English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For August 18/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.august18.20.htm

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006

Bible Quotations For today
You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 23,29-39.24,10-02/:”‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, and you say, “If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.” Thus you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors. You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets, sages, and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation. ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you, desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.” ’As Jesus came out of the temple and was going away, his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. Then he asked them, ‘You see all these, do you not? Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.’”
 

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on August 17-18/2020

Health Minister: Lebanon Needs 2-Week Lockdown after Virus Spike
Coronavirus live: Lebanon hospitals near capacity in wake of Beirut blast
Medical Officials Urge 2-Week Lockdown as Lebanon Virus Cases Surge
4 Deaths in Refugee Camps as Lebanon Sees 439 Virus Cases in 1 Day
Beirut Bishop, Elias Audi Warns Against Selling Ravaged Historic Houses
UN-Backed Court to Issue Verdicts in Lebanon's Hariri Case
Erdan reveals Hezbollah’s route into Israel/Lahav Harkov/Jerusalem Post/August 17/2020
Lebanese Leaders' Response to Reform Calls 'Disappointing', Says UN Official
Berri Says Lebanon Salvation Lies in Establishing 'Civil State'
Hariri Speech to Reveal Stance on Govt., Berri Backs His Return
Hariri Heads to The Hague to Attend STL Verdicts Session
Sawwan Issues Arrest Warrant for Daher after Lengthy Questioning
Amer Fakhoury Dies in United States
Beirut Blast Prompts New Exodus from Lebanon
Canada announces new ambassador to Lebanon
Bassil Accusing Opponents of Targeting His Movement Stirs Reactions
Pro-Hezbollah Bassil Excluded from Hale's Beirut Meetings
Why Lebanon's political crisis should make Iran very nervous/Con Coughlin/The National/August 17/2020
Will Iran succeed in completely taking over Lebanon?/Raghida Dergham/The National/August 17/2020
Why Macron's Lebanon visit has garnered mixed reviews/Colin Randall/The National/August 17/2020
Macron’s Initiative Between What Is Allowed and Refused by Nasrallah/Sam Menassa./Asharq Al Awsat/August 17/2020
Time for Lebanon to stand up to Hezbollah/Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami/Arab News/August 17/2020
Pressure taking its toll on Lebanon’s Hezbollah-Michel Aoun alliance/Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib/Arab News/August 17/2020
Iran should not celebrate UN Security Council’s arms embargo vote/Michael Pregent/Arab News/August 17/2020
Full Text Of The Memorandum on ‘Lebanon and Active Neutrality’ That Was announced Today/NNA /August 17/2020
Le patriarche maronite annonce le mémorandum sur le Liban et la neutralité active/ANI/Lundi 17 Aout/2020

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on August 17-18/2020

Ashkenazi and Oman FM agree to work towards normalization
Egypt Mediators Enter Gaza after Week of Clashes with Israel
Israeli Tanks Hit Gaza
Abbas Rejects ‘Normalization,’ Macron Supports ‘Tripartite Agreement’
Israel’s president invites Abu Dhabi Crown Prince to Jerusalem following agreement
Offer Submitted to Merge UAE’s NPCC, NMDC in Integrated Entity
Putin, Erdogan Discuss Conflicts in Libya and Syria
2 Syrian Soldiers Killed in Coalition Raid in Qamishli
German FM Makes Surprise Visit to Libya’s Tripoli
Militants Kill 3 Indian Policemen in Kashmir as Attacks Pick Up
EU-Italy Delegation Meets Tunisian Officials to Discuss Migration
US Won't Approve Israeli Annexations for 'Some Time', Kushner Says
Iraqi PM Says Country Still Needs US Help
Gargash Stresses UAE Keenness on Efforts Aimed at Ending Yemen Crisis

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on August 17-18/2020
Next Painful Coronavirus Question is About the Unemployed/Ferdinando Giugliano/Bloomberg/August 17/2020
The Arab World Is at a Crossroads/Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy/Asharq Al Awsat/August 17/2020
The Palestinians and the Weapon of Time/Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al Awsat/August 17/2020
The 18th-Century Document That Can Save 21st-Century Foreign Policy/Hal Brands/Bloomberg/August 17/2020
Macron’s Initiative Between What Is Allowed and Refused by Nasrallah/Sam Menassa./Asharq Al Awsat/August 17/2020
Exporting Waste and Importing Ammonium Nitrate/Najib Saab/Asharq Al Awsat/August 17/2020
The UAE-Israel Abraham Accord is the mother of all deals/Dr. Walid Phares/August 17/2020
The Beirut Disaster Is Part of a Larger Chain/Alan Howard/Dr. Dan Nussbaum/Brenda Shaffer/Real Clear Energy/August 17/2020

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on August 17-18/2020

Health Minister: Lebanon Needs 2-Week Lockdown after Virus Spike
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
Caretaker Health Minister Hamad Hassan said on Monday that Lebanon should be locked down for two weeks after a spike in COVID-19 infections. "We declare today a state of general alert and we need a brave decision to close (the country) for two weeks," the minister told Voice of Lebanon radio. Lebanon registered a record 439 new coronavirus cases in 24 hours on Sunday. That brought the total number of infections to 8,881 cases, including 103 deaths since the start of the outbreak in February. Separately, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, said four Palestinians died of the virus over the weekend — doubling to eight the number of dead so far in Palestinian camps. A planned return to lockdown was abandoned in the wake of a massive explosion that ripped through large parts of Beirut on August 4, forcing thousands of people to seek medical attention at the capital's already overwhelmed hospitals. People remained in the streets in the following days, helping clean up and distribute aid as well as holding angry protests against the government, largely blamed for negligence that led to the explosion at the port.
The country's health services were already strained by the pandemic before the blast, which killed nearly 200 people and injured at least 6,500 others. Dr. Firas Abiad, director general of Rafik Hariri University Hospital which is leading the fight against coronavirus, described the situation as “extremely worrisome,” warning that without a lockdown, the numbers will continue to rise “overwhelming the hospital capacity."Hassan urged every expatriate or foreigner returning to Lebanon not to leave their hotels until they are tested and cleared. People traveling to Lebanon will be required to be tested both before and upon arrival. He also called for field hospitals and said some public hospitals will exclusively handle virus patients. Petra Khoury, medical adviser to outgoing Prime Minister Hassan Diab tweeted that COVID-19 positive rate has increased from 2.1% to 5.6% in just four weeks. “The virus doesn’t differentiate between us. A rate 5% is real threat to all our nation,” she warned.

Coronavirus live: Lebanon hospitals near capacity in wake of Beirut blast
The National/Aug 17, 2020
Lebanon’s health minister has called for a two-week lockdown as he warned on Monday that hospitals are reaching maximum capacity to treat coronavirus patients amid rising virus cases in the wake of the deadly Beirut blast. Hamad Hasan called for a “general alert” over the rapid rise in cases over the last two weeks with Sunday marking the highest single-day rise so far with 439 new cases as the death toll passed 100. "Public and private hospitals in the capital, in particular, have a very limited capacity, whether in terms of beds in intensive care units or respirators," caretaker health minister Hamad Hassan told a press conference. "We are on the brink, we don't have the luxury to take our time," he warned, calling for authorities to take the "hard decision" to impose a new two-week lockdown to stem the spread of the virus.
Mr Hassan told Reuters that the government was not looking to close the country’s airport yet but said that many of the new cases were also coming from overseas.
"The real danger is the spread within society," he said. "Everyone must be on high alert and take the strictest prevention measures." The rise comes after the disaster – which killed 177 people and wounded more than 6,500, many by falling debris and flying glass as windows shattered – caused pandemonium in the capital's already pandemic-stretched hospitals. The total number of infections is now over 8,880, including 103 deaths since the start of the outbreak in February.
A previously planned lockdown was scrapped in the wake of the explosion. "In the capital, the intensive care units and the departments set up for the coronavirus in public hospitals are full," the minister told Voice of Lebanon radio earlier.
"In most private hospitals that receive coronavirus patients, intensive care unit beds are occupied" already by COVID-19 patients, he added. The minister said the situation was exacerbated after several Beirut hospitals were hit by the colossal port explosion and left "out of service".
The World Health Organization on August 12 said more than half of 55 healthcare facilities evaluated by the agency were "non-functional," three major hospitals were out of operation and another three were running at well below normal capacity.
The minister said the chaos in Beirut after the blast, Lebanon's worst peacetime disaster, made it difficult to enforce compliance with pandemic precautionary and preventive measures.
Our ability to control behaviour in the face of the virus is more limited," the minister said. He cited in particular "families going to hospitals to look for the wounded or missing," but also the mobilisation of healthcare workers and citizens to seek or provide aid after the blast. The explosion was caused by a fire in a warehouse where, according to the authorities, a huge amount of ammonium nitrate had been stored for years. Since the explosion, thousands of volunteers have helped clean up rubble-strewn streets and distribute aid, while protesters have taken to the streets against the government, which is widely blamed for the negligence that led to the explosion. Health officials have warned that the chaos caused by the blast risked leading to a further spike in infections. The head of a major public hospital, Firass Abiad, has cautioned that, as attention has shifted away from the pandemic after the explosion disaster, "we cannot afford to allow the virus to go unchecked".

Medical Officials Urge 2-Week Lockdown as Lebanon Virus Cases Surge
Associated Press/Naharnet/August 17/2020
Lebanon is facing a surge in coronavirus cases after a devastating blast at the Beirut port earlier this month killed scores and wounded thousands, prompting medical officials to urge Monday for a two-week lockdown to try to contain the pandemic.
Virus numbers were expected to rise following the Aug. 4, explosion of nearly 3,000 tons of ammonium nitrate stored at the port. Around 180 people were killed, more than 6,000 wounded and a quarter of a million left with homes unfit to live in. The blast overwhelmed the city's hospitals and also badly damaged two that had a key role in handling virus cases. Ahead of the surge, medical officials had warned of the dangers of crowding at hospitals in the aftermath of the explosion, at funerals or as people searched through the rubble. Protests and demonstrations also broke out after the blast as Lebanese vented their anger at the ruling class and decades-long mismanagement. On Sunday, Lebanon registered 439 new virus cases and six fatalities. The new infections bring to 8,881 the total number of cases in the small country of just over 5 million, where COVID-19 has killed some 103 people.
Separately, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, said four Palestinians died of the virus over the weekend -- doubling to eight the number of dead so far in Palestinian camps.
Initially, strict measures had kept the numbers of cases under control in Lebanon but they surged after a lockdown and nighttime curfew were lifted and the country's only international airport reopened in early July.
Caretaker Health Minister Hamad Hassan warned the true number could be far higher. Following a meeting Monday with medical officials who demanded another two-week lockdown, he urged everyone wear a mask, saying the virus has now spread in every city and almost every village in Lebanon.
"It is a matter of life and death," Hassan said, adding that soon private and public hospitals might not be able to take more patients.
Lebanon's health sector has been challenged by the pandemic that hit amid an unprecedented economic and financial crisis. The explosion in Beirut's port only increased the pressure on the Lebanese capital's hospitals, knocking out at least three of them.
Dr. Firas Abiad, director general of Rafik Hariri University Hospital which is leading the fight against coronavirus, described the situation as "extremely worrisome," warning that without a lockdown, the numbers will continue to rise "overwhelming the hospital capacity."
Hassan urged every expatriate or foreigner returning to Lebanon not to leave their hotels until they are tested and cleared. People traveling to Lebanon will be required to be tested both before and upon arrival.
He also called for field hospitals and said some public hospitals will exclusively handle virus patients. Petra Khoury, medical adviser to outgoing Prime Minister Hassan Diab tweeted that COVID-19 positive rate has increased from 2.1% to 5.6% in just four weeks.
"The virus doesn't differentiate between us. A rate 5% is real threat to all our nation," she warned.
 

4 Deaths in Refugee Camps as Lebanon Sees 439 Virus Cases in 1 Day
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 17/2020
The U.N. Palestinian refugee agency has confirmed four new COVID-19 deaths in camps in Lebanon, calling for vigilance in observing hygiene measures as infections rise across the country. "During the past 24 hours, four deaths have been recorded among Palestine refugees" in Lebanon, UNRWA said in a statement. This brings to eight the total number of Palestinian refugees who have died from the COVID-19 illness since Lebanon first recorded an outbreak of the virus in February. Over 200,000 Palestinian refugees reside in Lebanon, the majority living below the poverty line while their right to work and own property is restricted, according to UNRWA. The U.N. agency, which provides health and education services to the Palestinians, called for vigilance in observing measures to combat the spread of the virus in the densely populated camps. "If prevention is not adhered to, things may get out of control in the Palestine refugee camps in Lebanon," the statement said. A UNRWA spokesperson told AFP that particular concern focused on the largest, most-populous camp of Ain el-Hilweh, near the southern city of Sidon. Lebanon has seen a spike in coronavirus-related cases and deaths, including 439 new infections on Sunday alone. That brought the total number of infections to 8,881 cases, including 103 deaths since the start of the outbreak in February. A planned fresh lockdown was abandoned in the wake of a massive explosion that ripped through large parts of the capital Beirut on August 4. The disaster sent thousands of people into the streets in the ensuing days, seeking medical attention, helping clean up and distribute aid and protesting in droves against the government, largely blamed for negligence that led to the explosion at the port. The small country's health services were already straining under the pandemic crisis before the blast, which killed nearly 200 people and injured at least 6,500 others.

Beirut Bishop, Elias Audi Warns Against Selling Ravaged Historic Houses
Beirut- Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
Metropolitan bishop of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch for the Archdiocese of Beirut, Elias Audi, warned on Sunday residents living in disaster-stricken areas affected by the August 4 explosion, from falling victims to some real estate agents asking to buy their properties. “I call on residents to withstand in their homes,” the bishop said Sunday. Some 300,000 people were displaced when the explosion damaged or destroyed their homes, killing more than 178 people and injuring 6,000 more. The blast demolished entire neighborhoods of Lebanon’s capital in seconds. Audi’s warnings came in light of recent reports saying mysterious buyers were offering to buy broken homes in the traditional neighborhoods of Gemmayzeh, Mar Mikhael, and Ashrafieh for a compelling sum of money. The complaints drove Caretaker Finance Minister Ghazi Wazni to issue a decree last week for preventing the sale of any historic building without getting permission from the ministry of culture. The Finance Ministry said in a statement that the move aims to prevent any “exploitation.” Also, Caretaker Culture Minister Abbas Murtada said no damaged houses could be sold or registered without being fully renovated and without getting the approval of the ministry. Audi said: “It is necessary to warn residents not to fall victim to real estate agents and financiers swooping on people’s properties and trying to benefit from their woes by offering money in return of their houses.” He called on residents of Ashrafieh and nearby neighborhoods not to fall into this trap and to preserve their homes. “We will cooperate all together to emerge from this crisis,” he said. For his part, Lebanese Deputy Hagop Terzian called on caretaker Justice Minister Marie Claude Najm to issue a decree preventing notaries from registering any transactions related to the selling of houses damaged by the Beirut port explosion.
 

UN-Backed Court to Issue Verdicts in Lebanon's Hariri Case
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
More than 15 years after the truck bomb assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut, a UN-backed tribunal in the Netherlands is announcing verdicts this week in the trial of four members of the militant group Hezbollah allegedly involved in the killing, which deeply divided the tiny country. The verdicts on Tuesday at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, based in a village on the outskirts of the Dutch city of The Hague, are expected to further add to soaring tensions in Lebanon, two weeks after a catastrophic explosion at Beirut´s port that killed nearly 180 people, injured more than 6,000 and destroyed thousands of homes in the Lebanese capital.
Unlike the blast that killed Hariri and 21 others on Feb. 14, 2005, the Aug. 4 explosion was believed to be a result of nearly 3,000 tons of ammonium nitrate that accidentally ignited at Beirut's port. While the cause of the fire that provided the trigger is still not clear, Hezbollah, which maintains huge influence over Lebanese politics, is being sucked into the public fury directed at the country´s ruling politicians.
Even before the devastating Beirut port blast, the country´s leaders were concerned about violence after the verdicts. Hariri was Lebanon´s most prominent Sunni politician at the time, while the Iran-backed Hezbollah is a Shiite Muslim group.
Some Lebanese see the tribunal as an impartial way of uncovering the truth about Hariri´s slaying, while Hezbollah - which denies involvement - calls it an Israeli plot to tarnish the group.
One analyst believes the lengthy investigation and trial have rendered the result almost redundant. The defendants remain at large.
Michael Young of Carnegie Middle East Center wrote recently that the verdicts "will seem like little more than a postscript to an out-of-print book."
"The UN investigation was glowingly referred to once as a mechanism to end impunity. It has proven to be exactly the contrary," Young wrote, saying those believed to have carried out the assassination "risk almost nothing today."
But for others, especially those more closely linked to the violence that has plagued Lebanon, the verdicts still carry significance.
"It´s going to be a great, great moment not only for me as a victim but for me as a Lebanese, as an Arab and as an international citizen looking for justice everywhere," said prominent former legislator and ex-Cabinet Minister Marwan Hamadeh, who was seriously wounded in a blast four months before Hariri´s assassination. Hamadeh said those who killed Hariri were behind the attempt on his life. The tribunal has indicted one of the suspects in Hariri´s assassination with involvement in the attempt on Hamadeh´s life.
Hamadeh resigned as a member of parliament in protest a day after the Beirut port blast. Hariri was killed by a suicide truck bomb on a seaside boulevard in Beirut that killed him and 21 others, and wounded 226 people.
The assassination was seen by many in Lebanon as the work of Syria. Following post-Hariri assassination protests, Damascus was forced to withdraw thousands of troops from Lebanon, ending a three-decade domination of its smaller neighbor.
The tribunal was set up in 2007 under a UN Security Council resolution because deep divisions in Lebanon blocked parliamentary approval of the court that operates on a hybrid system of Lebanese and international law. The investigation and trial cost about $1 billion, of which Lebanon paid 49% while other nations paid the rest.
Initially, five suspects were tried in absentia in the case, all of them Hezbollah members. One of the group´s top military commanders Mustafa Badreddine was killed in Syria in 2016 and charges against him were dropped.
The other suspects are Salim Ayyash, also known as Abu Salim; Assad Sabra, Hassan Oneissi, who changed his name to Hassan Issa and Hassan Habib Merhi. They are charged with offenses including conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, and face maximum sentences of life imprisonment if convicted. Sentences will not be announced Tuesday but will be determined at later hearings.
The four defendants, however, are unlikely to serve any prison time - they have never been detained despite international arrest warrants and Hezbollah has vowed never to hand over any suspects.
Even if they are all convicted, Hezbollah as a group will not officially be blamed as the tribunal only accuses individuals, not groups or states.
Prosecutors based their indictments on telecommunications data of cellular telephones that the suspects allegedly used to track Hariri´s movements starting weeks before the assassination until the explosion occurred. The tribunal heard evidence from 297 witnesses during the trial, which started in 2014 and spanned 415 days of hearings.
Omar Nashabe, who served as a consultant for the defense team in the tribunal for about five years, said that since there was no consensus in Lebanon over the tribunal and parliament did not approve it, the trial "may not be the best process to reach justice in such cases."
He said that the people of Lebanon are divided between some who want the tribunal to confirm their suspicions about the perpetrators and others who continue to see the court as part of a wider conspiracy to discredit Hezbollah.
"Therefore this tribunal is doomed to fail because of the lack of consensus," The Associated Press quoted Nashabe as saying, adding that if the defense appeals the case the verdict will not mark the end.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah last week insisted on the innocence of the suspects regardless of the verdicts. "For us it will be as if they were never issued," he said of the verdicts. Nasrallah warned against attempts to exploit the verdicts internally and externally in order to target the group.
Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, son of the late Hariri, has said he will make a statement regarding the verdicts after they are made public. Asked about concerns over repercussions of the verdict, he said "justice must prevail regardless of the cost."
Since the assassination in 2005, several top Syrian and Hezbollah security officials have been killed, in what some supporters of the tribunal say were the result of liquidations to hide evidence.
Hamadeh, the legislator, called such deaths "Godly justice," adding that "we don´t know how. Some say they were liquidated by their own teams, some say the Syrian regime got rid of them to put the suspicion and the doubts away, some said internal feuds."

Erdan reveals Hezbollah’s route into Israel
Lahav Harkov/Jerusalem Post/August 17/2020
The photo, made public for the first time on Monday, shows evidence of the five terrorists crossing from Lebanon to the area of Mount Dov in Israel via the Blue Line. Intelligence material Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan sent to the UN Security Council members shows the route Hezbollah terrorists took in infiltrating Israel last month. The photo, made public for the first time on Monday, shows evidence of the five terrorists crossing from Lebanon to the area of Mount Dov in Israel via the Blue Line, the border between the countries. The IDF thwarted the attack and there were no Israeli casualties. This is contrary to Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah’s claim that Hezbollah did not cross into Israel. Erdan said that "Hezbollah's terrorist operations, which violate Security Council resolutions, could lead to disaster and wreak havoc on Lebanon.” “The role of the UNIFIL force is to prevent these operations and to prevent Hezbollah from turning southern Lebanon into its own terrorist base,” Erdan said. “If UNIFIL is unable to fulfill this mission, then its existence should be in doubt." Erdan's letter came as the Security Council discusses the extension of UNIFIL's mandate, which expires at the end of this month. Israel and the US have been working together to modify the UNIFIL mandate to make it more effective, including broadening its access and oversight capabilities in areas where Hezbollah operates. UNIFIL’s mandate since the 2006 Second Lebanon War has been to help the Lebanese Armed Forces maintain the Lebanese government's sovereignty in the area.

