedish government and Volvo workers,while facing the same fate as Saab automobiles—bankruptcy and dissolution of the business, and the loss of jobs along with it—were given their only lifeline by the Chinese. They didn’t know what to expect. In the past, when China came in—as did thee Japanese two decades earlier—whole factories were packed up and shipped back to Asia, where Asian workers ran the factories, often with the ultimate insult of having to train their replacements. In the case of Volvo, that mistake was no made; instead management was kept in place, the design and engineering teams remained, as did the factories and their Swedish workers. What the Chinese did was to export both Volvos to China AND the advanced car building and safety measures needed to gain entrance into the American and EU markets for Chinese cars. Like India did with its purchase of Jaguar and Land Rover, China did with Volvo. It sidestepped years of the learning curve and bought the technology it needed to make a more modern car for sale both in China and abroad. This is an instance where China gained credibility from the manner it went about its acquisition. In fact, in a bid to compete against Tesla in the electrified vehicle field—the future of auto manufacturing—Volvo just announced starting next year it will only offer hybrid and all electric vehicles. That can be seen as a bid to curry favor within the Eu in China’s effort to contribute to the elimination of carbon emissions in an effort to help fight global warming. A smart move; it puts the German and Italian automakers at a disadvantage and has left them scrambling. The Chinese are learning quickly how to out maneuver some of the most sophisticated auto marketers in the world.So, as the Chinese become more adept at adapting to business cultures around the world, and out perform their competition, you will see more of their economic influence grow. And along with policies aimed at aligning themselves with the governments they are doing business with, as in the case of Volvo going all hybrid and electric for their entire line, the Chinese will create change because they force it upon their competition. That is generally a good thing, as change brings about innovation and innovation brings about better products.Socially, is a harder answer to nail down.Chinese society is divided into the peasants who live out in the countryside and still are primarily farmers and live a mundane life, often without electricity, or even running water or inside sanitation. The move from the countryside to first, second and third tier cities in China started over a decade ago as peasants—and that is what city folk call rural farmers—moved into the cities to work in factories, gain access to government housing with heat, running water, electricity and indoor plumbing and a chance to earn enough money to put aside some to eventually be able to start their own business, have a nest egg for retirement, funds set aside for health and medical needs and to assist in the schooling of their children. For the average factory laborer, even though wages have gone up, government subsidies have come down and all in all, they are only a little better than they were a decade ago. They can afford more Chinese made consumer products, and better nutrition with more protein in their diet, and a trip to the cinema or TV shows they can watch aside from traditional entertainment. Then there are the technocrats and factory managers and business people and professionals such as doctors, dentists, engineers, etc. who make up the growing middle to upper middle class. They enjoy a much higher standard of living and can afford to live in Shanghai, Beijing and other major cities where real estate costs are high and housing is expensive. They may even own a car, This segment is better educated but remain tolerant of the communist system and few personal freedoms only so long as their financial situation improves or at least does not deteriorate.Then you have the elite, who live in private compounds where others of their stature live. Their children go abroad to study at major universities. They may drive expensive imported sports or luxury cars from Europe, the United States or Japan. They go on shopping vacations abroad to buy expensive foreign clothes, jewelry and consumer products. And there only worries is that the song will stop playing and the party will be over. They are dedicated to the status quo and support the CCP and its centralized, directed economic policies.Lastly, you have Hong Kong, once the jewel of Asia and the most important Asian financial center and epicenter for business flowing in and out of China. The elite are in control with the explicit approval of Beijing and benefit from their support of the policies now being imposed upon Hong Kong in contradiction of the agreement signed by the British to turn over Hong Kong to China. The average and middle class workers and professionals and especially lawyers march in the streets for the right to exercise their civil liberties and to elect representatives of their choice, not chosen by Beijing. The manner in which China has treated Hong Kong has become a template for how it would deal with Taiwan, and for that reason, the Taiwanese are diametrically opposed to reunification with mainland China under similar terms negotiated for Hong Kong, which have become a farce. That is why Taiwan will never willingly give up its current status to rejoin the mainland under communist control. It is also a conundrum for the CCP whose policy is to reunify Taiwan regardless if by military means or not. The more independent Taiwan becomes, the more it seals its fate guaranteeing an invasion by China to seize the island and end its “renegade” status.All this assumes that China will exceed the United States in economic, diplomatic and military status—a premise which by no means is guaranteed. In fact, the financial overhang in the Chinese banking sector at the provincial level has the PBoC extremely worried because they cannot gain control over the provinces and a huge housing bubble is forming in China, similar to what the us faced in 2008. Banks have huge potential losses they are carrying on their books as non-performing loans. The only reason these “zombie” banks have not folded is because the PBoC has been given its marching orders from the steering committee for the CCP not to allow them to fail. Not one Chinese leader wants the world to see a chink in Chinese armor or question the stability of the Chinese currency, which is one reason China has been amassing so much gold, and all gold mined in China must remain in China. It only recently gained admission into the IMF’s currency bundle which underpins its Special Drawing Rights as the fifth currency forming its SDRs, as of October 1st.But entire unoccupied “ghost” cities have sprung up in the interior of China which were built with provincial loans in the hundreds of billions of Yuans. With no one buying and moving , no industry and businesses are moving in either. Eventually, a day of reckoning will come, and when it does, China will face a 2008=like financial tsunami. With its aging population, rising labor costs and factories moving out of China to Vietnam, the Philippines, India and elsewhere, eventually China’s growth rate in its GNP will tumble, and with it massive losses in the Chinese stock market, in speculative real estate investments, with workers laid off and no social safety net in place to handle the displaced. The day this happens, discontent with the CCP will cause all kinds of mischief within the political realm, which is the greatest fear of the CCP—losing the support of the people, and thus losing credibility and eventually, control without the major support of the young people who are the most likely to rise up as they did in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. China is on more fragile ground than the government wishes to admit. But the only thing standing between the CCP and the people is the PLA, and if the CCP loses control of the PLA, then you may see the end to a political government, with a military coup, and a return to the old sectarianism and military governors who end up becoming local strongmen who are akin to the Chinese war lords of old, with a decentralized shift in the center of power back out to the provincial level, and a breakdown in the central power of the CCP. Ergo, no Chinese super power as the country devolves.

Te last few decades have been the most peaceful era in human history. For the first time ever, fewer people die today from human violence than from traffic accidents, obesity or even suicide. Whereas in early agricultural societies human violence caused up to 15% of all human deaths, and in the twentieth century it caused 5%, today it is responsible for only about 1%. Yet the international climate is rapidly deteriorating; warmongering is back in vogue, and military expenditure is ballooning. Both laypeople and experts fear that just as in 1914 the murder of an Austrian archduke sparked the First World War, in 2017 some incident in the Syrian Desert or an unwise move in the Korean Peninsula might ignite a global conflict.Yet there are several key differences between 2017 and 1914. Back then, war had great appeal to elites across the world because they had concrete examples for how successful wars contribute to economic success and political power. Now, successful wars seem to be an endangered species.Netanyahu’s insistence that military action is an option should not be dismissed. But could Israel actually hurt Iran?In less than sixty minutes, the tiny nation of Iran could easily defeat two of the mightiest military powers in the world if they are allowed to engage in a first strike opportunity against both of those nations. This is not some far-fetched idea as U.S. and Israeli military planners are keenly aware of the implications of an Iranian attack which catches both nations off guard. The problem is not one of strategy or ability by either nation. The military units of both nations could easily defeat the Iranians in a nuclear or conventional war. However, Iran is not a conventional nation-state nor is the modern concept applicable to the confrontation which is coming.The Israeli Air Force does not have the capability to destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Military officials and defence analysts have shown us that time and time again. Not even Israel's generals think it could be done. But that doesn't mean they can't mount some sort of offensive. But will they?If Israel did attack, how would it get its planes to Iran? There are three routes the IAF could take.Over Iraq. Iraq would find it difficult to stop Israeli aircraft.Between Turkey and Syria then Turkey and Iraq, although it is unlikely Turkey would co-operate.Over Saudi airspace. This is the wildcard. The Saudis are opposed to the warming of US and Iranian relations. But they will come in for huge criticism publicly at home if they allow Israel, with whom they have no official diplomatic contact, to use Saudi airspace. The Saudis could publicly condemn such an action while privately allowing it to happen.In every scenario however IAF planes would need inflight refuelling. Most Iranian targets are 1500km away from Israel. That's a 3,000km round trip plus fuel for the operation and for contingency.That's a massive operation in itself. According to publicly available data, IAF tankers would find it difficult to carry enough fuel for all the planes in the air as they only have eight to 10 refuelling aircraft.There is an option of using an airbase in a neighbouring, friendly country. Azerbaijan has been mooted as one option. But according to one Iranian official I spoke to in Tehran in 2012 any landing of military aircraft in a neighbouring country would be spotted and therefore would alert Iranian defences.So say the Israelis decide to attack. They refuel over the Mediterranean. They fly over Iraq, whose air defences and radar are no match for Israeli aircraft.Israel would need to use GBU-28 bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran’s hardened nuclear facilities. It has these weapons but they are, by their very nature, huge. Israel has only one aircraft system, the F15i, which can carry a bunker buster, and only one at a time.IF Iran were to attack, it would be the ultimate one shot “use it or lose it” approach to all strategic, conventional, and non-conventional forces. Syria would not have any notification of the coming attack and the countries which were to be exposed to collateral damage, Iraq and Jordan, would receive only the warning provided by U.S. military forward air controllers with little choice but to stand down or engage a fellow Islamic nation in combat.Iran’s first strike against Israel would be a combined effort designed to overwhelm the air defense systems of the IAF and create mass confusion. Odds are they would use every available missile launcher, and being conservative, we’ll say that’s 500 inside of Iran with an additional 1,100 plus inside of Lebanon, to fire an overwhelming volley at Israel. In addition, every available fighter aircraft capable of supersonic flight would be launched on a suicide mission trailing the initial missile attack. This initial volley would set the IAF and IDF on their heels along with creating massive panic in the United States defense establishment knowing the retaliatory strike package the tiny nation would launch. The defense systems might intercept 60% of all of the incoming if they were precise and of course, lucky as hell. The impacting conventional and non-conventional warheads would trigger a devastating response which would obliterate the entire nation of Iran however. That strike might be construed as a defeat for the “nation” of Iran but the attack would not end with just the Israel versus Iran aspect of the conflict.Many targets. Not many planes.In 1981 the Israelis hit and destroyed an Iraqi nuclear facility in a surgical strike. But that was a very different time, and a very different operation.Hitting Iran's key targets would require sustained strikes over a period of time - perhaps weeks. And as soon as the first bomb hits the world would know very shortly afterwards.Then there is the issue of Iranian air defence, in which the Iranians have invested heavily. According to the widely respected website AUSPower, the current anti-aircraft systems are robust and, with a mooted upgrade to the superior Russian S300, will become even stronger.With a sustained attack, it is likely some of those IAF planes would get shot down. This presents Israel with an issue - what happens when the first downed IAF pilot appears on Iranian television? The Israeli military prides itself on its "no man left behind" policy.As the twisted wreckage of IAF planes fills the world's screens, what does Israel do next? That's an unknown, I hazard a guess even for Israel. Certainly no one I have ever spoken to has been confident enough to tell me what options Israel might have then.From the first strike, international outcry and condemnation of Israel would be swift. But Iran's nuclear programme would not be degraded. It's reactors would likely still be operating.So Netanyahu finds himself in a position where one strike hasn't changed anything, Iran has prisoners, and Israel is now number one bad guy in the world.Before Israel declared independence in 1948, the U.S. under President Harry Truman demanded that Israel postpone its declaration