LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 10.2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.january10.20.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
You that forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you rob temples? You that boast in the law, do you dishonour God by breaking the law? For, as it is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.
Letter to the Romans 02/17-29/:”But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relation to God and know his will and determine what is best because you are instructed in the law,and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth, you, then, that teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You that forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you rob temples? You that boast in the law, do you dishonour God by breaking the law? For, as it is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’ Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on January 09-10/2020
The End Of Iran's Regional Terrorist Role Is Inevitable/Elias Bejjani/January 09/2020
Iran's, Mullahs' Regime Is A Terrorist and Rogue One/Elias Bejjani/January 08/2020
Aoun discusses economic, financial situation with former Minister Raed Khoury
Berri supports techno-political government, meets Rampling, UNIFIL's Del Col
Berri Denies Seeking Political Govt., Confirms Support for Diab
Salameh Rules Out 'Collapse', Says No Bank Will Go Bankrupt
In Bkirki, Hizbullah Delegation Says Regional Escalation Won't Affect Govt.
Lebanon’s Hezbollah says working for government formation
Reuters, Beirut/Thursday, 9 January 2020
‘October 17’ Protests Target EDL Offices
Report: Balanced Govt. Required to Stop Economic Collapse
The Middle East Council of Churches urges dialogue as tensions flare
Ministry of Energy: Power supply to return gradually on Saturday
Kanaan after bloc meeting: Our stance has not changed regarding government of experts
Mufti of the Republic steps up calls for 'courageous decisions that save Lebanon'
Sheikh Hassan meets Apostolic Nuncio
Scholar Khatib receives Apostolic Nuncio
Loyalty to Resistance bloc: For a government that protects people's interests
Mikati tackles latest developments with Kubis
Jumblat Says Carlos Ghosn Should Be Energy Minister
Prosecutor Issues Travel Ban on Ghosn
Ghosn Laments Brazil's Failure to 'Pressure' Japan
Fugitive Ghosn Brings Global Attention to Japanese Justice
Ghosn Slams Japan Minister, Says Will 'Cooperate with Lebanese State'
Japan Urges Ghosn to Return as Fugitive Tycoon Defends Escape
Ghosn ‘very comfortable’ after Lebanon questioning: Lawyer

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 09-10/2020
'I want answers': Trudeau says Ukraine International Airlines plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile
Iran, Canada FMs discuss airliner crash: Iranian media
US officials believe Iran accidentally shot down Ukraine airliner: US media
Iranian missile system shot down Ukraine flight, probably by mistake: Report
Informants in Iraq, Syria helped US kill Iran’s Soleimani: Sources
NATO to examine Middle East options after Trump request
Iran military commander appears in front of proxy flags on state TV
Rocket falls near Iraqi base housing US troops: Sources
Iraq summons Iranian ambassador, refuses striking military bases on Iraqi lands
Russia says ceasefire established in Syria’s Idlib: Report
Trump Announces Iran Sanctions, Says Has Suspicions over Ukrainian Plane
Iran Says Rumors Missile Caused Plane Crash Make 'No Sense'
U.S. Officials Believe Iran Accidentally Shot Down Ukraine Airliner
US officials: 'Highly likely' Iran downed Ukrainian jetliner
Iranian Missile Shot Down Ukranian Flight Probably By Mistake, Sources Say.
Iraqi Lawmakers' Decision To End U.S. Military Presence Sparks Debate Among Iraqis Regarding Parliament's Lack Of Legitimacy, Quorum
Iran missile attack did not aim to kill US troops, claims Iranian commander

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on January 09-10/2020
Global institutions should be nurtured not undermined/Cornelia Meyer/Arab News/January 09, 2020
Iran’s big chance to choose peace over war/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/January 09, 2020
No Iranian terrorists are safe in wake of Soleimani’s death/Dr. Hamdan Al-Shehri/Arab News/January 09/2020
Republicans, Democrats and the Killing Of Soleimani: Is Appeasement Back in Style?/Clifford Smith/The Daily Wire/January 08/2020
Trump Has Ended 'Proportionate Warfare' against Iran — Will It Last?/A.J. Caschetta/The Hill/January 09/2020
Forcing US Troops from Iraq Will be a Victory for ISIS, Iran/Con Coughlin/Gatestone Institute/January 09/2020
Why Hamas Supports Turkey's Invasion of Northern Syria/Omer Demir/Gatestone Institute/January 09/2020
Following Killing Of IRGC Qods Force Commander Soleimani, Lebanese, Syrian Press Reveal New Details About His Aid To The Assad Regime And Hizbullah, His Struggle Against The U.S., And The Arming Of Gaza Terrorist Organizations/MEMRI/January 09/2020
Iran’s entrenchment in Iraq/Neville Teller/FDD/Jerusalem Post/January 09/ 2020
Soleimani was a monster, wanted atomic cloud over Tel Aviv - German newspaper/Benjamin Weinthal/Jerusalem Post/January 09/ 2020
Air strike that targeted Soleimani and Muhandis also killed key aides/Tzvi Kahn/FDD/January 09/ 2020
United States and Iran back away from imminent conflict as Trump says he is ready for peace ‘with all who seek it’/ Anne Gearan, Siobhán O'Grady, Mike DeBonis and Felicia Sonmez /The Washington Post/January 09/2020
The Doha Plot To Give Afghanistan To The Taliban/Tufail Ahmad/MEMRI/January 09/2010
Childhood of Horror: Tales of Muslim Mothers and Daughters/Phyllis Chesler/Middle East Forum/January 09/2020
Soleimani is Gone, Will his Plan Survive/Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/January 09/2020
Death to America: The History of a Slogan (1979 - 2020)/Hazem Saghieh/Asharq Al Awsat/January 09/2020
Trump’s Deadly Message to Iran’s Terrorist Regime/Eli Lake/Bloomberg/Asharq Al Awsat/January 09/2020
 

Details Of The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on January 09-10/2020
The End Of Iran's Regional Terrorist Role Is Inevitable
Elias Bejjani/January 09/2020
دور ملالي إيران الإقليمي إلى نهاية حتمية
History repeats itself despite all odds and delusions of rogue countries. In this context, as the Saudi-Syrian marriage was ended when Rafic Hariri was assassinated by Hezbollah-Al Assad regime assassinates, at the present time, the long term eviler American-Iranian marriage is over after the killing of qassim Soliemani. Iran's regional role is going to end soon.. as well as the role of all its terrorist militia proxies including that of Hezbollah in Lebanon

Iran's, Mullahs' Regime Is A Terrorist and Rogue One
Elias Bejjani/January 08/2020
Definitely, Iran's, Mullahs' Regime Is A Terrorist and Rogue One.. In Lebanon and before dismantling Hezbollah, the Iranian armed proxy, and putting an end to its military and occupational role there will be no freedom, independence, sovereignty or any effective solution for any of Lebanon's many hardships on all levels and in all domains.

Aoun discusses economic, financial situation with former Minister Raed Khoury
NNA/January 09/2020
President of the Republic, Michel Aoun, on Thursday discussed the country's economic situation with former Minister, Raed Khoury, and his advisor, Fadi Asali.The President also received MP, Eddy Maalouf, who invited him to attend the first anniversary commemoration of death of former Minister and Deputy, Major General Edgar Maalouf, in a mass which will be held next Saturday, January 11th, at 5 p.m., in the Church of Our Lady of Annunciation of the Royal Roman Catholic in Rabweh.-Presidency Press Office

Berri supports techno-political government, meets Rampling, UNIFIL's Del Col
NNA/January 09/2020
House Speaker, Nabih Berri, on Thursday stressed that he has always advocated the formation of a techno-political government, saying "what is important for any government, regardless of its form, is its harmony and program."Speaker Berri stressed again that the new government must include representatives of the civil movement, denying "all rumors that he is not enthusiastic about a government headed by Dr. Hassan Diab."Berri described the situation in the region as "not good at all" and that the situation in Lebanon, unfortunately, is worsening more and more. He underlined that the solution lies in the presence of a government, wondering about the delay and the introduction of new rules for formation contradictory to the existing norms. The House Speaker also pointed out that Amal Movement has not yet named candidates for ministerial portfolios. In reply to a question, Berri stressed that "caretaking" business role is a constitutional duty. On the other hand, Berri met at his Ain Tineh residence the British Ambassador to Lebanon, Chris Rampling, where they exchanged viewpoints on the current situation. On emerging, Ambassador Rampling said: "We mainly talked about the economic situation and the importance of forming a government as soon as possible to deal with the challenges facing the country." Rampling underlined the importance that Lebanon dissociates itself from regional events. This afternoon, Berri received UNIFIL Commander, General Stefano Del Col. Berri also met with a delegation of the syndicate of the exchange dealers, headed by its Dean Mahmoud Murad, with whom he discussed the current financial situation.

Berri Denies Seeking Political Govt., Confirms Support for Diab
Naharnet/January 09/2020
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on Thursday denied media reports claiming that he has called for the formation of a “political government” as well as suggestions that he does not want Hassan Diab to lead the new government. “The situation in the region is very bad and the situation in Lebanon is unfortunately changing from bad to worse,” Berri said in a chat with reporters in Ain el-Tineh. “The solution at the Lebanese level requires the presence of a government, which should have been formed within 15 days had we benefited from the previous experiences,” Berri lamented.
He asked: “Why the delay and why are there new rules that violate formation norms?”“Let it be known that all governments in the world are mirrors of parliaments. They have proposed a government of independents, but does independence stand for the absence of belonging? Why are they depicting parties and party members in a scary fashion? This is strange, seeing as parties have competent and capable figures,” the Speaker added. Commenting on recent reports he said: “What I have suggested is a techno-political government and I reject a purely political government. Isn’t the current government a techno-political government?”“The new government should comprise representatives of the protest movement,” Berri added, denying that he is “unenthusiastic for a government led by Hassan Diab.”“All these rumors are baseless. I have offered him all support and assistance,” Berri stressed.
Asked about the possibility that caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri might not agree with him that the caretaker cabinet should be activated, Berri said: “It is not up to him. Acting in a caretaker capacity is a constitutional duty that must be performed.”