Lebanese Leaders' Response to Reform Calls 'Disappointing', Says UN Official
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
Warnings by Western officials over the need for reforms in Lebanon had often been met with disappointing responses by the country’s political leaders, a senior United Nations official said on Monday following this month’s Beirut port explosion. US and French officials visiting the city after the Aug. 4 blast that killed 178 people said they had made clear they would not extend a financial lifeline to the country if its leaders did not tackle corruption and mismanagement. The officials were representing the International Support Group (ISG) for Lebanon which includes the United Nations, the United States, France and Britain. “With grave concerns ISG Ambassadors today discussed the deepening overall crisis in Lebanon,” tweeted Jan Kubis, UN special coordinator for Lebanon. He said tough warnings had been delivered to the authorities and political leaders and their responses had often been rather disappointing.
“Expectations of the international community are well known - without urgent reforms that require broad political support Lebanon cannot count on any bailout,” he tweeted. The call echoes others from Western powers, including French President Emmanuel Macron and US Undersecretary for Political Affairs David Hale, who both visited Beirut. Hale said Lebanon needed “economic and fiscal reforms, an end to dysfunctional governance and to empty promises”. The detonation of highly-explosive material stored unsafely for years at the port injured 6,000, left 300,000 homeless and destroyed whole neighborhoods.
The now-caretaker cabinet on Monday extended a state of emergency in the capital until Sept. 18. The government resigned amid renewed protests against ruling politicians blamed for a financial crisis that developed even before the blast, that ravaged the currency, saw banks freeze depositors out of their savings and sent unemployment soaring. Analysts estimate that after the explosion that wrecked the port, a main trade artery, Lebanon’s external financing needs swelled to more than $30 billion from $24 billion. The outgoing government, which took office in January with the backing of the Iran-backed Hezbollah group and its allies, had not made progress in talks with the International Monetary Fund launched after Lebanon defaulted on foreign currency debt. Forming a new government is likely to be complicated due to factional rifts in the country’s sectarian power-sharing system.

Berri Says Lebanon Salvation Lies in Establishing 'Civil State'
Naharnet/August 17/2020
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri stressed Monday that Lebanon’s salvation lies in the establishment of a “civil state.”“There will be no solution nor salvation for Lebanon unless everyone shows the courage to seek a civil state. Lebanon’s salvation hinges on carrying out this constitutional surgery,” Berri said in a chat with reporters. “If that is to be based on two main rules: preserving the constitution and the rights of religions and sects, then what is preventing us from making this move?” he asked. Noting that “it would be wrong for someone to think that this is not the right time for such a proposal,” Berri said such a move “should have been made 20 years ago.”“It is not a secret that the issue of the civil state had been raised around the dialogue table and that it enjoyed the approval of all parties, but back then a two-day period was given before two dialogue parties withdrew their approval for reasons unknown to me,” the Speaker recalled. “All of this is in line with the constitution, especially Article 22, which stipulates the election of a national (nonsectarian) parliament and a senate representing all religious communities whose jurisdiction would be limited to critical issues,” Berri went on to say.

Hariri Speech to Reveal Stance on Govt., Berri Backs His Return
Naharnet/August 17/2020
Ex-PM Saad Hariri’s speech after the issuance of verdicts in Rafik Hariri’s assassination case on Tuesday is expected to reveal his stance on the latest developments and the issue of the formation of a new government, media reports said. Hariri, who will travel to The Hague Monday along with a delegation to attend the verdict announcement session, will voice “a very important and critical stance,” Annahar newspaper reported Monday. “The attention will be focused on ex-PM Saad Hariri’s stance as to the developments related to the formation of a new government and the designation of a new premier,” the daily said. Asharq al-Awsat newspaper meanwhile reported that Speaker Nabih Berri had voiced support for Hariri’s return as premier during his talks with U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. “Zarif was perhaps surprised by the endorsement,” the daily added.

Hariri Heads to The Hague to Attend STL Verdicts Session
Naharnet/August 17/2020
Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Monday left Beirut for Leidschendam, in the suburbs of The Hague, to attend Tuesday’s session of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which is scheduled to pronounce its judgment in the case of the 2005 assassination of ex-PM Rafik Hariri and his companions.
After the session, Hariri will make a statement regarding the judgment, his press office said. Al-Jadeed TV said Hariri is accompanied by his advisers Bassem al-Sabeh and Hani Hammoud in addition to representatives of the victims.

Sawwan Issues Arrest Warrant for Daher after Lengthy Questioning
Naharnet/August 17/2020
Judicial investigator into the Beirut port blast Judge Fadi Sawwan on Monday interrogated detained Customs chief Badri Daher for 4.5 hours before issuing an arrest warrant against him, the National News Agency said.
The interrogation session was held in the presence of Daher’s lawyers Munif Hamdan and George Khoury. Sawwan later headed to Beirut port to inspect the blast site and assess the damages. He will later return to his office to question Beirut Port Director General Hassan Qureitem and take the appropriate decision in light of the interrogation. A huge stock of hazardous material abandoned in a warehouse at the port in the heart of the capital exploded on August 4, killing around 180 people, injuring over 6,000 and devastating swathes of Beirut.
The hundreds of tons of ammonium nitrate had been left unsecured for several years, despite repeated warnings of the dangers they posed. The disaster led to demands at home and abroad for an international investigation, calls that have been rebuffed by Lebanon's political leaders, widely accused of negligence that led to the explosion. The interrogation of Daher and Qureitem marks the beginning of Sawwan’s investigations into the explosion. On Friday, Sawwan received a lawsuit filed by State Prosecutor Ghassan Oueidat against 25 people including 19 detainees. Sawwan also received the files of the preliminary investigations. The lawsuit mentions 25 suspects, most notably Daher, Qureitem and former Customs chief Shafiq Merhi. It also targets “anyone identified by the investigation as being a perpetrator, partner, interferer or negligent” in connection with the crimes of “negligence; dereliction; and causing the death of more than 177 people, the injury and disabling of thousands and the full destruction of Beirut’s port, houses belonging to citizens, and public and private properties.”Following wrangling between caretaker Justice Minister Marie-Claude Najm and the Supreme Council for the Judiciary, Lebanese authorities named Sawan, with a reputation for independence and integrity according to judicial sources, to lead investigations into the explosion. A Lebanese prosecutor will also question several ministers and former ministers over the explosion, a judicial official said Wednesday. "The interrogations will begin with former public works minister Ghazi al-Aridi," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "If a shortcoming or negligence on the part of one of the questioned ministers is found, the judiciary will have to state that it does not have jurisdiction to sue them," the official explained. The chief prosecutor will then have to transfer their file and connected evidence to parliament because the jurisdiction lies with a special council in charge of suing ministers and presidents.

Amer Fakhoury Dies in United States
Naharnet/August 17/2020
Amer Fakhoury, an ex-member of the pro-Israel South Lebanon Army militia who was jailed for several months in Lebanon, passed away on Monday at his residence in the United States following a battle with cancer, Lebanese media reports said.
The release of Lebanese-American citizen Fakhoury in March and his eventual travel to the U.S. in mysterious circumstances had sparked controversy in Lebanon.
Fakhoury went into exile more than two decades ago before returning to Lebanon in September 2019, when he was arrested. The 57-year-old was released in March over a statute of limitations on his alleged crimes, a judicial source said, though put under a travel ban. U.S. President Donald Trump hailed Fakhoury's return to the United States, saying he was suffering from late-stage cancer. Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah had slammed Fakhoury's departure to the U.S. as an "escape" organized by the U.S. embassy and a "flagrant violation of (Lebanese) sovereignty and justice."Witnesses accuse Fakhoury of ordering or taking part in beatings of thousands of inmates at the notorious Khiyam Prison, but David Schenker, the top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, disputed accounts of Fakhoury's involvement, saying his name did not come up in previous prosecutions of SLA members and charging that some in Lebanon wanted to use the U.S. citizen's detention as a bargaining chip.

Beirut Blast Prompts New Exodus from Lebanon
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 17/2020
From his office in Beirut, Shady Rizk had a front-row view of the cataclysmic explosion at the Lebanese capital's port.
Some 350 stitches later, he sees his survival as a miracle, a second chance at life that he is determined not to spend in Lebanon. The 36-year-old telecommunications engineer is one of many Lebanese who was already fed up with a prolonged economic crisis and moribund public services before the blast brought Beirut to its knees. The August 4 explosion was caused by hazardous material left unsecured at the port for years, despite warnings over its danger, a fact that further enraged Lebanese who already saw the political class as incompetent and corrupt.
The blast was one catastrophe too many for some -- they now see no choice but to leave. "I do not feel safe here anymore," Rizk said. "God gave me another life, a second chance, I don't want to live it here." Less than two weeks after the explosion that left his whole body flayed by flying glass, he said he is planning to move to Canada, where he hopes to make a new start with the help of relatives there.
"Anywhere really, just not here. I've lost all hope," he said.
- 'Physical security' -
Lebanon's story has long been one of exodus. In a country hit by famines, economic crises and a 15-year civil war, no family is without at least one relative who has left for the Gulf, Europe or the Americas, adding to a diaspora estimated at nearly three times the size of Lebanon's population of around four million.
In recent months, as Lebanon has sunk deeper into its worst economic crisis since the civil war, thousands of Lebanese have again bought one-way tickets out of the country, seeking work abroad to escape mass layoffs and wage cuts.
Their departures come as disillusionment spreads after an unprecedented protest movement sparked in October 2019 elicited hope for change, but ultimately lost steam. Canada, one of the top immigration destinations for Lebanese, said on August 13 it was setting up a task force that will ensure "questions related to immigration can be quickly addressed."
A few minutes after the explosion, a shocked Walid called his ex-wife in Paris to say their two children must leave Lebanon to join her. "She tried to calm me down. I said, 'take them, take them'," the doctor in his 40s said, his voice tight with emotion.
"As a father, I have to put them in a situation where they will not be traumatized, or risk their lives."Walid was at home with one of his two 17-year-old sons when he heard the rumbling that preceded the massive explosion, which sent a powerful shockwave across the city.
The childhood reflexes of someone who grew up during the 1975-1990 civil war kicked in and Walid pulled his son with him into the bathroom to shield him from the explosion, as his own father had done when he was young.
"The fear I saw on (my son's) face... it went right through me," he said. Walid, who went to university in Canada and Paris, had planned to send his twins to France for their studies. The explosion has accelerated their departure.
"I would have liked to not make this decision in a hurry," he said.
- 'Country without a state' -
Like many Lebanese, he is furious at the government, which has acknowledged that 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate was left to rot in the heart of Beirut "without precautionary measures." "It's not unexpected, we live in a country that has not had a state for 40 years," Walid said. Heiko Wimmen of the International Crisis Group also expects to see many departures abroad among Lebanon's largely highly educated and multilingual middle class. "It's a very bleak and very realistic assessment," he said. "People have education and degrees but, more importantly even than that, people have networks," he added, noting that a large number of Lebanese have multiple passports and relatives abroad. "The country may very well lose a generation it needs to rebuild and to achieve the political change that is necessary," he said. Charbel Hasbany, a 29-year-old makeup artist, is now also determined to leave Lebanon, having resisted his mother's pleas to do so for years. He said he may need to ask for financial help from friends and family to emigrate through online crowdfunding, as his work dried up in the economic crisis and his savings are stuck in the banking system that has blocked dollar withdrawals. On the day of the explosion, he was in the hard-hit Gemmayzeh district -- walking away with 64 stitches. He listed the names of the bars and restaurants he and his friends used to frequent in the popular nightlife areas just a stone's throw from the port."We were there all the time, not knowing we were sitting on a bomb."
 

Canada announces new ambassador to Lebanon
August 17, 2020 - Ottawa, Ontario - Global Affairs Canada
Today, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs, announced the following diplomatic appointment:
Chantal Chastenay becomes Canada’s new ambassador to the Lebanese Republic. Ms. Chastenay replaces Emmanuelle Lamoureux.
Ms. Chastenay’s appointment comes at a crucial time for Lebanon following the tragic explosion in Beirut. She will lead the coordination of Canada's ongoing support in response to the crisis which includes addressing the immediate humanitarian crisis and providing support to rebuilding efforts going forward. Canada is providing a total of $30 million in assistance for the people of Lebanon.
Quotes
“Canada is proud to announce that Chantal Chastenay will become its new ambassador to Lebanon, taking on this role at a critical time for the country. I look forward to working closely with her. I would also like to thank Emanuelle Lamoureux for her exceptional service over the past three years.”
— The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Bassil Accusing Opponents of Targeting His Movement Stirs Reactions
Beirut- Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
A wave of reactions emerged in Lebanon Sunday after the head of the Free Patriotic Movement, MP Gebran Bassil, accused his opponents of targeting his party at all levels, personally, politically, and most importantly by the media. In a televised speech broadcasted Sunday, the Christian leader spoke about reforms, his relationship with Hezbollah, and the new government. He demanded his opponents not to use the FPM to justify any delays in the formation of the new cabinet.
“Personally, I am not concerned with the ministry anymore. I am freed from the burden it inflicted on me. As the FPM, we are not interested either directly or indirectly in participating in a government that does not have conditions of productivity, efficiency, and reform,” he noted. Bassil said Lebanon's political sectarian regime is Lebanon’s cause of all ills and the reason for every failure the country has reached. “We are simply unable to continue except through a new national pact," he underlined. Speaking about his relationship with Hezbollah, the MP said his party defends Hezbollah on the external front, but “we are not obliged to defend their mistakes in the interior.”Referring to the campaign targeting FPM in wake of the Aug. 4 Beirut Port explosion, he stressed that "what happened was in the size of a conspiracy and not just negligence, especially since such unjust and false accusations are among a series of attacks we are exposed to."Bassil’s comments drove a wave of reactions. Three deputies from the Lebanese Forces accused the FPM leader of distorting facts and lying to the Lebanese people. Lawmaker Imad Wakim the latest speech of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah gave Bassil the nerve to stage a ceremony of “lies, scrounging and as usual, distortion of facts.” For his part, MP Fadi Saad accused Bassil of appearing on a televised speech alone and avoiding being questioned. “Until when are you going to escape responsibility and not admit your failure,” he asked.
Wehbi Qatisha said that after four years of ruling the country, Bassil is again trying to convince the people about his willingness to discuss a national defense strategy and reform in the electricity sector. Former MP Mustafa Allouch from the Mustaqbal Movement told Bassil, “Speaking about the issue of existence and particularly addressing Christians, is considered silly talk that is no longer possible.”Allouch accused the FPM leader of conspiring with Hezbollah to reach power. “You will conspire with any party that will again provide you with this power,” he said.

Pro-Hezbollah Bassil Excluded from Hale's Beirut Meetings
Beirut – Mohammed Choucair/Monday, 17 August, 2020
Lebanese President Michel Aoun’s failure to schedule a date for binding parliamentary consultations to name a new premier has raised questions among political circles in the country that is still reeling from the catastrophic blast at Beirut port earlier this month. They wondered whether he was delaying the call because the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was set to deliver its verdict on Tuesday or whether he was simply buying time in order to allow his son-in-law and Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Gebran Bassil to regain the political upper hand. The STL is looking into the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was killed in a massive car bomb attack in Beirut. Four Hezbollah members have been indicted and tried in absentia for the crime. Political circles told Asharq Al-Awsat that Aoun is claiming that he needs to hold political consultations before setting the date for the parliamentary consultations. They believe that this is just an excuse to promote Bassil and his proposal for the formation of a government comprised of main political parties. The sources revealed that Aoun’s talks have so far covered his allies, not the opposition, who did not seem receptive of his idea of a government of main political blocs. It remains to be seen how long he will continue to advocate this idea before yielding to the demand of Speaker Nabih Berri and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah for the formation of a national unity government. Moreover, Hale appeared uneasy with the meetings US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale held in Beirut last week, particularly since Bassil was excluded from them. The United States apparently now views Bassil and his ally, Hezbollah, in the same light. The Iran-backed party, which is designated as terrorist by Washington, was naturally not part of the American official’s meetings. No official explanation has been given as to why Hale did not meet Bassil, even though they enjoy good personal ties. The FPM chief alleged that he did not request a meeting with him. Such claims are easily refuted because Bassil knows very well that Hale chooses whom he meets and whom he chooses not to. The political sources stressed that Bassil’s exclusion is a sign that the American administration now views him as one of the main Lebanese officials who provide cover for Hezbollah’s policies in Lebanon and the region.

Why Lebanon's political crisis should make Iran very nervous
Con Coughlin/The National/August 17/2020
The Beirut blasts and next week's verdict on the assassination of Rafik Hariri could have consequences for the regime's proxy Hezbollah.
No one is taking a closer interest in the political fall-out from the devastating explosion at the port of Beirut that killed more than 200 people and injured thousands of others than Iran.
For nearly 40 years Tehran has invested heavily, both politically and financially, in the Mediterranean state as part of its commitment to exporting the principles of its 1979 Iranian Revolution.
As one of the few countries in the Arab world where Shiite Muslims form the majority of the population, Lebanon, and especially the Shiite heartlands in the south, has been ripe for exploitation by Iran, an opportunity that became even more inviting after large swathes of the region were laid waste by Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
But while Iran’s original claim, when it helped to create the Hezbollah militia in the early 80s, was to help Lebanon bring the Israeli occupation to an end, the organisation’s influence in the country's political arena has grown immeasurably since then – to the extent that Hezbollah has become one of the country’s most influential power-brokers. Despite the fact that Hezbollah is widely condemned in the West as being little more than a terrorist organisation, which has resulted in countries like Britain finally ending the distinction between the organisation’s political and military wings, it continues to wield enormous power and influence in Beirut. Hezbollah’s pre-eminent position in Lebanese politics is enshrined in the 2006 memorandum of understanding it signed with the country’s Christian head of state, President Michel Aoun, as part of his attempts to consolidate his position. In return for recognising the rights of Lebanon’s Christian minority, Hezbollah was accepted into the political mainstream, a move that has had disastrous consequences for the rest of the nation.
Today, such is the power that Hezbollah exercises that hardly any decision of consequence is taken without referral to the organisation’s leadership. Moreover, no move made by Hezbollah is undertaken without prior consultation with Tehran, so that much of Lebanon has become little more than a client state of Iran. This takeover is central to Tehran’s strategic goals. It provides the regime with an active front line in southern Lebanon in its long-standing confrontation with Israel, with its paramilitary militia organisation, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, making regular arms shipments – including medium-range missiles – to Hezbollah positions there.
It also provides Iran with a base from which to spread its malign influence throughout the region, most recently in neighbouring Syria, where Hezbollah fighters have been involved in the campaign to save the brutal dictatorship of President Bashar Al Assad – and sustained serious casualties as a consequence.
Now, in the wake of the Beirut port atrocity, there are mounting concerns in Tehran that Iran’s long-standing ability to exercise its influence over Lebanon might be in doubt, thereby depriving it of one of the fundamental pillars of its attempts to consolidate its position in the Arab world.
No one is taking a closer interest in the political fall-out from the devastating explosion at the port of Beirut that killed more than 200 people and injured thousands of others than Iran.
For nearly 40 years Tehran has invested heavily, both politically and financially, in the Mediterranean state as part of its commitment to exporting the principles of its 1979 Iranian Revolution.
As one of the few countries in the Arab world where Shiite Muslims form the majority of the population, Lebanon, and especially the Shiite heartlands in the south, has been ripe for exploitation by Iran, an opportunity that became even more inviting after large swathes of the region were laid waste by Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. But while Iran’s original claim, when it helped to create the Hezbollah militia in the early 80s, was to help Lebanon bring the Israeli occupation to an end, the organisation’s influence in the country's political arena has grown immeasurably since then – to the extent that Hezbollah has become one of the country’s most influential power-bro
Despite the fact that Hezbollah is widely condemned in the West as being little more than a terrorist organisation, which has resulted in countries like Britain finally ending the distinction between the organisation’s political and military wings, it continues to wield enormous power and influence in Beirut.
Hezbollah’s pre-eminent position in Lebanese politics is enshrined in the 2006 memorandum of understanding it signed with the country’s Christian head of state, President Michel Aoun, as part of his attempts to consolidate his position. In return for recognising the rights of Lebanon’s Christian minority, Hezbollah was accepted into the political mainstream, a move that has had disastrous consequences for the rest of the nation.
Today, such is the power that Hezbollah exercises that hardly any decision of consequence is taken without referral to the organisation’s leadership. Moreover, no move made by Hezbollah is undertaken without prior consultation with Tehran, so that much of Lebanon has become little more than a client state of Iran.This takeover is central to Tehran’s strategic goals. It provides the regime with an active front line in southern Lebanon in its long-standing confrontation with Israel, with its paramilitary militia organisation, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, making regular arms shipments – including medium-range missiles – to Hezbollah positions there.
It also provides Iran with a base from which to spread its malign influence throughout the region, most recently in neighbouring Syria, where Hezbollah fighters have been involved in the campaign to save the brutal dictatorship of President Bashar Al Assad – and sustained serious casualties as a consequence.
Now, in the wake of the Beirut port atrocity, there are mounting concerns in Tehran that Iran’s long-standing ability to exercise its influence over Lebanon might be in doubt, thereby depriving it of one of the fundamental pillars of its attempts to consolidate its position in the Arab world.
Although the investigation into the devastating explosion is still ongoing, there is a growing recognition among Lebanese protesters that Hezbollah is ultimately responsible for the blast, because the militia has effectively assumed control of the port, which it has used – among other activities – as a convenient route for shipping arms to southern Lebanon.
A report published by US think tank Atlantic Council shortly after the blast concluded that, while the 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate that caused the explosion may not have belonged specifically to Hezbollah, the organisation knew of its existence, and therefore bears some responsibility for the explosions.
Hezbollah’s extreme sensitivity over any suggestion that it shares the blame for the tragedy can be seen in vociferous denials of wrongdoing that have emanated from the group's leadership.
In an interview with the movement’s Al Manar television station, Hassan Nasrallah, the organisation's leader, denied allegations that it was responsible for the blasts – despite being a key member of the coalition government when it occurred. “If you want to start a battle against the resistance over this incident, you will get no results,” Nasrallah declared. “The resistance, with its strength and patriotism, is greater and bigger and stronger than to be hit by those liars who want to push and provoke for civil war.”
In addition, Hezbollah has been pumping out fake news on the internet, with one blog, Sada Al Fikr, claiming that Britain had dispatched a Royal Navy aircraft carrier to the eastern Mediterranean in preparation for an invasion of Lebanon - even though neither of Britain’s new 65,000-tonne, Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers are operational. Hezbollah’s attempts to absolve itself of any blame for the explosion, though, are making little headway in Lebanon, where a number of prominent figures, such as Bahaa Hariri, eldest son of the country’s murdered former prime minister Rafik Hariri, is openly demanding the group's removal from the political system. Moreover, the pressure on Hezbollah is expected to increase further next week when the special tribunal set up by the UN to try the four Hezbollah terrorists accused of assassinating Hariri in a car bomb attack in 2005 issues its judgement.
A guilty verdict confirming Hezbollah’s involvement in the murder of a democratically elected prime minister would make its future participation in Lebanon's politics completely untenable, and undermine Iran’s unwelcome involvement in the country’s affairs.
*Con Coughlin is the Telegraph’s defence and foreign affairs editor