and place itself under UN Trusteeship. If Israel, didn't, warned Truman's Secretary of State, George Marshall, the U.S. would impose an arms embargo on Israel, even though the British, Jordanians and Egyptians were arming the Arabs. The effect of the Arabs being armed and the Israelis unarmed, the Americans said, would be a second Holocaust. The Americans also threatened UN sanctions against Israel.The American position was understandable -- the U.S. expected Israel to lose and didn't want to needlessly offend the much more populous and energy-rich Arab invaders. The U.S. at the time was competing with the Soviet Union -- this was the beginning of The Cold War -- and it didn't want Arab oil to fall under Soviet control.When Israel declared independence the Americans remained true to their word -- they imposed an embargo, and maintained it throughout Israel's war of independence, refusing to allow any arms sales to Israel, or even gifts of arms by American Jews, even though Israel was heavily outnumbered and outgunned by six Arab armies.When it became clear in 1949 that Israel would win its War of Independence, Truman remained unsympathetic to Israel, demanding that Israel give up its territorial gains and make concessions to the Arabs, even though the Arabs were the aggressors and even though the war was still ongoing. Truman saw Israel's actions as "dangerous to peace" according to Truman's ambassador to Israel, who delivered Truman's demands, amid threats of UN sanctions, to Israel's Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion.Since the early 1980’s the Islamic Republic of Iran has been infiltrating the United States using a series of faux defectors, college students obtaining access through third party nations, and as highlighted by Fox News own Geraldo Rivera in July of 2002, via Mexico using the coyote network of smugglers. These infiltrators did not come to the United States to learn the historical aspects of American constitutional law nor our theories of engineering, although some did engage in education programs about nuclear physics, civil engineering, and advanced electronic technologies. This group of long time “students” and infiltrators are not here to assist or help our nation.At the moment the Iranian attack is announced in the West, these sleeper cells will activate with a series of predetermined targets. Imagine the following happening while news reports of Israeli cities being hit:An eighty year old woman at a bus stop being beheaded with a machete by a crazy man screaming “God is Great” in Farsi then attacking dozens of other people standing by the area with his blade and a handgun.A six year old little girl is standing in front of a store in a shopping mall and is suddenly shot in the back of the head by a man who then shoots dozens of others after the horror of the initial shock wears off and action is taken by authorities against him.A man screaming “God is Great” in Farsi uses his car to run a bus load of children off of a large hill causing it to roll over and burst into flames.A suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest kills the driver and hijacks a gasoline tanker which he drives into a crowded grocery store and detonates.Crazy talk? No, not really, this is the worst case scenario for U.S. security apparatus. I submit to my readers to consider the following idea. The U.S. has designed a patchwork security system which could handle one, two, maybe even a dozen attacks simultaneously. But if over one thousand were to occur, the best that could be expected before serious casualties and damage were inflicted is at best a forty to fifty percent interception rate. Thus if the Israelis were overwhelmed, the U.S. would be also. That sets the stage for the defeat of both nations, and sadly a period of darkness that will take the world decades to recover from.Chain reactionAnd how does Iran react? It has been developing missiles for years. A barrage against Israeli targets is within its capability. The country's hawks would be screaming for revenge and it is unlikely the leadership would sit back.It also has the option of using proxies. Enter Hezbollah and Hamas. Then the IDF is fighting once more in Arab lands. How do you think that plays out?And then there is blowback. Any Israeli aggression will further motivate Iran to develop nuclear weapons. After all, it has been hit despite trying to convince the world it was not making nuclear weapons. So why not just go ahead and make weapons? Israel has just made it clear they are a target either way - better to have nukes and not need them, than not have them and need them. It's a philosophy that's has worked for Pakistan and India.This is all quite apart from the massive protests that will be unleashed by anyone who can write on a placard in the Arab and Muslim world. Despite Iran being a majority Shia country, an attack by Israel would also spur on groups who want to attack states or populations they feel are pro-US or pro-Israel.In many ways, Netanyahu is right when he says that today the world is a much more dangerous place. He has always maintained Israel's security is key. But what lengths is he willing to go to achieve that goal?President Dwight D Eisenhower, who succeeded Truman, was no more sympathetic to Israel's security needs. When Egypt violated international law and the Armistice Agreement with Israel by blockading shipping in to Israel, the Eisenhower Administration stayed silent -- his policy was pro-Egyptian because he hoped to woo Egypt's leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, to the anti-Communist camp.Eisenhower also became hostile to Israel. In 1956, after Egypt seized the Suez Canal, an international waterway owned by the U.K. and France, these two countries and Israel jointly invaded Egypt to restore their rights and to open up shipping. Although U.S. president Eisenhower acknowledged that Egypt's "grave and repeated provocations" had led to the invasion, he was so determined to curry friendship with the Arab world that he forced the British, French and Israelis to withdraw.To force the UK to do his bidding, Eisenhower threatened to financially cripple the UK - America's ally in World War II -- by selling U.K. bonds to devalue the pound and blocking a $1-billion IMF loan that the U.K. desperately needed. And to get Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the war, Eisenhower threatened Israel with expulsion from the UN, adding gravitas to his demands by making them in a radio and television address to the American people from the White House.Other U.S. presidents also treated Israel harshly. Although we think of Israel as being militarily dependent on the U.S., the truth is far different. In the first decades following Israel's creation in 1948, the U.S. was less friend than foe, generally siding with Israel's Arab neighbours. The U.S. not only sold arms to Israel's enemies, it also lavished them with economic and military aid through a Marshall-type plan for the Middle East.Meanwhile, the U.S. gave Israel little economic aid and no military aid in the early years -- the first military grant wouldn't come until 1974, a quarter century after Israel's founding. Until the Kennedy Administration in the 1960s, when the U.S. allowed Israel to purchase defensive anti-aircraft HAWK missiles -- but no planes, tanks, or offensive weapons -- the U.S. refused to even sell arms to help the fledgling state defend itself.Militarily, the nation of Iran would cease to exist. The Iranian people would suffer, at a minimum, a 70% loss rate. The impact would be equally as devastating for the nation of Lebanon which effectively be eradicated from existence along with many cities inside of Syria and much of the Arab world becoming uninhabitable should the Samson Option be triggered, which in this scenario it would. The United States would become a militarized state overnight. Europe would become a basket case. And the Arab street would galvanize behind the eradication of the Israeli state, the removal of the “great Satan” and the largest victory of Islam over the West since the last of the Crusaders. The Islamic world would sing the praise of the sacrifice of the Persian people plus those ancillary nations impacted by the Jewish retaliatory attack.Meanwhile, there are those who would invoke the Biblical implications of such a conflict. The United States would immediately be seen as a slumbering, bumbling, club footed nation unable to respond against an unseen enemy other than engaging in Wilsonian tactics of isolating Muslims in prison and at the same time destroying the Constitutional rights of American citizens who had nothing to do with the initial wave of attacks or fears of a secondary action. There are many who call this a delusional nightmare, but there is some historical logic behind this horrific scenario.First, the Russians and Chinese would see an immediate strategic shift in power placing their nations in total control of the world from a strategic perspective. The Russians would instantly replace OPEC and the Middle Eastern oil cartel as the safest and most secure provider of crude oil in the world which would exceed two hundred dollars per barrel at that point in time. China would seize full control of Far Eastern affairs as the United States would be forced to contract its sphere of influence to the Western Hemisphere and no further at that point in time. The nations of South America would disengage in any meaningful strategic relationships with the U.S. thus driving them to Africa, Asia, and the newly Russian dominated European Union nations.Second, and more importantly, the re-establishment of the greater Islamic caliphate would be completed almost immediately. The Persians would have zero influence over the creation or rule of the new Pan-Islamic territorial region. However, the consequences of this new geopolitical grouping will not be recognized by the world for at least a year. The now extinct nation of Iran would be honored and recognized for their act of martyrdom in the Islamic world thus giving the Shiites and the radical Islamic movement great credibility in the world, especially in fringe Islamic nations like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and throughout Central Africa. Saudi Arabia and the associated Gulf states would immediately become subservient to the radicals as there would be no common enemy, aka, Israel, to unify their citizens against. Hence a demand for recognition of the re-established Caliphate would become the demand of the street.Lastly, the destruction of freedom and economic disruption in the United States guarantees a period of renewed U.S. isolationism versus the globalist policies of the post World War II period. While that might well be viewed as a positive by many inside the American sphere and externally, the resulting darkness that would descend on the nations of the world will be a resumption of the Dark Ages of humanity instead of a new world order as designed by the bankers and politicians who envisioned “their” era of of domination after the establishment of the League of Nations. The nation-state of Iran will be defeated immediately, however the memory of the Islamic martyrs of Persia will be viewed as a victory in the centuries old war of Islam versus the West.In every war involving Israel, the Arab states were the aggressors yet in every war, the Israelis knew they were fighting not only against the Arabs on the battlefield but against the U.S. diplomatically. The U.S. pressured Israel, generally successfully, to stop its military advances and to give up war gains.The U.S. under President Ronald Reagan opposed Israel's decision to destroy Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor, and when Israel went ahead in 1981 Reagan embargoed delivery of F-16 fighters to punish Israel. The U.S. under President George H Bush insisted that Israel not retaliate against Iraq when Saddam Hussein launched 39 Scud missiles into Israel. The U.S. under President George W Bush opposed Israel's decision to destroy Syria's nuclear reactor, which Israel did anyway, and it opposed an Israeli military strike on Iran.The U.S. has historically been strongly predisposed against Israeli military action. Israel is on its own. The stars are aligned for a unilateral attack.The Middle East is aflame from Baghdad to Gaza. But the most frightening conflict is one that is yet to happen. Though Iran's atomic weapons program has receded from world attention, displaced by the Syrian Civil War and Islamic extremists overrunning Iraq, the specter of an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities hovers over the region.Or, there might be some other trigger. Perhaps a Hezbollah attack that draws Israeli retaliation and then Iranian intervention, or Israel and Iran clashing over Syria. Or, just misperception and miscalculation. Either way, it would not take much for Tel Aviv and Tehran to engage in combat.Should hostilities erupt, Iran will have to confront one of the most capable militaries in the world. Here are five Israeli weapons that should worry Iran:F-35 Stealth AircraftIsrael has bought 19 F-35s, which are scheduled to begin arriving in 2017. There are actually two what-ifs regarding the expensive and controversial U.S. stealth strike aircraft. The first is whether the F-35 will prove to be an immensely powerful weapon, or an overpriced, unreliable aircraft that will devour huge chunks of the American and Israeli budgets.Even if the engines don't catch on fire or the aircraft's stealth design can avoid radar detection, the F-35 is not an awesome bomb carrier: to preserve stealth, it has to forego external weapons and carry just two 2,000-pound JDAM guided bombs in its internal bomb bay.Yet the F-35's capabilities are actually the smaller what-if. The bigger question isn't what the F-35 can do, but rather what Iran thinks it can do. If the U.S. and Israel can't be sure how effective the F-35 is, then neither can Iran. In which case, they will have to assume that Israel possesses a cutting-edge stealth aircraft that can penetrate Iranian air defenses undetected and strike nuclear facilities with precision-guided weapons.Or, weapons even more powerful. There are reports that Israeli F-35s will be configured to carry nuclear weapons.F-15I Ra'am Strike AircraftUnlike the F-35, the F-15I-- the Israeli version of the F-15E Strike Eagle -- is a known and highly capable aircraft. Heavily armed with Python 5 air-to-air and Popeye air-to-ground missiles, as well as electronic countermeasures, Israel's 25 F-15Is should be more than a match for Iran's handful of MiG-29s and Mirages, and its elderly fleet of F-14 and F-4s.Israel has gained experience in long-range strike operations, including raids in Sudan against arms factories and truck convoys carrying weapons for Hezbollah and Hamas. The distance between Tel Aviv and Khartoum is almost 1,200 miles, even further than the thousand-mile distance between Tel Aviv and Tehran.Of course, bombing Sudan is much easier than bombing Iran, which has a fairly sophisticated air defense system. But Israel's Rams are a powerful weapon that would be in the forefront of any Israeli attack on Iran.Jericho III MissilesWhile Iranian missiles have received all the attention, it is worth remembering that Israel also has ballistic missiles of its own. The three-stage Jericho III reportedly can lob a 2.2-ton warhead intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of carrying a 1,000-kg (2,204-lb.) warhead