Salameh Rules Out 'Collapse', Says No Bank Will Go Bankrupt
Naharnet/January 09/2020
Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh on Thursday ruled out an imminent financial collapse in the country as he reassured that no bank will go bankrupt. “There is a crisis and difficulties, but not a collapse,” Salameh said in an interview with Lebanon’s MTV. “Not a single bank will go bankrupt and banks facing difficulties will be merged,” he added. Noting that liquidity in the country has declined due to “the pressure created by depositors,” Salameh reassured that Lebanese banks enjoy solvency. “There won't be a haircut,” the Governor answered in response to a question. “The central bank does not have the jurisdiction to carry out a haircut; this needs a law,” he reminded. He added: “Banks must be allowed to ‘breathe’ and we have devised a plan under which depositors' money will be preserved.”“I want to fix things and reassure the Lebanese about their monetary situation,” Salameh went on to say. Pointing out that it is his responsibility to “preserve the current structure” and the “continuity of the Lebanese state,” Salameh noted that the central bank had financed the state “on the hope that there would be reforms.”He also blamed the financial and economic woes on the country’s presidential vacuums, the delay in the formation of its governments and the failure to reform its electricity sector. Asked about the latest reports about the alleged transfer abroad of huge sums of money by a number of politicians, Salameh said: "We'll send teams from the central bank's Special Investigations Commission to the banks to explore the outcome of investigations into the transfers and we will then send the result to the state prosecutor so that he takes the necessary measures." Salameh also ruled out a "revolution of the hungry," but noted that poverty is expected to increase, urging measures.

In Bkirki, Hizbullah Delegation Says Regional Escalation Won't Affect Govt.
Naharnet/January 09/2020
A Hizbullah delegation led by politburo chief Sayyed Ibrahim Amin al-Sayyed held talks Thursday in Bkirki with Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi. “What we know is that all parties, from the PM-designate to the rest of parties and political forces, are keen on the formation of a government as soon as possible,” Sayyed said after the meeting. Asked whether the regional developments triggered by Qassem Soleimani’s killing will have an impact of the nature of the new government in Lebanon, the Hizbullah official said the regional escalation has not affected the formation process. “Until this moment, we are doing everything that facilitates the formation of the government and the issue of replacing candidates with other candidates for political considerations has not been raised with us at all and our stance has not changed,” Sayyed said. Asked whether a “confrontational government” will be formed, the Hizbullah official said: “No one wants a confrontational government or else the country will go to a difference situation.”

Lebanon’s Hezbollah says working for government formation
Reuters, Beirut/Thursday, 9 January 2020
Lebanon’s Hezbollah group is working to remove obstacles to a deal on a new government which must be formed as soon as possible to avoid collapse, one of its top officials said on Thursday. Lebanon has been without a functioning government since Saad Hariri quit as prime minister in October after protests against the political elite over corruption, leaving the country without a rescue plan as financial and economic crises deepen. The worst economic crisis since the 1975-90 civil war has led the Lebanese pound to slump amid a dollar shortage and banks to tightly control access to cash and block transfers abroad.
Spiralling regional tensions since the killing of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani by the United States last week have added to the risks facing the heavily indebted state. Hezbollah has said Iran’s allies in the region should help avenge the killing. But referring to the regional conflict, senior Hezbollah official Ibrahim Amin al-Sayyed said nobody including Hezbollah wanted “a government of confrontation” in Lebanon but one that could save the country. “We are carrying a very important and exhausting role to reach an agreement as soon as possible to prevent this collapse,” Sayyed said. “We have taken the initiative and continue to do so to remove all obstacles and complications to reach a government.”Speaking after a meeting with Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros Al-Rai, Sayyid also noted that the regional situation was “another incentive” for concessions.Hezbollah, which is sanctioned as a terrorist group by the United States, has exercised more sway over Lebanese state affairs since it won a parliamentary majority together with its political allies in 2018. Along with allies including President Michel Aoun, Hezbollah last month nominated former government minister Hassan Diab to form the next government after the failure of efforts to make a deal with Hariri, an ally of the West and Gulf Arab states. Shiite Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, said the government formation was facing complications and the situation in Lebanon was going from bad to worse. The pound has weakened again in recent days on the parallel market: dollars were being offered at 2,400 pounds on Thursday - some 60 percent weaker than its official peg of 1,507.5 pounds, a dealer said. In a rebuke to politicians, Jan Kubis, the senior UN official in Lebanon, on Wednesday said it was “increasingly irresponsible” to keep Lebanon without a government.

‘October 17’ Protests Target EDL Offices
Naharnet/January 09/2020
As Lebanon’s protest against the ruling elite approaches its third month, protesters targeted on Thursday the offices of Electricity du Liban over worsening power outages with the country in the grip of political and economic turmoil. Protesters staged sit-in near EDL premises in Tripoli’s Bahsas area to protest aggravating power outages in a country already plagued with chronic rationing. They burned tires near the premises entrance preventing access for employees. The Lebanese army and security forces were heavily deployed in the area, said the National News Agency. Another group blocked a road leading to Tripoli’s entrance from the south that triggered heavy traffic, said NNA. Lebanon is without a cabinet and in the grips of a deepening economic crisis after an almost three-month-old protest movement forced Saad Hariri to stand down as prime minister on October 29. Lebanese have been protesting in main squares across the country and rallying near the government institutions against corruption and mismanagement. Anti-government protests continued after Hariri's resignation, while political parties negotiated for weeks before nominating Hassan Diab, a professor and former education minister, to replace him on December 19. Political parties have failed so far to agree on the form of a government, and protesters accuse the political class of seeking personal gains and draining the state resources through patronage and clientelism.

Report: Balanced Govt. Required to Stop Economic Collapse
Naharnet/January 09/2020
Deposits in foreign currencies, especially in US dollar are reportedly “safe” in Lebanese banks but the formation of a government is necessary to stop Lebanon’s economic “collapse,” the Kuwaiti al-Anbaa daily reported on Thursday. A senior banking source who spoke on condition of anonymity told the daily that “deposits in Lebanese banks were safe,” but he warned that “withdrawals in dollars could be restricted if a balanced government is not formed in December.”Faced with a grinding US dollar liquidity crisis, Lebanon's banks have since September imposed increasingly tight restrictions on dollar withdrawals and transfers abroad in an attempt to conserve dwindling foreign currency reserves. This has fuelled tensions in the debt-ridden country, where a close to three-month-old protest movement is demanding the removal of political leaders deemed incompetent and corrupt. The source said the price of one US dollar to the Lebanese pound could witness a dramatic increase, “around 3000 LL to the dollar, if the formation of a new government is not facilitated.”He commented on the large “suspicious” transfers of money abroad, which if confirmed, would mark a violation of banking restrictions curtailing such transactions, and the role of the Central Bank in that regard. He said: “The Finance and Budget parliamentary committee led by Strong Lebanon bloc MP Ibrahim Kanaan has the answer and knows the owners of these funds. When the list of names gets delivered to the central bank, then the implementation becomes the responsibility of the bank. Stop fooling us by silly excuses.”Activists say ordinary depositors are footing the bill for a liquidity crisis worsened by politicians, senior civil servants and bank owners who used their influence to get their hefty savings out of the country. Many of the country's top leaders own, or have large shares in, several banks.

The Middle East Council of Churches urges dialogue as tensions flare
Annahar/January 09/2020
MECC Secretary General Dr Souraya Bechealany considered that “the Middle East and the Arab world have clearly entered a dangerous crisis. The Middle East Council of Churches urged Thursday for leaders to resort to "constructive dialogue in conflict resolution" as rising tensions flare in the region. MECC Secretary General Dr Souraya Bechealany considered that “the Middle East and the Arab world have clearly entered a dangerous crisis, and that’s why we are all called to pray for peace, reject all forms of violence, and to always rely on constructive dialogue in conflict resolution while fighting for justice and love”. Bechealany added: “the Middle East and the Arab world have always been exposed to a great deal of pain, and their inhabitants paid the consequences on economic, social, cultural, demographic and environmental levels. That’s why we are all called upon to make efforts in order to avoid disasters, build bridges based on our ethics and faith, and keep civilians out of conflicts to protect them. In fact, human dignity and peacebuilding are considered as priorities in the MECC’s mission and work”.

Ministry of Energy: Power supply to return gradually on Saturday
NNA/January 09/2020 
The media office at the Ministry of Energy and Water on Thursday explained in a statement that due to the great difficulties faced by Electricite Du Liban to open the required credits for the purchase of fuel and gas oil materials to operate power plants, coupled with the storm that has been hitting Lebanon and preventing fuel ships from being unloaded in EDL's tanks, electricity rationing has been increasing by the day across the country. The statement went on to clarify that the storm has also led to the separation of some power production networks from the main ones, which has led to an additional rationing of power supply. "Nonetheless, the technical teams at EDL have been endeavoring to gradually put these networks back into service, and it is expected that the power supply will gradually return to its previous routine as of Saturday, January 11/2020," the statement clarified, noting that until the end of February, the EDL will provide power supply to areas outside of Beirut at an average rate of 8 to 10 hours per day and for Beirut at a rate of 16 to 21 hours per day -- if production is fixed at a capacity of 1500 megawatts.