Will Iran succeed in completely taking over Lebanon?
Raghida Dergham/The National/August 17/2020
The Arab country finds itself at a dangerous crossroads, as regional powers jockey for influence in West Asia.
It is not clear whether the messages being sent out by Iran's influential Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps vis-a-vis Lebanon are the outcome of Tehran's confidence in its ability to preserve its grip on the country's politics – through its proxy Hezbollah – or whether they stem from panic over its inability to escape accountability. What is terrifyingly astonishing, however, is not just the Iranian leaders' decision this week to use the fatal explosions in the Port of Beirut more than 10 days ago to try and increase their influence, but also the fact that they do not view Hezbollah's alleged stocking of dangerous munitions at the port to be a problem at all. Other regional powers, meanwhile, are observing the economic and political crisis unfolding in Lebanon either with a sense of helplessness or with seemingly little care for the plight of its people.
The Trump administration remains preoccupied with the US presidential election in November. It unsuccessfully expended some of its political capital in the UN Security Council to try and prevent Iran from freeing itself of an international arms embargo. And even though the US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale did visit Beirut earlier in the week, it has to be said that Lebanon is not really top of America's list of foreign policy priorities.
For its part, Russia is allied to Iranian interests in Syria (militarily) and in Lebanon (politically), while China's interests in the region are narrow. France is trying to play a positive role but it is up against Iranian and Turkish efforts to prevent Paris from coming away with any tangible wins.
The international community is, no doubt, shedding tears for Lebanon and sending it aid. However, even though America's Federal Bureau of Investigation has offered assistance to the Lebanese government to investigate the blasts, few are pushing Beirut to allow for an international probe. And no one is trying to hold accountable President Michel Aoun, who has rejected an international inquiry and, worse, admitted that he knew that ammonium nitrate – the source of the blasts – was stored at the port.
It is just as baffling that little attention is being paid to the maze of tunnels running under the Lebanese capital – designed for Hezbollah to store munitions and explosives supplied by Iran. Even if the US had been able to extend the UN arms embargo on the regime, the fact of the matter is Tehran is using Lebanon as a base to manufacture and smuggle illegal weapons.
I am given to understand that one of Tehran's strategies to preserve its influence in Lebanon is to prepare for the likelihood of early parliamentary elections. Hezbollah, a military outfit that doubles up as a political party, will benefit from both Tehran's financing as well as a lack of unity among opposition forces, which have so far been unable to rally together anti-government protesters out on the streets for months. Hezbollah will present itself as the sole guarantor of the country’s stability, independence and sovereignty. It will portray itself as the only entity that can truly save Lebanon.
I am told that Iran will continue to back the presidency of Mr Aoun, a Christian leader, because this suits their interests. It will also make a push towards limiting the political influence of the non-partisan Lebanese Armed Forces, currently entrusted with emergency powers in Beirut.
One question is how Iran views recent overtures made by the French President Macron to rescue crisis-hit Lebanon. The short answer is: not with great concern. The reason for that is its conviction that Mr Macron has little ability to follow through with his calls for much-needed reformation of a political system that has all but bled the country dry economically.
Tehran is also unlikely to worry too much about any influence Israel may have in Lebanon – so long as it makes sure that Hezbollah does not harass the Netanyahu government through its provocations on the Lebanon-Israel border.
At this stage, the geopolitical landscape of West Asia appears as follows: Israel continues to occupy the Palestinian territories, even though it has held off plans to annex them after signing a peace accord with the UAE; Russia has its interests firmly established in Syria; and now Iran is in the process of gobbling up Lebanon. There is little doubt that the country finds itself at a dangerous crossroads, stuck between the folds of ruthless international deal-making. Beirut's political class has treasonously traded away its national security and ordinary Lebanese have suffered for it. Even though many of them believe that the Beirut blasts will help change the status quo for the better, the devastation may actually accelerate an exodus of the country’s youth. Their hope for a normal future, already beset by the country's economic malaise, has been shattered.
And yet, there is room for optimism. It is worth asking: what if the Iranian regime’s strategy in Lebanon is really the result of panic in Tehran? What if its goals can indeed be foiled? Maybe it feels it has been cornered this time. It may, therefore, be necessary for ordinary Lebanese to hold accountable the Iranians and all the other entities – both internal and external. These parties may yet be exposed with the help of a patient, coherent strategy.
It is the only way Lebanon can preserved for the Lebanese, and not for those bent on exploiting it.
*Raghida Dergham is the founder and executive chairwoman of the Beirut Institute

Why Macron's Lebanon visit has garnered mixed reviews
Colin Randall/The National/August 17/2020
A European statesman who has been busy on the global stage has struggled to win hearts and minds in France.
France’s determined thrust to lead the global response to the horrific explosions in Beirut has quickly been followed by escalating French-Turkish tension in the eastern Mediterranean. It is little wonder that fresh and sometimes hostile attention is now being focused on the French President Emmanuel Macron’s approach to foreign policy – and his intentions.
In the latest intensification of belligerence between Paris and Ankara, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has accused France of acting like a “big shot” in the dispute between his country and Greece over hydrocarbon exploration. Mr Macron has stepped up French naval presence, saying that Turkey not only violates the sovereignty of Greece and Cyprus but bears “criminal responsibility” in the Libyan conflict, reneging on commitments made at the Berlin conference in January by re-importing extremist fighters from Syria.
But the immediate issue, when considering Mr Macron’s diplomatic strategy, remains his swift reaction to the double blast of ammonium nitrate that inflicted death, injury and massive destruction in Beirut. Within two days of the catastrophe, he flew to the city once known as “the Paris of the Middle East”, breaking his summer holiday in what was seen by many Lebanese as a gesture of solidarity and support.
The visit, in which the French President mingled with crowds – shaking hands and even lowering his mask – in a city ravaged by Covid-19 amid deepening economic crisis and rampant corruption, won much praise from admirers.
Three days later, he hosted a videoconference in which countries pledged aid of more than €250 million, a modest but useful emergency package.
Few politicians act without having an eye on the political implications. France has significant economic interests in Lebanon, where the oil giant Total is heavily involved in offshore gas exploration.
Even so, it is not difficult to imagine the furore Mr Macron would have faced had he simply got on with a welcome break at the superb presidential retreat of the Fort de Bregancon, close to the Mediterranean resorts of Le Lavandou and Bormes-les-Mimosas.
There would have been a resurgence of allegations of arrogance, a lack of empathy with the problems of ordinary people, not least those of a country where France was the colonial power from 1920 to 1944.
Yet the President’s struggle to win the hearts and minds of French voters, many of them bitterly disappointed by his performance since being swept to power in 2017, was reflected in a barrage of criticism from political enemies, as well as some observers with roots in the Mena region and wider Muslim world.
Some critics suggested that the visit to Beirut smacked more of “post-colonial theatre” and political showboating than genuine compassion.
In France, the far left and far right once again demonstrated that their differences are nuanced rather than absolute.
Jean-Louis Melenchon, leader of the left-wing France Insoumise, declared: “Lebanon is not a French protectorate.” Scoffing at the presidential visit, he referred to months of street protest and effectively urged the Lebanese to ignore Mr Macron and “protect the demands of their people’s revolution”.
From the extreme right National Rally, led by Mr Macron’s most dangerous rival, Marine Le Pen, came withering denunciation of an ”unwelcome and inappropriate” publicity stunt.
The party’s spokesman, Julien Sanchez, accused the President of lecturing the Lebanese government, an action he likened to the US President Donald Trump demonstrating with the "gilets jaunes" – anti-government yellow vest protesters – on the Champs-Elysees in Paris.
Inconveniently for this analysis, the UN joined the clamour for fundamental change in Lebanon. Protests against the government resumed in Beirut and less than a week after the explosions, the prime minister Hassan Diab and his entire cabinet resigned.
Among those who regard France’s colonial history with dismay, or worse, opinion was mixed in debate on the sincerity of France’s response.
An online petition, calling unrealistically for a 10-year French mandate, attracted a respectable 61,000 signatures, though it was unclear how many respondents were in Lebanon or from the Lebanese diaspora.
In a Facebook discussion, complaints about French interference were balanced by the view of a “cautiously optimistic” US-Pakistani academic, Saleem Ali, professor of energy and the environment at Delaware University: “France has shown more willingness than others to at least consider Lebanon’s complexity. But we will need to monitor their interventions carefully given their terrible legacy in Africa.”
Prof Ali will have been thinking of such former French possessions as Algeria, and its bloody fight for independence. But if France shares with European neighbours a history of colonialism that is difficult to defend, Mr Macron has gone some way towards atonement.
In December last year, he went a step further than in previous declarations, which had already admitted that colonialism was a “crime against humanity”. Gone were attempts to refrain from “sweeping away all of the past” or descending into a culture of self-guilt.
Mr Macron’s tendency to crave the approval of all may be paying nominal dividends. His approval rating in one recent poll rose by several points to 50 per cent. His Mediterranean holiday has had other interruptions. He also has to deal with the impact on France’s coronavirus-hit tourism industry of Britain’s muddled decision – as the country with Europe’s worst record on handling the pandemic – to impose quarantine restrictions at the height of summer.
But as the UK’s influence in Europe appears at risk of waning, its economy threatened by not only Covid-19 but the impact of an entirely possible no-deal Brexit, Mr Macron may be eyeing a bigger prize. On Thursday, another powerful European figure, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the de facto president of the European Union, is due at Bregancon to meet Mr Macron. It could be that France’s head of state sees himself, not her, as the natural leader of Europe, a statesman who can represent the continent’s interests, stand up when necessary – and depending on the outcome of the US presidential election – to Washington and deal fairly and effectively with the Middle East and Africa. Like so many French presidents, he could end up being more effective and respected on the international stage than in his own country.
*Colin Randall is a former executive editor of The National and writes from France and Britain

Macron’s Initiative Between What Is Allowed and Refused by Nasrallah
Sam Menassa./Asharq Al Awsat/August 17/2020
The Lebanese profusely give thanks with every major ordeal that hits the country, and they are many, striking mercilessly, one after the other. Perhaps the most prominent of these tokens of appreciation came on March 8 2005 when, with vexatious disapproval, Hassan Nassrallah said “thank you Syria” following the assassination of the prime minister Rafic Hariri and his companions. It was followed by “thank you Qatar”, on the heels of the war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, and "thank you Iran" after the same war, when Farsi banners were hung on the Beirut airport and in the Hezbollah stronghold of the southern suburbs. In addition to this explicit gratitude, the implicit thanks have been expressed by some Lebanese, such as "thank you Israel" for expelling the Palestine Liberation Organization from Lebanon after the 1982 invasion.
Today, France's stance after the disaster in Beirut’s port called for Lebanese thanks to France, especially its president, Emmanuel Macron, who came to Beirut on an urgent visit carrying with him an initiative aimed at settling the crisis, allowing the country to breathe and have the urgent and badly needed aid delivered to those affected by the horrors of the tragedy, in addition to pressuring officials to speed up implementation of fundamental reforms to the political system, which is in trouble and close to a breaking point, by forming a government that pumps new blood into Lebanon and helps Lebanon recover from the calamity.
What has been said about Macron's determination to put all his weight behind ensuring his initiative's success seems rosy and excessively optimistic. In order for the Lebanese to avoid losing their way, making their eventual bitter disappointment even bitterer than those they are accustomed to, it is imperative on us to pause and look through the main obstacles facing the French initiative: forming a national unity government, with Hezbollah considered a component of Lebanese life that must be included, and embarking on structural reforms to the political system and public administration and fighting corruption.
Among these obstacles are the many questions around the accuracy of reports of an Iranian-French settlement which pushes Hezbollah to make concessions that would facilitate the formation of a new government and subsequently allow it to carry out required reform. If there is such an understanding, what concessions can Iran make at this stage? Is it Hezbollah's military and political withdrawal from Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, and pledges that the group will cease to attack Arab Gulf states? Is a concession regarding the demarcations of the maritime borders between Lebanon and Israel? What will Iran and Hezbollah get in return for these concessions? Replying, "nothing", would be an illogical response, unless Hezbollah was involved in the explosion at the Beirut port, in the sense that what blew up next to the ammonium nitrate were its weapons and ammunition and that this was what caused this massive destruction, and the international intelligence agencies know and but are keeping it to themselves, for now, keeping in mind that party’s secretary-general considered that a "sound mind" would never believe such a claim. If we assume this to be true, then common sense leads us to drive that the Iranians will make such concessions in return for two things: French rejection of the American draft resolution on extending the arms embargo on Iran in the Security Council and leaving Hezbollah's weapons off the table. This would entail maintaining the problem that led to Lebanon's collapse and all the other fragile compromises. Among the most prominent obstacles indicating the scrawniness of the French initiative is its bet that the armed party will allow for the implementation of reforms that would do away with the reasons for its existence and sources of its haughtiness. For such reforms would inevitably impede its freedom of movement by tightening control over all crossings; the reforms would push back against the internal corruption networks that Hezbollah sponsors or turns a blind eye to, in return for an array of benefits.
Moreover, how would Washington see such an understanding if it exists, especially at this particular stage, during the remaining few months of President Donald Trump's term, during which it is exerting maximum pressure on Iran and its proxies in the region, especially the Lebanese Hezbollah? Here, we must refer to new information that is coming out, especially those mentioned in an article that was published by The Wall Street Journal last week. Citing official sources, it discusses new sanctions being imposed on Hezbollah figures and institutions, as well as others that are allied with it and other Lebanese figures accused of corruption. It is claimed that America also seeks, through these new additional sanctions, to achieve two goals: first, exclude the group and those hiding behind it form the next government on the one hand, and drive a wedge between them on the other, in an attempt to pressure them to form a neutral government that is not influenced by Hezbollah.
These reports indicate a discrepancy between Paris and Washington, which sent its Under Secretary of State David Hale to Lebanon last Friday, perhaps in an effort to curb the French's momentum, and to explain that the American position is totally consistent with the positions of some Arab Gulf states regarding Hezbollah; it rejects Hezbollah's dominant role in Lebanese political life. How is it possible to reconcile the French initiative that seeks settlements with Hezbollah and may strengthen its grip on political decisions and does not bring up the issue of its weapons, with an American-Iranian-Arab settlement and link the two together, all while America continues to impose ever stricter and unprecedented sanctions on Iran and its allies? Unless there is something behind the hill behind it, and there are developments to which we are oblivious amid talk of American-Iranian negotiations mediated by Oman moving full swing.
In the midst of all of this, Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Jawad Zarif visits Beirut a day before the scheduled date, bypassing the protocol and indicating Iran's exceptional “closeness” to Lebanese officials. Did he carry warnings, affirming the claim he made on his previous visit in 2019 that "Lebanon is our arena" and that it is not to be left open for the Europeans and Americans, thus thwarting the French initiative? The answer came immediately, in Nasrallah's televised speech. Hezbollah's traditional positions were unchanged with regard to rejecting a neutral government in which it is not represented, or early elections. It is as if the Beirut explosion had never been. Rather, he set parameters around what was permitted and what was forbidden, threatening both internal and external parties: internally when he asked his loyalists to be patient and preserve their anger, as they would perhaps need to use it soon against their opponents. Externally, he called on them not to fear foreign warships on the coasts of Beirut, saying: “We know how to deal with them”, in an implicit reference to those who remember the two bombings that targeted French forces and Marines in Beirut in 1983.
In conclusion, it was once again affirmed that the line between Lebanon, the state, the entity, and the people, and Hezbollah is beginning to crumble, whereby Lebanon turned into a geographical arena or a military base that Iran exploits, without taking the interests and future of the Lebanese people into account, not even the members of the Shiite community. Iran had a hand in everything that afflicted Lebanon, including the assassination of Beirut. Lebanon will not recover, as it faces its slow death, amid hasty initiatives, as the leaked information for the French initiative indicates. The political forces that call themselves the opposition to a party they hold responsible for the failure of the state and inflaming sectarian tensions are too ashamed to meet, even if only for the sake of it, even after an explosion that almost did away with the whole of Lebanon.