more than 3,000 miles. A solid-fueled missile, which should enable it to be launched quickly if needed, the Jericho III almost certainly can carry one of the nuclear warheads that Israel has never admitted to possessing.Such missiles, or at least those carrying conventional warheads, probably aren't accurate enough to destroy a pinpoint target like a nuclear weapons research facility. Israel would also be reluctant to launch a missile barrage for fear of international backlash, unless the situation were really critical, such as Iran firing WMDs. Still, in addition to a potent threat from Israeli aircraft, Tehran also has to reckon with powerful Israeli missiles.Dolphin-class SubmarinesIsrael recently received its fifth German-built Dolphin-class diesel submarine. The fourth and fifth subs, plus a sixth under construction, have advanced air-independent propulsion that uses fuel cells to enable them to stay submerged for far longer than earlier diesel subs.In addition to their formidable capabilities as anti-surface and anti-submarine vessels, these Israeli subs are widely considered to be equipped with nuclear-armed cruise missiles. They may not be as sophisticated as U.S. or British nuclear subs with Trident missiles. But on the other hand, it's not like Iran has much in the way of anti-submarine warfare capability, let alone the capacity to deploy it in the Eastern Mediterranean or the Red Sea, from where Israeli subs could operate close to Israeli waters while still remaining within firing range of Iran. Much like U.S. missile subs, the Dolphins give Israel a second-strike capability to retaliate with nuclear weapons, even if a surprise attack on the tiny nation were to destroy Israel's other nuclear arms.Arrow Missile InterceptorsIsrael recently tested its U.S-funded Arrow III missile, designed to destroy incoming ballistic missiles. Given the problems the U.S. has had with successfully intercepting missile, it's not clear how well the Arrow system would intercept Iranian ballistic missiles (though the Iron Dome hasn't done badly against short-range Hamas rockets in the recent fighting). Considering we could be talking about Iranian WMDs, a leaky missile defense shield isn't exactly reassuring.But this is only part of the equation. Just as in the Cold War, uncertainty is everything in nuclear deterrence. While Iran could undoubtedly overwhelm Israeli missile defenses by firing enough rockets, the Arrow system means Tehran can't be sure how many missiles would get through, or which targets would or would not be hit. The effect may be more psychological than physical (no less for providing psychological reassurance to the Israeli public), but it is still significant.Israel’s military may have a world-class reputation, but a new power index surprisingly says the Jewish state, at least this year, falls shy of a top 10 ranking.The rankings published by GlobalFirepower list the top 68 militaries in the world. The list, which the site says makes use of more than 40 factors to determine army strength, places Israel at number 13. Just three spots down the list at number 16 is Iran, a country that Israel has warned may be the target of military action if its current nuclear weapons program continues unabated. Turkey, a country that has showed open hostility to Israel in recent years ranks 11th on the list two spots ahead of the Jewish state, while the Muslim Brotherhood’s Egypt ranks just one spot below Israel.Israel’s Channel 2 notes that there may be many reasons for the relatively low ranking, which places the country behind the less prominent militaries of countries such as Italy and Brazil. The fact that Israel doesn’t publicly acknowledge it has a nuclear arsenal is one of them, plus its reliance on strategic alliances and the fact that much of its military might is kept secret.The United States ranks highest on the list followed by Russia in second place, China in third, India fourth and the United Kingdom 5th. Others that rank ahead of Israel include France, Germany, South Korea and Pakistan.“Ongoing regional threats have powered the Israeli war machine for decades,” write the list’s authors, adding details on Israel’s military makeup. According to the website, Israel has 187,000 active front-line personnel and 565,000 active reserve personnel, as well as 3870 tanks, 656 aircraft, 65 naval vessels and a military budget of $15, 209,000,000.A strike on Tehran could kill an estimated 5.6 million and injure 1.6 million.In those first minutes, they’ll be stunned. Eyes fixed in a thousand-yard stare, nerve endings numbed. They’ll just stand there. Soon, you’ll notice that they are holding their arms out at a 45-degree angle. Your eyes will be drawn to their hands and you’ll think you mind is playing tricks. But it won’t be. Their fingers will start to resemble stalactites, seeming to melt toward the ground. And it won’t be long until the screaming begins. Shrieking. Moaning. Tens of thousands of victims at once. They’ll be standing amid a sea of shattered concrete and glass, a wasteland punctuated by the shells of buildings, orphaned walls, stairways leading nowhere.This could be Tehran, or what’s left of it, just after an Israeli nuclear strike.Iranian cities—owing to geography, climate, building construction, and population densities—are particularly vulnerable to nuclear attack, according to a new study, “Nuclear War Between Israel and Iran: Lethality Beyond the Pale,” published in the journal Conflict & Health by researchers from the University of Georgia and Harvard University. It is the first publicly released scientific assessment of what a nuclear attack in the Middle East might actually mean for people in the region.Its scenarios are staggering. An Israeli attack on the Iranian capital of Tehran using five 500-kiloton weapons would, the study estimates, kill seven million people—86% of the population—and leave close to 800,000 wounded. A strike with five 250-kiloton weapons would kill an estimated 5.6 million and injure 1.6 million, according to predictions made using an advanced software package designed to calculate mass casualties from a nuclear detonation.Estimates of the civilian toll in other Iranian cities are even more horrendous. A nuclear assault on the city of Arak, the site of a heavy water plant central to Iran’s nuclear program, would potentially kill 93% of its 424,000 residents. Three 100-kiloton nuclear weapons hitting the Persian Gulf port of Bandar Abbas would slaughter an estimated 94% of its 468,000 citizens, leaving just 1% of the population uninjured. A multi-weapon strike on Kermanshah, a Kurdish city with a population of 752,000, would result in an almost unfathomable 99.9% casualty rate.Many consider the Geneva negotiations over Iran to be a betrayal of Israel by America. Yes, it certainly is a betrayal. But is anyone really surprised?It should surprise no one that President Barack Obama didn't have Israel's back -- he has too many personal associations with Israel-haters to make him a reliable ally. But more fundamentally, it should surprise no one that an American president doesn't have Israel's back.American presidents have routinely ignored Israel's security needs, or turned on Israel, when doing so served American political interests. Americans look after American interests and if Israel's vital interests clash with American interests of the day, Americans will look after their own needs.Israel has never confirmed or denied possessing nuclear weapons, but is widely known to have up to several hundred nuclear warheads in its arsenal. Iran has no nuclear weapons and its leaders claim that its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes only. Published reports suggest that American intelligence agencies and Israel’s intelligence service are in agreement: Iran suspended its nuclear weapons development program in 2003.The nature of Iranian cities also makes them exceptionally vulnerable to nuclear attack, according to the Conflict & Health study. Tehran, for instance, is home to 50% of Iran’s industry, 30% of its public sector workers, and 50 colleges and universities. As a result, 12 million people live in or near the capital, most of them clustered in its core. Like most Iranian cities, Tehran has little urban sprawl, meaning residents tend to live and work in areas that would be subject to maximum devastation and would suffer high percentages of fatalities due to trauma as well as thermal burns caused by the flash of heat from an explosion.Iran’s topography, specifically mountains around cities, would obstruct the dissipation of the blast and heat from a nuclear explosion, intensifying the effects. Climatic conditions, especially high concentrations of airborne dust, would likely exacerbate thermal and radiation casualties as well as wound infections.Nuclear Horror: Then and NowThe first nuclear attack on a civilian population center, the US strike on Hiroshima, left that city “uniformly and extensively devastated,” according to a study carried out in the wake of the attacks by the US Strategic Bombing Survey. “Practically the entire densely or moderately built-up portion of the city was leveled by blast and swept by fire… The surprise, the collapse of many buildings, and the conflagration contributed to an unprecedented casualty rate.” At the time, local health authorities reported that 60% of immediate deaths were due to flash or flame burns and medical investigators estimated that 15%-20% of the deaths were caused by radiation.Witnesses “stated that people who were in the open directly under the explosion of the bomb were so severely burned that the skin was charred dark brown or black and that they died within a few minutes or hours,” according to the 1946 report. “Among the survivors, the burned areas of the skin showed evidence of burns almost immediately after the explosion. At first there was marked redness, and other evidence of thermal burns appeared within the next few minutes or hours.”Many victims kept their arms outstretched because it was too painful to allow them to hang at their sides and rub against their bodies. One survivor recalled seeing victims “with both arms so severely burned that all the skin was hanging from their arms down to their nails, and others having faces swollen like bread, losing their eyesight. It was like ghosts walking in procession… Some jumped into a river because of their serious burns. The river was filled with the wounded and blood.”The number of fatalities at Hiroshima has been estimated at 140,000. A nuclear attack on Nagasaki three days later is thought to have killed 70,000. Today, according to Dallas, 15-kiloton nuclear weapons of the type used on Japan are referred to by experts as “firecracker nukes” due to their relative weakness.In addition to killing more than 5.5 million people, a strike on Tehran involving five 250-kiloton weapons—each of them 16 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima—would result in an estimated 803,000 third-degree burn victims, with close to 300,000 others suffering second degree burns, and 750,000 to 880,000 people severely exposed to radiation. “Those people with thermal burns over most of their bodies we can’t help,” says Dallas. “Most of these people are not going to survive… there is no saving them. They’ll be in intense agony.” As you move out further from the site of the blast, he says, “it actually gets worse. As the damage decreases, the pain increases, because you’re not numb.”In a best case scenario, there would be 1,000 critically injured victims for every surviving doctor but “it will probably be worse,” according to Dallas. Whatever remains of Tehran’s healthcare system will be inundated with an estimated 1.5 million trauma sufferers. In a feat of understatement, the researchers report that survivors “presenting with combined injuries including either thermal burns or radiation poisoning are unlikely to have favorable outcomes.”Iranian government officials did not respond to a request for information about how Tehran would cope in the event of a nuclear attack. When asked if the US military could provide humanitarian aid to Iran after such a strike, a spokesman for Central Command, whose area of responsibility includes the Middle East, was circumspect. “US Central Command plans for a wide range of contingencies to be prepared to provide options to the Secretary of Defense and the President,” he told this reporter. But Frederick Burkle, a senior fellow at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative and Harvard University’s School of Public Health, as well as a coauthor of the just-published article, is emphatic that the US military could not cope with the scale of the problem. “I must also say that no country or international body is prepared to offer the assistance that would be needed,” he told me.Dallas and his team spent five years working on their study. Their predictions were generated using a declassified version of a software package developed for the Defense Department’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, as well as other complementary software applications. According to Glen Reeves, the software used fails to account for many of the vagaries and irregularities of an urban environment. These, he says, would mitigate some of the harmful effects. Examples would be buildings or cars providing protection from flash burns. He notes, however, that built-up areas can also exacerbate the number of deaths and injuries. Blast effects far weaker than what would be necessary to injure the lungs can, for instance, topple a house. “Your office building can collapse… before your eardrums pop!” notes Reeves.The new study provides the only available scientific predictions to date about what a nuclear attack in the Middle East might actually mean. Dallas, who was previously the director of the Center for Mass Destruction Defense at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is quick to point out that the study received no US government funding or oversight. “No one wanted this research to happen,” he adds.But it is still not clear which military superpower possesses the most fearsome armed forces.So analysts at the Centre for National Interest - a Washington-based think tank - have predicted exactly what weapons would be used if the historic foes ever went to war - and which would be most effective.They spell out the likelihood that “an accidental collision could spark a diplomatic crisis, a crisis that could lead to a place no one wants to go: some sort of open conflict”.But they also concede that it is “very unlikely” that the US will ever directly face off against Russia as a war would “almost certain end poorly for all concerned”.However, the experts say that modern Russia has a “formidable arsenal of both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons” and that the threat posed by the Moscow cannot be downplayed.Among the five most potent weapons at Vladimir Putin's disposal is the Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jet, which the think tank says has “high altitude capability and blistering speed”.It is still not clear which military superpower possesses the most fearsome armed forces.The military experts write that, “while not a ‘weapon’ in the traditional sense, the US global alliance network would greatly enhance America's ability to wage war against Russia”.The US is a member of NATO and also has allies across the Americas, Asia and Europe.Russia has attempted to court new allies in the form of Syria