Kanaan after bloc meeting: Our stance has not changed regarding government of experts
NNA/January 09/2020
"Strong Lebanon" bloc on Thursday held its weekly meeting presided over by Caretaker Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, at the FPM's headquarters at the Mirna Chalouhi center in Sin El Fil. Speaking in the wake of the bloc's periodic meeting, MP Ibrahim Kanaan said that discussions dwelt on the regional situation, stressing the Bloc's firm position that "Lebanon should not and will not be a battlefield for others.""Our stance is consistent with our stability, sovereignty, and the principles on which we have participated in national and political work," MP Kanaan corroborated. On the governmental dossier, Kanaan stressed that the bloc supports closing national ranks, saying "we are with the formation of a government of experts.. and our stance has not changed in this regard." The Lawmaker underlined that the new government should carry a rescue plan to address the current crisis, stressing the urgent need for political solutions that would secure the rescue operation from the deteriorating financial and economic situation.

Mufti of the Republic steps up calls for 'courageous decisions that save Lebanon'
NNA/January 09/2020
Mufti of the Lebanese Republic, Sheikh Abdel Latif Derian, on Thursday called on Lebanese officials to find a swift rescue solution to the current political and economic situation. "The current situation requires courageous and sharp decisions in favor of Lebanon and the Lebanese," the Mufti told his visitors, amongst of which had been apostolic nuncio, Joseph Spiteri, who delivered to him Pope Francis's message on peace -- through dialogue and solidarity. "This message is important for Lebanon. We pray for this country and its people that Lebanon will overcome the crisis it faces," the apostolic nuncio said. United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon, Jan Kubis, also had an audience with the Mufti on Thursday. Discussions focused on the situation in Lebanon and the region.

Sheikh Hassan meets Apostolic Nuncio
NNA/January 09/2020
Druze Sheikh Akl, Naim Hassan, on Thursday met at the House of the Druze Community in Beirut, Apostolic Nuncio, Joseph Spiteri, who delivered to him Pope Francis's message on the occasion of the International Day of Peace. The message bears the Pope's vision of peace as a path of hope, dialogue, reconciliation, environmental repentance, and the concept of peace through fraternal communion.Sheikh Akl welcomed the papal nuncio, thanking him for the Pope's valuable message about peace that all of our people and the world yearn for, especially during the delicate circumstances that our societies are going through at the various levels. Speaking on emerging, Spiteri highlighted the importance of solidarity among the Lebanese, hoping that the Lebanese officials would shoulder their responsibilities so that Lebanon can overcome this crisis and form a government as soon as possible. "We continue to pray for Lebanon and its people," the apostolic nuncio said, voicing permanent commitment to assisting this nation.

Scholar Khatib receives Apostolic Nuncio
NNA /January 09/2020
Deputy Head of the Supreme Islamic Shia Council, Sheikh Ali Khatib, met Thursday with Apostolic Nuncio to Lebanon, Archbishop Joseph Spiteri, with talks touching on the means to activate interfaith dialogue, as well as on the current situation on the local and regional scenes. A statement by the Council's press office indicated that the two sides had agreed on the obligation to bolster cooperation between Muslims and Christians and enhance coexistence. It is to note that Spiteri conveyed to his host Pope Francis's message on peace.

Loyalty to Resistance bloc: For a government that protects people's interests
NNA/January 09/2020
The Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc on Thursday highlighted the necessity to form a new government that would protect the interests of the Lebanese and redress the ailing financial condition in the country, especially in light of the latest developments taking place in the broader region. "The local and regional developments entail the formation of a government that shoulders the responsibility of managing the country's affairs, protects the interests of the Lebanese, and endeavors to rectify the financial, monetary, economic and livelihood situation, and restore order to the work of institutions, administrations and apparatuses," the bloc said in a statement following its weekly meeting. The bloc considered that as Lebanon had suffered from the US-backed Zionist occupation, it was certainly concerned with the eradication of hegemony and aggressive policies. "The US hostility has again proven to be a terrorist act and an organized crime," the bloc said in reference to the US attack on Baghdad airport and assassination of General Qassem Suleimani and others. The bloc depicted US President Donald Trump as an "imperious" and "evil" who brutally killed Suleimani and his comrades. The bloc also indicated that the massive turnout in the funeral processions in both Iran and Iraq showed people's utmost confidence in the path followed by the martyrs. It added that the message both peoples sought to convey was that there were no room for any US military presence in the region.

Mikati tackles latest developments with Kubis
NNA/January 09/2020
Former Prime Minister, received this Thursday UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon, Jan Kubis, with whom he discussed the current situation in light of most recent developments in the region. Discussions also reportedly touched on the situation in s. Lebanon.

Jumblat Says Carlos Ghosn Should Be Energy Minister
Naharnet/January 09/2020
Progressive Socialist Party leader ex-MP Walid Jumblat on Thursday suggested that ex-chairman of Nissan-Renault Carlos Ghosn be named as Lebanon’s energy minister. “Awaiting the Japanese strict judicial ruling and awaiting the opinion of justice in Lebanon in a lawless state in the case of Carlos Ghosn, I suggest his appointment as energy minister to replace the controlling gang that caused this massive deficit and rejects reform,” said Jumblat in a tweet. “Carlos Ghosn has built an empire, perhaps we can benefit from his experience,” added Jumblat. Fugitive auto tycoon Carlos Ghosn was interrogated on Thursday by Lebanon’s State Prosecutor Ghassan Oueidat over the content of the Interpol red notice issued by Japan’s judiciary, which accuses him of offenses committed on Japanese soil and demands his arrest. Ghosn, who is Lebanese and also holds French and Brazilian passports, was expected to go on trial in Tokyo in April. In statements, he has said he fled to avoid "political persecution" by a "rigged Japanese justice system." He also said that he alone organized his departure from Japan and that his wife, Carole, played no role.

Prosecutor Issues Travel Ban on Ghosn
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 09/2020
Lebanon banned former auto tycoon Carlos Ghosn from travelling on Thursday after questioning him over an Interpol "red notice" of charges of financial misconduct in Japan, judicial sources said. The 65-year-old businessman -- for years venerated in Japan for turning around once-ailing Nissan -- fled while awaiting trial on charges including allegedly under-reporting his compensation to the tune of $85 million. His shock arrival in his native Lebanon last month was the latest twist in a story worthy of a Hollywood plot and prompted outrage from the Japanese government as well as from Nissan.
"The state prosecution issued a travel ban for Ghosn, and asked for his file from the Japanese authorities," a judicial source told AFP. A second judicial source said: "He has been banned from travelling until his judicial file arrives from Japan. "According to what is inside the file, if it appears that the crimes he is accused of in Japan require being pursued in Lebanon, he will be tried," the source added. "But if it doesn't require being pursued under Lebanese law, then he will be free." Lebanon's judiciary received a "red notice" from Interpol last week urging Ghosn's arrest. A "red notice" is a request to police across the world to provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender or similar legal action. It is not an arrest warrant. Lebanon does not have an extradition agreement with Japan. Ghosn also made a statement to prosecutors on a report submitted by Lebanese lawyers that he had travelled to neighbouring Israel as head of Renault-Nissan. Lebanon and neighbouring Israel are still technically at war, and Beirut has forbidden its citizens from visiting or having contacts. In early 2008, Ghosn travelled to Israel to announce the mass production of electric vehicles there with the cooperation of Renault-Nissan. At a press conference in Beirut on Wednesday, Ghosn apologised to the Lebanese people for having visited the neighbouring country. He said he went as the head of Renault. "I went as a Frenchman because of a contract between Renault and an Israeli company," said Ghosn, who holds French, Lebanese and Brazilian nationalities. "I always come back to Lebanon and nothing has ever happened before," he said.

Ghosn Laments Brazil's Failure to 'Pressure' Japan
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 09/2020
Ex-auto tycoon Carlos Ghosn told Brazilian media he was disappointed by the Latin American country's failure to "pressure" authorities in Japan, where he was detained before jumping bail and fleeing to Lebanon. The former Renault-Nissan chief, who was born in Brazil, had been awaiting trial on charges of financial misconduct, which he denies. Ghosn, 65, told the media in Beirut on Wednesday that he fled Japan last month because he would not get a fair trial. He had been held for 130 days under severe conditions. In an interview with GloboNews, Ghosn said President Jair Bolsonaro had previously contacted his sister, Claudine Bichara, who lives in Brazil, raising his expectations for official intervention in his case. "I was hoping that at some point, perhaps some pressure from the Brazilian government for normal, proper treatment would be made," Ghosn said in the interview broadcast Wednesday evening.
Ghosn, who holds French, Lebanese and Brazilian passports, had hoped Bolsonaro would raise the issue with Japanese officials during his visit to Tokyo in October. "I believe the ministry of foreign affairs told him the Japanese would be upset, so nothing was done." Bolsonaro's office did not immediately respond to AFP's request for comment. Ghosn said he could go to Brazil "without problem" so long as he took a direct flight to "avoid problems with Interpol." Lebanon on Thursday banned Ghosn from traveling after questioning him over an Interpol "red notice."A "red notice" is a request to police across the world to provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender or similar legal action. It is not an arrest warrant. Lebanon does not have an extradition agreement with Japan. Ghosn has argued since his shock November 2018 arrest that the case against him was a bid to block his plans to more closely integrate Nissan with its French partner Renault. Bichara, Ghosn's sister, told Brazilian daily Folha de Sao Paulo that she was disappointed by Brazil's inaction in her brother's case. "It preferred to abstain and avoid taking risks, unlike Lebanon," she said.