Time for Lebanon to stand up to Hezbollah
Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami/Arab News/August 17/2020
Iran, via its proxy Hezbollah, has had control over decision-making within the Lebanese government for some time. We have often read and heard from some of our brothers in Lebanon that the Lebanese people have been impacted by the decisions made by Arab Gulf states, not Hezbollah.
The Lebanese people should surely be aware by now that the Arab Gulf states have an immeasurable fondness for Lebanon. But these countries cannot ignore the Lebanese government constantly stabbing them in the back, day and night, no matter how much they love the Lebanese people. After years of this, the Arab Gulf states have withdrawn, with the Lebanese people now left to protect their homeland and their vital interests.The Lebanese leadership should end its constant deflections and attempts to blame the Arab Gulf states for the recent tragedy or the country’s long-standing problems while it allows Hezbollah to dictate the future of the country, removing it from its Arab sphere and affiliation.
The Lebanese people who care deeply for their country must reconsider the direction it has taken, particularly in the aftermath of recent events.
There is no need to document the help that Arab states in general and the Arab Gulf states in particular have provided to Lebanon, regardless of its diverse religious and political factions. This is in addition to Arab Gulf states welcoming Lebanese expatriates, whose remittances have stimulated the Lebanese economy, greatly helping to improve the living conditions of the Lebanese people. In contrast to the aforementioned, Iran’s regime and Hezbollah have embroiled this peaceful country in reckless misadventures with the aim of boosting Tehran’s regional interests and agendas. These misadventures have not only devastated neighboring countries but have ravaged and destroyed Lebanon itself, turning it into a pawn for the Iranian regime’s “revolutionary” projects, under which it raises false promises and slogans. The regime’s dream is to pursue a dark nationalist agenda in the region to extend its spheres of influence.
It is indisputable that Lebanon is a key part of the Iran regime’s colonialist project. Indeed, Iran created Hezbollah and employed it specifically as a political arm in the region to render its project successful.
Moreover, Iran’s regime has used some Lebanese nationals affiliated with Hezbollah, who are working in Arab Gulf states, for espionage and to gather various items of information. In addition, they have been used to recruit intelligence operatives to work for the Iranian regime and to threaten Gulf and Arab national security.
It is also well known that some Lebanese investors in Arab Gulf states support and finance Hezbollah’s operations and terrorist activities.
Saudi Arabia and some of its brotherly countries in the Arab Gulf have already taken diplomatic and economic steps to send a clear and firm political warning to the Lebanese government in the hope that the Lebanese people rectify its mistakes. The Lebanese government has worked for a faction that openly declares its loyalty to the regime of Vilayat-e Faqih and seeks to make Lebanon a province of Iran.
These parties are indifferent to Lebanon’s independence, the interests of its people and its diverse factions. These steps by the Arab Gulf states have received extensive support from both the people and the elites. Also, Saudi Arabia has clarified its position in regard to the recent terrible explosion at Beirut port.
In his speech at the international conference on support to Beirut and the Lebanese people in the wake of the tragic blast, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan said: “The continued destructive hegemony of the terrorist organization Hezbollah worries us all, and we all know this organization’s history of using explosive materials and storing them among civilians in several Arab and European countries and in North and South America.”
Prince Faisal added: “We in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stand by our brothers in Lebanon, stress the importance of conducting a transparent and impartial international investigation to find out the causes of this terrible explosion, and the victims and destruction that it left behind. The brotherly Lebanese people have the right to live in their country in safety and respect. Lebanon is in dire need of comprehensive and urgent political and economic reform to ensure that this terrible disaster will not recur.”
We believe that it would be wise and politically astute not to leave Lebanon in the hands of Iran and Hezbollah. This is in order to avoid the Iraqi scenario from happening again, whereby Iraq was evacuated and the way was paved for Iran to take control of the country and appoint its loyalists across the state apparatuses and institutions. Everybody knows what unfolded in Iraq in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein’s toppling. However, this does not mean that we should pursue a pragmatic, business-as-usual policy with Lebanon’s government.
Iran’s regime and Hezbollah have embroiled this peaceful country in reckless misadventures.
Instead, we should tighten the noose on the government economically and politically, while not wholly abandoning the Lebanese people. Lebanon’s prominent figures, its politicians and its leaders are responsible for the current dire and tragic situation. For that reason, Lebanon’s political forces should put their foot down and tell the Iran-aligned Hezbollah to stop tampering with the country’s stability and security and end its attempts to change the Arab nature of Lebanon.
These political forces should also tell Hezbollah to end its belligerent behavior toward Lebanon’s brotherly Arab countries. The group must stop its attempts to transform Lebanon into just one more Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps outpost providing intelligence services, terrorist thugs, and factories to manufacture its weaponry.
The current government has failed to discharge its obligations to the Lebanese people. How, therefore, can such a government run the country, outline foreign policy and care for the country’s key interests above the interests of outside parties?
*Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami is Head of the International Institute for Iranian Studies (Rasanah). Twitter: @mohalsulami

Pressure taking its toll on Lebanon’s Hezbollah-Michel Aoun alliance
Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib/Arab News/August 17/2020
Lebanese President Michel Aoun made a bombshell announcement on Saturday. Following the normalization deal between Israel and the UAE, he hinted he would be willing to enter into peace talks with Israel if lingering issues were resolved. This is a major shift of position in the “resistance axis” that considers Israel as an existential threat to Lebanon.
It is important to analyze Aoun’s statement in the light of his ally Hassan Nasrallah’s earlier message, in which he asked his supporters to “store their rage” for when it is needed. He said that no one can take the president down. He also threatened civil war, something the Lebanese across the board want to avoid. The ghost of 15 years of bloody civil war still haunts every Lebanese family and home. No one would like to start a confrontation with Hezbollah that could ignite a civil war. This threat overrides his claim that the weapons of Hezbollah are not intended to be used against fellow Lebanese, but rather are aimed at protecting the country from external enemies, with Israel topping the list.
Hezbollah and Aoun closely liaise on their political statements and actions. Hezbollah has shown in the past that it is ready to compromise on its “sacred principles” to save its own skin or that of its ally. For example, Amer Fakhoury, the Israeli agent who was responsible for the notorious Khiam prison, was released in March. That move could not have happened without Hezbollah’s acquiescence, and hard-core supporters criticized the group for what they thought was its crossing of a red line. The deal was supposed to prop up Gebran Bassil with Washington, which indirectly extended a lifeline to Hezbollah as it struggled under the brunt of US sanctions. All these positions show that Hezbollah’s survival instinct can overcome ideology, and that sacred principles can falter in the face of hard-core pragmatism.
Nevertheless, the threat of a civil war and the overture to Israel are two positions that will greatly compromise the credibility of the resistance axis in Lebanon. For them to take such positions shows a great deal of despair. The allies Hezbollah has used to breathe in the suffocating sanctions atmosphere now seem to be subject to sanctions themselves. The Magnitsky Act will target corrupt politicians as well as businesspeople in the close circle of Hezbollah and its allies.
The announcement about Israel might be a maneuver to gain time or the sympathy of the US. Aoun made this dramatic statement, which could be considered as blasphemous in the resistance axis dictionary. To add to the pressure of the sanctions, foreign boots are now on Lebanese soil — a territory that Hezbollah considers its turf. The FBI has sent officers to join France’s forensic police and help investigate the cause of the Aug. 4 Beirut explosion.
Hezbollah and its ally are also anxious about the verdict of the international tribunal into the assassination of Rafik Hariri, which is due to be announced on Tuesday after being postponed because of the tragic blast. Adding to the heat of August, the mandate of the UNIFIL forces needs to be renewed before the end of the month. What if the UN Security Council insists on the enforcement of resolution 1701 — the deployment of UNIFIL on all Lebanese borders — being a precondition for the renewal of its presence? What if UNIFIL forces were to be deployed on the borders and stationed in the airport? That would strangle Hezbollah. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already sent a veiled threat to Nasrallah, saying that, in order for the tragic incident at the port not to be repeated, the Hezbollah chief should not store weapons in “inhabited areas,” the same way he stored weapons in the port.
A civil war, as Nasrallah alluded to in his speech, would be as destructive for Hezbollah as it would be for the country.
All the indicators are that the pressure is taking its toll on the Hezbollah-Aoun alliance. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Hezbollah will bow to international pressure and gracefully exit the scene or give up its arms, as many voices both domestically and internationally are demanding. Nevertheless, we have seen that Hezbollah’s survival instinct can overshadow its ideology. A civil war, as Nasrallah alluded to in his speech, would be as destructive for Hezbollah as it would be for the country. It might also trigger an international intervention, meaning the end of the group. This is Hezbollah’s last option, but it might take this path if Nasrallah feels he is facing his doom. The question is that, now we are about to reach the optimal point of the pressure on Hezbollah, what sort of arrangement can be reached with the group? What sort of compromise would it be ready to make in order to secure its survival? Would a compromise be possible in the current conditions? The situation is very delicate and a proper balance is needed to avoid Lebanon descending into another round of violence, which it cannot handle.
**Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She holds a PhD in politics from the University of Exeter and is an affiliated scholar with the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut.

Iran should not celebrate UN Security Council’s arms embargo vote

Michael Pregent/Arab News/August 17/2020
The US must act alone on behalf of its allies and to the detriment of its adversaries, who are willing to sell Iran advanced weapons to further destabilize the region. Russia and China on Friday voted against the US on keeping the arms embargo on Iran in place.
The arms embargo against the Islamic Republic is set to expire on Oct. 18. Iran will then be able to buy advanced offensive weapons to increase the capabilities of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy to threaten the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, and the Gulf of Aden. Iran will be able to upgrade its surface-to-surface rocket capabilities to threaten US regional allies. It will also be able to push more sophisticated weapons to its proxies, destabilizing the region from Iraq to Yemen.
How did we get here? How did we negate what was a permanent and unanimous decision to put an arms embargo on the most effective state sponsor of terror? The expiration of the arms embargo was a concession offered by the Obama administration to secure the Iran deal. Russia and China helped get this concession from the US in the last weeks of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiations in Vienna in July 2015. When asked if the arms embargo was on the table, then-US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Dempsey said: “We should under no circumstances relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.”
The Obama administration caved days later and justified the five-year wait-and-see decision, believing that, by 2020, reformists and moderates would have used the economic windfall of the JCPOA to wrest power away from the regime. That did not happen. The windfall of $150 billion never touched the Iranian economy and instead went on funding destabilizing activities across the region — none more consequential than the shoring up of Syria’s Bashar Assad when he was at his weakest point. Some 600,000 deaths later, Assad, Iran and Russia are in control of most of the country.
The US must use all the tools at its disposal to keep the arms embargo against Iran from expiring in October. President Donald Trump says he’s ready. The White House insists it has the option to “snapback” all UN sanctions on Iran under the terms of the JCPOA. The administration has also repeatedly warned Russia and China that a vote against an extension of the embargo would not come without consequences.
Trump said on Saturday that he was prepared to act within days. “Well we knew what the vote was going to be but we’ll be doing a snapback, you’ll be watching it next week,” he said. US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft added: “The US has every right to initiate (the) snapback of provisions of previous Security Council resolutions,” and, “in the coming days, the United States will follow through on that promise to stop at nothing to extend the arms embargo.”
While Russia and China may have bought the regime a few more days, that doesn’t mean these countries are coming to Iran’s financial rescue — they only want oil and money from Tehran to secure weapons contracts that were agreed in 2015. Moscow and Beijing are trying to salvage a bad investment as a result of the Iran nuclear deal. This deal was supposed to open up Iran’s economy to Western investment and allow China and Russia to use Tehran’s new wealth to sell it offensive and defensive weapons and secure oil and gas rights, in addition to payments. The vision of Iran as an economic powerhouse by 2020 never materialized.
Even as former Secretary of State John Kerry was urging private European companies to jump in to Iran, the US Treasury was saying “not so fast.” Private sector companies on both sides of the Atlantic that were contemplating doing business in Iran were reminded of the IRGC’s penetration of all sectors of Iran’s economy and warned that investing in those sectors would trigger economic repercussions.
Despite pressure on private sector companies from their German, British and French governments, the CEOs of these companies weighed up being in the US’ disfavor or investing in a poorly managed and toxic Iranian economy — they made the right decision for their bottom line and stayed out.
Russia and China are now in the same position: If they bypass US sanctions by selling offensive weapons and investing in a toxic and shrinking Iranian economy, they risk being subjected to targeted sanctions and losing access to the US banking system.
The China-Iran deal that is in the works would do little to help Iran offset US sanctions. There is no guarantee Beijing will come through on the reported $400 billion investment over 25 years. It has only invested $27 billion over the last 15 years, according to a senior State Department official.
China would have all the power in whatever deal may or may not transpire. It will ensure any agreement with a desperate regime in Iran would be one where this predatory lender has the advantage. More importantly, the Chinese government is hesitant to put its companies at risk of US sanctions when it comes to Iran. This is an attempt by the Chinese Communist Party to salvage a very bad investment in Iran. Tehran is more isolated than ever and shouldn’t take Friday’s UN Security Council vote as good news. It is relying on Russia and China, two countries that will take more and more oil and water rights, and will never view the Islamic Republic as an equal.
Russia and China do not want the Iranian regime to have a nuclear weapon. They will hold Iran to complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — that is their red line. They went into the JCPOA to raid Iran’s economy, take oil, and sell advanced weapons. Beijing and Moscow are not partners with the regime; they are waiting to get all they can. A deal with China would not result in joint military operations to help Iran threaten the Strait of Hormuz or invade Iraq; and Russia won’t use its S-400 missile defense system to protect Iran’s weapons or its militia corridor into Syria. Iran is desperate enough to give water, oil and gas rights to Russia and China in exchange for a veto in the UN Security Council, or perhaps a deal that is yet to be made.
Tehran is relying on Russia and China, two countries that will take more and more oil and water rights, and will never view it as an equal. Iran cannot survive another four years of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign — the regime can barely even hold on through January 2021. But, like Russia and China, Iran is hoping for relief from a Biden administration, which would be willing to jump back into the Iran deal and lift all sanctions without conditions. However, that is not likely to happen. The original supporters of the Iran deal and Barack Obama’s people believed that, by now, the moderates would have outmaneuvered the hard-liners in Iran. They know now what our allies in the region have known for 40 years: The supreme leader decides everything.
With sunset clauses and ballistic missiles the topics of concern for all parties, including our European allies, the regime will find itself having to make concessions on these issues and its regional activity in even its best-case scenario.
*Michael Pregent, a former intelligence officer, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Full Text Of The Memorandum on ‘Lebanon and Active Neutrality’ That Was announced Today
NNA /August 17/2020
Maronite Patriarch Cardinal Beshara Rahi announced a memorandum on “Lebanon and Active Neutrality, in a press conference held Monday in Dimane.
The memorandum read the following:
“In a sermon delivered on July 5, 2020, I appealed to the United Nations to reaffirm the independence of Lebanon, implement all relevant UN resolutions, and recognize the country’s neutrality. Lebanon’s neutrality is indeed the guarantee of the country’s unity and its historical role, especially in this period characterized by geopolitical and constitutional transformations. Lebanon’s strength and stability will be safeguarded by its neutrality. It is, therefore, a neutral Lebanon that would be able to contribute to the stability and prosperity of the region, defend the rights of the Arab peoples, and forge just and equitable relations between the Middle East and Europe, due to Lebanon’s privileged position on the Mediterranean shores.
Our appeal for neutrality has been met with wide approval from various confessional groups, political parties, and the country’s intelligentsia who have expressed reasoned opinions in various news outlets and media publications; though some have had reservations and questions concerning the concept of neutrality. This is the reason I deemed it necessary to put in print this Memorandum on “Lebanon and Active Neutrality.” I broach the subject in five points: The Proposal’s Rationale; the Concept of Neutrality; its Importance as a Necessary Platform for the Independence and Stability of Lebanon; the Interests of Lebanon and its Economy of Neutrality; and a Conclusion.
1. Proposal’s Rationale
Lebanon’s neutrality, as a constitutional form of government, may not have been on the minds of the founders of the State of Greater Lebanon. However, it certainly proved to be the driving force behind Lebanon’s foreign relations and defense policy that this small and emergent nation adopted to assert its right to self-determination and to preserve its independence, unity and identity. During the drafting of the Lebanese Constitution, Henri De Jouvenel, the French High Commissioner, asked his government to send him a copy of the Swiss Constitution, believing that it can be used as a blueprint for the constitution of Lebanese society.
This political constitutional framework was confirmed in 1943 when the government, which secured independence, declared that Lebanon was committed to “neutrality between East and West.” This concept of neutrality was enshrined in 1945 when the Charter of the League of Arab Countries was drafted, which stipulated that the decisions of the League would not be binding, even those taken unanimously. The preparatory work as well as the many interventions preceding the final text of the League’s Charter insisted on the fact that “Lebanon is a State of support, not of confrontation.” This aimed to make Lebanon a catalyst for solidarity among the Arab nations, not a cause for divisions and inter Arab conflicts. It must be noted that Lebanon has always advocated against defection from Arab solidarity for the sake of strategies that would serve foreign regimes at the expense of common Arab interest.
The idea of neutrality has been a recurrent theme in the speeches of the presidents of the Republic and in the statements of succeeding governments (Cabinet of Ministers), as well as in the documents that came out of the conferences of national dialogue, including “the Declaration of Baabda” of June 11, 2012, approved unanimously and which included the expression “to ensure the neutrality (distancing) of Lebanon.” This statement was communicated to the United Nations, and was distributed as an official document of the Security Council and the General Assembly (see both documents: A/66/849 and S/2012/477). Likewise, the Security Council communiqué, dated 03/19/2015, called on all Lebanese parties to abide by the letter and spirit of this Declaration.
Due to this policy of wisdom and prudence, Lebanon has managed to preserve the unity of its territory, despite the numerous attempts and calls for Arab unification proposals and the countless Israeli-Arab wars. Indeed, all of Israel’s neighboring countries (Syria, Jordan, and Egypt) have lost parts of their territory, except the State of Lebanon. In addition, Lebanon’s relative distancing from regional conflicts—between 1943 and 1975—created prosperity, wealth, growth, and rising individual income, as well as declining unemployment, which has earned Lebanon the title of “Switzerland of the East”.
This period was disrupted in 1958, when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser tried to include Lebanon in the short-lived project of Syro-Egyptian unity. The Lebanese, however, quickly survived this crisis, reconciled, and continued on the path of nation building. The balance of power in Lebanon was turned upside down with the ascendency of the Palestine Liberation organization as a military power in its armed struggle against Israel. This destabilizing factor divided the Lebanese into two camps: those who supported the PLO and those who opposed it. A situation that led to the outbreak of the civil war in 1975.
Under pressure from internal divisions and external interference, the Lebanese government made crucial concessions and signed the Cairo Accord in 1969, compromising its sovereignty. The Cairo Accord authorized Palestinian groups to carry out military operations against Israel from Lebanese territory, especially in the southern region of the country.
These events caused the Lebanese government and various ideological and political groups to be drawn into regional conflicts, which were mostly aligned along political, religious, ideological, and military considerations. As a consequence, Israel occupied Lebanon (1978-2000); Palestinian organizations controlled most of southern territory, reaching as far as central Beirut (1969-2005); Syrian army entered Lebanon (1976-2005); and continuing the same trend of outside interference and dominance, Hezbollah was established and molded religiously, ideologically, and militarily to be the instrument that spreads the ideas of the revolution of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1981-…).
All these events took place because of the country’s deviation from the policy of neutrality, which was tacitly recognized but without a supporting constitutional text. Thus, the State began gradually to lose its central authority, the country its territorial sovereignty, the nation its political role, the national pact its equilibrium, and society its specific cultural identity. This imbalance has also produced secondary internal conflicts, but as violent as the main conflicts that brought into existence in the first place. And behold, Lebanon today is teetering between unity and division.
The experience of one hundred years (1920-2020) of the life of the State of Greater Lebanon has shown that it is difficult for Lebanon to be the country-message without adopting the politics of neutrality. Alignment with the conflicts of the Middle East and its peoples has affected the principle of partnership between Christians and Muslims, in its spiritual, national, and human aspects. Lebanon has thus entered a state of disintegration, and the various attempts at a solution and compromise have failed. This is why nothing would save its unity, its independence, and its stability except neutrality, knowing that these various and deep seated conflicts threaten not only the State but the very being of the nation.
The declaration of the neutrality of Lebanon is a founding act, like the declaration of the State of Greater Lebanon in 1920, and the declaration of independence in 1943. The creation of Greater Lebanon as an independent State prevented the Lebanese from being absorbed by various attempts at Arab – Islamic unity and gave them a democratic system of governance which allowed them to peacefully coexist together. The independence of Lebanon legitimized its existence as a sovereign nation with a central authority to protect its citizens from internal and external threats. Political neutrality, which is yet to be achieved, prevents the division of Lebanon, protects it from wars and retains its specificity. Neutrality is thus the “pact of stability”, after the two pacts of existence and sovereignty.
2. The Concept of Active Neutrality
Lebanon, with its active neutrality, enjoys three interconnected, complementary and indivisible dimensions.
The first dimension is the definitive refusal of Lebanon to join coalitions, axes, political conflicts and wars regionally and internationally; as well as the abstention of any state, of the region or elsewhere, from interfering in its affairs, or dominating it, or invading it, or occupying it, or using its territory for military purposes, according to the second The Hague Convention (October 18, 1907) as well as the other regional and international conventions which followed it.
It is Lebanon’s prerogative to remain an active member of the League of Arab Nations and the United Nations. Lebanon’s membership to both organizations not only contributes to the prospect of solidarity among the nations, but also strengthens the international commitment for peace and human progress.
The second dimension concerns Lebanon’s solidarity with the causes of Human Rights and freedom, especially Arab causes which gained unanimous support from the member nations of the Arab League and from the United Nations. Therefore, Lebanon will continue to defend the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, and work for a just and equitable solution for the Palestinian refugees, especially those who live in its territory. Neutral Lebanon could thus play its role and assume “its mission” in its Arab context, which the Apostolic Exhortation of Saint Pope John Paul II, “A New Hope for Lebanon”, presents in detail (paragraphs 92-93), as well as take initiatives for reconciliation and rapprochement between various Arab Countries and regional powers, and resolve conflicts. Religious and cultural pluralism, which encapsulate the true nature of Lebanon society, makes Lebanon a land of encounter and dialogue between religions, cultures and civilizations in accordance with the United Nations’ decision of September 2019, establishing in Lebanon “the Academy for Human Encounters and Dialogue”. Given the ideal location of Lebanon on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon is also a bridge linking the cultures, economies and civilizations of East and West.
The third dimension consists in strengthening the Lebanese State through its various institutions: military, judicial, legislative, and executive. A strong Lebanese State will promote unity, peace, and justice for all its citizens and will ensure opportunities for creativity, entrepreneurship, and social and economic prosperity. Furthermore, a strong State endowed with these qualities will certainly be capable of safeguarding internal peace and defending the nation from external threats. A strong and neutral Lebanon also needs a just and swift resolutions to the issues of border demarcation with Israel, in accordance with the Armistice Agreement (1949), as well as acceptance of Lebanon’s border as recognized internationally by the State of Syria.
3. Neutrality as a Source of Independence and Stability for Lebanon
Neutrality ensures Lebanon’s withdrawal from prospects of regional and international conflicts and wars. Moreover, neutrality will provide Lebanon with the necessary political and military means to prevent the reoccurrence of internal struggles and turmoil (1958, 1969, 1973, 1975) that have rocked the nation since the declaration of the State of Greater Lebanon. A cursory reading of the historical causes of conflicts enables to identity four main categories:
A. Internal conflicts between religious groups and confessional communities that have different allegiances justified on the basis of nationalistic and ideological trends aiming to change the government regime in the country, or to serve the interests of other countries.
B. Geo-political conflicts in neighboring countries which have spilled over into Lebanon.
C. The lack of Political clarity in Syria’s relationship with Lebanon regarding its territory or authority or its international borders, which have often caused conflicts between the two countries.
D. The political, military, economic, social and border implications of the creation of the State of Israel on Lebanon and the arrival of thousands of displaced Palestinian refugees to reside in its territory.
It is a fact of history that these conflicts and their causes received superficial and temporary solutions, until the moment when the Constitution was amended after the Taef Agreement of 1989, with the transfer of executive power from the Presidency of the Republic to the Cabinet of Ministers, and the adoption of parity in parliament. All these political and constitutional compromises succeeded in stopping the war, but not the conflict, which escalated after each compromise; a situation which included within it the seeds of future conflicts. Lebanon has thus become a country where religious and communitarian groups contend for more power. This power grab by these various religious and political groups has made outside interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs a necessary factor for the very survival of these groups. As a consequence, Lebanon has become a terrain for “proxy wars” for others.
If these causes are not dealt with adequately, conflicts and wars will continue, and consequently one of these three scenarios might obtain: either one confessional community dominates the others by force through armed warfare, exercising hegemony over the Sate and threatening its neighbors and regional balance; or Lebanon remains a failed State, exposed without weight or stability; or others may decide the fate of Lebanon by redefining its territorial integrity and national sovereignty in the context of the radical changes that continue to shape the present and future of the entire region. This is why our call for Neutrality is to avoid any or all of these scenarios and to strengthen and consolidate sovereignty and stability.
4. The Benefits of Neutrality for Lebanon and its Economy
a) Lebanon will benefit from the status of neutrality in two main points:
1. Neutrality safeguards the unity of Lebanon, in terms of its territorial integrity and the preservation of its population, and revives the national Islamic-Christian partnership, which was weakened in many instances. Lebanon’s neutrality ensures that its eighteen confessional communities regain their security and stability, as well as their mutual trust far from conflicts. It is only on the basis of this political platform of neutrality and peaceful coexistence among various social and religious groups that Lebanon would be able to positively contribute to the stability of the region and peace in the world.
2. Neutrality makes all components of Lebanese society become more flexible and positive, because it excludes alignment and biased approach in the exercise of prerogatives and authority among those in power regardless of their political or confessional affiliation.
b) Many sectors of the economy will benefit from Lebanon’s neutrality.
Neutrality will strengthen the economy due to stability, security and the ingenuity of the Lebanese people who tend to prosper in times of peace and opportunity. We mention here seven sectors specific to Lebanon, which could strengthen its economy:
1. The long history of Lebanon as a banking and financial hub in the Middle East and its internationally renowned experts in this field surely puts Lebanon at an advantage over other countries in the region. This is simply because stability and security build trust.
2. The health sector and the high standard of hospitals and advancement in technology: Lebanon is closer to Middle Eastern countries than Europe and the United States, Lebanon’s official language is Arabic, educated Lebanese are fluent in several Western languages, and Lebanon hospitality business make the country suitable to a major medical center not for the Middle East, but also for the world.
3. Lebanon is a tourism destination for the Middle East and for the world. When stability and security are in place, as history demonstrates, Lebanon can regain its status as a major world destination for tourists. Lebanon’s first class hotels, resorts, restaurants, and hospitality industry make the country an attractive tourism destination.
4. Throughout its history, Lebanon has been a leading center for education for the entire Middle East due to its high standards of learning, research and publications, which led many Arab families to prefer Lebanon over Europe and the United States. Through this, Lebanon contributes to the promotion of the spirit of concord and peace.
5. Lebanon’s stability and security attracts expatriates to return to invest in various projects. They will contribute to the creation of jobs, growth, and a quality of life that Lebanon experienced between the fifties and the beginning of the seventies of the last century.
6. Lebanon benefits from neutrality thanks to its membership in the Arab world, and its location on the shores of the Mediterranean, and its historical role and civilization.
7. Due to its unique history, cultural and political characteristics, Lebanon will become the axis of the Mediterranean Union, and become the place where the interests of all parties intersect. The European Partnership and the Mediterranean Union are two vital projects for Lebanon. The idea of the Mediterranean Union is at the heart of a vision for the future; and this “Union” carries the capacity to create a new system of values as well as political, economic, cultural, and maritime force in this strategic region of the world. Moreover, this would make Europe more linked to the Arab world, and more attentive to its interests, and therefore less quick to defend Israel.
5. What WE Need
In accordance with what has been delineated in this Memorandum, we call on both the Arab and international communities to understand the compelling historical, security, political, economic, and cultural reasons which drive most Lebanese to adopt “Active Neutrality”; and that the organization of the United Nations should decide Lebanon’s neutrality in a timely fashion. We consider neutrality in three dimensions:
First, Lebanon pursued neutrality from its founding until the “Cairo Accord”, signed in 1969, allowing Palestinian refugees to acquire heavy weapons and to fight Israel from Lebanese territory, which was followed by the emergence of armed Lebanese and non-Lebanese groups outside the control of the State.
Second, Lebanon, thanks to its democratic and liberal political system of governance, and its specific religious and cultural pluralism, organized within the framework of the Constitution and the National Pact, and thanks to its location on the shores of the Mediterranean between the East and Europe, enjoys the role of promoting peace and stability in the region. Due to Lebanon’s policy of mediation, rapprochement and reconciliation between Arab countries, and its staunch commitment to human rights continues to provide an indispensable forum for dialogue between religions, cultures and civilizations.
Thirdly, Lebanon, founded on pluralism and the balance between its diverse religious and cultural groups, needs, in order to survive, that the United Nations, along the countries concerned, find a solution for the half a million Palestinian refugees and almost one and a half million displace Syrians present on its territory.”