and other players on the fringes of the international community, but its network of influence is far smaller than that of the US.First, there has never been any real evidence of an Iranian military nuclear program, but even more important is the fact that Iran never had any need for nuclear weapons. A lot of anti-Iranian propaganda is directly predicated on the notion that having nuclear weapons is highly desirable, yields some big advantage, and that all nations would want to acquire them. This is utter nonsense. In reality, possessing a few nuclear devices would only turn these devices into high priority targets for destruction by the USA and/or Israel. And even if, by some miracle, the Iranians managed to hide these devices while deploying them on missiles or aircraft, using any one such device would guarantee a massive retaliation from the Empire. What is the point of having a few nukes when Israel has hundreds? Finally, the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has declared many times that nuclear weapons are forbidden for Iran because they are un-Islamic. But we are so used to being ruled by lying politicians that we have apparently lost the ability to imagine that any leader would actually speak the truth, be guided by his conscience or, even less so, his faith. So we just dismissed it all.Second, the threat which Iran really poses to Israel (and the KSA) is not a nuclear one – it is a civilizational one. Think of it:Iran is an Islamic Republic and the only country on the planet which has dared to openly defy both Israel and the USA. Not only that, it also represent a radically different model of Islam than the one of the Saudi Wahabis. Iran is a country which has managed to survive a war unleashed against it by the joint efforts of the USA, the Soviet Union, France and Iraq, which prevailed against the most powerful Baathist ruler of the Middle-East, and which then proceeded to survive economically and politically in spite of decades of crippling sanctions imposed by all the industrialized countries on the planet. Furthermore, and in contrast to all the Arab and Muslim countries out there, Iran is the only one which as always truly supported the Palestinian cause and which has provided crucial backing for the most formidable national liberation movement on the planet: Hezbollah. So yes, Iran is very, very dangerous for Israel and for the Saudis.This is why since roughly 2002 the usual cabal of US deep state actors, the Neocons, the Israel Lobby, the Israelis themselves and, of course, the Saudis have embarked on a massive campaign to force Iran to its knees and give in to totally ridiculous demands which go way beyond what the NPT mandates (note: while Iran has always been a member in good standing of the NPT, Israel has never accepted to become a member; but then, Israel is not a “rogue state” but the “only democracy in the Middle-East”, right?).Then things began acquiring their own momentum: if the Empire and Israel had decreed that Iran must either comply or be turned into ruins (economically or militarily) then this absolutely must happen. But, of course, it did not. So breaking Iran soon became a goal in itself: to prove that nobody can defy the Anglo Zionists and survive. Iran, of course, not only survived but prospered. And thanks to the fantastically short-sighted policies of the USA and Israel, Iran actually managed to increase its influence in the region, especially after the US invasion of Iraq. Not only has Iran become a key player in Iraq, but thanks to the “Divine Victory” of Hezbollah against the “invincible Tsahal” in 2006 Iran also became the ally and patron of the only military force in the region to have single-handedly defeated the Zionist state.As for the Saudis, they are terrified of this Russian-Iranian-Hezbollah coalition which, they believe, is threatening them, and their anti-Shia crusade in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The Saudis also fear the fact that Iran is the proof that an Islamic state does not have to be a backward, primitive and oppressive regime, but that Islam, modernity and people-power can coexist and be successfully combined (hence the failure of the CIA-backed Iranian elites to overthrow the Islamic Republic during the “Gucci Revolution”).It is therefore not surprising that the Israelis and Saudis are absolutely livid at the agreement negotiated between Iran and the P5+1. For these two countries, the lifting of sanctions against Iran, even combined with the imposition of new, “mini-sanctions”, by the US, represents the failure of over a decade of sustained anti-Iranian efforts.The Middle East is hardly the only site of potential nuclear catastrophe. Today, according to the Ploughshares Fund, there are an estimated 17,300 nuclear weapons in the world. Russia reportedly has the most with 8,500; North Korea, the fewest with less than 10. Donald Cook, the administrator for defense programs at the US National Nuclear Security Administration, recently confirmed that the United States possesses around 4,700 nuclear warheads. Other nuclear powers include rivals India and Pakistan, which stood on the brink of nuclear war in 2002. (Just this year, Indian government officials warned residents of Kashmir, the divided territory claimed by both nations, to prepare for a possible nuclear war.) Recently, India and nuclear-armed neighbor China, which went to war with each other in the 1960s, again found themselves on the verge of a crisis due to a border dispute in a remote area of the Himalayas.In purely military terms, neither Israel nor the KSA have what it takes to successfully attack Iran, nevermind defeating it. The Israelis were not even capable of controlling a minor Lebanese town right across their own border border (Bint Jbeil) even though they tried for 33 day. As for the insanely wealthy Saudis can’t even defeat the dirt-poor Houthis in Yemen. If anything, the KSA and Israel are the proof that neither money not expensive high-tech hardware is not what builds a strong military force. Compare them with the Iranians who are the folks who trained Hezbollah! QED.As for the US armed forces, they are overstretched, over-committed and barely holding on to a few positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they don’t have what it takes to fight Iran either, at least not on the ground. And, let’s be honest here, the US armed forces are much better at organizing high-visibility “PR drives” (literally) involving a few APCS and Humvees in the Baltics, the Ukraine and Poland than at fighting a determined enemy. So even if most Presidential candidates now speak about “confronting Russia”, the reality is that the US cannot do much more than bombing a country like Serbia, and even that took the full support of NATO air forces and ended up in an abject failure (at least from the purely military point of view).This is why the Empire will have to turn to its traditional set of dirty tricks: false flags, support for various terrorist groups, subversion of the Islamic Republic by means of the local money elites, sabotage, “human rights” campaigns (à la Neda), support for “gay rights”, arming of separatists groups, etc.But, at least for the time being, this is a huge victory for Iran and and equally huge defeat for Israel: the poor Zionists have now been robbed of not one, but two wars they wanted so badly, and even their “success” in Libya is not enough of a consolation.The only recent successful war waged by a major power has been the Russian conquest of the Crimea. However, it was made possible by an extraordinary set of circumstances: The Ukrainian army showed no resistance; other powers refrained from intervening; and the Crimean population either supported the invaders or peacefully accepted the conquest as a fait accompli. These circumstances will be hard to reproduce. If the precondition for a successful war is the absence of any enemies willing to resist, it limits the available opportunities.Indeed, when Russia sought to reproduce its Crimean success in other parts of the Ukraine, it encountered substantially stiffer opposition, and the war in eastern Ukraine bogged down into an unproductive stalemate. Conquering decrepit Soviet-era factories in Luhansk and Donetsk hardly pays for the war, and it certainly does not offset the costs of international sanctions.The conquest of Crimea notwithstanding, it seems that in the twenty-first century the most successful strategy is to keep your peace and let others do the fighting for you. Why has it become so difficult for major powers to wage successful wars?One reason is the change in the nature of the economy. In the past, if you defeated your enemy on the battlefield, you could easily cash in by looting enemy cities, selling enemy civilians in the slave markets and occupying valuable wheat fields and gold mines. Yet in the twenty-first century, only puny profits could be made that way. Today, the main economic assets consist of technical and institutional knowledge — and you cannot conquer knowledge through war. An organization such as ISIS may flourish by looting cities and oil wells in the Middle East — in 2014, ISIS seized more than $500 million from Iraqi banks and in 2015 made an additional $500 million from selling oil. But China and the U.S. are unlikely to start a war for a paltry billion. As for spending trillions of dollars on a war against the U.S., how could China repay these expenses and balance all the war damages and lost trade opportunities? Would the victorious People’s Liberation Army loot the riches of Silicon Valley? True, corporations such as Apple, Facebook and Google are worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but you cannot seize these fortunes by force. There are no silicon mines in Silicon Valley.A successful war could theoretically still bring huge profits by enabling the victor to rearrange the global trade system in its favor, as the U.S. did after its victory over Hitler. However, present-day military technology would make it extremely difficult to repeat this feat. By definition, profits large enough to make a global war worthwhile for the victor will also make it worthwhile for the loser to resort to weapons of mass destruction. The atom bomb has turned “victory” in a World War into collective suicide. It is no coincidence that since Hiroshima superpowers never fought one another directly, and engaged only in what (for them) were low-stake conflicts in which none was tempted to use nuclear weapons to avert defeat. Indeed, even attacking a second-rate nuclear power such as Iran or North Korea is an extremely unattractive proposition.Neither Hezbollah nor Israel will go to war right now. Israel cannot defeat Hezbollah now any more than it could in the war n 2006, which ended in a military stalemate but a strategic victory for Hezbollah.Hezbollah won’t go to war against Israel because it cannot afford to lose its already questionable prestige in Lebanon due to the terrorist party’s having entered the conflagration in Syria and bringing it inside Lebanon’s borders.Hezbollah’s attack in Israel yesterday was an eye-for-an-eye retaliation for Israel’s pre-emptive bombing raid in Syria two weeks ago in which a dozen Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers and commanders were wiped out.Their plan to attack the Israeli side of the Golan Heights bore out fears that Hezbollah wants to be able to strike Israel along the entire northern border, from the Mediterranean Coast of Lebanon to the eastern side of the Golan Heights.“Hezbollah” does not just mean the terrorist party and army. It also means “Iran,” its financial and military mother.“Hezbollah” also means “Lebanon,” to a large extent. Hassan Nasrallah’s party dominates the government, but the world recognizes “Lebanon” and not “Hezbollah.”Hezbollah, diplomatically, is a state within a state. It has one of the largest military arsenals of any army in the world, with 120,000 missiles in Lebanon, and now in Syria, poised to pulverize not only northern Israel but also Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.It is an act of war when a country’s army attacks another nation and kills two soldiers. “Restraint” is not the proper response. The proper response is an all-out retaliation to end the enemy threat.But officially, neither Lebanon nor Iran attacked Israel yesterday. The provocateur was a terrorist army and party. Israel cannot wipe out the Hezbollah army because, like Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza, it operates from within civilian population centers and now also is located in the maze of hell that is called Syria,” which no longer exists as a nation except in name.Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said yesterday, “My recommendation to those who challenge us in the north is to take a look at what happened in Gaza.”Bull Stuff.Hamas had several thousand rockets, some of them sophisticated, but Israel’s Iron Dome system was able to intercept most of them. In addition, the land mass of Hamas-controlled Gaza is all of 139 square miles (360 square kilometers), surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea on the west and an unfriendly Egypt and Israel on the south, west and north.Lebanon is nearly 30 times larger with 4,015 square miles (10,400 sq km). Besides the Mediterranean Sea on the west and Israel on the south, Lebanon — and Hezbollah — have Syria for a neighbor in the east and north.Netanyahu said, “The (Israel Defense Forces) is responding now to the incident in the north. The IDF stands ready to act forcefully on all fronts.” In truth, he was only reassuring Israelis and sending shivers down the spines of the West, but he and Hezbollah know very well that Israel is not going to “act forcefully on all fronts.”Israel does not have an anti-missile system that can protect the country against 120,000 missiles, some of them very long-range rocket and probably with chemical warheads. The IDF indeed could crush Lebanon. It could punish the country for allowing and actively supporting Hezbollah.Before doing so, who knows how much Hezbollah would cripple Israel with missiles.But everyone, especially Netanyahu, knows that any large-military operation would leave Israel isolated in the worldThe United States stated yesterday its usual wishy-washy position that backs Israel with a big “but”:We support Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense and continue to urge all parties to respect the Blue Line between Israel and Lebanon. We urge all parties to refrain from any action that could escalate the situation.That was the same language used every time Hamas attacks Israel with a missile.Any Israeli attack would be “disproportionate.” The international community does not apply the rules of war when it comes to Israel, which always must show it is so Christian that it can turn the other cheek and not use force.As disgusting it sounds, the bitter truth is that Israeli won’t go to war over the deaths of two soldiers. It should but it won’t.Israeli does not have the self-confidence, spiritually and diplomatically, to attack Hezbollah and Lebanon.Nine years ago, Hezbollah kidnapped and murdered two soldiers and sparked a five-week war that proved that exposed, once again, Israel’s real weakness.The Foreign Minister at the time was Tzipi Livni, who now threatens to become the next Prime Minister of Israel on a rotational basis with Labor party chairman Yitzchak Herzog.Livni signed on the dotted line of United Nations Resolution 