Fugitive Ghosn Brings Global Attention to Japanese Justice
Associated Press/Naharnet/January 09/2020
Though former Nissan Chairman Carlos Ghosn is unlikely to stand trial in a real court, he has made himself a key witness in putting Japan's justice system on trial. In his first public appearance after fleeing to Lebanon, Ghosn lambasted what he called unfair detention and bail conditions, saying he was presumed guilty and had "zero chance" of a fair trial in a system rigged against him. "I didn't run from justice, I left Japan because I wanted justice," the former auto industry icon said at a spirited two-hour news conference in Beirut. With little chance they can extradite him, Japanese authorities struck back with words Thursday. Tokyo prosecutors, who arrested him in late 2018, said Ghosn had "only himself to blame" for being detained 130 days before being released and for strict bail conditions like being banned from seeing his wife. "Defendant Ghosn was deemed a high-profile risk, which is obvious from the fact that he actually fled," they said. Justice Minister Masako Mori denounced Ghosn's comments as erroneous and credited Japan's extremely low crime rate to a judicial system rooted in "its history and culture."
Ghosn's remarks, however, highlighted many of the issues human rights advocates call problematic in Japan's justice system.
Because of Japan's extremely low crime rate, how suspects are treated is surprisingly unknown to Japanese, who tend to trust authoritative figures and assume no one gets arrested without a reason. In Japan, suspects can be detained in solitary confinement without charge for up to 23 days. Charges can be filed piecemeal to prolong incarceration. Suspects are routinely grilled for hours each day without a lawyer present. Critics call the detention conditions mental torture. Japan's conviction rate is higher than 99%, a number that critics, including Ghosn, say indicates unfairness. Japanese officials insist the conviction rate is so high because they don't make mistakes and only guilty people are prosecuted. At the same time, they insist there's a presumption of innocence. It's an entrenched system that not only leads to confessions but also has judges thinking suspects are guilty, says Tokyo defense lawyer Seiho Cho, who has been trying to change it. "They really believe that this system is functioning efficiently and correctly," he said. Cho said Ghosn was a high-profile case and the way regular suspects are treated is worse. Those who insist they are innocent especially are detained longer, some for hundreds of days. Bans on contact with family members are also common, he said.
The ban in Ghosn's case cited the risk his wife Carole might tamper with evidence. An arrest warrant was issued this week for Carole Ghosn on suspicion of perjury. Carlos Ghosn argued the ban on contact with his wife was illogical because he was allowed to meet with other family members, implying the decision was meant to wear him out. His decision to escape was driven by his desire to be with his wife, he said. The preparation for Ghosn's trial had already taken a year, and the date for his trial was undecided. He was charged with underreporting of future income and breach of trust in diverting Nissan Motor Co. money for personal gain, the two separate charges complicating and prolonging his trial process. If convicted, he could face 15 years in prison. Prosecutors also can appeal district court decisions. "Even when they are eventually exonerated, they have already lost so much," Cho said, noting some suspects have lost their jobs, their reputation, even their families. Among the famous cases of wrongful convictions is Iwao Hakamada, who spent 48 years in prison until new DNA evidence won his release from death row in 2014. He had been questioned, beaten and bullied by police daily in detention and confessed to murdering a family of four, but asserted his innocence when his trial began.
Frenchman Mark Karpeles was arrested in 2015 after his bitcoin exchange collapsed. He spent 11 months in detention, although he was eventually cleared of embezzlement and fraud allegations. He got a suspended sentence, meaning no additional jail time was required, on a conviction on charges of manipulating electronic data. He is appealing. Karpeles said he was an innocent victim of hackers. A true-life story of a man who refused to sign a confession that he groped a woman on a crowded commuter train became a popular 2007 movie. The film depicts a five-year legal battle for exoneration, highlighting the burden of proof of innocence was on the accused rather than police and prosecutors proving guilt. Although Ghosn has drawn attention to the system's possible flaws, Cho was worried about a backlash, with release on bail getting tighter. "We had gradually been making progress, but this could set us back," Cho said. For example, with the idea of introducing an electronic tether, which Japan lacks and Ghosn had proposed to get bail, fewer people could end up getting bail, and, on top of that, be electronically monitored. Interpol has published a wanted notice for Ghosn but it is non-binding. Chief government spokesman Yoshihide Suga said whether Ghosn would be extradited was Lebanon's decision but that Japan would cooperate with international organizations "so that Japan's criminal justice system can be operated appropriately."Jacques Deguest, an expert on Japanese law and business, thinks Ghosn's case is so embarrassing for Japan it may discourage some non-Japanese from wanting to invest or live there. "Prosecutors are regarded as guardians and protectors of Japanese culture," said Deguest, an investor, lawyer and consultant. Their super-efficient, but often brutal, practices have resisted change, but sometimes pressures from abroad can bring it about, Deguest said. "Change happens often through crisis because it forces people to be uncomfortable with the status quo and forces them to move on," he said. "This Ghosn case is great in terms of magnitude because it has the power to put the external pressure on Japan that we all love," Deguest said. Ghosn was careful not to blame the people of Japan for what he called the nation's injustices. He led Nissan for two decades, steering the automaker back from near-bankruptcy to a thriving brand, although sales and profits have tumbled since his arrest. Ghosn said people on the streets who spotted him while he was out on bail would come up to him. They would tell him, he said in Japanese, "Ghosn-san gambatte kudsai," using the honorific for his name, saying: "Hang in there."

Ghosn Slams Japan Minister, Says Will 'Cooperate with Lebanese State'
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 09/2020
Former auto tycoon Carlos Ghosn on Thursday slammed as "ridiculous" a call by Japan's justice minister that he return from Lebanon to defend himself against charges of financial misconduct. The Japanese "judicial system is completely backwards," Ghosn said in an interview with Lebanese LBCI television channel. "I will fully cooperate with the Lebanese judiciary, and I'm much more comfortable with it than with the Japanese judiciary." Ghosn added that he wanted to stay in Lebanon and has no issues to hand in his passport. "I came to Lebanon and I will cooperate with the Lebanese state and judiciary to make sure that everything is done in a way that can't be criticized, not for Lebanon and not for me," he said. Ghosn then added that he is "a lot more" confident in Lebanon's judicial system than Japan's. He said Lebanese prosecutors questioned him on all the charges, adding that he was ready to hand in all the documents for his case. Moreover, Ghosn said his case highlighted the thousands of unfair trials in Japan. "It has become now my duty to defend all those people to change this regime that the Japanese are hiding and they claim is a democracy," he said.

Japan Urges Ghosn to Return as Fugitive Tycoon Defends Escape
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 09/2020
Japan's justice minister on Thursday urged Carlos Ghosn to return and make his case in court, after the fugitive former auto tycoon gave an impassioned defence of his decision to jump bail and flee to Lebanon. Ghosn made his first public appearance since his audacious December escape at a combative press conference in Beirut on Wednesday, where he slammed Japan and said he had been forced to flee because he would not get a fair trial. The ex-chairman of Nissan-Renault faced four charges of financial misconduct in Japan, which he alleges were cooked up by disgruntled executives at Nissan in collusion with Japanese prosecutors. On Thursday, Japanese Justice Minister Masako Mori called those claims "baseless" and insisted Ghosn's "assertions will not justify his flight from Japan in any way.""If defendant Ghosn has anything to say on his criminal case, he should make his argument in a Japanese court and present concrete evidence," she added. "If he claims innocence, he should face a trial under the justice system in Japan, where he was doing business, and he should submit evidence to prove his claims," Mori said.
'Presumed guilty'
The former car magnate spent much of his two-hour press conference insisting that justice was impossible for him in Japan. He argued that the charges against him, including allegedly under-reporting his pay and skimming Nissan funds for his own personal use, were a bid to bring him down for political reasons. "There was no way I was going to be treated fairly... this was not about justice," he told reporters, responding to questions in English, Arabic, French and Portuguese. Ghosn said he was "presumed guilty before the eyes of the world and subject to a system whose only objective is to coerce confessions, secure guilty pleas."Ghosn has argued since his shock November 2018 arrest that the case against him was a bid to block his plans to more closely integrate Nissan with its French partner Renault.On Wednesday, he alleged extensive collusion between the Japanese automaker and prosecutors and said he was the victim of character assassination. The Tokyo prosecutor's office hit back late Wednesday, saying "Ghosn's allegations completely ignore his own conduct." "His one-sided criticism of the Japanese justice system is totally unacceptable," the prosecutor's office said. Former Nissan CEO Hiroto Saikawa, a one-time Ghosn protege who was forced to resign in the wake of the scandal, also hit out on Thursday. Ghosn "fled because he was afraid of being found guilty," Saikawa told reporters.
Ghosn mum on escape details -
The 65-year-old businessman was out on bail in Tokyo when he launched his audacious escape plan, and said he decided to flee after his lawyers told him he could wait five years for a verdict. He also accused prosecutors of imposing strict conditions on his contact with his wife Carole in a bid to "break" him. Prosecutors in Tokyo this week obtained an arrest warrant for Carole, who is also in Lebanon, alleging she lied to a Japanese court. Ghosn refused to shed any further light on how he managed to slip past authorities and flee Japan at the end of December -- an astonishing feat given his high-profile status and the restrictions he faced. Under his bail terms, his passports were confiscated, his home monitored and his internet access limited to a computer at his lawyer's office. Despite that, he appears to have formulated an elaborate plan with security experts who smuggled him onto a private jet at an airport near Osaka, packed into an audio equipment case. The plane whisked him to Istanbul, where he boarded a second private jet and continued to Lebanon, which does not have an extradition treaty with Japan. Interpol has issued a "red notice" at Japan's request, but it remains unclear how Tokyo can bring Ghosn back to the country to face trial. He said Wednesday he plans to take measures, including possibly challenging the Interpol notice, in a bid to clear his name, but would not be drawn on whether he planned to travel outside Lebanon.