Le patriarche maronite annonce le mémorandum sur le Liban et la neutralité active
ANI – Lundi 17 Aout 2020
Le patriarche maronite, le cardinal Bechara Boutros Rahi, a annoncé un mémorandum sur «Le Liban et la neutralité active», lors d’une conférence de presse tenue lundi à Dimane.
Le mémorandum est le suivant :
« Dans l’homélie du 5 juillet 2020, j’ai adressé un appel à l’Organisation des Nations Unies, lui demandant « d’œuvrer pour la consolidation de l’indépendance du Liban et de son unité, l’application des résolutions onusiennes le concernant, et reconnaître sa neutralité ». La neutralité du Liban est en effet la garantie de l’unité du pays et de sa place historique, surtout en cette période pleine de changements géographiques et constitutionnels. La neutralité du Liban est sa force et la garantie de sa stabilité. C’est un Liban neutre qui serait capable de contribuer à la stabilité de la région, de défendre les droits des peuples arabes et la cause de la paix, ainsi que de jouer un rôle dans l’établissement des relations justes et sûres, entre les pays du Moyen-Orient et de l’Europe, due à sa place sur la rive méditerranéenne.
Notre appel pour la Neutralité a reçu une large approbation de diverses confessions et partis politiques, avec aussi la publication de beaucoup d’articles en faveur de l’initiative, même s’il y a eu aussi certains réserves et questionnements. C’est pourquoi j’ai considéré nécessaire de publier ce Mémorandum sur « Le Liban et la Neutralité active ». J’y aborde cinq points : les raisons d’être de cette proposition, le concept de neutralité, son importance en tant que source pour l’indépendance et la stabilité du Liban, les intérêts du Liban et de son économie de la neutralité, avec une conclusion.
1) Les raisons d’être
Il se peut que la Neutralité du Liban, comme un régime constitutionnel, n’était pas présente à l’esprit des fondateurs de l’Etat du Grand Liban. Cependant, elle était présente comme politique de défense et des relations étrangères, que cette nouvelle et petite entité politique devrait suivre afin d’affirmer son existence, et de préserver son indépendance, son unité et son identité. Lors de la rédaction de la Constitution Libanaise en 1926, le Haut-Commissaire français Henri de Jouvenel a demandé de son gouvernement de lui envoyer une copie de la Constitution Suisse, du fait qu’il l’a trouvée adéquate pour la constitution de la société libanaise.
Cette tendance a été confirmée en 1943, quand le gouvernement de l’indépendance a déclaré que le Liban s’engageait pour « la neutralité entre l’Orient et l’Occident », et a confirmé ceci en 1945 lors de la rédaction de la Charte de la Ligue des pays Arabes, qui a stipulé que les décisions de la Ligue ne seraient pas contraignantes, même celles prises à l’unanimité. Les travaux préparatoires ainsi que les interventions dans le contexte du développement de cette Charte ont insisté sur le fait que « le Liban est un Etat de soutien, non de confrontation ». Ceci visait à faire du pays un facteur de solidarité entre les Arabes, non un facteur de division et de conflits inter-arabes, ou de défection par rapport à la solidarité arabe pour l’intérêt des stratégies qui serviraient des régimes étrangers et non l’intérêt arabe commun.
L’idée de Neutralité est récurrente dans les discours des Présidents de la Républiques et dans les déclarations gouvernementales, ainsi que dans les déclarations qui émanaient de l’instance de dialogue national, y compris « la Déclaration de Baabda » du 11 juin 2012, approuvé à l’unanimité et qui a comporté l’expression « assurer la distanciation du Liban ». Cette Déclaration a été communiquée aux Nations Unies, et a été distribuée comme un document officiel du Conseil de Sécurité et de l’Assemblée Générale (voir les deux documents : A/66/849 et S/2012/477). De même, le communiqué du Conseil de Sécurité, daté du 19/3/2015, a invité toutes les parties libanaises de respecter le contenu de cette Déclaration.
Grâce à une politique de sagesse, le Liban a réussi à préserver l’unité de son territoire, malgré les projets de l’unité arabe, et les multiples guerres israélo-arabes. En effet, tous les pays voisins d’Israël (la Syrie, la Jordanie, l’Egypte), hormis le Liban, ont perdu des parties de leur territoire. De plus, la distanciation relative du Liban par rapport aux conflits de la région, entre 1943 et 1975, a produit de la prospérité, de la richesse, de la croissance, de la hausse du revenu individuel, ainsi que du recul du chômage, ce qui a valu au Liban le titre de « la Suisse de l’Orient ».
Cette période fut perturbée en 1958, quand le Président Egyptien Gamal Abdel Nasser a essayé d’inclure le Liban dans le projet éphémère de l’Unité Syro-Egyptienne. Les Libanais ont toutefois rapidement dépassé cette épreuve, se sont réconciliés, et ont poursuivi le chemin de la construction de l’Etat. L’équilibre libanais a été de nouveau perturbé, avec l’entrée du facteur palestinien sur la scène interne, et le commencement de l’activité militaire des Palestiniens au Liban, avec le soutien de certains Libanais, ce qui a abouti plus tard au déclenchement de la guerre en 1975.
Face à la division entre les chrétiens et les musulmans qui a bloqué la gouvernance, l’Etat Libanais a cédé et accepté de compromettre sa souveraineté, en signant l’Accord du Caire en 1969, qui a autorisé aux organisations palestiniennes de faire des opérations militaires contre Israël à partir du Sud du Liban.
La chaine de l’alignement de l’Etat, et des groupes Libanais, avec des conflits idéologiques, politiques, militaires et confessionnels au Moyen-Orient s’est poursuivie. Israël a occupé le Liban (1978-2000), les organisations palestiniennes ont dominé sur le reste du territoire jusqu’au Centre de Beyrouth (1969-1982), puis l’armée syrienne est entrée sur son territoire (1976-2005), ainsi que le Hizbullah est né portant le projet de la République Islamique Iranienne, dans ses dimensions religieuse, militaire et culturelle (1981-…).
Tous ces événements se sont déroulés à cause de la déviation du pays par rapport à la politique de neutralité, reconnue quoique sans texte constitutionnel à l’appui. Ainsi, l’Etat a perdu son autorité interne, le pays sa souveraineté territoriale, la nation son rôle politique, la formule de gouvernement son équilibre, et la société sa spécificité civilisationnelle. Ce déséquilibre a aussi produit des conflits internes secondaires, mais aussi violents que les principaux conflits. Et voici que le Liban aujourd’hui chancelle entre l’unité et la division.
L’expérience de cent ans (1920-2020) de la vie de l’Etat du Grand Liban a démontré qu’il est difficile pour le Liban d’être « le pays-message » sans adopter le régime de la neutralité. L’alignement avec les conflits du Moyen-Orient et de ses peuples a affecté la formule de partenariat entre les chrétiens et les musulmans, dans ses aspects spirituel, national, et humain. Le Liban est ainsi devenu dans un état de désintégration, et les différentes tentatives de solution et de compromis ont échoué. C’est pourquoi plus rien ne sauverait son unité, son indépendance, et sa stabilité que la neutralité, sachant que la multiplicité et la profondeur des différents menacent non seulement l’Etat mais aussi l’être même du pays.
La déclaration de la neutralité du Liban est un acte fondateur, comme la déclaration de l’Etat du « Grand Liban » en 1920, et la déclaration de l’indépendance en 1943. Le premier acte a empêché la fusion des Libanais dans l’unité arabo-islamique et leur a octroyé leur régime démocratique parlementaire et le vivre-ensemble. Le second acte a octroyé la souveraineté à l’Etat naissant et consolidé sa place dans le cercle des nations. Le troisième acte, que nous œuvrons à réaliser, empêche la division du Liban, le protège des guerres et garde sa spécificité. La Neutralité est ainsi « le pacte de la stabilité », après les deux pactes de l’existence et de la souveraineté.
2) Le concept de la Neutralité active
Le Liban, avec sa neutralité active, jouit de trois dimensions unies, complémentaires, et indivisibles.
La première dimension est le refus définitif du Liban de rentrer dans des coalitions, des axes, des conflits politiques, et des guerres régionalement et internationalement ; ainsi que l’abstention de tout Etat, de la région ou d’ailleurs, d’interférer dans ses affaires, ou le dominer, ou l’envahir, ou l’occuper, ou utiliser son territoire pour des fins militaires, selon la Seconde Convention de La Haye (18 Octobre 1907) ainsi que les autres conventions régionales et internationales qui l’ont suivie.
Le Liban peut rester un membre actif dans la Ligue des pays Arabes et l’Organisation des Nations Unies, en y contribuant pour l’enrichissement de l’idée de la solidarité entre les peuples, et leur engagement pour la paix et le progrès humain.
La seconde dimension concerne la solidarité du Liban avec les causes des Droits de l’Homme et de la liberté des peuples, spécialement les causes arabes qui acquirent un soutien unanime de ses pays et des Nations Unies ; le Liban poursuivra donc la défense des droits du peuple palestinien, et le travail pour une solution pour les réfugiés palestiniens, tout spécialement ceux qui se trouvent sur son territoire. Le Liban neutre pourrait ainsi jouer son rôle et assumer « sa mission » dans son contexte arabe, que l’Exhortation Apostolique du Saint Pape Jean-Paul II, « Une Espérance Nouvelle pour le Liban » présente en détails (paragraphes 92-93), ainsi que prendre des initiatives pour la réconciliation et le rapprochement entre les différents pays arabes et de la région, et résoudre les conflits. Le pluralisme religieux, culturel et civilisationnel, comme spécificité du Liban, fait nécessairement de ce pays une terre de rencontre et de dialogue entre les religions, les civilisations, et les cultures, selon l’approbation de l’Organisation des Nations Unies dans sa session de Septembre 2019, de la demande présentée par le Président de la République Libanaise d’instituer « l’Académie de l’homme pour la rencontre et le dialogue ». Dans sa situation sur la rive de la Méditerranée, le Liban est aussi un pont de communication culturel, économique, et civilisationnel entre l’Orient et l’Occident.
La troisième dimension consiste à renforcer l’Etat libanais afin qu’il soit un Etat fort militairement par le biais de son armée, de ses institutions, de sa loi, de sa justice, de son unité interne, et de son créativité, capable d’assurer d’un côté sa sécurité interne, et de l’autre se protéger contre n’importe quelle agression territoriale, maritime, ou aérienne, si cela vient d’Israël ou d’autres. La neutralité du Liban requiert aussi la résolution de la délimitation des frontières avec Israël, en se basant sur l’accord d’Armistice, ainsi que la délimitation des frontières avec la Syrie.
3) Le statut de Neutralité, source d’indépendance et de stabilité pour le Liban
La neutralité assure la sortie de l’état de conflits et de guerres, ainsi que des évènements internes récurrents qui ont suivi la déclaration de l’Etat du Grand Liban : 1958, 1969, 1973, 1975.
En relisant les causes historiques des conflits, on peut identifier quatre catégories principales :
Conflits internes entre les composantes religieuses et les communautés confessionnelles ayant des allégeances diverses sur des bases nationalistes et dogmatiques, ainsi que des ambitions de changer le régime du gouvernement dans le pays, ou servir des intérêts d’autres pays.
Conflits politiques géographiques et nationalistes dans des pays voisins qui ont eu des répercussions chez nous.
Le manque de clarté dans la relation de la Syrie avec le Liban, concernant son territoire ou son autorité, ou ses frontières internationales ; qui souvent étaient des conflits.
La répercussion de la fondation de l’Etat d’Israël au Liban, notamment sur sa sécurité nationale, frontalière, et interne, ainsi que l’arrivée des réfugiés Palestiniens sur son territoire.
Ces conflits ont été traités par des solutions superficielles et temporaires, jusqu’au moment où la Constitution a été amendée après l’accord de Taëf de 1989, avec le transfert du pouvoir exécutif de la Présidence de la République au Conseil des ministres réunis, et l’adoption de la parité au Parlement. Tous ces compromis politiques et constitutionnels ont réussi d’arrêter la guerre, mais non le conflit, qui s’envenimait après chaque compromis, qui incluait en son sein les genres des conflits futurs. Le Liban est ainsi devenu un pays de conflit de pouvoir entre ses composantes, et une scène pour « la guerre des autres » sur son territoire.
Si les causes de ces conflits ne sont pas traitées en profondeur, les conflits et les guerres vont se poursuivre, et nous aboutirons à l’un de ces trois scénarios : ou bien une communauté domine les autres par la force des armes, et met la main sur l’Etat en menaçant ses voisins et l’équilibre régional, ou bien le Liban reste un Etat défaillant, exposé, sans poids ni stabilité, ou bien les autres décideront de redéfinir l’entité libanaise dans le contexte des changements au Moyen-Orient malgré notre volonté pour l’unité et le vivre-ensemble. C’est pourquoi notre appel pour la Neutralité est pour éviter ces situations, et pour consolider la souveraineté et la stabilité.
4) Les avantages de la Neutralité pour le Liban et son économie
a) Le Liban profitera du statut de neutralité en deux points principaux :
1. La Neutralité sauve l’unité du Liban, dans son territoire et son peuple, et ranime le partenariat national islamo-chrétien, fragilisé en plusieurs endroits. Avec la neutralité du Liban, ses dix-huit communautés retrouvent leur sécurité et leur stabilité, ainsi que leur confiance mutuelle loin des conflits, et contribuent à la stabilité de la région et la paix au monde.
2. La Neutralité fait que toutes les composantes de la société libanaise deviennent plus flexibles et positives, pace qu’elle exclut l’alignement et l’approche biaisée dans l’application des prérogatives et de l’autorité chez les responsables de n’importe quelle appartenance politique ou confessionnelle.
b) Et l’économie du Liban profite de la neutralité dans plusieurs secteurs :
La Neutralité renforce l’économie grâce à la stabilité, la sécurité, et les capacités des Libanais sur les plans de la culture, de l’expérience, et de l’esprit créatif. Nous mentionnons ici six secteurs propres au Liban, qui pourraient renforcer son économie
Les capacités bancaires et financières, avec la longue expérience dans ce domaine, font du Liban le coffre-fort du Moyen-Orient. C’est parce que la stabilité et la sécurité créent de la confiance.
Le secteur médical et le haut niveau des hôpitaux et de leurs équipements font du Liban un centre médical pour le Moyen-Orient. Le Liban est plus proche pour les pays du Moyen-Orient que l’Europe et les Etats-Unis, ainsi que la langue arabe est un facteur majeur. C’est. Les chaînes des hôtels facilitent aussi l’accueil des familles des patients.
Le Liban est un centre touristique pour le Moyen-Orient et pour le monde, si la stabilité et la sécurité y sont assurées. Ce que le Liban possède comme particularités touristiques fait de lui un centre d’attraction. S’ajoutent à cela les hôtels, les centres balnéaires et de la montagne, et les restaurants.
Le Liban est un centre d’instruction et d’éducation pour le Moyen-Orient grâce au haut niveau traditionnel de l’enseignement qui s’y trouve, surtout sur le plan universitaire. Les familles arabes préfèrent le Liban sur l’Europe et les Etats-Unis. Par ce biais le Liban contribue à la promotion de l’esprit de concorde et de paix.
Le Liban par sa stabilité et sa sécurité attire les expatriés pour revenir pour investir dans des projets divers. Ils contribueront à la création des opportunités de travail, à la croissance, et à une qualité de vie que le Liban a connu entre les années cinquante et le début des années soixante-dix du siècle dernier.
6. Le Liban profite de la Neutralité grâce à son appartenance au monde arabe, et sa situation sur la rive de la Méditerranée, et son rôle ainsi que sa civilisation historique.
Grâce à tout cela, le Liban se transformera en l’axe de l’Union méditerranéenne, et devient le lieu où se croisent les intérêts de tous les partis. Le Partenariat européen et l’Union Méditerranéenne constituent deux projets vitaux pour le Liban. L’idée de l’Union méditerranéenne est au cœur d’une vision d’avenir ; et cette « Union » porte la capacité de créer un nouveau système de valeurs, et une force politique, économique, culturelle, et maritime dans cette zone stratégique du monde. De plus ceci ferait de l’Europe plus liée au monde arabe, et plus attentive pour ses intérêts, et donc moins prompte à défendre Israël.
5) Ce dont nous avons besoin
Sur cette base, nous appelons les deux communautés arabes et internationales de comprendre les raisons d’être historique, sécuritaire, politique, économique, culturelle, et civilisationnelle, qui poussent la plupart des Libanais à adopter « la Neutralité active », et que l’Organisation des Nations Unies statue au temps opportun le statut de neutralité dans sa triple dimension :
Premièrement, le Liban a poursuivi la ligne de la neutralité depuis sa fondation jusqu’au 1969 avec « l’accord du Caire » qui a permis aux réfugiés palestiniens d’acquérir les armes lourdes et de combattre Israël à partir du territoire Libanais, ce qui a été suivi par l’apparition des forces militaires Libanaises et non Libanaises en dehors de l’Etat.
Deuxièmement, le Liban, grâce à son régime démocratique et libéral, et son pluralisme spécifique religieux et culturel, organisé dans le cadre de la Constitution et du Pacte national, et grâce à sa situation sur la rive de la Méditerranée entre l’Orient et l’Europe, jouit du rôle de la promotion de la paix et de la stabilité dans la région avec la défense des droits des peuples, de la médiation, le rapprochement, et la réconciliation entre les pays arabes, en plus de son privilège d’offrir un espace de dialogue des religions, des cultures, et des civilisations.
Troisièmement, le Liban, fondé sur le pluralisme et l’équilibre entre ses composantes, a besoin pour survivre que l’Organisation des Nations Unies avec les pays concernés trouvent une solution pour les un demi-million réfugiés palestiniens et les plus qu’un million et demi de déplacés syriens présents sur son territoire.
 