1701 that was a cease-fire version of the Oslo Accords. Instead of the Palestinian Authority, it was the United Nations that promised to disarm “foreign armies,” without naming Hezbollah.The resolution stated:Pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state.The resolution called for:Israel to withdraw all of its forces from Lebanon in parallel with Lebanese and UNIFIL soldiers deploying throughout the South…Disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon (implying but not stating Hezbollah)No armed forces other than UNIFIL and Lebanese (implying Hezbollah and Israeli forces) will be south of the Litani RiverNo foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government….The importance of full control of Lebanon by the government of Lebanon .Of course, Israel withdrew. Not only did UNIFIL not dis-arm Hezbollah, UNIFIL allowed it to continue to smuggle weapons from Iran, via Syria.The resolution left Hezbollah ins a stronger than ever position and weakened Israel, which proved again its military may be strong but its backbone Is too weak to support a military victory to safeguard the country.Revolutionary Guard Corps commander says if West thought it could attack Iran it would have done so already.Although Iranian media reports have not made clear to which US officials they have been referring, last month The Washington Post reported that Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) called for a limited military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities similar to the four-day bombing campaign of Operation Desert Fox in 1998 against Iraq, over Saddam’s failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions.US Secretary of State John Kerry also said that the US could still strike at Iran, in an interview with Israel’s Channel 10 aired this week.Negotiations between Iran and six world powers — the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — were scheduled to resume on May 12 in Vienna, the European Union and Tehran said earlier this week. The political leaders of the other world powers involved in the negotiations are to join the talks on May 15.Iran and the world powers want to turn a framework accord reached in Switzerland on April 2 into a full agreement by June 30.Following a marathon of negotiations in Switzerland, Iran agreed on April 2 to what US President Barack Obama called a “historic understanding… which, if fully implemented, will prevent (Iran) from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”Under the agreed parameters, Iran, which denies seeking the atomic bomb, is set to scale down its nuclear program for 10 to 15 years or more, and allow closer UN inspections.In return, the United States and five other major powers committed to lift certain sanctions that have caused the Islamic Republic major economic pain by strangling its oil exports and financial system.However, Israeli officials, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have harshly criticized the framework agreement, saying it leaves Iran with the ability to develop nuclear weapons in the future.From the days of Assyria and Rome, great empires were usually built through war, and elites in 1914 had plenty of recent examples for the huge profits a successful war can bring. In 1846–48 the United States invaded Mexico, and for the price of 13,000 dead American soldiers, it got California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming and Oklahoma. It was the bargain of the millennium. Similarly, imperial Japan cherished its victories over China and Russia; Germany glorified its triumph over France; and almost every great power had a string of splendid little colonial wars to its name. When France, Britain or Italy contemplated putting boots on the ground in Vietnam, Nigeria or Libya, their main fear was that somebody else might get there first.In 2017, global elites don’t know what a successful war even looks like. They may have read about them in history books and seen fanciful recreations in Hollywood blockbusters, but they have good reason to suspect that this type of war has gone extinct. Though some third-world dictators and non-state actors still manage to flourish through war, it seems that major powers no longer know how to do so.The greatest victory in living memory — of the United States over the Soviet Union — was achieved without any major military confrontation. The U.S. then got a fleeting taste of old-fashioned military glory in the First Gulf War — which only tempted it to waste trillions on humiliating military fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan. China, the rising power of the early twenty-first century, has assiduously avoided all armed conflicts since its Vietnamese debacle of 1979, and it owes its ascent strictly to economic factors. In this, it has emulated not the Japanese and German empires of the pre-1914 era, but rather the nonviolent Japanese and German economic miracles of the post-1945 era.Even in the Middle East, regional powers don’t know how to wage successful wars. Iran gained nothing from the long bloodbath of the Iran-Iraq War and subsequently avoided all direct military confrontations. It became regional hegemon by default, as its two main enemies — the U.S. and Iraq — got embroiled in a war that destroyed both Iraq and the American appetite for Middle Eastern quagmires.Much the same can be said of Israel, which waged its last successful war fifty years ago. Since 1967, Israel has prospered despite its many wars, not thanks to them. Its conquered territories are a heavy economic burden and a crippling political liability. Like Iran, Israel has recently improved its geopolitical position not by waging successful wars, but by avoiding getting sucked into the wars that devastated Iraq, Syria and Libya.Cyber warfare makes things even worse for would-be imperialists. As recently as the days of George W. Bush, the U.S. could wreak havoc in far-off Fallujah while the Iraqis had no means of retaliating against San Francisco. But if the U.S. now attacks a country possessing even moderate cyber warfare capabilities, malware and logic bombs could stop air traffic in Dallas, cause trains to collide in Philadelphia and bring down the electric grid in Michigan.In the great age of conquerors, warfare was a low-damage, high-profit affair. At the battle of Hastings in 1066, William the Conqueror gained the whole of England in a single day for the cost of a few thousand dead. Nuclear weapons and cyber warfare, by contrast, are high-damage, low-profit technologies. You could use such tools to destroy entire countries, but not to build profitable empires.Hence in a world filling up with saber-rattling and bad vibes, perhaps our best guarantee of peace is that major powers aren’t familiar with any recent example of a successful war. While Genghis Khan or Julius Caesar would invade a foreign country at the drop of a hat, present-day strongmen talk loud but are very careful about actually launching wars. Of course, if somebody does find a formula to wage successful wars under twenty-first-century conditions, the gates of hell might open with a rush. This is what makes the Russian success in the Crimea a particularly frightening omen. Let’s hope it remains an isolated example. Though, even if it is impossible to wage successful wars in the twenty-first century, that does not give us an absolute guarantee for peace. We should never underestimate human stupidity.Israel urgently needs a strategic plan to maintain the technological advantage over nations dedicated to wiping out the Jewish state.Iran has a staggering number of science and engineering college students – over two million, an increase of 161 percent since 2004. For the same period, the comparable number for Israel rose only 20 percent, to 107,000.According to data of Thomson-Reuters, a global information company based in New York and Toronto, Iran has the world’s fastest- growing scientific output, measured by peer-reviewed articles in international journals. In December 2013, Iran put a monkey named Fargam (“auspicious” in Farsi) into orbit and returned him safely to earth. Rockets capable of launching satellites can also carry military payloads great distances.Ironically, the economic sanctions imposed on Iran by the West appear to have been a major factor in Iran’s burgeoning science. According to the just issued UNESCO science report “Towards 2030,” “The sanctions… have accelerated the shift from a resource-based economy to a knowledge economy by challenging policymakers to look beyond extractive industries to the country’s human capital for wealth creation… between 2006 and 2011 the number of firms declaring R&D activities more than doubled.” The UNESCO report notes that Iran ranked seventh worldwide for the volume of scientific papers related to nanotechnology.Hezbollah’s role in the Syria conflict has transformed and emboldened the Lebanese Shiite movement—and worried Israel.One element in the hardening confrontation seems to be Hezbollah’s fear of the Trump administration’s hostility toward Iran and embrace of hardline Israeli politics, coupled with the Gulf States’ finding common cause with Israel in the regional polarization between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The commander, who describes rising through Hezbollah’s ranks since the 1980s, worries that Washington will now encourage an Israeli confrontation with Hezbollah as a way of fighting a proxy war with Iran.“Both sides are ready to have a fight in Syria, but not in Lebanon.” —Ahmad Moussalli, American University of Beirut“Hezbollah is like the cane that Iran uses,” says Commander Samir, referring to his organization’s transformation from a domestic militia, before the Syrian war, to a regional fighting force engaged in conflicts from Yemen and Iraq to Syria on behalf of its main patron. “If the Americans want to break the Iranian cane, then the Israelis will attack Hezbollah.”Ahmad Moussalli, a political science professor and specialist in Islamic movements at the American University of Beirut, believes any expanding conflict between Israel and Hezbollah will play out in Syria rather than Lebanon. “A war in Lebanon will be very devastating for both sides,” says Moussalli. “Both sides are ready to have a kind of fight in Syria, but not in Lebanon. On the Syrian front, it’s a very different game.”When Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, it achieved none of its military objectives, took heavy casualties, and left Hezbollah emboldened and admired across the Arab world for forcing an Israeli retreat for a second time in less than a decade. But the Israeli military killed more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians, wounded over 4,400, and displaced around 1 million people in a country with a total population of only 4 million at the time.Hezbollah emerged in the 1985 out of Lebanon’s civil war as a Shiite Islamist and nationalist movement that primarily fought Israel’s occupation of the country through guerrilla tactics. It has always received funding and support from Iran, often via Syria, but the militia’s growing role in the Syria conflict, where it has been crucial in turning the tide in the regime’s favor, has transformed its military wing into a highly trained and equipped conventional ground force with regional reach.Iran’s Quds forces, Iraqi militiamen, and Hezbollah all now have a military presence in Syria near the Golan Heights.Now Hezbollah directly controls vast tracts of land in Syria, including in the south of the country near the Israeli border. Nasrallah has said his organization will maintain control of the land for the time being, while Commander Samir contends that it can be used to open a second front against Israel in the event of hostilities.Moussalli also notes this possibility, highlighting the fact that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’s Quds forces, Iraqi militiamen, and Hezbollah all now have a military presence on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights and are willing to fight there if needed.On the political side, the realignment of regional political forces resulting from the Syrian War seems to be shaping Hezbollah’s tensions with Israel—and its relations with old allies. On the one hand, Commander Samir argues that Arab states, primarily in the Gulf, that have supported Syrian rebels are interested in having Israel damage his organization; on the other, he no longer sees his fight as connected to the Palestinian struggle.“We’ve got long-range missiles, directly from the Russians, that can hit anywhere in Israel.” — Hezbollah commanderBut most Palestinians have been sympathetic to the Syrian uprising and oppose the brutality and repression of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, which puts them in direct conflict with Hezbollah. While the regime has retained the loyalty of a few small Palestinian factions, Yarmouk, the large Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus, as well as other Palestinian camps in Syria have seen years of intense government bombardment and siege. (Yarmouk has also faced invasion and assault from ISIS and the formerly Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front.)Since Israel’s 2014 war in Gaza, Iran has started providing some support to Hamas again and, according to the Samir, so has Hezbollah. Yet the war in Syria, he says, has changed his perspective not only on Hamas but also on general Palestinian aspirations. “The reason that we are supporting them now,” he says, “is because they are an enemy of my enemy.”Why would Israel deliberately want to kill civilians?This is the single most important issue that gets everyone riled up, and rightfully so.Again, there is no justification for innocent Gazans dying. And there’s no excuse for Israel’s negligence in incidents like the killing of four children on a Gazan beach. But let’s back up and think about this for a minute.Why on Earth would Israel deliberately want to kill civilians?When civilians die, Israel looks like a monster. It draws the ire of even its closest allies. Horrific images of injured and dead innocents flood the media. Ever-growing anti-Israel protests are held everywhere from Norway to New York. And the relatively low number of Israeli casualties (we’ll get to that in a bit) repeatedly draws allegations of a “disproportionate” response. Most importantly, civilian deaths help Hamas immensely.How can any of this possibly ever be in Israel’s interest?If Israel wanted to kill civilians, it is terrible at it. ISIS killed more civilians in two days (700 plus) than Israel has in two weeks. Imagine if ISIS or Hamas had Israel’s weapons, army, air force, US support, and nuclear arsenal. Their enemies would’ve been annihilated long ago. If Israel truly wanted to destroy Gaza, it could do so within a day, right from the air. Why carry out a more painful, expensive ground incursion that risks the lives of its soldiers?We don’t know where or why a nuclear weapon will be used. We don’t know whether it will be a North Korean, South Korean, Indian, Pakistani, Lebanese, Iranian, Israeli, or even American city that will be hit. All we should assume is that, as long as such weapons are developed, amassed, and stored for use, one day they will be used with consequences that, -- even for those who have studied the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- beyond imagining.Reference:List of wars involving Israel - WikipediaWho Would Win In A War: Israel, Ethiopia vs Saudi Arabia, Egypt • r/exmuslimAre Israel and Hezbollah Preparing for War?7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides in the Middle East ConflictCould Israel go it alone on Iran?How Iran could Win a War against Israel and the United States in One HourIf Iran and Israel Went to War: Five Israeli Weapons of War Iran Should FearThe U.S. Won't Save Israel From IranWhy Israel should attack Iran now; why Iran’s response might be mutedNew Military Index Ranking World’s Top Armies Places Israel Just Three Ahead of Iran2017 Israeli Military StrengthWhat Would Happen if Israel Nuked IranTomgram: Nick Turse, Israel, Iran, and the Nuclear Freight TrainWhat Would Happen if Israel Nuked IranNuclear war between Israel and Iran: lethality beyond the paleIran heavy water plant revealed - againIran launches its first submarine'Explosions strike' Iranian cityhttp://www.ncdp.mailman.columbia.edu/daythree/day3bios.htmlBarak: No threat to Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguityWhy Israel Should Trade Its NukesIran Intelligence Crisis Showed Difficulty of Assessing Nuclear DataTough U.N. action vowed after North Korean nuclear testhttp://books.google.com/books?id=-ZXXISjFn08C&pg=PA65&dq=hiroshima+bomb+kilotons&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NCSIUbjlIqvb4AP7vIDIAw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=hiroshima%20bomb%20kilotons&f=falsehttp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usuhs.mil%2Fafrri%2Foutreach%2Fpdf%2FDTRA-TR-12-33.pdf&ei=r2eAUe3_BcjA4AOjm4B4&usg=AFQjCNH5sHVqAXwxcfyFktcWd7ZCrNbk5Q&sig2=WAjxAI1Mr2DlBy1jiQ-tgQ&bvm=bv.45645http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/amsus/zmm/2010/00000175/00000012/art00022Paul Carrollhttp://csis.org/wp-content/uploads/publication/130408_Iran_Gulf_Mil_Bal_II.pdfU.S. Increases Pressure of Economic War on TehranThermal skin burns: Example after nuclear blastWould Russia or the US win a World War? Defence experts give verdict on their arsenalsIsrael vs Iran: Israel loses, *big* timeIslam vs. the world: WORLD WAR III HAS BEGUN (WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES) - Middle East - International - News - Catholic Onlinehttp://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israel-wont-go-to-war-against-hezbollah-because-it-cant-win-video/2015/01/29/Iranian general: War with the US would be ‘no big deal’Why It’s No Longer Possible for Any Country to Win a WarWill Iran win the technology war?Are Israel and Hezbollah Preparing for War?7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides in the Middle East Conflictwho can counter israel in future- pakistan ,Egypt ,RSA , Iran.

These include:MoUs/Agreements between INDIA and USAIndia and UK have agreed to an overarching cyber-relationship framework that among others enables the development of a common and shared understanding of international cyber activity; discuss and share strategies to promote user confidence in the security of ICT products and services; promote cyber security product development; and share information relating R&D etc.On rejuvenation of River Ganga, a MoU has been signed between National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG) and Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), UK. The MoU will enable the United Kingdom to support Government of India in sustainable management of water resources in the Ganga Basin through collaborative programmes of research and innovation and exchange of policy experts with the support of UK Water Partnership.The MoU on Skill Development, Vocational education and Training between the two governments seeks to promote greater collaboration in domains such as strengthening skill delivery in high demand sectors where UK has technical and skilling expertise, capacity building of institutions by facilitating the links between UK and Indian corporates and institutions, technical assistance for apprenticeships, quality assessment and certification.In the area of regulation of safe nuclear energy use for peaceful purposes, an arrangement has been arrived at between Atomic Energy Regulatory Board of India (AERB) and the Office for Nuclear Regulation of Great Britain (ONR). The arrangement among others will facilitate exchange of safety-related information concerning the regulation of siting, construction, commissioning, operation, radioactive waste management, decommissioning of civil nuclear installations, and preparedness and management of nuclear and radiological emergencies.A Statement of Intent between NITI Aayog and UK’s Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has been signed which will enable the two sides to explore potential for regular engagement on technology co-operation in areas such as electric vehicles, AI, FinTech, and advanced manufacturing, as well as utilizing AI, big data and analytics capability for evidence based policy making.The MoU on cooperation in the field of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Sectors seeks to strengthen collaboration in livestock health and husbandry, breeding, dairying and fisheries, sanitary issues, exchange of scientific personnel, promotion of agro-forestry for planting fodder tree species, bulk transportation of fodder to deficit areas etc.Recognising the increased threat posed by international criminality because of its increasingly complex nature and the threat posed by organised crime, a MoU on Exchange of Information for the Purposes of Combating International Criminality and Tackling Serious Organised Crime has been signed. The MoU will allow the two parties to establish a mechanism for the exchange of information, which will include criminal records, immigration records and intelligence.An Addendum covering research in humanities and social sciences has been added to the 2004 Newton-BhabhaMoU, which supports research and innovation capacities of both sides for long-term sustainable growth. With this addendum, the collaboration will now also extend to Humanities and Social Sciences.The UK has announced setting up a Fast Track Mechanism to identify and resolve specific issues faced by Indian companies who are either in the UK or looking to establish operations in the UK.The All India Institute of Ayurveda (AIIA), an autonomous organization under the Ministry of Ayush in collaboration with the College of Medicine will set up a Centre of Excellence in Ayurveda and traditional Indian medicine. A MoU between the two institutions has been signed which will enable among others the development of evidence-based guidelines for integrating Ayurvedic principles and practices with modern medicine, and develop Ayurvedic medical education guidelines for Ayurveda education in the UK.India-UK Tech initiatives:UK – India Tech Alliance: NASSCOM and techUK have set up the UK – India Tech Alliance, which will facilitate collaboration on building future skills in new technologies by nurturing a solid skills base in the UK and India, with the support of both the governments. The Alliance will be composed of high-level stakeholders from the technology industry in the United Kingdom and India. The Alliance will assist the governments of UK and India to develop policy in relevant areas by providing a forum for regular dialogue and the exchange of ideas, discuss concerns pertaining to the growth of the sector including, but not limited to skills, new technologies and migration.Technology Summit II: The UK and India announced the Technology Summit II, which will be held in autumn 2018.The Summit will bring together the greatest UK and Indian tech innovators, scientists, entrepreneurs and policy makers to work together to scope and design solutions to challenges including the governance of future tech.AI and Digital Healthcare: The UK and India announced that as partners in the next generation of healthcare, theywill collaborate on digital health pilots in India’s Aspirational Health Districts by applying UK evidence-based healthcare AI and technology to strengthen healthcare delivery. These pilots will be carried out in the areas of self-care, primary, secondary and tertiary care, including eye care, diabetes and cancer.UK tech-initiatives in India:UK-India Tech Hub: The UK announced the creation of a UK-India Tech Hub. Based in the British High Commission in New Delhi the Tech Hub will include a network of people and programmes designed to facilitate ideas, investment and prosperity for India and the UK. It will focus on the fastest growing sectors, including: cybersecurity, AI/data, future mobility, digital manufacturing, healthcare, electric vehicles and digital identity.UK-India Tech Cluster Partnerships: The Tech Cluster partnerships will link world-leading centres of excellence; enable shared innovation and technology exchange; create landing pads for Indian companies in the UK and UK companies in India to drive investment and trade and create high value jobs and build UK and Indian productivity.Advanced Manufacturing Centre: The UK announcedthe potential establishment of an Advanced Manufacturing Centre. Such a centre would support respective industrial strategies and in turn drive growth and jobs in both countries.FinTechRocketship Awards: The UK announced the launch of the FinTechRocketship Awards, a unique, first-of-its-kind FinTech mentoring programme, led by India and the UK’s top FinTech mentors. In the first year, at least 20 FinTech entrepreneurs from each country will be given the opportunity to experience respective ecosystems and pitch for investment.Trade, Investment and FinanceGreen Growth Equity Fund (GGEF): The UK and India launched the fund that will leverage City finance to invest in India’s growth, announcing Eversource Capital, a joint venture between Lightsource BP and Everstone Group, as the Green Growth Equity Fund Manager. An initial investment of £240m from both governments will catalyse additional City finance for green projects in India and UK companies will be able to bid for infrastructure projects financed by the Fund. The Fund will invest in renewable energy, clean transportation, water and waste management in India as part of India’s flagship National Investment and Infrastructure Fund (NIIF). UK and India contributions are investments that will generate returns for each country.UK-India Dialogue on Investment: The UK and India announced a Dialogue on Investment to improve our mutual understanding of priorities and review future opportunities for cooperationSector targeting roadmap: The UK and India have agreed to work together on a sector-based roadmap to address trade barriers in life sciences, food and drink and IT sectors.UK-India multilateral trade dialogue: The UK and India will take forward a dialogue under the Joint Working Group on Trade, which will support a shared commitment to the global rules-based system and to the WTO’s role in underpinning it.Fast Track Mechanism: TheUK and India announced a mechanism to support Indian investments into the UK.Commitment to transition EU-India Third Country Agreements: The UK and India announced that this commitment willensure continued application to the UK of EU-India Agreements during the Implementation Period following the UK’s departure from the EU, and put in place arrangements to replicate relevant EU-India agreements beyond this period.UK-India Fintech Dialogue: The two sides decided on the establishment of a FinTech dialogue to discuss further opportunities for financial services collaboration, including policy coordination.Global Force for GoodInternational Solar Alliance: The UK signed the Framework Agreement of the International Solar Alliance and became the 62nd signatory member country. The UK also expressed its commitment to the continued advocacy of ISAs aims and objectives.Research and Development: The UK and India will continue their world-leading research relationship, generating new knowledge and innovations that feed the world’s hungry (high yield crops), protect our environment (clean energy), save lives (advanced healthcare) and drive economic inclusion (digital services)Toward a Free, Open and Prosperous Indo-Pacific INDIA and JAPANH.E. Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan is paying an official visit to India from 13 September to 14 September, 2017 at the invitation of H.E. Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India. On 14 September, the two Prime Ministers held strategic discussions on a wide range of issues under the Special Strategic and Global Partnership between the two countries.The two Prime Ministers welcomed significant deepening of bilateral relations in the past three years and the growing convergence in the political, economic and strategic interests, based on the firm foundation of common values and traditions, as well as on an emerging consensus on contemporary issues of peace, security and development. They decided to work together to elevate their partnership to the next level to advance common strategic objectives at a time when the global community is faced with new challenges.The two Prime Ministers affirmed strong commitment to their values-based partnership in achieving a free, open and prosperous Indo-Pacific region where sovereignty and international law are respected, and differences are resolved through dialogue, and where all countries, large or small, enjoy freedom of navigation and overflight, sustainable development, and a free, fair, and open trade and investment system.The two Prime Ministers underlined that India and Japan could play a central role in safeguarding and strengthening such a rules-based order. To this end, they pledged to reinforce their efforts to:- align Japan’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy with India’s Act East Policy, including through enhancing maritime security cooperation, improving connectivity in the wider Indo-Pacific region, strengthening cooperation with ASEAN, and promoting discussions between strategists and experts of the two countries;- enhance defence and security cooperation and dialogues, including the MALABAR and other joint exercises, defence equipment and technology cooperation in such areas as surveillance and unmanned system technologies, and defence industry cooperation.- ensure partnerships for prosperity through the India-Japan Investment Promotion Partnership, speedy implementation of key infrastructure projects including the Mumbai Ahmedabad High Speed Railway (MAHSR), and advancing cooperation in the fields of energy, smart cities, information and communication technology, space, science and technology, bio-technology, pharmaceuticals and health.