Ghosn ‘very comfortable’ after Lebanon questioning: Lawyer
Reuters/Thursday, 9 January 2020
Carlos Ghosn’s lawyer said he was “very comfortable” with legal proceedings in Lebanon on Thursday, after the fugitive ex-Nissan boss was questioned over an extradition request from Japan where he faces financial misappropriation charges. Ghosn fled Japan to Lebanon, his childhood home, last month as he awaited trial on charges of under-reporting earnings, breach of trust and misappropriation of company funds, all of which he denies. His dramatic escape has raised tension between Japan and Lebanon, where Ghosn slammed the Japanese justice system at a two-hour news conference on Wednesday, prompting Japan’s Justice Minister to launch a rare and forceful public response. After questioning in Beirut about Japan’s Interpol warrant, two judicial sources said the prosecutor had imposed a travel ban, a step Carlos Abou Jaoude, a Beirut-based lawyer for Ghosn, described as procedural to broadcaster Al Jadeed. Lebanon has no extradition agreement with Japan. “He (Ghosn) is very comfortable with the path,” Abou Jaoude told another broadcaster, MTV, adding that Ghosn was also comfortable in himself “especially after what he went through.” Ghosn said later he was more comfortable with the Lebanese judiciary than that of Japan. “I will fully cooperate,” he told broadcaster LBCI. He also said he did not want to put pressure on Japan-Lebanon bilateral ties, two days after Japan’s ambassador to Lebanon requested greater cooperation from President Michel Aoun in dealing in the case.
One of the judicial sources said authorities had asked Japan for its file on Ghosn, including the charges against him, and would not question him again until the information is received. Ghosn would surrender his French passport on Thursday, he said. Japan’s Justice Minister Masako Mori said Ghosn’s allegations that he had had “zero chance” of a fair trial in Japan were unfounded. “Defendant Ghosn was looking to justify his unlawful exit from Japan by propagating a false recognition of our justice system,” she said at the second of two news conferences, the first of which was held shortly after midnight. “I felt that we needed to respond immediately to broadcast a correct understanding to people around the world.”Ghosn told LBCI her comments were “ridiculous.”
Trial in Lebanon?
Ghosn’s arrest after his private jet touched down in Toyko in November 2018 shook the global auto industry and jeopardised the Renault-Nissan alliance of which he was the mastermind. The Brazilian-born executive said on Wednesday he had escaped to Lebanon to clear his name and was prepared to stand trial anywhere he could get a fair hearing. Ghosn has also said he was ready to stay for a long time in Lebanon and a source close to the 65-year-old has said his legal team is pushing for him to be tried in the country. The decision by Lebanon’s prosecutor, Judge Ghassan Ouiedat, after Ghosn’s questioning at Beirut’s Justice Palace requires Ghosn to keep the authorities informed of his place of residence, the judicial sources said. Ghosn was also questioned over a formal legal complaint filed by a group of Lebanese lawyers who accuse him of “normalization” with Israel over a visit he made there in 2008. The prosecutor released him with the same condition, that he keep the authorities aware of his place of residence, the sources said. Ghosn said on Wednesday he had made the trip as a French citizen and an executive of Renault to sign a contract with a state-backed Israeli firm to sell electric vehicles, and had been obliged to go because the board had requested it. He said he had apologized for the trip and had not meant to hurt the people of Lebanon, which deems Israel an enemy state. During the visit, Ghosn met Ehud Olmert, who was Israel’s prime minister at the time of the 2006 war between Israel and the Iranian-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah. Nearly 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, died in the 2006 war and 158 people died in Israel, mostly soldiers.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 09-10/2020
'I want answers': Trudeau says Ukraine International Airlines plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile
Yahoo News Canada/January 09/2020
https://ca.yahoo.com/news/trudeau-iran-plane-crash-iran-missile-strike-203133410.html
On Thursday afternoon, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 was struck down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile on Wednesday. “We have intelligence from multiple sources...including our own intelligence, that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile,” Trudeau said. “This may well have been unintentional.” “The preliminary conclusions we have been able to draw based on intelligence and evidence are clear enough for me to share them with Canadians,” the prime minister added in his address. Trudeau’s message follows statements from two U.S. officials that it is “highly likely” an Iranian anti-aircraft missile took down Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752, with Trump suggesting that Iran was responsible, without directly blaming the country, but adding that the plane was flying through a “pretty rough neighbourhood.” “Somebody could have made a mistake on the other side," the U.S. president said. “Some people say it was mechanical...I personally don't think that's even a question." When asked directly if he believes the U.S. is responsible for this tragic event, Trudeau said it is “too soon to be assigning blame or responsibility.”The prime minister stressed multiple times during the press conference that is it imperative that a “thorough, credible and complete investigation” is conducted, going on to say that the information the government has “suggests very clearly a possible and probable cause for the crash but it is all the more necessary therefore to gather all the information.”“I want answers. That mean closure, transparency, accountability and justice,” Trudeau said. “This government will not rest until we get that.” Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne has made it clear that Canadian officials must “immediately” be granted access to Iran, the prime minister said, adding that Iran has “indicated an openness” to Canada being involved in the investigation, but the degree of that involvement is being “worked out.”“We have consular officials who are en route to Ankara, Turkey and Iran is open to issuing visas so that consular assistance can be given on the ground,” Trudeau said. A total of 63 Canadians died on the plane, 138 passengers travelling to Toronto on the flight. The crash occurred merely hours after Iran's missile attacks on Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops on Tuesday, following the killing of Iranian military leader Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani by the U.S. last week. An Iranian investigative report released Thursday indicates that pilots never called for help and claimed the aircraft was trying to turn back for the airport when it crashed.  The report also states that the black boxes have been recovered but have sustained damage, causing some of the memory to be lost. On Wednesday, Iran’s Civil Aviation Authority said they would not be handed over to Boeing or America, but Garneau said Canada is prepared to with black box data interpretation.

Iran, Canada FMs discuss airliner crash: Iranian media
Tommy Hilton, Al Arabiya/English/Thursday, 9 January 2020
Canada's Foreign Minister François-Philippe Champagne discussed issues relating to the casualties from the Ukrainian airliner which crashed with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, reported Iran's official IRNA on Thursday. The 176 people killed in the crash on Wednesday included 63 Canadians. Circumstances surrounding the crash are still disputed. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the government was considering several possible causes the crash. Oleksiy Danylov, secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defence Council, outlined four main theories for the crash: a possible missile attack, a collision, an engine explosion or terrorism.

US officials believe Iran accidentally shot down Ukraine airliner: US media
AFP/Thursday, 9 January 2020
US President Donald Trump said Thursday he had “suspicions” about the crash of a Ukrainian airliner outside Tehran as US media reported it had been mistakenly shot down by Iran. Unnamed officials told American media that Iranian air defense systems likely accidentally shot down the airliner Wednesday, killing all of the 176 people on board. Newsweek, CBS, and CNN said that satellite, radar, and electronic data indicated the tragic error, which followed a ballistic missile barrage by Iran on two military bases in Iraq where US troops work. Trump didn't directly confirm that conclusion, but strongly hinted at it.“I have my suspicions,” Trump said. “It was flying in a pretty rough neighborhood and somebody could have made a mistake.”“Some people say it was mechanical. I personally don't think that's even a question,” Trump said, adding that “something very terrible happened.” Analysts pointed to pictures shared widely online of the wrecked fuselage of the aircraft showing multiple apparent puncture holes consistent with a rocket that detonated just outside the plane, blasting shrapnel into it. “Similar marks were visible on wreckage of MH17,” CNN reporter Jim Sciutto said, referring to the Malaysian Airlines flight which was shot down only July 17, 2014, over Eastern Ukraine by a Russian-designed surface-to-air missile.

Iranian missile system shot down Ukraine flight, probably by mistake: Report
Ismaeel Naar, Al Arabiya English/Thursday, 9 January 2020
The Ukrainian flight that crashed just outside the Iranian capital of Tehran was hit by an Iranian anti-aircraft missile system, three sources tell Newsweek. According to Newsweek’s report, the airplane is said to have been struck by a Russian-built Tor-M1 surface-to-air missile system, according to a Pentagon official, a senior US intelligence official and an Iraqi intelligence official. The sources spoke to Newsweek on the condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to speak on the matter publicly. The Pentagon official US senior intelligence official told Newsweek that their assessment of the crash so far has proven that the incident might have been accidental. The Ukrainian International Airlines Boeing 737-800, flying to Kiev and carrying mostly Iranians and Iranian-Canadians, crashed on Wednesday shortly after taking off from Tehran's Imam Khomeini airport, killing all 176 people on board.
US President Donald Trump said Thursday he had "suspicions" about the crash of the Ukrainian airliner as US media reported it had been mistakenly shot down by Iran. Trump didn't directly confirm that conclusion, but strongly hinted at it. "I have my suspicions," Trump said. "It was flying in a pretty rough neighborhood and somebody could have made a mistake."(With AFP)