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on August 17-18/2020

Ashkenazi and Oman FM agree to work towards normalization
Lahav Harkov/Jerusalem Post/August 17/2020
Ashkenazi said that he appreciates Oman’s commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East. Israel and Oman are holding a dialogue aiming to have official diplomatic ties, the Foreign Ministry said on Monday.Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi and Oman's minister of state for foreign affairs Yousuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah agreed to keep in contact, strengthen ties between their countries and to “promote the normalization process in the Middle East.”Bin Abdullah affirmed Oman's support "to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East and the need to resume the peace process negotiations and to fulfill the legitimate demands of the Palestinian people to establish their independent state with east Jerusalem as its capital," the ministry said. Ashkenazi said that he appreciates Oman’s commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East. Following the conversation, Ashkenazi wrote on twitter that he and bin Abdullah “discussed recent developments in the region, the normalization agreement with the UAE and the need to strengthen ties between the countries.”
Bin Abdullah also spoke to Jibril Rajoub, secretary general of the central committee of the Palestinian Fatah group. On Sunday, Ashkenazi and his counterpart in the United Arab Emirates Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al Nahyan had the first direct phone call between the countries after the UAE unblocked Israeli numbers on Sunday, in a further step towards fully normalized ties. Hend Al-Otaiba, a UAE spokeswoman tweeted that the foreign ministers "inaugurated a phone link between the United Arab Emirates and the State of Israel following the historic Peace Accord signed by the two countries Friday."Ashkenazi and bin Zayed agreed to meet soon and continue discussions about the details of the normalization agreement.

Egypt Mediators Enter Gaza after Week of Clashes with Israel
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
Egyptian mediators entered Gaza on Monday seeking to calm tensions after a week of clashes in which Israel has launched military strikes in response to airborne incendiary devices that have ignited wildfires. Israel has targeted positions of Hamas, the movement that runs the Palestinian territory, and which it holds responsible for all cross-border attacks from the coastal enclave. The delegation from Egypt, which has traditionally played the role of mediator in the restive Palestinian enclave, entered Gaza at around midday (0900 GMT), according to security sources and eyewitnesses who spoke to AFP. Israeli tanks pounded Hamas targets earlier Monday in what has become a daily response to Palestinian rockets, firebombs that are carried by bunches of balloons into southern Israel, and more recently to clashes on the border. Israel has said that since August 6, fire-scene investigators have identified 149 blazes in southern Israel caused by incendiary balloons floating across from Gaza. The army also reported violent protests on Saturday, as "rioters burned tires, hurled explosive devices and grenades towards the security fence and attempted to approach it". There were more frontier riots on Sunday, the army said. Israel has also closed the Kerem Shalom goods crossing to Gaza and shut the strip's fishing zone. With fuel imports blocked, Gaza's electricity authority announced that more service cuts would be implemented from Monday, adding to frustrations for Gazans who already endure irregular power supply. Hamas and Israel have fought three wars since 2008, but an uneasy truce brokered last year by the United Nations, Egypt and Qatar helped curb the violence.

Israeli Tanks Hit Gaza
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
Israeli tanks pounded Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip early Monday in what has become a daily response to Palestinian rockets and airborne firebombs launched into southern Israel and to clashes on the border. "Tanks targeted a number of military observation posts belonging to the Hamas terror organization in the Gaza Strip," an army statement said in English, referring to the movement that rules the enclave. The army said that in addition to cross-border attacks with explosives and incendiary devices suspended from balloons, dozens of people had also "instigated riots along the Gaza Strip security fence" on Sunday evening. There were no immediate reports of casualties from the tank fire. The latest incidents follow a week of heightened tensions, including border clashes, during which Israel has also closed its Kerem Shalom goods crossing with the Gaza Strip and Sunday shut down Gaza's permitted coastal fishing zone. Israeli fire services in the border areas reported 28 outdoor fires Sunday, and farmers said that extensive damage was caused to an avocado orchard. A fires services statement on Sunday evening said that since August 6 its investigators had identified 149 fires in southern Israel caused by incendiary balloons from Gaza.

Abbas Rejects ‘Normalization,’ Macron Supports ‘Tripartite Agreement’
Ramallah - Kifah Zboun/Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said neither the United Arab Emirates nor any other country has the right to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people. Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has explicitly affirmed that the annexation of parts of the West Bank is still on the table, and what has been accomplished is a temporary suspension, the Palestinian President said during a phone call with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron on Sunday. “We have repeatedly rejected the so-called US deal of the century, the annexation of Jerusalem and Palestinian lands because that means giving up on Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, and the Dead Sea, along with 33% of West Bank land,” he said, stressing that this will never be accepted by the Palestinian people and leadership. Abbas further reaffirmed the Palestinian commitment to negotiations based on UN resolutions. He was responding to the French President’s position supporting the American-Israeli-UAE announcement. Israel and the UAE reached on Thursday a historic deal to establish diplomatic ties. Macron said that his country welcomed the agreement because it will contribute to pushing the peace process forward, reiterating the need to reach a political solution in accordance with the two-state solution and international law. Macron told Abbas he had previously spoken with Netanyahu against the annexation plan, considering it a unilateral action that further complicates the situation, and reaffirming France’s position towards achieving peace based on United Nations resolutions and international law. The French President invited his Palestinian counterpart for talks in Paris in the near future to continue discussions on the situation related to the Palestinian cause. Palestinians are hinging on states such as France to push the peace process forward, but not according to the US plan.

Israel’s president invites Abu Dhabi Crown Prince to Jerusalem following agreement
Emily Judd, Al Arabiya English/Monday 17 August 2020
Israeli President Reuven Rivlin has invited Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan to Jerusalem, following last week’s historic agreement between Israel and the UAE. Rivlin expressed the invitation in a letter, written in Arabic, which was released to Israeli media on Monday. “I'm full of hope that this step will contribute to building and strengthening the mutual trust between us and the region's nations,” said Rivlin in the letter. “A trust that will solidify the understanding between all of us. A trust like this, as you have proven through your brave and great step, will push our region forward and provide prosperity and stability to all the residents of the whole Middle East,” he said. The UAE confirmed on Sunday that a phone link has been set up with Israel, unblocking phone calls between the countries, following a historic agreement between the two countries.UAE Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan and Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi “inaugurated a phone link between the United Arab Emirates and the State of Israel following the historic Peace Accord,” said UAE Director of Strategic Communications at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hend Al Otaiba in a post on Twitter on Sunday. On Thursday the UAE and Israel announced a peace deal to normalize relations between the countries, in exchange for the Israeli government halting its annexation of Palestinian land. Known as the “Abraham Accord,” the diplomatic agreement between the UAE and Israel is Israel’s first peace treaty with an Arab country in 25 years. Israeli and Emirati delegations will meet in the coming weeks to establish bilateral agreements on a range of issues including telecommunications, tourism, and healthcare.

Offer Submitted to Merge UAE’s NPCC, NMDC in Integrated Entity
Abu Dhabi - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
The United Arab Emirates’ National Petroleum Construction Company (NPCC) announced Sunday that it has submitted a merging offer to the Board of National Marine Dredging Company (NMDC). The offer would create a new national and regional integrated Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) champion with an established footprint in key markets within the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, reported the state news agency (WAM). “The combined group would be one of the largest integrated oil and gas and marine services EPC players in the MENA region with integrated 2019 revenue of AED8.875 billion. “It aims at maintaining NMDC’s existing listing by positioning the combined group as one of the largest companies on the Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange (ADX), which is expected to have a positive impact on overall demand and liquidity for the combined group’s shares,” read a joint press release. The offer’s main articles stipulate transferring NPCC’s entire issued share capital to NMDC. While NMDC, in return, would issue a convertible instrument into 575 million ordinary shares in the combined group upon closing the transaction. The price at which the convertible instrument will convert into shares in NMDC is AED4.40 per share, and the offer implies an equity value of NMDC at AED1.1 billion. If NMDC’s Board recommends the offer and its shareholders vote in its favor, the deal is expected to be concluded by the end of 2020, on condition of receiving all required regulatory approvals.

Putin, Erdogan Discuss Conflicts in Libya and Syria
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed the conflicts in Libya and Syria in a telephone call on Monday. The Kremlin said that the two leaders, focused mainly on the crisis in Libya, where they back opposing sides, highlighting the need to make real steps towards a sustainable ceasefire. The Turkish presidency said Putin and Erdogan also discussed a dispute between Turkey and Greece over energy exploration in the eastern Mediterranean, saying they "emphasized the importance of continuing close cooperation and dialogue.”The Kremlin said they agreed to step up anti-terrorism efforts in Syria, after reports on Monday that a Turkish-Russian joint patrol was hit by a blast in the Idlib region. The Turkish presidency said Putin and Erdogan agreed to continue dialogue through diplomatic and military channel on Syria.

2 Syrian Soldiers Killed in Coalition Raid in Qamishli
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
Two Syrian soldiers were killed Monday in a coalition airstrike in Qamishli after regime forces at a checkpoint turned back a coalition patrol, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said. The strike, confirmed by regime media, was carried out after the regime checkpoint refused passage to the patrol in the northeastern city, the Observatory said. According to regime media, two US helicopters attacked the Syrian army checkpoint near Qamishli, killing one soldier and injuring two others. The incident happened shortly after a US patrol was prevented from passing by an army checkpoint in the area, state media said. Monday's strike was the first deadly incident of its kind in six months, the Observatory said, although tensions are not unusual in the area, where the web of security responsibilities is complex. Northeastern Syria is mainly under the control of US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces who are spearheaded by Kurdish fighters, but Syrian army forces are deployed in certain locations under agreements with the Kurds.

German FM Makes Surprise Visit to Libya’s Tripoli
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas arrived on Monday in the Libyan capital Tripoli on a surprise visit aimed at helping ease the ongoing conflict. Upon his arrival, he said the situation was “very dangerous” in the North African country. “We see a deceptive calm in Libya at the moment. Both sides and their international allies are continuing to arm the country on a massive scale and are maintaining conditions for a ceasefire,” he added in a statement. The German official’s visit coincided with the arrival of the defense ministers of Turkey and Qatar, Hulusi Akar and Khalid Al-Attiyah, to Tripoli, reported local media.

Militants Kill 3 Indian Policemen in Kashmir as Attacks Pick Up
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
Militants killed three Indian policemen in Kashmir on Monday, as attacks on security forces and village leaders escalate in the disputed Muslim-majority region. Kashmir Police Chief Vijay Kumar told Reuters that militants attacked a security checkpoint north of the main city of Srinagar and killed one local policeman and two officers from the paramilitary Central Reserve Police Force. Two policemen were also killed in an attack on Friday. "We are developing leads and will neutralize the militants involved in the two attacks soon," he said. This month Kashmir, claimed by both India and Pakistan, marked the one year since New Delhi revoked its constitutional autonomy, inflaming religious tensions. Many people saw the move as another step in the erosion of Muslim rights by India's Hindu-nationalist government. New Delhi rejects that argument and says it will bring the region closer to the rest of the country.
Kumar added that security forces averted a major attack on Monday morning when they recovered an improvised explosive device planted under a bridge in Pulwama district located south of Srinagar. In recent weeks, militants have also intensified attacks on village council members and other leaders in Kashmir - many of whom belong to Prime Minister Narendra Modi´s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In the past three months, militants have shot dead five such people, prompting police to move 1,000 village leaders to high-security zones. Kashmir has been disputed by India and Pakistan since the end of British colonial rule in 1947. Both countries claim it in full but rule it in part.

EU-Italy Delegation Meets Tunisian Officials to Discuss Migration
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
Top Italian and European Union officials were in Tunis on Monday to try to stem the growing numbers of migrants crossing from Tunisia to Europe. Tunisian President Kais Saied said he wants the talks to focus not only on security measures to curb migration but also on broader European aid to fight the poverty and joblessness that fuels it. The number of migrants leaving Tunisia has grown as much as fivefold this year compared to last year, for a total of about 5,700 people, according to estimates from the Tunisian Forum of Economic and Social Rights, an aid group following migration flows. More migrants landing in Italy now came from Tunisia than from war-torn Libya, according to Italian government figures released Saturday. A total of 16,347 migrants reached Italian shores over the past year, a 149% increase compared to the previous 12-month period, but still a number much lower than in several other recent years. Italian Interior Minister Luciana Lamorgese, Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio, EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson and the EU's commissioner for neighboring countries Oliver Varhelyi were scheduled to meet Monday with Saied and other top Tunisian officials. Lamorgese, who visited Tunisia just two weeks ago for similar talks, said the trip is aimed at boosting Europe-wide solidarity with Tunisia. Tunisia's leader said he wants to broaden the migration discussion with Italy to make it more European, according to the official news agency TAP. “Now is the time to act together to contain the (migratory) pressure and tackle the root causes ... to help change the perception of young people of their reality and of their country and give them hope for a better life in their own country, rather than venturing into an unknown future," The Associated Press quoted Saied as saying in a statement. Tunisia’s unemployment rate stood at 15% before the coronavirus pandemic and has since climbed to 21%. The Italian and EU delegation is also expected to visit the Bardo Museum in Tunis, to honor victims of a 2015 extremist attack there that killed 21 people of various nationalities.

US Won't Approve Israeli Annexations for 'Some Time', Kushner Says
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
The United States will not consent to Israeli annexations in the occupied West Bank for “some time,” preferring to focus on the Israel-UAE normalization deal and wider regional peacemaking, senior White House adviser Jared Kushner said on Monday. The United Arab Emirates has said that its move to formalize relations with Israel, announced on Thursday, put paid to an annexation plan that angered Palestinians - who want the West Bank for a future state. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu casts the annexation plan - already dogged by disputes within his governing coalition - as temporarily on hold. But he has also said he wants approval from Israel’s main ally first. “Israel has agreed with us that they will not move forward without our consent. We do not plan to give our consent for some time,” Kushner told reporters in a telephone briefing. “Right now, the focus has to be on, you know, getting this new peace agreement implemented. “We really want to get as much interchange between Israel and the United Arab Emirates as possible and we want Israel to focus on creating new relationships and new alliances.” The US-UAE-Israel joint statement on the normalization deal said Israel had agreed to “suspend” the annexation plan. “What you’re saying as suspension, we’re seeing as stopping,” UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dr. Anwar Gargash told reporters shortly after the deal was announced. Kushner said the onus was on the Palestinians, who are boycotting US President Donald Trump’s administration for perceived pro-Israel bias, to come around to a new peace proposal it unveiled in January.
 

Iraqi PM Says Country Still Needs US Help
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi said Monday ahead of a much anticipated trip to Washington that his country still needs US assistance to counter the threat posed by the ISIS group and that his administration is committed to introducing security sector reforms as rogue militia groups stage near-daily attacks against the seat of his government. Kadhimi said in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press that Iraq currently does not need direct military support on the ground, and that the levels of help will depend on the changing nature of the threat.
Kadhimi is slated to meet with President Donald Trump in Washington this week to conclude a strategic dialogue launched in June to reconfigure US-Iraq ties.
Kadhimi, who is backed by the United States, assumed office in May when Baghdad’s relations with Washington were precarious. The January killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and a top Iraqi militia leader, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, in an American drone strike in Baghdad prompted demands by Shiite lawmakers that US forces leave Iraq. Three years since Iraq declared victory over ISIS, sleeper cells continue to stage attacks across the country’s north. Meanwhile, the US-led coalition has been carrying out a planned drawdown this year as Iraqi security forces take the lead in combat and air raids.
“In the end, we will still need cooperation and assistance at levels that today might not require direct and military support, and support on the ground,” Kadhimi said. He said the cooperation “will reflect the changing nature of terrorism’s threat,” including continued training and weapons support.
Kadhimi has often had to walk a tightrope amid the US-Iran rivalry. Asked if he was bringing any messages from Tehran following a recent visit there, he said: “We do not play the role of postman in Iraq.”
Sworn in as premier in the wake of historic mass anti-government protests, Kadhimi’s administration inherited a myriad of crises. State coffers in the crude-dependent country were slashed following a severe drop in oil prices, adding to the woes of an economy already struggling with the aftershocks of the global coronavirus pandemic. State violence used to quell the mass protests that erupted in October brought public trust in the government to a new low. Tens of thousands of Iraqis marched decrying rampant government corruption, poor services and unemployment, leading to the resignation of the previous premier, Adel Abdul Mahdi. Kadhimi’s administration set a lofty agenda that included enacting economic reform, battling corruption, avenging protesters and bringing arms under the authority of the state. The latter has pitted his government against rogue Iranian-backed militia groups. Three months in, his administration suffered setbacks. Protests by pensioners stymied plans to cut state salaries as revenues from oil dwindled. Virus cases continue to reach record highs. Militia groups taunt his government with near daily rocket attacks targeting Iraqi bases and the heavily fortified Green Zone, home to the US Embassy, though they rarely cause casualties.
The recent assassination of prominent Iraqi commentator Hisham al-Hashemi and the kidnapping of German art curator Hella Mewis have led many to question the limits of his leadership. Many believe militias are behind those attacks.
Kadhimi said these were perpetrated by those with an interest in profiting from chaos. “These criminal acts are the result of many years of conflict,” he said, blaming poor policies and improper management by his predecessors for undermining the authority of the state. “It is not surprising then that criminals work here and there to destabilize security.” “We are committed to reforming the security establishment and enhancing its ability to deal with these kinds of challenges and holding accountable those who fail to protect civilians and put an end to these outlawed groups,” he said.
He said protection of diplomatic missions in the Green Zone and for the US-led coalition had been fortified in response to the repeated rocket fire.
Still, holding to account Hashemi’s killers remains a key test of his government. The investigation “continues, the case is open,” and “many clues found,” he said, but it remains confidential. “My government has pledged to pursue the killers. It has made some progress in uncovering the killers of the demonstrators and has gained popular confidence in its aim to establish the truth,” he said. “We will not stop until it is revealed.”
Kadhimi’s rise, following months of political bickering and deadlock, did not pacify the demands of protesters. But he made it a point to portray himself as their champion: He selected civil activists among his close advisers, set next year as the date for early elections — a key demand of demonstrators — and when two protesters were killed recently he promised them justice within 72 hours. Making good on a vow to investigate protester deaths, his office produced a number of total lives lost at 560, most under fire from Iraqi security forces.
Critics still say Kadhimi’s response falls short. A raid on Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah, under suspicion of launching the rocket attacks in late June, ended with the release of all but one of those detained. An investigation into slain protesters did not make explicit who their killers actually were. Meanwhile, corruption is widespread. But Kadhimi has plans to face even his toughest detractors.
To deal with the economic crisis his government is working on a “white paper” to produce reforms. “We are preparing to form a supreme committee linked to the prime minister to follow up on major corruption cases, in addition to major crimes and assassinations.”

Gargash Stresses UAE Keenness on Efforts Aimed at Ending Yemen Crisis
Abu Dhabi – Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 17 August, 2020
United Arab Emirates State Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr. Anwar Gargash held talks in Abu Dhabi on Sunday with United Nations special envoy to Yemen, Martin Griffiths, on efforts to resolve the crisis in the war-torn country. Discussions focused on reaching a ceasefire in Yemen and developing the peace process, reported the UAE state news agency (WAM). Griffiths hailed the UAE’s ongoing support to the UN in its efforts to establish peace and stability in Yemen. Gargash, for his part, said Abu Dhabi is keen on ensuring the success of these efforts in order to resolve the crisis. He also expressed deep appreciation for the Saudi leadership and the central role it is playing, which will help establish peace throughout the region. He specifically underlined the Riyadh Agreement and the need to implement all of its articles in order to boost the chances of the political solution in Yemen.
The UAE, as part of the Saudi-led Arab coalition, will back the Saudi and UN efforts to reach a ceasefire and pave the way for a necessary political phase that leads Yemen to stability and prosperity, Gargash said.
 