- strengthen people-to-people and cultural ties through enhanced Japanese language teaching in India and collaboration in the fields of tourism, civil aviation, higher education, women’s education, skills development and sports;- work together on global challenges such as proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), terrorism, space and cyber security, United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reform, climate change and environment;- strengthen trilateral cooperation frameworks with the United States, Australia and other countries.Reinforcing Defence and Security CooperationThe two Prime Ministers emphasised the significance of defence and security cooperation in enhancing the strategic partnership between the two countries. In this context, they welcomed the regular and institutionalised engagement through the annual Defence Ministerial Dialogue, the National Security Advisers' dialogue, the "2+2” Dialogue, the Defence Policy Dialogue and Service-to-Service staff talks.The two Prime Ministers commended the significant progress achieved in maritime security cooperation evidenced by the expansion in scale and complexity of the MALABAR Exercise in the Bay of Bengal in July 2017 (MALABAR-17). They noted the ongoing close cooperation between the Indian Navy and Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force (JMSDF) in various specialised areas of mutual interest, including anti-submarine aspects. They also acknowledged the importance of bilateral cooperation in maritime security by strengthening and enhancing exchanges in expanding maritime domain awareness (MDA) in the Indo-Pacific region.The two Prime Ministers shared the intention to expand joint exercises and cooperation in such areas as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR), peacekeeping operations(PKOs), counter-terrorism including the possibility of joint field exercises between Indian Army and Japan’s Ground Self-Defence Force (JGSDF) in 2018, and reciprocal visits by air assets to each other’s country. They welcomed significant development in the long-standing partnership between the two Coast Guards, including the 16th High Level Meeting and the joint exercise in Yokohama in January 2017 between the two coast guards.The two Prime Ministers noted recent progress in bilateral cooperation on defence equipment and technology, including the commencement of the technical discussion for the future research collaboration in the area of Unmanned Ground Vehicles and Robotics. Japan’s readiness to provide its state-of-the-art US-2 amphibian aircraft was appreciated as symbolising the high degree of trust between the two countries. The two governments decided to continue their discussions in this regard.The two Prime Ministers welcomed the recently held annual Defence Ministerial Dialogue and the first Defence Industry Forum in Tokyo on 5 September, which was addressed by the two Defence Ministers as well as the discussions covering other promising initiatives in defence industry cooperation. They recognised the importance of enhancing interactions between governments and defence industries of the two countries in order to encourage equipment collaboration including defence and dual-use technologies.The two Prime Ministers welcomed the holding of the Second India-Japan Cyber Dialogue in New Delhi on 17 August this year and reaffirmed their commitment to an open, free, secure, stable, peaceful and accessible cyberspace, enabling economic growth and innovation as well as mutual cooperation in this regard.Working Together for a Better Connected WorldThe two Prime Ministers expressed their strong commitment to work together to enhance connectivity in India and with other countries in the Indo-Pacific region including Africa. They welcomed the deepening of their connectivity dialogue aimed at achieving concrete progress, and decided to further accelerate such an initiative.The two Prime Ministers also underlined the importance of all countries ensuring the development and use of connectivity infrastructure in an open, transparent and non-exclusive manner based on international standards and responsible debt financing practices, while ensuring respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, the rule of law, and the environment. They also reaffirmed the importance of "quality infrastructure” which, among others ensures alignment with local economic and development strategies, safety, resilience, social and environmental impacts, and job creation as well as capacity building for the local communities.The two Prime Ministers welcomed the efforts to explore the development of industrial corridors and industrial network for the growth of Asia and Africa, which will benefit various stakeholders in the Indo-Pacific region including Africa. They shared the desire to further promote cooperation and collaboration in Africa in line with the priority measures identified through the India-Japan dialogue on Africa and the processes of the India Africa Forum Summit (IAFS) and Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD).The two Prime Ministers welcomed the India-Japan cooperation on development of India’s North Eastern Region (NER) as a concrete symbol of developing synergies between India’s Act East policy and Japan’s Free and Open Indo Pacific Strategy. In this context, they noted with satisfaction the setting up of the India-Japan Act East Forum. They appreciated the cooperation between Japan and North Eastern Region of India, ranging from key infrastructure such as road connectivity, electricity, water supply and sewage, to social and environmental sustainability such as afforestation and community empowerment, as well as people-to-people exchanges including the "IRIS Program” inviting youth from the NER to Japan.The two Prime Ministers also stressed the importance of the development of the smart islands to enhance regional connectivity and decided to further accelerate consultations to identify technologies, infrastructure and development strategies for the purpose.Partnership for prosperityThe two Prime Ministers welcomed the commencement of the project on the ground at the Sabarmati Station for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail (MAHSR), which will be an important symbol of a new era marked by the 75th Anniversary of India’s Independence. Expressing satisfaction at the steady progress, they directed their teams to multiply their efforts for achieving the target scheduleThe two Prime Ministers welcomed the exchange of notes for 100 billion yen as the first ODA loan for the MAHSR project. They also witnessed commencement of the construction of the HSR training institute in Vadodara. They appreciated the commencement of the JICA technical cooperation program for the capacity development of the National High Speed Rail Corporation.The two Prime Ministers committed to advancing "Make in India” and transfer of technology in HSR projects, and expressed optimism in this direction. They welcomed the series of business matching efforts to establish India-Japan cooperation, such as the prospective technology collaboration between Kawasaki and BHEL. Both sides will explore further strengthening of partnership in high speed railways. They also recognised that there is potential for further collaboration between India and Japan in the modernisation and expansion of the conventional railway system and the construction of metro rails in India. They also highlighted the importance of the safety of conventional railways, and appreciated the commencement of the JICA technical cooperation program by the dispatch of railways safety experts of Japan in August 2017,followed by a railway safety seminar and other programs.Prime Minister Modi updated Prime Minister Abe about his Government’s efforts for the country’s economic and social development. Prime Minister Abe reiterated Japan’s strong support for the initiatives such as "Make in India”, "Digital India”, "Skill India”, "Smart City”, "Clean India,” and "Start-Up India”. Prime Minister Abe highly appreciated Prime Minister Modi’s economic reforms, especially the historic introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), which facilitates ease of doing business and promotes market integration in India by realising a simple, efficient and nation-wide indirect tax system.The two Prime Ministers welcomed the expansion of Japan’s Foreign Direct Investment in India under the "India-Japan Investment Promotion Partnership”, committed to by both sides in 2014. They shared the view that the India-Japan Roadmap for Investment Promotion will provide greater impetus to "Make in India” through investment promotion activities, expanding the scope of professional services and assistance provided by JETRO to Japanese Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) operating in India, Review Mechanisms for Issue Resolution and Approvals, Single Window Clearance Procedures, Japan Industrial Townships and infrastructure development. Prime Minister Abe expressed appreciation for the facilitation provided by "Japan Plus”, and the coordination by the Core Group. They also welcomed the progress in the projects of the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC), through JICA, the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) including the DMIC Logistic Data Bank Project and expressed expectations of promoting industrial investment in DMIC cities. They welcomed the signing of "the Joint Statement on the Development of the New Capital City and Industrial Cooperation in Andhra Pradesh”. They also welcomed Japanese cooperation for smart city projects in Ahmedabad, Chennai as well as Varanasi.The two Prime Ministers welcomed the signing of the Memorandum of Cooperation on the joint development of the "Japan and India Special Program for Make in India” in Mandal-Becharaj-Khoraj, Gujarat, as a regional development project driven by manufacturing cluster, and the plan to establish a JETRO’s Business Support Centre in its Ahmedabad office to promote Japanese SMEs investment in Gujarat.The two Prime Ministers welcomed the start of the first four Japan-India Institutes for Manufacturing (JIMs) in the States of Gujarat, Karnataka, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu in 2017,under the Manufacturing Skill Transfer Promotion Program, and looked forward to more JIMs. They also welcomed the commencement of the first Japanese Endowed Courses (JEC) in Andhra Pradesh from September 2017. They strongly hoped that this program will introduce Japanese manufacturing practices and accelerate training of future shop floor leaders and engineers.The two Prime Ministers expressed the confidence that synergy between Japan’s advanced technology and India’s rich human resources can transform both countries into new centres of production in the global industrial network. They underscored the potential to further cooperate in human resources development and exchanges, including through utilising such frameworks as Japan’s "Innovative Asia” initiative and the Technical Intern Training Program(TITP).The two Prime Ministers noted with satisfaction the significant contribution of Japan’s ODA to the socio-economic development of India, especially the historically highest ever amount of ODA loan provided through JICA in the last two consecutive years. Prime Minister Abe expressed Japan’s intention to continue to support India’s efforts for social and industrial development including building key infrastructure projects.Prime Minister Modi appreciated the provision of ODA loan to the following projects, in addition to the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Railway (MAHSR) Project and its related training institute:- Project for Upgradation of Environmental Management for Ship Recycling in Alang and Sosiya in Gujarat- North East Road Network Connectivity Improvement Project (Phase 2)- Kolkata East-West Metro Project (III)- Gujarat Investment Promotion ProgramIn this regard, the two Prime Ministers welcomed progress in the ODA projects in urban transportation sector such as the Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai, Bangalore, Kolkata and Ahmedabad Metro, the Mumbai Trans-Harbour Link Project, and the introduction of the Intelligence Transport System along with the Eastern Peripheral Highway in Delhi.The two Prime Ministers expressed satisfaction at the entry into force of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Japan for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. They looked forward to a working group to strengthen bilateral cooperation in this field and reiterated their shared view that the Agreement reflects a new level of mutual confidence and strategic partnership in the cause of clean energy, economic development and a peaceful and secure world.The two Prime Ministers recognised that access to reliable, clean and affordable energy is critical for the economic growth of both countries. In this regard, they decided to strengthen bilateral energy cooperation and welcomed the India-Japan Energy Partnership Initiative as well as early convening of 9th Energy dialogue. They appreciated Japan’s proposal for India-Japan Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Cooperation Plan. They also welcomed the efforts to promote renewable energy, including the establishment of the International Solar Alliance (ISA), and the progress of New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO)’s demonstration project such as a micro grid system using solar power in Neemrana. They looked forward to further acceleration of cooperation in areas of energy saving, energy efficiency and energy storage as well as manufacturing of eco-friendly vehicles including hybrid and electric vehicles.In this regard, the two Prime Ministers welcomed the opening of the first lithium-ion battery factory in India by a joint venture of three Japanese companies – Suzuki, Toshiba and Denso as well as a new automotive factory this year. They decided to further promote public and private sector collaboration to make environmentally friendly and energy efficient technologies accessible and affordable to the general public, recognising that such investments facilitate India’s National Electric Mobility Mission Plan 2020 (NEMMP) and Faster Adoption of Manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (FAME) vision, and underlined the importance of support measures to promote eco-friendly vehicles including in terms of "Make in India” and transfer of technology.The two Prime Ministers also stressed that sustainable ship industry is one of the key areas for sustainable growth of India, and reaffirmed their intention to achieve an early conclusion of the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009.The two Prime Ministers recognised the important role of science and technology in dealing with both developmental and societal challenges, and underlined the importance of enhanced bilateral cooperation in such fields as IoT, ICT, marine science, biomedical sciences, genetics, stem cell technology, and heavy ion radiotherapy. In this regard, they welcomed the successful holding of the 9th India-Japan Joint Committee on Science and Technology Cooperation in January 2017 in Delhi.The two Prime Ministers welcomed the progress made in the bilateral IT and IoT cooperation through the bilateral Joint Working Group on IT and Electronics, in particular by the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) of India and IoT Acceleration Consortium (ITAC) of Japan.The two Prime Ministers directed their respective sides to work closely to establish an India Japan Startup Hub, which will serve as a platform for promotion of information exchange, business collaboration and investments between the vibrant and innovative Startup ecosystems of two countries.The two Prime Ministers acknowledged that outer space is an ever-expanding frontier of human endeavour and welcomed the deepening of cooperation between the space agencies of the two countries in the field of earth observation, satellite based navigation, space sciences and lunar exploration. They welcomed establishment of the ISRO-JAXA Joint Working Group under the space cooperation MoU signed in November 2016. They also welcomed co-hosting by India and Japan of the 24th Session of the Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum (APRSAF-24) in November 2017 in India. They stressed the importance