Informants in Iraq, Syria helped US kill Iran’s Soleimani: Sources
Reuters/Thursday, 9 January 2020
Iranian General Qassem Soleimani arrived at the Damascus airport in a vehicle with dark-tinted glass. Four soldiers from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards rode with him. They parked near a staircase leading to a Cham Wings Airbus A320, destined for Baghdad.
Neither Soleimani nor the soldiers were registered on the passenger manifesto, according to a Cham Wings airline employee who described the scene of their departure from the Syrian capital to Reuters. Soleimani avoided using his private plane because of rising concerns about his own security, said an Iraqi security source with knowledge of Soleimani’s security arrangements. The passenger flight would be Soleimani’s last. Rockets fired from a US drone killed him as he left the Baghdad airport in a convoy of two armored vehicles. Also killed was the man who met him at the airport: Abu Mahdi Muhandis, deputy head of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Unit (PMU) militias, the Iraqi government’s umbrella group for the country’s militias. The Iraqi investigation into the strikes that killed the two men on Jan. 3 started minutes after the US strike, two Iraqi security officials told Reuters. National Security agents sealed off the airport and prevented dozens of security staff from leaving, including police, passport officers and intelligence agents. Investigators have focused on how suspected informants inside the Damascus and Baghdad airports collaborated with the US military to help track and pinpoint Soleimani’s position, according to Reuters interviews with two security officials with direct knowledge of Iraq’s investigation, two Baghdad airport employees, two police officials and two employees of Syria’s Cham Wings Airlines, a private commercial airline headquartered in Damascus. The probe is being led by Falih al-Fayadh, who serves as Iraq’s National Security Adviser and the head of the PMF, the body that coordinates with Iraq’s mostly Shi’ite militias, many of which are backed by Iran and had close ties to Soleimani. The National Security agency’s investigators have “strong indications that a network of spies inside Baghdad Airport were involved in leaking sensitive security details” on Soleimani’s arrival to the United States, one of the Iraqi security officials told Reuters. The suspects include two security staffers at the Baghdad airport and two Cham Wings employees - “a spy at the Damascus airport and another one working onboard the airplane,” the source said. The National Security agency’s investigators believe the four suspects, who have not been arrested, worked as part of a wider group of people feeding information to the US military, the official said.
Under investigation
The two employees of Cham Wings are under investigation by Syrian intelligence, the two Iraqi security officials said. The Syrian General Intelligence Directorate did not respond to a request for comment. In Baghdad, National Security agents are investigating the two airport security workers, who are part of the nation’s Facility Protection Service, one of the Iraqi security officials said. “Initial findings of the Baghdad investigation team suggest that the first tip on Soleimani came from Damascus airport,” the official said. “The job of the Baghdad airport cell was to confirm the arrival of the target and details of his convoy.”
The media office of Iraq’s National Security agency did not respond to requests for comment. The Iraq mission to the United Nations in New York did not respond to a request for comment. The US Department of Defense declined to comment on whether informants in Iraq and Syria played a role in the attacks. US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the United States had been closely tracking Soleimani’s movements for days prior to the strike but declined to say how the military pinpointed his location the night of the attack.A Cham Wings manager in Damascus said airline employees were prohibited from commenting on the attack or investigation. A spokesman for Iraq’s Civil Aviation Authority, which operates the nation’s airports, declined to comment on the investigation but called it routine after “such incidents which include high-profile officials.”
Soleimani’s plane landed at the Baghdad airport at about 12:30 a.m. on Jan. 3, according to two airport officials, citing footage from its security cameras. The general and his guards exited the plane on a staircase directly to the tarmac, bypassing customs. Muhandis met him outside the plane, and the two men stepped into a waiting armored vehicle. The soldiers guarding the general piled into another armored SUV, the airport officials said. As airport security officers looked on, the two vehicles headed down the main road leading out of the airport, the officials said. The first two US rockets struck the vehicle carrying Soleimani and Muhandis at 12:55 a.m. The SUV carrying his security was hit seconds later. As commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ elite Quds force, Soleimani ran clandestine operations in foreign countries and was a key figure in Iran’s long-standing campaign to drive US forces out of Iraq. He spent years running covert operations and cultivating militia leaders in Iraq to extend Iran’s influence and fight the interests of the United States. Reuters reported on Saturday that, starting in October, Soleimani had secretly launched stepped-up attacks on US forces stationed in Iraq and equipped Iraqi militias with sophisticated weaponry to carry them out. The attack on the general sparked widespread outrage and vows of revenge in Iran, which responded on Wednesday with a missile attack on two Iraq military bases that house US troops. No Americans or Iraqis were killed or injured in the strike.
In the hours after the attack, investigators pored over all incoming calls and text messages by the airport night-shift staff in search of who might have tipped off the United States to Soleimani’s movements, the Iraqi security officials said. National Security agents conducted hours-long interrogations with employees of airport security and Cham Wings, the sources said. One security worker said agents questioned him for 24 hours before releasing him. For hours, they grilled him about who he had spoken or text with before Soleimani’s plane landed - including any “weird requests” related to the Damascus flight - and confiscated his mobile phone. “They asked me a million questions,” he said.

NATO to examine Middle East options after Trump request
AFP, Brussels/Thursday, 9 January 2020
NATO will consider an increased role in the Middle East, particularly in training missions, the head of the alliance said Thursday, after US President Donald Trump demanded it do more. Responding to a call from the US leader for the transatlantic alliance to “become much more involved” in the troubled region, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said this did not have to mean large deployments of combat troops. He pointed to training missions run by the alliance in Afghanistan and Iraq - where some 500 NATO forces are deployed to train local troops. “I strongly believe that the best way we can fight international terrorism is not always by deploying NATO troops in big combat operations,” Stoltenberg told reporters. “The best way is to enable local forces to fight terrorism themselves, and that is exactly what we do in Afghanistan, what we do in Iraq, and of course we can look into if we can do more of that kind of activity.” Trump and Stoltenberg spoke on Wednesday after the president made his call during a statement on a night of Iranian missile strikes on US bases in Iraq. The 70-year-old alliance boasts that it is the most successful in history, and was the lynchpin of Western European security throughout the Cold War. But its role, and indeed its founding treaty, has been focused on Europe and North America, despite the challenges facing the allied militaries in Asia, North Africa and the Near East. Stoltenberg refused to speculate in detail about how NATO might boost its role but stressed that any changes would be made after consultation with all 29 member states as well as countries in the Middle East. NATO has suspended its Iraq training mission since Friday’s US strike killing Iranian commander Qassem Suleimani in Baghdad because of security fears. Some of the allied troops attached to the mission have been withdrawn from Iraq for their safety, but Stoltenberg has described this as a temporary measure.

Iran military commander appears in front of proxy flags on state TV
Tommy Hilton, Al Arabiya English/Thursday, 9 January 2020
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) airforce commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh was seen in front of Iranian proxy flags alongside official Iranian flags during a press conference aired by Iranian state TV on Thursday. The flags showed a range of Iran's proxy organizations across the region alongside Iran's military organizations, bringing attention to Tehran's extensive regional proxy network. Many of the organizations have been designated as terrorist by much of the international community. Following Iran's official state flag and two IRGC flags is the emblem of Lebanon's Hezbollah, which has well-documented close links to the Iranian regime. In the center is the flag of the political party Ansar Allah, representing the Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen. Iran has been accused of providing military and logistical support to the Houthis, who are fighting against the UN-recognized government in Yemen which is supported by the Arab Coalition. “We are giving [the Houthis] advisory and intellectual assistance and the IRGC is in charge of this,” the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces Maj. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri said in October, adding that Iran “will stand by the Yemeni people until the end.”To its right is the flag of the Popular Mobilization Unit (PMU) militias, known as the Hashed al-Shaabi, in Iraq. Several of the militias under the PMU umbrella, most notably Katai'b Hezbollah and Asaib al-Haqq, are aligned with Iran but considered terrorist organizations by the US. The pro-Iran leader of the PMU, Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, was killed in the airstrike alongside Soleimani. On Wednesday, the PMU denied involvement in a rocket attack on a site close to the US embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone. To their right is the flag of Palestinian militant group Hamas, which has received Iranian support and funding, followed by the flags of the Fatemiyoun and Zainebiyoun brigades, Iran-backed militias made up primarily of Afghan and Pakistani Shia fighters respectively. Both have fought in Syria, where slain Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani coordinated militias to fight alongside the regime of Bashar al-Assad. During the press conference, Hajizadeh boasted of Iran's apparent ability to strike US troops across the region, having said that the Iranian missile attacks on military bases in Iraq were not aimed at killing US soldiers. “If we were looking to kill, we could have designed the operation in a way such that 500 [Americans] would be killed in the first step, and if they had responded, a further 4,000 to 5,000 would be killed in the next steps within 48 hours,” he claimed.

Rocket falls near Iraqi base housing US troops: Sources
Reuters, Tikrit/Friday, 10 January 2020
A rocket fell on Thursday night in the Fadhlan area of the Dujail district in Iraq’s northern Salahuddin province, police sources said. The area is close to the Balad airbase which houses US troops. The source of the rocket is unknown, the sources said. It caused no casualties.
Dujail is 50 km (30 miles) north of Baghdad. Balad base is about 80 kilometres (50 miles) north of Baghdad.

Iraq summons Iranian ambassador, refuses striking military bases on Iraqi lands
Reuters/Friday, 10 January 2020
Iraq’s ministry of foreign affairs said in a statement on Thursday that it has summoned the Iranian ambassador to inform him of Iraq’s refusal to strike military bases on Iraqi lands and that it considers this action as a violation of sovereignty. The statement also said that summoning the Iranian official comes in the context of Iranian retaliatory missile strikes. Iraq’s President Barham Salih on Wednesday condemned Iran’s missile strikes on Iraqi bases where US and other foreign troops are based, saying he feared “dangerous developments” in the region.
“We denounce the Iranian missile bombing that hit military installations on Iraqi territory and renew our rejection of the repeated violation of state sovereignty and the transformation of Iraq into a battlefield for warring sides,” his office said in a statement.