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on August 17-18/2020

Next Painful Coronavirus Question is About the Unemployed
Ferdinando Giugliano/Bloomberg/August 17/2020
Politicians face a daunting decision on ending furlough schemes. They should be ruthless about zombie companies but generous to the newly unemployed.
The pandemic has asked many difficult questions of Europe’s governments, from whether to close down schools to which companies to bail out.
As economies continue to open up, politicians face a new daunting choice: Should they leave their employment furlough schemes in place? These support programs have kept workers in their jobs (artificially) at a vast cost to the public coffers, but phasing them out risks creating mass unemployment.
The proper response will involve a combination of iron fist and velvet glove. Governments must be under no illusion that they can protect all jobs in the economy. Some companies, especially in retail and leisure, were vulnerable to changing consumer habits even before Covid struck. But policy makers need to have the means to help the newly unemployed, given the expected scale of joblessness. They’ll also need to ensure that any decision to taper the furlough schemes is easily reversible if a future pandemic wave shuts the economy again.
Europe’s labor markets are in a very precarious state. Take the UK: The country’s headline unemployment rate stayed at 3.9% in the second quarter of this year, as companies kept workers on their payrolls because of the government’s generous furlough scheme, and people without a job couldn’t actively search for a new one (meaning they weren’t classed as being unemployed). However, the picture was more troubling when you looked at how many Brits actually have jobs. In the three months between April and June, there were 220,000 fewer people in work than in the previous quarter — the steepest decline since the financial crisis. In the euro area, meanwhile, unemployment overall has barely ticked up, to 7.8% in June from 7.7% a month earlier, as furlough schemes take much of the strain. But cracks are appearing here too. In Spain, the jobless rate rose by nearly a full percentage point to 15.3% in the three months to June, as the number of inactive people of working age rose by 1 million to 17.6 million.
The good news is that Europe’s economic activity appears to be bouncing back, as governments have done a decent job — so far — in keeping the pandemic in check; certainly much better than some other countries such as the US. The labor market data are backward looking (the UK was in lockdown during much of the second quarter), and more recent indicators show a rebound in manufacturing and services. And yet, this slow return to normality is forcing politicians, including UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, to rethink the extraordinary support they’ve provided in the first half of this year. As well as the extreme cost of furloughing, politicians also worry that it provides the wrong incentives to companies and workers, by propping up zombie firms and encouraging shirkers.
Sunak has started to phase out his furlough scheme this month, shifting more of the burden onto companies. Spain’s government has extended its own emergency job support plan until the end of September, but it is cutting back on exemptions for companies on their social security contributions.
In a perfect world, clever politicians would withdraw their help from companies that can stand on their feet again, and from those that have no chance of surviving. Then they can direct their firepower toward those that need some more temporary aid, but which have a decent chance of recovering eventually. Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to distinguish which firm belongs in which category. Most businesses will claim their difficulties are only temporary, even those in blighted sectors such as aviation and hospitality.
The slow unwinding of the UK and Spanish furlough schemes looks like a wise approach. But, as the OECD has argued in a recent paper, governments need to complement this strategy in two ways. For a start, they must strengthen their social safety nets by boosting unemployment benefits and — above all — their retraining schemes for the jobless. As the OECD noted, in countries such as the UK the gap between the furlough scheme payouts and unemployment benefits is too large. Spain’s labor market policies have been weak traditionally, which bodes badly for those who work in sectors with no clear future.
Finally, politicians — even conservative ones — mustn’t be ideological about furlough schemes. A second pandemic wave, perhaps during the autumn or the winter, remains possible. That would force new draconian social-distancing measures, possibly including some form of lockdown. European countries have to be ready to freeze their economies again, much like they did during the spring. Government support may be expensive — and distasteful to some — but it’s been essential in this crisis.

The Arab World Is at a Crossroads
Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy/Former Egyptian Ambassador and Senior UN official./Asharq Al Awsat/August 17/2020
I hope that finally there is a realization that the security of Arab countries is facing multiple threats from different sources and on different fronts.
While the Arab world has always suffered from external interventions and internal threats, never before have they been exposed to so many threats at the same time.
Particularly Arab countries with weak state structures, largely arising from protracted civil wars and domestic upheaval, have been even more susceptible to foreign meddling.
Foreign countries, directly or through their domestic surrogates or allies, have seized the opportunity to further their own national interests, which are, in most cases, at variance with Arab collective and individual national interests. Witness Iran, Turkey, Russia, and the US in Syria. Turkey, Russia, France, and Italy in Libya. Iran, Turkey, and the US in Iraq. Turkey and Iran in Yemen. And in Lebanon, Iran and now France. None of these interventions would have been possible had there was a modicum of Joint Arab action.
In turn, such action is only possible if there is an awareness of the link between individual and collective Arab security. Regrettably, the latter has fallen out of fashion over the past three decades.
This is because individual Arab countries, over the past 30 years, have focused almost exclusively on their national interests.
The result has been progressively diminishing security for almost all Arab countries. Witness spillover of crises in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Syria.
At present, there are five simultaneous threats to the Arab region. That of course besides transnational threats such as terrorism, environmental degradation, cybercrime, organized crime, etc....
First, all indications continue to point to Israel’s intention to deprive the Palestinians of establishing a viable state of their own. Were Israel to succeed, the long-term stability of the region would remain elusive.
Second, Iran continues to intervene in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. It is able to do so because of the vacuum resulting from Arab miscalculations. Tehran has legitimate security concerns, but it cannot and should not secure them by intervening in the internal affairs of its neighbors. I have no doubt that Iran would re-evaluate it’s policies in the region if it were to experience resolute Arab collective action on Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Libya.
Third, lately, Turkey’s policies have been considered a threat. Ankara’s encroachments both in Syria and Iraq, together with the latest intervention in Libya, have exposed Turkey’s true ambitions.
Fourth, Ethiopian unilateral action on the GERD has put into serious jeopardy the national interests of both Egypt and Sudan. With Egypt being under a continuous existential threat, would find it difficult to contribute to Arab collective security.
Fifth, last but not least comes what appears to be the implosion of Lebanon. But this is a different sort of threat. It is a threat to both the imagination and aspirations of those who long for an open democratic society. Without imagination there is no hope. Despite its sectarian politics and endemic corruption, it remained a haven for all who crave for freedom of expression and association. The calamity in Beirut could very well prove to be a turning point for the region.
By focusing on external threats does not mean that I am overlooking the domestic shortcomings attendant in Arab countries. There are many and they should be addressed, but that can only take place with the full realization that there is a close interaction between the domestic, regional, and international contexts.
It is my hope that these five threats to the security and imagination and aspirations of the Arabs stimulate a serious discussion about collective Arab security and interests. The international system has been in transition for the past 30 years and the Arabs have been bystanders. The time has come to re-evaluate our position so as to chart our own future, and thereby contribute to the evolving international order.
The question that we should ask ourselves. Have we been better off in the past 30 years than we were before? What can we do now to confront these threats? Can we better face these threats collectively? Can we draw the correct lessons from President Sadat’s peace initiative, particularly how can one transform an initiative by one Arab country into a gain for the security, longtime stability, and prosperity of the region? Can we achieve the economic and social progress that our peoples aspire if we do not confront these threats?
First, we need to realize that taking a piecemeal and fragmented approach to Arab security serves the interests of non-Arabs more than it serves genuine Arab national and collective security. Through our focus on narrow national interests, we have opened the door for foreign encroachment unseen since the end of colonialism.
Second, we also need to realize that the nation-state model is under severe stress be that in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Lebanon. Preserving the Arab nation-state is a sine qua non not only for safeguarding the interests of the citizens of Arab countries but also necessary for regional stability.
Third, we also need to understand that the national security of individual Arab States is closely linked to collective Arab security. We are certainly worse of now than we were some thirty years ago when there was a modicum of collective action.
A greatly weakened Iraq, a Syria a mere shadow of its past as a result of civil war prolonged and complicated by foreign interventions, an Egypt looking inwards preoccupied with reordering its affairs after a disastrous rule by the Muslim Brotherhood and a GCC completely distracted by Iranian threats, taken together this state of affairs is exposing Arab countries to malign interventions and even more external threats.
While it would be too much to ask Arab countries to simultaneously confront all these threats, it is possible for them to take specific steps to deal with at least some of them. First, on the Palestinian front, the Arabs should bury once and for all the “ Deal of the Century “, especially after Israel, according to the UAE has accepted to “ stop further annexation” of Palestinian territories. This would be possible by proposing an alternative plan as a basis for Palestinian- Israeli negotiations. This may be the only way to preserve the right of the Palestinians to a viable state of their own with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is a moral duty. But it is also a political imperative to ensure long-term stability in the region.
Second, concrete action should be taken to bring back both Syria and Iraq to the Arab fold. This requires an Arab initiative on Syria to accelerate a political settlement. In Iraq, this means upgrading cooperation in all fields.
Third, the urgent need to take the initiative on their own or in conjunction with the EU to bring about a political settlement in Libya.
Fourth, Lebanon should not be left alone. The Arabs should, besides providing emergency humanitarian assistance, take the lead in helping the Lebanese people to rebuild their country politically and economically. They should head the lessons of Iraq when they ignored the country for some twenty years leaving it prey to malign external influences. To start with they should make rehabilitating the port of Beirut an Arab project.
Fifth, Arab countries should take concrete action in support of Egypt and Sudan in their Nile waters dispute with Ethiopia. By concrete action, I mean using their influence in international financial circles and conditioning their economic assistance and direct foreign investments on Addis Ababa’s cooperation with Cairo and Khartoum to reach a binding agreement on GERD and the sharing of the waters of the Nile.
Clearly solving intra-Arab disputes would facilitate collective action. Regrettably, that may not be possible in the short run because of Qatar, as it has aligned itself with both Turkey and Iran.
Casting Qatar aside for the time being, the Arabs should act collectively with regard to at least a number of the above threats before it is too late.
I am fully aware that there will be some who will argue: that different Arab countries face different security threats; that collective Arab security is an illusion; that this is the time for Arab countries to look inwards and rebuild. Others will argue that it is impossible to prevent foreign interference in the affairs of the region. That may be true, but it is possible to confront, or at least blunt the pernicious effects of such interventions.
The fact remains that the Arab countries are far worse today than they were more than three decades ago when there was a modicum of collective Arab action. We should learn from our past and draw the right conclusions, and proceed to build an Arab order based on the real economic, security and political interests of individual countries and not on emotions and empty slogans.
The Arab world is at a crossroads, either it takes its destiny in its own hands or it allows outsiders to toy with its future.

The Palestinians and the Weapon of Time
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al Awsat/August 17/2020
The following took place in Damascus, when I was interviewing Dr. George Habash to write down some of his memories. The man had a strong will despite his health problems and the developments that went against his wishes. I told the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine that the world was changing, but not in the interest of the Palestinians.
The Soviet Union evaporated, so did the “comrades” who were providing aid or shelter. I pointed to the situation in the region after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Then I asked him if there was anything left to bet on. Habash thought for a while and then replied: “I bet on my feeling that injustice cannot continue forever, and I bet on our people before that.”
I asked him if he thought time worked for the benefit of the Palestinians, and he replied that time worked for the benefit of those who knew how to deal with it and employ it. I was surprised with his words, especially as he was not known for being a “realistic” person.
I was thinking of the current turbulent Palestinian summer. Then, scenes of an old heated season, which still impacts our present, returned to my mind. In August 1982, the Israeli army besieged Beirut and showered it with various killing weapons. Since the beginning of that month, the chief defender of the city, Yasser Arafat, had the idea of leaving it, as there was no other option.
It was natural that the Secretary General of the Lebanese Communist Party, George Hawi, went to the Soviet embassy in Beirut. The Lebanese capital was besieged with the leadership of the Palestinian resistance and thousands of fighters inside it, in addition to the fighters of the Lebanese National Movement and the Syrian army units that were deployed in Beirut.
Ambassador Alexander Soldatov did not deceive the visiting “comrade” and promised him moral, diplomatic and media support; but he did not hint at any step on the ground that could deter the Israeli killing machine and impose a ceasefire. It was difficult for Hawi to express his disappointment to the leaders in Beirut. That is why he accompanied Arafat to meet the ambassador and personally hear the latter’s words. The options narrowed down and there was choice but to leave Beirut. At the end of August 1982, Arafat visited the Lebanese leaders in the blockaded city, then boarded the ship after a solemn farewell.
That summer, Israel achieved a major goal and posed a greater danger, which is to remove the Palestine Liberation Organization from its last position on the Arab-Israeli contact lines, after it had been expelled it from Jordan and prevented it from operating in Syria.
In distant Tunisia, Arafat had to bet on the last card, the Palestinian people living under occupation. The people did not hesitate to rise up, dropping all attempts to erase their identity and force them to surrender. But Arafat would soon face two earthquakes. The first was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and its aftermath, and the thorny situation triggered by the ambiguities of the Palestinian leadership’s position. The second was the great fall of the Soviet Union, which suddenly moved to the shelves of museums and history.
From the rubble of the Iraqi forces that invaded Kuwait and the ruins of the Soviet empire, the American giant emerged, strengthening Israel’s position in its conflict with the Palestinians. Arafat dreaded the decline of the organization’s relations in the Arab world and the disturbing international changes. He was also scared when he saw that the most prominent pillars of his leadership had become martyrs. He was afraid of time and thought that he had to make some concessions in exchange for the right to reside and wait on some of the Palestinian land in the shadow of a Palestinian flag.
Moreover, the new world does not provide better than what the Americans guarantee. For this reason, the Oslo Agreement was signed in the rose garden in the White House under the auspices of the US partner. The Oslo Agreement was the target of a strong attack. It got seriously injured with the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and when it turned out that Israel did not accept a just or semi-fair settlement, but used peace slogans to perpetuate its control and facilitate its project. The agreement was also undermined when Hamas and the Jihad movements, with the support of Iran, started to commit suicide operations that would cast a shadow later on the intifada (uprising), giving Sharon an excuse to besiege Arafat on the land of Palestine.
Once again, time worked against the Palestinians in the post-9/11 world and the US invasion of Iraq, when the anti-terror rhetoric prevailed over everything else. Following the US invasion and the expansion of Iranian influence in the region, priorities began to change. The blowing winds of the “Arab Spring”, with its “Brotherhood” flavor, exacerbated the fears of the countries of the region over their security, especially after it became clear that Turkey and Iran were plotting to divide some Arab shares.
The Palestinian issue was no longer the primary matter. Countries were preoccupied either with confronting ISIS or fortifying themselves against Iranian and Turkish interference. Moreover, the events of the current century saw a decline in the weight of the Arab role in the region and a waning of the Palestinian file both regionally and internationally.
This is a painful truth that cannot be denied. It is enough to look at the warm relationship between Netanyahu and Putin to realize the extent of the Palestinian loss. At the same time, the deep Palestinian division between Gaza and the West Bank weakened the Palestinian voice and the Arab peace project approved by the 2002 Beirut summit.
In light of the Arab, regional and international developments, states began to review their calculations and interests for their full involvement in the new world and its network of commercial and political relations. Some of them believed that normalizing relations with Israel was a sovereign decision as long as the concerned state does neither represent the Palestinians, nor does it try to speak on their behalf. In this context, one can look at the agreement between the UAE and Israel, according to which the latter pledged to freeze its plan to annex parts of the West Bank – a plan that would have smashed any thought of a two-state solution.
It is clear that time has an obvious effect on the aspirations of the Palestinians. The best thing that the Palestinian side can do now is overcome the deadly division and call for the Arab Peace Initiative as a basis for negotiations. Israel used the weapon of time against the Palestinians to invade the land and impose facts on the ground. It has also employed international and regional transformations to weaken the world’s demand for a just peace.
But this does not negate the fact that an actual peace cannot be established without the two-state solution.
It is no secret that the UAE felt that the policy of boycott did not achieve neither the interest of the Palestinians nor that of the Arabs, and that is why it chose another approach based on communication and recognition to address the outstanding problems in a different climate. The Palestinians can now benefit from the Emirati window to clarify their position first to the Americans, and then to the Israelis. The Palestinians know that linking their cause to settling scores with the United States or to regional hegemonic projects will only result in wasting more time and land.

The 18th-Century Document That Can Save 21st-Century Foreign Policy
Hal Brands/Bloomberg/August 17/2020
Foreign-policy types never tire of arguing about the great works of strategy: Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu and others. Just recently, wonks clashed over whether Thucydides’ “History of the Peloponnesian War” is a cliched irrelevancy or a useful guide to great-power relations.
Yet many students of strategy ignore America’s contribution to the canon: the Federalist Papers. That’s too bad, because the Federalist — a series of 85 essays written in tag-team fashion during the furious debate over ratification of the US Constitution — set down the key strategic principles that would turn a nascent nation into a democratic superpower. It is a testament to the power of those ideas that many of them remain relevant in today’s era of competition. The Federalist is still an essential guide to America’s best approach to foreign policy.
The Federalist gets comparatively little respect as a foreign-policy tract because it is best known as America’s defining work of political philosophy. Over just a few months, “Publius” — the trio of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison — brilliantly argued the brief for the Constitution devised in Philadelphia in 1787. Yet the Constitution itself was largely a foreign-policy document, for the country’s pitiable weakness in the world was a principal reason it needed a new form of government at home.
As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 25, “The territories of Britain, Spain, and of the Indian nations in our neighborhood do not border on particular States, but encircle the Union from Maine to Georgia.” Powerful European monarchs were seeking to contain, coerce and subvert a nation whose existence threatened the legitimacy of their rule. No one reading the Federalist would have believed the myth that America was once immune from foreign dangers. So in defending the new American Constitution, the Federalist also outlined an agenda for American strategy.
First, the US needed a government strong enough to compete in a cutthroat world, because “a weak government,” wrote Hamilton and Madison in Federalist 18, can “never fail to bring on fresh calamities from abroad.” America, of course, had been born in revolt against centralized authority. But the US could hardly survive, let alone thrive, if it lacked a state that could raise an army to defend its borders, build a navy to protect its commerce, or otherwise give its enemies pause. It would need an entire branch of government — the executive — designed to conduct agile, decisive statecraft. Protecting the liberties for which the revolution had been fought would require empowering the American state to a degree that many revolutionaries found disquieting — a necessary compromise, which laid the institutional groundwork for all the country’s subsequent accomplishments in foreign affairs.
Second, territorial growth was not the enemy but the friend of the American experiment. The conventional wisdom of the time was that republican government worked only in small, homogeneous communities. But as Madison argued in Federalist 10, “the smaller the compass,” the more easily one faction or another could “concert and execute their plans of oppression.”
Conversely, by “extending the sphere” — by encompassing a larger territory and a greater array of interests — the US would prevent any single group from achieving an unhealthy preponderance. America was, in fact, already extending the sphere with the Northwest Ordinance of 1785, which created a framework for bringing new states into the union. The Federalist thus provided a political logic for the breathtaking expansion that would carry America across the continent.
Third, the US should construct a balance of power at home and avoid a balance of power abroad. The theory of American government, Madison wrote, was that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” — that dividing power among the branches was the only way of preserving liberty. Yet the authors of the Federalist¬ believed that nothing should counteract American ambition in its geopolitical neighborhood. They warned that weak, divided entities would forever confront threats on their own borders, but that a strong, unified America could ensure its security by dominating its surroundings. Over the next century, this drive for hegemony in North America and the larger Western Hemisphere would be the single great constant of US foreign policy.
Finally, America could best compete with its rivals by becoming a great power of a very different sort. As Charles Edel has written, America’s early leaders were determined not to be like Europe. They believed that America, by virtue of its geography, could become a seafaring nation and a commercial superpower — more like the UK than continental Europe. They argued that America should steer clear of European wars and intrigues, and build an “empire of liberty” that would draw its strength from the power of the American example no less than the resources of a vast continent.
Like all strategic tracts, the Federalist was a flawed document. It ignored the obvious problem that territorial expansion would lead to the expansion of slavery — which would, in turn, nearly destroy America. The US would follow its guidance imperfectly in the succeeding decades, as the War of 1812 and other head-scratching blunders revealed.
Yet if any one set of writings charted the path that would take America from being a remote republican outpost to the democratic superpower we know today, it was the Federalist. And although world conditions — and America’s condition — have changed dramatically since the 1780s, the key themes of the Federalist are still pertinent.
The US is no longer a set of 13 fractious states. Yet America’s domestic unity remains the wellspring of its strength and effectiveness in foreign affairs, a truth that the country presently seems to be demonstrating more in the breach than in the observance. Similarly, the US long ago achieved dominance in North America. Yet as it confronts a rising China, it would do well to fortify that power base by pursuing deeper political cooperation and economic integration, rather than unnecessary trade wars, with its closest neighbors.
America’s identity as a very different kind of great power still matters. The US no longer uses its geographic distance from the main theaters of geopolitical rivalry to remain neutral. But that positioning does make America relatively unthreatening to most countries of Europe and East Asia, which makes them more likely to work with the US to contain their larger, more threatening neighbors such as China and Russia. The fact that the US oversees an international system rooted in relatively liberal economic and political principles — a modern-day “empire of liberty” — is equally crucial in attracting partners and allies today.
Finally, the Federalist’s ambivalence toward the balance of power remains a useful touchstone. The reason the US worries so much about the rise of China is that its population and economic heft could make it a global rival to the US. The best way to handle the Chinese challenge is to maintain an overbalance of power — a formidable coalition of democratic states — that keeps even an increasingly aggressive China overmatched.
More than 230 years after it was written, the Federalist still offers sharp insights about the sources of America’s geopolitical success. If that doesn’t merit inclusion in the pantheon of strategic masterworks, it is hard to know what would.