of enhancing comprehensive space cooperation.The two Prime Ministers noted with satisfaction the progress in the health sector and the joint efforts by their medical experts on medical device development. They also noted the opportunities for collaboration between Indian and Japanese pharmaceutical companies in light of the target regarding the quantitative share of generic medicines in Japan.The two Prime Ministers shared the importance of strengthening cooperation in the fields of agricultural and food related sectors. They welcomed Japan’s participation in World Food India 2017 as a partner country.The two Prime Ministers welcomed the efforts to develop cooperation in disaster prevention, response, recovery and reconstruction as envisaged in the Memorandum of Cooperation on disaster risk reduction between the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India and the Cabinet Office of the Government of Japan . They underlined the importance of identifying and disseminating best practices to "build better” and thus reducing losses arising from infrastructure damage during natural disasters, as aimed by the international coalition proposed by Prime Minister Modi at the Asia Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction(AMCDRR)-2016.The two Prime Ministers recognised the importance of the empowerment of women to maximise their national potential, and decided to strengthen cooperation in this area, including through conferences such as the World Assembly for Women (WAW!). They welcomed the convening of the "Indo-Japan Consultation on ‘Women at Work and Changing Social Norms’” in Delhi in July 2017.Expanding vistas of People-to-People CooperationThe two Prime Ministers renewed their commitment to strengthening human and cultural ties commensurate with their Special Strategic and Global Index of / this context, the two Prime Ministers welcomed a series of cultural events successfully held through the Year of India-Japan Friendly Exchanges in 2017.The two Prime Ministers recognised the importance of expanding Japanese language education in India, for achieving wider and closer industrial cooperation. In this regard, they decided to endeavour towards establishing Japanese language certificate courses at 100 higher educational institutions in India as well as training1,000 Japanese language teachers, over the next five years.The two Prime Ministers welcomed the exchange of notes for the construction of a state-of-art Convention Centre in Varanasi as a symbol of friendship between India and Japan and expressed their hope for its early completion.The two Prime Ministers expressed satisfaction at the increased interaction at all levels of the government, between Members of Parliament, and between prefectures and states. They welcomed the strengthening of parliamentary exchanges through mutual visits of parliamentarians from both sides.With a view to achieving greater policy coordination and deepening intellectual exchanges between the two countries, the two Prime Ministers encouraged interactions among senior officials, strategists and experts in leading think tanks and universities on wide-ranging issues in the Indo-Pacific region.Prime Minister Modi welcomed the growing interest in celebrating the International Day of Yoga in Japan and, in particular, welcomed the first-ever Parliamentary League for Promotion of Yoga set up in the Japanese Diet in April 2017.The two Prime Ministers underscored the importance of promoting tourism exchange between the two countries and hoped that the opening of the Japan National Tourism Organisation (JNTO) office in Delhi in March 2017 and further relaxation of visa requirements will facilitate business and tourism links between the two countries.The two Prime Ministers welcomed the expansion of civil aviation connectivity between India and Japan, utilising the recently updated open sky policies between the two countries.The two Prime Ministers noted the steady increase in the number of Indian students in Japan. They welcomed the SAKURA Science Plan (Japan-Asia Youth Exchange Programme in Science) and the Japan East Asia Network of Exchange for Students and Youths (JENESYS) which contributed to increase in numbers of young Indian students and researchers in science and technology visiting Japan and hoped for further strengthening of collaboration in these fields.Aiming to enhance the positive influence of traditions of non-violence, tolerance and democracy in Asia, the two Prime Ministers welcomed the SAMVAD II conference held in Yangon, Myanmar, in August 2017 and looked forward to the next conference in 2018.Prime Minister Abe welcomed the support offered by Prime Minister Modi for Japan’s efforts towards the successful organisation of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The two Prime Ministers noted with satisfaction the institutional linkages set up between India and Japan. They also acknowledged that the Olympic and Paralympic Games offer a unique opportunity for the two countries to further deepen their cooperation.Working with Partners on Regional and Global ChallengesWelcoming the 50th anniversary of the establishment of ASEAN, the two Prime Ministers renewed their commitment to strengthening political, economic, and security cooperation with ASEAN countries, with a view to supporting the ASEAN’s unity and its centrality to regional architecture. They welcomed deepening bilateral policy coordination, including the launch of the India-Japan Dialogue on ASEAN in March 2017, and determined to work together to shape and strengthen the evolving regional architecture through ASEAN-led fora such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus, the Expanded ASEAN Maritime Forum.The two Prime Ministers reaffirmed that regular convening of the East Asia Summit (EAS) Ambassadors Meeting in Jakarta and the establishment of EAS Unit within the ASEAN Secretariat have contributed to ensuring that the EAS process, as the premier leaders-led forum to discuss broad strategic, security and economic issues of common concern, continues to retain its dynamic proactiveness in responding to emerging issues of global importance. They decided to work in unison to enhance physical and digital connectivity within the EAS framework while striving to ensure greater economic benefits to all in an equitable and balanced manner. They also decided to continue to enhance their cooperation in the maritime domain bilaterally as well as in multilateral fora.The two Prime Ministers reaffirmed the importance of freedom of navigation, overflight and unimpeded lawful commerce in accordance with international laws. They also highlighted the importance of peaceful resolution of disputes, including through full respect for legal and diplomatic processes, without resorting to the threat or use of force, and in accordance with the universally recognised principles of international law, notably the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The two Prime Ministers also reiterated their desire and determination to work together to maintain and promote peace, stability, and development in the Indo-Pacific region.The two Prime Ministers reaffirmed the importance of securing the maritime domain and combating piracy, armed robbery at sea and other transnational organised crimes through regional and international mechanisms such as the ARF, the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP), the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) and Shared Awareness and Deconfliction (SHADE) Mechanism, and expressed their commitment to pursue regional and international cooperation to combat these activities.The two Prime Ministers welcomed the renewed momentum for trilateral cooperation with the US and Australia. They stressed on the strategic importance of these cooperative frameworks and shared willingness to expand concrete cooperation. They resolved to work with other countries and regional partners to ensure a rule-based order in the Indo-Pacific Region.The two Prime Ministers condemned in the strongest terms North Korea’s continued development of its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, including the latest nuclear test conducted by North Korea on 3 September as well as its uranium enrichment activities. Recognising that North Korea’s continued pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and its proliferation links, including the launch of a ballistic missile flying over Japanese territory on 29 August 2017, pose grave and real threat to international peace and stability and the international non-proliferation efforts, the two Prime Ministers strongly urged North Korea to abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and not to take any further provocative actions, and to fully comply with its international obligations under relevant UNSC resolutions including the newly and unanimously adopted resolution 2375, and other international commitments. They pledged to work together to deal with the current serious situation and called on the international community to rigorously and fully implement relevant UNSC resolutions to maximise pressure on North Korea. They stressed the importance of holding accountable all parties that have supported North Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes. They also urged North Korea to address at the earliest the abductions issue.The two Prime Ministers also condemned in the strongest terms the growing menace of terrorism and violent extremism. They shared the view that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations is a global scourge that must be forcefully combatted through concerted global action in the spirit of "zero tolerance”. Accordingly, the two Prime Ministers called upon all UN member countries to implement the UNSC Resolution 1267 and other relevant resolutions designating terrorist entities. They also called upon all countries to work towards rooting out terrorist safe havens and infrastructure, disrupting terrorist networks and financing channels and halting cross-border movement of terrorists. They underlined the need for all countries to ensure that their territory is not used to launch terrorist attacks on other countries. They emphasised the need for stronger international partnership in countering terrorism and violent extremism, including through increased sharing of information and intelligence. They called for enhanced bilateral cooperation in this regard. The two Prime Ministers also called for Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of terrorist attacks including those of the November 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai and the 2016 terrorist attack in Pathankot. They looked forward to the convening of the fifth India-Japan Consultation on Terrorism and to strengthening cooperation against terrorist threats from groups including Al-Qaida, ISIS, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lakshar-e-Tayyiba, and their affiliates.The two Prime Ministers reaffirmed their shared commitment to expedite the reform process of the United Nations, in particular the UN Security Council, in order to make it more legitimate, effective and representative, given the contemporary realities of the 21st century, and emphasized the importance of building upon the recent developments in the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) aimed at launching text-based negotiations during the 72nd session of the General Assembly. In this regard, they also called for collaboration among reform-oriented countries through the "Group of Friends” on UNSC reform. They reiterated their support for each other’s candidature, based on the firmly shared recognition that India and Japan are legitimate candidates for permanent membership in an expanded UNSC.The two Prime Ministers reaffirmed their shared commitment to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Abe stressed the importance of early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). They called for an immediate commencement and early conclusion of negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) on the basis of Shannon Mandate. They expressed their resolve towards strengthening international cooperation to address the challenges of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism.Prime Minister Abe welcomed India's accession to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCOC) and its intensified engagement with the export control regimes. The two Prime Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to work together for India to become a full member in the remaining three international export control regimes: Nuclear Suppliers Group, Wassenaar Arrangement and Australia Group, with the aim to strengthen the international non-proliferation efforts.The two Prime Ministers emphasised the need for concerted global action to combat climate change reflecting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances and to preserve the environment for future generations. They reiterated their commitment to work together to finalise the work programme for implementation of the Paris Agreement adopted under the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change by 2018. They also decided to accelerate further consultations on the Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM). Prime Minister Modi welcomed Japan’s cooperation on Clean India, including the Clean Ganga project.The two Prime Ministers underlined the crucial role of the rules-based multilateral trading system, and enhancing free, fair, and open trade, for achieving sustainable growth and development. They committed to resist protectionism including unfair trade practices and underlined the need to remove trade-distorting measures. They reaffirmed their commitment to work together to implement the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial decisions and make the eleventh WTO Ministerial Conference a success. They also decided to steadily implement WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement.Recognising India as the largest democracy and a fast growing large economy in the Asia-Pacific region, and acknowledging India’s robust macro-economic stability and its efforts at financial reforms, Japan reaffirmed its support to India’s membership in the APEC. The two Prime Ministers decided to work towards liberalisation and facilitation of trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region. They reaffirmed to cooperate towards conclusion of a modern, comprehensive, high quality and mutually beneficial Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Agreement, in order to achieve a balanced outcome. They reaffirmed their commitment to further strengthening cooperation and to working with partners to tackle excess capacity in steel. In this regard, they called for the removal of market-distorting subsidies and other types of support by governments and related entities. They also reaffirmed their commitment to developing concrete policy solutions at the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity by November 2017.ConclusionPrime Minister Abe thanked the Government and the people of India for their warm hospitality and extended a cordial invitation to Prime Minister Modi to visit Japan at a mutually convenient time for the next annual summit meeting. Prime Minister Modi accepted the invitation with appreciation.Prime Minister of the Republic of India ---- Prime Minister of JapanSigned at Gandhinagar, Gujarat on 14 September 2017.