Russia says ceasefire established in Syria’s Idlib: Report
Reuters, Moscow/Thursday, 9 January 2020
A ceasefire has been established in the northwestern Syrian region of Idlib, TASS news agency reported citing a Russian defense ministry official on Thursday. “According to the agreements with the Turkish side, the ceasefire regime was introduced in the Idlib de-escalation zone starting from 14.00 Moscow time (1100 GMT) on January 9 2020,” Russian major-general Yury Borenkov is quoted as saying. Turkey had asked Russia to establish a ceasefire in the region and it sent its delegation to Moscow last month to discuss the issue. On Wednesday, four Turkish soldiers were killed in a car bombing in northeastern Syria, Turkey’s defense ministry said.

Trump Announces Iran Sanctions, Says Has Suspicions over Ukrainian Plane
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 09/2020
U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday the United States had imposed new sanctions on Iran following missile strikes on bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq that resulted in no American or Iraqi deaths. "It's already been done. We've increased them. They were very severe, but now it's increased substantially," Trump said, without offering any specifics. Trump had promised the "additional punishing sanctions" in an address to the nation Wednesday in retaliation for the attack -- seen by experts as a measured first response by Tehran to the killing of Iran's top General, Qasem Soleimani, in an American drone strike in Baghdad. Separately, Trump said he had "suspicions" about the crash of a Ukrainian airliner outside Tehran as U.S. media reported it had been mistakenly shot down by Iran. "I have my suspicions," Trump said. "It was flying in a pretty rough neighborhood and somebody could have made a mistake."Trump's remarks came as Newsweek, CBS and CNN reported that the plane had been accidentally shot down by Iranian air defense systems. All 176 people aboard died in the crash near Tehran on Wednesday. "Some people say it was mechanical. I personally don't think that's even a question," Trump said, adding that "something very terrible happened."

Iran Says Rumors Missile Caused Plane Crash Make 'No Sense'
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 09/2020
Iran on Thursday ruled out a missile strike as the cause of a Ukrainian passenger plane crash near Tehran, saying such a scenario made "no sense."The plane crashed shortly after take off Wednesday, killing all 176 people on board, shortly after Iran fired a volley of missiles against military bases in Iraq housing U.S. personnel. "Several internal and international flights were flying at the same time in Iranian airspace at the same altitude of 8,000 feet (2,440 meters)," Iran's transport ministry said. "This story of a missile striking a plane cannot be correct at all," it said in a statement. "Such rumors make no sense," Ali Abedzadeh, head of Iran's civil aviation organisation and deputy transport minister, said in the statement. Abedzadeh was reacting to rumors on social networks that the Boeing 737 was hit by a missile fired by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. He said Iran and Ukraine were in the process of "downloading information" from black boxes retrieved from the crash site. "But if more specialized work is required to extract and analyse the data, we can do it in France or another country," he added. On Wednesday, Iran's Mehr news agency -- close to ultraconservatives -- quoted Abedzadeh as saying Iran "would not give the black boxes to the Americans". But the minister's statement on Thursday rejected "rumors of Iran's resistance to delivering the black boxes... to the US". Iran is not obliged to have the black boxes analysed in the U.S., but America is one of only a few countries -- including France and Germany -- capable of carrying out such work. Iranian authorities say initial indications showed the plane had turned back after suffering a problem. A team of Ukrainian experts flew in and joined the investigation on the ground Thursday. Kiev said it was studying several scenarios, including an in-flight collision, a rocket strike, an engine explosion caused by a technical problem, and an onboard blast.

U.S. Officials Believe Iran Accidentally Shot Down Ukraine Airliner
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 09/2020
U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday he had "suspicions" about the crash of a Ukrainian airliner outside Tehran as U.S. media reported it had been mistakenly shot down by Iran. Unnamed officials told American media that Iranian air defense systems likely accidentally shot down the airliner Wednesday, killing all of the 176 people on board. Newsweek, CBS and CNN said that satellite, radar and electronic data indicated the tragic error, which followed a ballistic missile barrage by Iran on two military bases in Iraq where U.S. troops work. Trump didn't directly confirm that conclusion, but strongly hinted at it. "I have my suspicions," Trump said. "It was flying in a pretty rough neighborhood and somebody could have made a mistake.""Some people say it was mechanical. I personally don't think that's even a question," Trump said, adding that "something very terrible happened."Analysts pointed to pictures shared widely online of the wrecked fuselage of the aircraft showing multiple apparent puncture holes consistent with a rocket that detonated just outside the plane, blasting shrapnel into it. "Similar marks were visible on wreckage of MH17," CNN reporter Jim Sciutto said, referring to the Malaysian Airlines flight which was shot down only July 17, 2014 over Eastern Ukraine by a Russian-designed surface-to-air missile.

US officials: 'Highly likely' Iran downed Ukrainian jetliner
The Canadian Press/January 9, 2020
WASHINGTON — Two U.S. officials said Thursday it was “highly likely” that an Iranian anti-aircraft missile downed a Ukrainian jetliner late Tuesday, killing all 176 people on board.
The crash came just a few hours after Iran launched a ballistic missile attack against Iraqi military bases housing U.S. troops amid a confrontation with Washington over the U.S. drone strike that killed an Iranian Revolutionary Guard general last week. The officials, citing U.S. intelligence, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information. They said they had no certain knowledge of Iranian intent. But they said it could very well have been a mistake, and that the airliner was mistaken for a threat.
President Donald Trump suggested that he believes Iran was responsible and wouldn't directly lay the blame on Iran, but dismissed Iran's initial claim that it was a mechanical issue.
“Somebody could have made a mistake on the other side.," Trump said, noting the plane was flying in a “pretty rough neighbourhood ."
“Some people say it was mechanical,” Trump added. “I personally don't think that's even a question.”
The U.S. officials wouldn’t say what intelligence they have that points to an Iranian missile. But they acknowledged the existence of satellites and other sensors in the region, as well as the likelihood of communications intercepts and other similar intelligence.
The U.S. assessment comes after a preliminary Iranian investigative report released Thursday said the pilots never made a radio call for help and claimed the aircraft was trying to turn back for the airport when the burning plane went down. Ukraine, meanwhile, said it considered a missile strike as one of several possible theories for the crash, despite Iran's denials.
The Iranian report suggests that a sudden emergency struck the Boeing 737 operated by Ukrainian International Airlines late Tuesday, when it crashed, just minutes after taking off from Imam Khomeini International Airport in Tehran.
Investigators from Iran's Civil Aviation Organization offered no immediate explanation for the disaster, however. Iranian officials initially blamed a technical malfunction for the crash, something initially backed by Ukrainian officials before they said they wouldn't speculate amid an ongoing investigation.
The Ukrainian International Airlines took off at 6:12 a.m. Wednesday, Tehran time, after nearly an hour's delay at Tehran's Imam Khomeini Airport, the main airport for travellers in Iran. It gained altitude heading west, reaching nearly 8,000 feet, according to both the report and flight-tracking data.
Then something went wrong, though “no radio messages were received from the pilot regarding unusual situations,” the report said. In emergencies, pilots reach out to air-traffic controllers to warn them and to clear the runway for their arrival, though their first priority is to keep the aircraft flying.
Eyewitnesses, including the crew of another flight passing above it, described seeing the plane engulfed in flames before crashing at 6:18 a.m., the report said. Flight-tracking data for the plane stopped before the crash, which occurred in the town of Shahedshahr to the northeast of the plane's last reported position. That's the wrong direction of the flight plan, bolstering the report's claim that the pilots tried to turn the aircraft back to the airport.
The crash caused a massive explosion when the plane hit the ground, likely because the aircraft had been fully loaded with fuel for the flight to Kyiv, Ukraine.
The report also confirmed that both of the so-called “black boxes” that contain data and cockpit communications from the plane had been recovered, though they sustained damage and some parts of their memory was lost. It also said that investigators have initially ruled out laser or electromagnetic interference as causing the crash. Hours before the plane crash the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration had issued an emergency flight restriction barring U.S. carriers and pilots from flying over areas of Iraqi, Iranian and some Persian Gulf airspace warning of the “potential for miscalculation or mis-identification” for civilian aircraft due to heightened political and military tensions. Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine's Security Council, told Ukrainian media that officials had several working theories regarding the crash, including a missile strike.