Macron’s Initiative Between What Is Allowed and Refused by Nasrallah
Sam Menassa./Asharq Al Awsat/August 17/2020
The Lebanese profusely give thanks with every major ordeal that hits the country, and they are many, striking mercilessly, one after the other. Perhaps the most prominent of these tokens of appreciation came on March 8 2005 when, with vexatious disapproval, Hassan Nassrallah said “thank you Syria” following the assassination of the prime minister Rafic Hariri and his companions. It was followed by “thank you Qatar”, on the heels of the war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, and "thank you Iran" after the same war, when Farsi banners were hung on the Beirut airport and in the Hezbollah stronghold of the southern suburbs. In addition to this explicit gratitude, the implicit thanks have been expressed by some Lebanese, such as "thank you Israel" for expelling the Palestine Liberation Organization from Lebanon after the 1982 invasion.
Today, France's stance after the disaster in Beirut’s port called for Lebanese thanks to France, especially its president, Emmanuel Macron, who came to Beirut on an urgent visit carrying with him an initiative aimed at settling the crisis, allowing the country to breathe and have the urgent and badly needed aid delivered to those affected by the horrors of the tragedy, in addition to pressuring officials to speed up implementation of fundamental reforms to the political system, which is in trouble and close to a breaking point, by forming a government that pumps new blood into Lebanon and helps Lebanon recover from the calamity. What has been said about Macron's determination to put all his weight behind ensuring his initiative's success seems rosy and excessively optimistic. In order for the Lebanese to avoid losing their way, making their eventual bitter disappointment even bitterer than those they are accustomed to, it is imperative on us to pause and look through the main obstacles facing the French initiative: forming a national unity government, with Hezbollah considered a component of Lebanese life that must be included, and embarking on structural reforms to the political system and public administration and fighting corruption. Among these obstacles are the many questions around the accuracy of reports of an Iranian-French settlement which pushes Hezbollah to make concessions that would facilitate the formation of a new government and subsequently allow it to carry out required reform. If there is such an understanding, what concessions can Iran make at this stage? Is it Hezbollah's military and political withdrawal from Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, and pledges that the group will cease to attack Arab Gulf states? Is a concession regarding the demarcations of the maritime borders between Lebanon and Israel? What will Iran and Hezbollah get in return for these concessions? Replying, "nothing", would be an illogical response, unless Hezbollah was involved in the explosion at the Beirut port, in the sense that what blew up next to the ammonium nitrate were its weapons and ammunition and that this was what caused this massive destruction, and the international intelligence agencies know and but are keeping it to themselves, for now, keeping in mind that party’s secretary-general considered that a "sound mind" would never believe such a claim. If we assume this to be true, then common sense leads us to drive that the Iranians will make such concessions in return for two things: French rejection of the American draft resolution on extending the arms embargo on Iran in the Security Council and leaving Hezbollah's weapons off the table. This would entail maintaining the problem that led to Lebanon's collapse and all the other fragile compromises. Among the most prominent obstacles indicating the scrawniness of the French initiative is its bet that the armed party will allow for the implementation of reforms that would do away with the reasons for its existence and sources of its haughtiness. For such reforms would inevitably impede its freedom of movement by tightening control over all crossings; the reforms would push back against the internal corruption networks that Hezbollah sponsors or turns a blind eye to, in return for an array of benefits.
Moreover, how would Washington see such an understanding if it exists, especially at this particular stage, during the remaining few months of President Donald Trump's term, during which it is exerting maximum pressure on Iran and its proxies in the region, especially the Lebanese Hezbollah? Here, we must refer to new information that is coming out, especially those mentioned in an article that was published by The Wall Street Journal last week. Citing official sources, it discusses new sanctions being imposed on Hezbollah figures and institutions, as well as others that are allied with it and other Lebanese figures accused of corruption. It is claimed that America also seeks, through these new additional sanctions, to achieve two goals: first, exclude the group and those hiding behind it form the next government on the one hand, and drive a wedge between them on the other, in an attempt to pressure them to form a neutral government that is not influenced by Hezbollah.
These reports indicate a discrepancy between Paris and Washington, which sent its Under Secretary of State David Hale to Lebanon last Friday, perhaps in an effort to curb the French's momentum, and to explain that the American position is totally consistent with the positions of some Arab Gulf states regarding Hezbollah; it rejects Hezbollah's dominant role in Lebanese political life. How is it possible to reconcile the French initiative that seeks settlements with Hezbollah and may strengthen its grip on political decisions and does not bring up the issue of its weapons, with an American-Iranian-Arab settlement and link the two together, all while America continues to impose ever stricter and unprecedented sanctions on Iran and its allies? Unless there is something behind the hill behind it, and there are developments to which we are oblivious amid talk of American-Iranian negotiations mediated by Oman moving full swing.
In the midst of all of this, Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Jawad Zarif visits Beirut a day before the scheduled date, bypassing the protocol and indicating Iran's exceptional “closeness” to Lebanese officials. Did he carry warnings, affirming the claim he made on his previous visit in 2019 that "Lebanon is our arena" and that it is not to be left open for the Europeans and Americans, thus thwarting the French initiative? The answer came immediately, in Nasrallah's televised speech. Hezbollah's traditional positions were unchanged with regard to rejecting a neutral government in which it is not represented, or early elections. It is as if the Beirut explosion had never been. Rather, he set parameters around what was permitted and what was forbidden, threatening both internal and external parties: internally when he asked his loyalists to be patient and preserve their anger, as they would perhaps need to use it soon against their opponents. Externally, he called on them not to fear foreign warships on the coasts of Beirut, saying: “We know how to deal with them”, in an implicit reference to those who remember the two bombings that targeted French forces and Marines in Beirut in 1983.
In conclusion, it was once again affirmed that the line between Lebanon, the state, the entity, and the people, and Hezbollah is beginning to crumble, whereby Lebanon turned into a geographical arena or a military base that Iran exploits, without taking the interests and future of the Lebanese people into account, not even the members of the Shiite community. Iran had a hand in everything that afflicted Lebanon, including the assassination of Beirut. Lebanon will not recover, as it faces its slow death, amid hasty initiatives, as the leaked information for the French initiative indicates. The political forces that call themselves the opposition to a party they hold responsible for the failure of the state and inflaming sectarian tensions are too ashamed to meet, even if only for the sake of it, even after an explosion that almost did away with the whole of Lebanon.

Exporting Waste and Importing Ammonium Nitrate
Najib Saab/Asharq Al Awsat/August 17/2020
The Beirut catastrophe revealed a blatant failure in dealing with hazardous materials, illustrative not only of the situation in Lebanon but also in other Arab countries. The explosion reminded the Iraqi government of forgotten containers of suspicious content abandoned on its borders. It drew attention to the dilapidated oil tanker that the Houthi rebels have been holding for years, facing the port of Hodeidah in Yemen, waiting to sink with a million barrels of oil, threatening the Red Sea with an oil spill worse than any marine disaster the world has ever witnessed. Following the explosion, Egypt ordered a cataloguing of hazardous materials of all sorts stored in the warehouses of its ports and airports, prior to moving them to remote safe sites.
We will not discuss how this massive amount of ammonium nitrate entered the port of Beirut, who imported it, its real final destination and for what use, as this is up to a criminal investigation. Our concern is the proper handling of hazardous material and the level of preparedness against disasters. We did not need such epic damage to discover the shortcomings in this regard, as it has always been known that matters of public safety were dealt with lightly.
The volume of trade in hazardous material and waste exceeds in many cases that of illegal drugs and weapons. This necessitated devising mechanisms to control and manage these goods, reflected in multiple international conventions, most notably the Basel Convention covering the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, and the Rotterdam Convention on hazardous chemicals. These conventions do not have strong implementation tools and mechanisms, and are managed by tiny secretariats that act at the request of governments. It is reasonable to ask whether these secretariats were aware of the massive ammonium nitrate shipment of 2013 and its true contents, ultimate destination and intended use. If they were not notified of a matter of this magnitude, then their mission and mandate need to be revised.
This is not the only time that Lebanon has faced the challenge of handling toxic waste and hazardous material. In 2015, some middlemen, lured by the promise of fast profit, convinced the government of exporting Lebanon’s municipal waste, after it had been chronically failing to implement an adequate national waste management plan. The suspicious deal was only halted after investigations, carried out by media and non-governmental bodies, revealed that the alleged companies were fake, the declared destinations bogus, and the submitted documents a forgery. International law allows the export of waste, under tight restrictions, only to countries that have the ability to properly deal with it, whereas it was revealed that the Lebanese dealers and their associates wanted to secretly dispose of them in poor countries, in coordination with local gangs, or dump them in the sea, to reap hundreds of millions in profits. In that case, too, international conventions did not help to stop the crime, which was rather exposed and averted by investigative media reports.
In the case of exporting waste, in which the offense was clear and the culprits were known, none of those involved was held accountable. No wonder, in the absence of accountability, that a cache of thousands of tons of hazardous explosive chemicals of military grade, or whatever quantity that remained of it, was parked for six years in a warehouse right in the center of Beirut, as a result of negligence and complicity. Accepting the naïve narrative that the concealment and abandonment of thousands of tons of chemical explosives, worth millions of dollars, was only due to negligence, is like believing that exporting toxic waste to poor countries is just a humanitarian service performed by charitable organizations.
The irony is that customs officials, who are in fact responsible to check and control all imports, managed to overlook the imported explosive materials for years, yet recently found enough time to carry high-profile inspection campaigns targeting storage spaces of locally-produced poultry, something not within their jurisdiction. Had they examined the ammonium nitrate shipment upon arrival or in the depots, as they examined the frozen poultry, they would have found that it was not fertilizers destined for agricultural use, but rather high-grade explosive material according to tests conducted much too late and revealed only after the explosion.
Before the Beirut disaster hit, my team was preparing a detailed report on how to manage the debris left by the wars and battles in Iraq. We were in agreement with colleagues at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) on the need to benefit from Lebanon’s experience, after the civil war, in dealing with tens of millions of tons of rubble resulting from demolished buildings. At the beginning of the 1990s, Beirut's rubble was crushed and separated with custom-made equipment, and salvaged elements, including stone, cement blocks and steel were reused. We did not imagine, in our worst nightmares, that Beirut would be covered by rubble again, before our report on Iraq is published.
The gigantic explosion in Beirut resulted in nearly two million cubic meters of rubble. Teams of young volunteers helped remove debris from damaged roads, homes and offices. However, in the absence of a government disaster management plan, glass was not separated at source to facilitate treatment and utilization of other components. Broken glass in an area stretching over 10 kilometers from the blast site was estimated at 15 million square meters, weighing 250 thousand tons. Within less than 15 seconds, a single explosion destroyed what the war had ravaged over 15 years in that part of Beirut.
As Beirut heals its deep wounds, and neighboring countries start to reconsider regulations governing the movement and storage of hazardous material, governments should urgently set strict standards for importing, exporting and storing hazardous material, enhance industrial security, and adopt effective disaster management plans. The international community must activate the role of organizations concerned with implementing international conventions governing the transfer and storage of hazardous waste and toxic chemicals, lest they turn into a false witness, whose role is limited to offering condolences and participating in funerals in the wake of every disaster. Finally, there must be clear, stringent, and diligently enforced accountability standards and mechanisms related to the improper storage and handling of these materials.
*Najib Saab is Secretary General of the Arab Forum for Environment and Development- AFED and Editor-in-Chief of Environment & Development magazine

The UAE-Israel Abraham Accord is the mother of all deals
Dr. Walid Phares/August 17/2020
د. وليد فارس: الإتفاقية الإسرائيلية الإماراتية “إبراهام” هي أم الإتفاقات

http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/89568/dr-walid-phares-the-uae-israel-abraham-accord-is-the-mother-of-all-deals-%d8%af-%d9%88%d9%84%d9%8a%d8%af-%d9%81%d8%a7%d8%b1%d8%b3-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a7%d8%aa%d9%81%d8%a7%d9%82%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d8%a7/
The world was shocked by the stunning announcement by US President Donald Trump this week that the United States had moderated talks between the UAE and Israel leading to a “peace deal” between the two Middle Eastern countries – to be completed over the coming weeks and months.
The news of the deal sent a shockwave across the Arab world and into the US, with many wondering how this was possible, why now, how long had the deal been in the making, and what consequences would follow.
Unlike past attempts at peace, including the Madrid Conference in 1992, the Camp David Accords process in the 1990s, and the ensuing peace treaties Israel signed with Egypt, Jordan and the PLO, the “Abraham Accord,” as it is now smartly named, was not negotiated under the public eye – and without the scrutiny of media. It seems to have appeared from nowhere and was quickly unveiled by President Trump and his team at the White House.
Yet from what I know, the UAE-Israel deal has a long history and even greater dimensions which, after official signature, will unfold one after the other.
Tel Aviv City Hall is lit up with the flags of the United Arab Emirates and Israel as the countries announced they would be establishing full diplomatic ties, in Tel Aviv, Israel,
How did the idea grow between Israel, the UAE, and the Trump circle? And for how long has the idea been out there?
I can testify personally only to what I know, and the rest is input and analysis.
Trump’s critics rapidly claimed that he rushed to assemble this deal and announce it as an appetizer to garner support ahead of the US presidential elections in November. They imply Trump ordered it overnight.
But I know that is not true, as he asked me about the feasibility of a new Arab-Israel peace treaty and pointed at the UAE as a possible next candidate for peace deals in December 2015 when he received me at his office in Trump tower. He had been thinking about it for years and wanted to be the architect of such a deal. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump contemplated such a deal. He met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in September 2016, and after the election he met with the UAE Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed. That was half a decade ago.
The Israelis have been seeking such an opening since they last signed an agreement with Jordan, a quarter of a century ago. As for the UAE leadership, I can also testify that Sheikh Mohammed and his brother Sheikh Abdallah bin Zayed, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation in the UAE, personally told me in 2016 that they were thinking of such a deal, while still keeping the Palestinians in mind.
The deal’s genesis is old and the idea of such a deal matured gradually, but conditions in the US that would allow for such a deal to be struck took longer than expected to become ripe.
What was Trump’s plan in 2017 for such an agreement, after the Riyadh Summit?
Immediately after arriving in the White House, President Trump launched a series of conversations with the leaders of a number of Arab countries – including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Jordan – to explore the formation of an Arab Coalition. The coalition was born from a campaign foreign policy goal, and it sought to move forward in the peace process. What we heard from the President now was already in the works, years ago. Obviously, both Israelis and Emiratis have been eager to engage in this historic track, but the sponsorship of the United States was needed.
Why was it delayed? Why did this come in the summer of 2020, not in the spring of 2017?
When President Trump addressed more than 50 Arab and Muslim leaders in Riyadh in May 2017, he encouraged them to fight terror, counter extremism, and move toward resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and resuming peace deals. It was expected that such a move by Arab allies would happen that summer. But few predicted that the Obama bureaucracy, still operating under a Trump Administration, with the help of the opposition, not only would keep the White House off balance with fiery investigations on national security, but would also try to discredit Trump’s Arab allies in the region via media blasts. It took the White House and its allies in Congress almost three years to free themselves from the mud of the so-called investigations, and later the impeachment attempts, followed by six months of COVID-19 pandemic, to be ready for such an event. Despite all delays, the announcement has been made and the peace deal has now a life of its own.
Who gets what in this deal?
Israel will have access to a giant economy in the Gulf – a dream come true – and a partnership with the most advanced Arab country. The UAE will have access to Israel’s advanced technology, from agriculture to military. And where both find countries find themselves in a hostile region, military cooperation will be a game changer.
On the side, Abu Dhabi will put immense pressure on Qatar to follow suit or appear opposed to peace in the eyes of the American public. The Palestinians, or at least the moderate ranks, though not satisfied by US pro-Israel policy in the last two years, will discover a more efficient new path to obtain dividends, such as final statehood, Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and significant economic infusion from the Gulf.
At first, the UAE deal led to the freeze of Israeli nationalization of the border area in the West Bank, almost a miracle. But the greater miracle for Palestinian civil society and youth will be the huge economic advantages that will be produced by a Dubai business connection to the West Bank.
Who will oppose it?
Undoubtedly, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood will oppose such a deal, because it will further reduce the effectiveness of one of their prime cards in radicalization, the Palestinian cause and Jerusalem. The Emiratis will be opening the gates of the holy city to Muslims worldwide, not the missiles of the Iranian Quds force. The ruling party in Turkey, the AKP, has already joined the ayatollahs in the rejection of the peace deal. But to their detriment, seculars and businessmen in Istanbul have grown frustrated with such foreign policy. Eventually, Israeli businesses will increasingly shift their markets to the Gulf instead of keeping them in Turkey as they face an aggressive government against the peace process.
And finally, who is next on the Abraham deal train?
Bahrain is fully ready as it has opened its interfaith dialogue forums to Israelis years ago. Oman and Kuwait will be watching. But the big prize – the one that would shift the ground in the Middle East – is none other than Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is a friend and ally to Mohammed bin Zayed, and the young Saudi prince has already launched the greatest reform in the history of the Kingdom. He has been behind the Gulf diplomatic renaissance – along with Trump since the Riyadh summit. But he must carefully complete his deep reforms at home in order for him to lead the Arab Coalition on the road to Jerusalem, to pray in peace.

The Beirut Disaster Is Part of a Larger Chain
Alan Howard/Dr. Dan Nussbaum/Brenda Shaffer/Real Clear Energy/August 17/2020
This year will be remembered for many things. One of them will be the large number of attacks and explosions of critical infrastructure in several countries. The first was Iran’s attack on Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia’s main oil processing and transit node, long viewed as the doomsday scenario of the international oil industry. Next, in July, Armenia launched several attacks on Azerbaijani military and civilian targets in close proximity to the major East-West energy corridor from Azerbaijan to Europe. Most recently, there was the tragic explosion at the Beirut port on August 4.
These catastrophes have not happened by chance, but are part of a larger chain of security and safety challenges related to critical infrastructure, especially energy infrastructure. As urban populations grow, infrastructure ages, and adversaries of the US and its allies increasingly see energy infrastructure as useful targets, the importance of critical infrastructure protection is becoming a key issue for national security and public safety. Moreover, the border between public safety policies and national security policies is blurring, as civilians increasingly bear the brunt of both intentional attacks and disasters caused by the mismanagement of civilian infrastructure.
New thinking is needed on how to approach the security of critical infrastructure, which takes into consideration the interplay between domestic safety and national security factors. In parallel, the national security strategy of the US and its allies needs to give increased attention to protecting critical energy infrastructure and boosting resilience to mitigate the consequences of those incidents that do occur.
Adversaries of the US and its allies are increasingly targeting civilian energy infrastructure. Disrupting energy infrastructure and supplies is attractive for several reasons. One, perpetrators of such attacks can take advantage of the lack of clarity about the cause of some of these incidents to hide their responsibility for them. This plausible deniability is enhanced by the fact that accidents can damage most energy infrastructure, due to the presence of large amounts of combustible fuel.
In addition, disruption of energy supplies combines a high impact, disrupting daily life for large swaths of the population and creating panic, with minimal loss of life, removing pressure on the US (or its allies) to respond due to the low body count. Finally, energy infrastructure represents an especially attractive target because today’s Western militaries rely on civilian energy infrastructure for much of their energy supply and storage, allowing adversaries to damage these forces without actually engaging them.
The US and most of its allies are more vulnerable than Russia, China, Iran and other US opponents to these attacks, since Western publics are accustomed to uninterrupted energy supplies, while U.S. adversaries frequently experience electricity disruptions and energy supply shortages.
Nor is targeting of energy and other civilian infrastructure limited to state actors. In many parts of the world, non-state militias and criminal gangs, such as Hizballah, now control energy and other critical infrastructure, such as ports, power plants, and gas fields. These non-state actors also possess, trade, and transit hazardous materials. When related calamities take place, such as Beirut, they should not be categorized as mere “accidents,” but a governance failure in allowing militias and gangs to control critical infrastructure and possess hazardous materials.
While market liberalization and privatization of energy production, transit, and supply have created many positive commercial outcomes, decreased government oversight has also, in many places, increased public safety risks. New policies are necessary to harness the benefits of privatization in a safer manner.
With urban populations growing around the world, accidents have greater impact than in the past. Moreover, aging infrastructure is a common problem in many countries and a growing threat to civilian populations and militaries as a source of energy supply disruptions.
Addressing the security challenges to energy infrastructure requires cooperation between commercial entities, domestic safety institutions and national security agencies. To prevent further disasters, like Beirut, these events should be studied as part of a series of critical infrastructure incidents. A systematic study of these incidents will produce better policy responses and should be included in the next U.S. administration’s national security strategy.
*Alan Howard, Dr. Dan Nussbaum, and Dr. Brenda Shaffer are faculty members at the US Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, in its Energy Academic Group, which provides defense-focused graduate education, including classified studies and interdisciplinary research. They focus on teaching and research on energy security, operational energy for the US military, and protection of critical energy infrastructure in the US and abroad. Dr. Shaffer is also a Senior Advisor for Energy at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a think tank in Washington, DC. Follow Brenda on Twitter @ProfBShaffer.