Iranian Missile Shot Down Ukranian Flight Probably By Mistake, Sources Say.
By Naveed Jamali , James LaPorta , Chantal Da Silva and Tom O'Connor Newsweek/January 09/2020
The Ukrainian flight that crashed just outside the Iranian capital of Tehran was struck by an anti-aircraft missile system, a Pentagon official, a senior U.S. intelligence official and an Iraqi intelligence official told Newsweek.
Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, a Boeing 737–800 en route from Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airpot to Kyiv's Boryspil International Airport, stopped transmitting data Tuesday just minutes after takeoff and not long after Iran launched missiles at military bases housing U.S. and allied forces in neighboring Iraq. The aircraft is believed to have been struck by a Russia-built Tor-M1 surface-to-air missile system, known to NATO as Gauntlet, the three officials, who were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, told Newsweek.
One Pentagon and one U.S senior intelligence official told Newsweek that the Pentagon's assessment is that the incident was accidental. Iran's anti-aircraft were likely active following the country's missile attack, which came in response to the U.S. killing last week of Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander Major General Qassem Soleimani, sources said.
Of the 176 people on board, 82 were Iranian, 63 were Canadian and 11 were Ukrainian (including nine crewmembers), along with 10 Swedish, seven Afghan and three German nationals. None survived.
The incident was first reported by Iranian semi-official media outlets, which cited the country's Red Crescent Society as assessing that the initial cause appeared to be mechanical failure. The Ukrainian embassy in Tehran shared this view in a statement, but later retracted it, with Kyiv warning not to draw conclusions from preliminary assessments. Images began to circulate Wednesday of what appeared to be fragments of a Tor M-1 missile said to have been found in a suburb southwest of Tehran. Ukraine Security Council Secretary Oleksiy Danylov said Thursday in a statement that contact with a Tor M-1 system was among the potential causes for the plane's destruction that his country was looking into.
Other potential scenarios involved a collision with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or another flying object, technical malfunction and a terrorist attack. The Civil Aviation Organization of Iran Chief has also invited Canada and Sweden to cooperate in the accident investigation, however, Chief Executive Ali Abedzadeh has stressed that he would not hand over the aircraft's black box⁠—which may provide details of the doomed flight's final moments⁠—to the United States. Abedzadeh also on Thursday dismissed speculation that a missile strike took down. In a statement, he said this outcome was "scientifically impossible and such rumors make no sense at all." In a rare call Thursday, Canadian Foreign Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne spoke with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif, to whom he "stressed the need for Canadian officials to be quickly granted access to Iran to provide consular services, help with identification of the deceased and take part in the investigation of the crash." Champagne said that "Canada and Canadians have many questions which will need to be answered."
Asked whether the Canadian government is considering or leading with the possibility that an anti-aircraft missile took down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, Global Affairs spokesperson Krystyna Dodds said her office would have to get back to Newsweek on the matter.
https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot-down-ukraine-flight-mistake-sources-1481313?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

Iraqi Lawmakers' Decision To End U.S. Military Presence Sparks Debate Among Iraqis Regarding Parliament's Lack Of Legitimacy, Quorum
MEMRI/January 09/2020
In response to the Iraqi Parliament's decision, on January 5, that demands that the Iraqi government take measures to end the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, anti-Iran protesters in Iraq issued a statement on January 6, accusing the government and the parliament of working "against the interests of the nation."
"What happened in the parliament session are actions that are not related to the national interest, but actions that are trying to plunge Iraq into an international conflict," the statement says. Further noting that the current parliament is lacking in legitimacy, the statement asserts that the parliament does not represent the Iraqi people, and that the last election in 2018 was widely boycotted: "Until it [parliament] restores its legitimacy it can not take actions or issue decisions against the interests of Iraq and its oppressed Iraqi people."In their statement, the protesters also call on other Iraqis to stand together in the face of the "foolish adventures" that threaten to return Iraq to the "dark ages" – a reference to the period of time that Iraq had been under the economic sanctions that were imposed by the United Nation's Security Council on regime of Saddam Hussain. On January 5, the Iraqi parliament asked the government to "end the presence of any foreign forces"[1] on its soil by initiating a "cancellation of the assistance request" submitted to the international coalition to fight ISIS. The Iraqi Parliament's press release[2] notes that 172 Iraqi lawmakers, out of 329, voted to approve a "decision," not a law, to end the presence of the U.S.-led international coalition in Iraq. However, a photo analysis report[3] published on January 6 by Shar Press, a Kurdish news website, which thoroughly examined a video documenting the Iraqi parliamentary session, says that only 130 MPs were present on the day of the vote, while 167 MPs are required for quorum.
The report suggests that 58 out of 59 Iraqi Kurdish MPs boycotted the session and only 15 of the 70 Sunni MPs were present. Further the report also points out that six of 26 MPs from Nuri Al-Maliki's bloc (The State of Law Coalition), five out of 25 MPs from Haider Al-Abadi's bloc (Al-Nasr), and four of 15 MPs from Iyad Allawis's bloc (Al-Watinyia) were in attendance. The report further provides photos of the attendees and counts them.
Additionally, a video[4] documenting part of session that was not broadcast to the public raises questions regarding the validity of the quorum during that session. The video shows parliament speaker Mohammad Al-Halbousi, one of the few Sunnis who attended the session, addressing the lawmakers after the vote and requesting that the cameras be turned off. He then warns the lawmakers of the consequences of their decision, saying that after the passing this decision, Iraq may not be able to fulfill its financial obligations to its citizens – possibly a reference to the potential sanctions that the U.S. may impose on Iraq should a withdrawal be imposed. He further points out that many lawmakers who represent Sunnis, Kurds, and other minorities were not in attendance: "Today the attendees are Shi'ites, I wish - as in previous times - that the decision would have been Iraqi. Today you are [Shi'ite MPs] the older brother and you bear the responsibility of everyone. You bear the responsibility of your sons, brothers, and sisters from the Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds, and minorities from all over Iraq."
[1] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 8464 Reactions In Iraq To Parliamentary Decision Demanding That Iraqi Government End Foreign Military Presence In Iraq, January 5, 2020.
[2] Ar.parliament.iq, January 5, 2020.
[3] Sharpress.net, January 6, 2020.
[4] Youtube.com/watch?v=WdAfZumFNYo, January 6, 2020.

Iran missile attack did not aim to kill US troops, claims Iranian commander
Tommy Hilton, Al Arabiya English/Thursday, 9 January 2020
The Iranian missile attacks on military bases in Iraq were aimed at damaging "America's military machine" and not at killing US troops, claimed Iranian military commander Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh on Iranian state TV on Thursday. “We were not looking to kill anyone in this operation, although dozens were certainly killed and wounded,” the state-run Fars news agency quoted Hajizadeh as saying. “If we were looking to kill, we could have designed the operation in a way such that 500 [Americans] would be killed in the first step, and if they had responded, a further 4,000 to 5,000 would be killed in the next steps within 48 hours,” he claimed. The appropriate response to the killing of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) - Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani is to expel US troops from the region, added Hajizadeh, who heads the IRGC's airforce. Iran has hundreds of missiles at the ready and when Tehran launched missiles on Wednesday it had used "cyber attacks to disable [US] plane and drone navigation systems," he added. According to Iranian state television, Hajizadeh said the attacks were the start of a series of attacks across the region. US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that no Americans or Iraqis were killed in Iran's recent attack. Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei described the attacks as “a slap in the face” for the US. On the same day, a Revolutionary Guards commander said Iran would take “harsher revenge soon” after Tehran launched missile attacks on US targets in Iraq. Hajizadeh made the comments in a press conference in front of the flags of a range of Iranian proxy organizations alongside official Iranian flags, bringing attention to Tehran's extensive regional proxy network.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on January 09-10/2020
Global institutions should be nurtured not undermined
Cornelia Meyer/Arab News/January 09, 2020
The world is ablaze with geopolitical tensions, extreme climate events like floods, wildfires and intense hurricanes, and, last but not least, trade wars. Never have we needed multilateral mechanisms to manage these crises more than today. Solutions cannot be found on a bilateral level because these issues all span either the globe or whole regions.
The case for trade is self-evident. While the US administration may have had a point in raising certain structural issues in its trade relationship with China, the bilateral trade war brought into question global supply chains that took about a generation to build. The ripple effects can be felt throughout the globe, especially in open trading economies such as Germany, Japan or South Korea.
Indeed, both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have revised their economic growth projections downward several times since the start of the US-China trade war. IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva voiced fears over the generational economic impact of the unraveling of trading relationships and global supply chains.
The US has found an accommodation of sorts and will conclude phase one of its US China trade deal this month. This does not conclude the issue though because the Pandora’s box has now been opened and we will have to contend with the ripple effects for some time to come.
Never before would it have been more important to have a functioning World Trade Organization (WTO) than now, but alas the unfolding of several bilateral trade fronts — like the US and China or Brexit and the EU — has undermined the already faltering institution, which had been encumbered by its inability to conclude the Doha Round. The fact that Donald Trump refused to confirm judges for the WTO’s court of arbitration means that its most important function has come to a virtual standstill (the irony is that, in the history of the WTO, no nation has benefited more from its arbitration judgements than the US).
Climate change is an obvious example — nothing is more global than this issue. While the UN Framework Conference for Climate Change has a commendable agenda, it lacks teeth. This was proven at last year’s COP25 summit in Madrid, where nations could not agree on a worldwide framework for carbon pricing. When it comes to the price of carbon, nothing but a global solution will do.
The UN is chronically underfunded and, at times, paralyzed by the veto power of the permanent five members of the Security Council.
It was a huge setback when the US decided to leave the Paris Agreement on climate change, which was agreed in 2015 at COP21 and which stipulates that the global temperature should not be allowed to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Not even the smallest goals can be achieved without the world’s largest economy on board. Well-meaning regional or national attempts like the EU or the UK’s goal to render their emissions carbon neutral by 2050 cannot make up for the lack of a functioning multilateral framework.
The same can be said for the UN and especially its Security Council, which is an important arbiter when geopolitical tensions are on the rise. It is undeniable that the institution needs to reform its sprawling bureaucracy, yet it is the only mechanism that can address wars and humanitarian crises on a global level. It is chronically underfunded and, at times, paralyzed by the veto power of the permanent five members of the Security Council. As dysfunctional as the UN may be, it is still the only framework we have got.
In other words, the world faces a myriad of issues that can only be resolved at the global level. We should take care of and not undermine the multilateral institutions that have the capability to address the planet’s burning issues.
Cornelia Meyer is a business consultant, macroeconomist and energy expert. Twitter: @MeyerResources

Iran’s big chance to choose peace over war
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/January 09, 2020
Tensions between the US and Iran have reached new heights. The Iranian regime on Wednesday launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi military bases that house US troops in retaliation for last week’s American attack in Baghdad that killed Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani.
The regime is also engaging in heightened rhetoric, with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei saying: “I said during a speech at the time (of Barack Obama’s presidency) that the time for hit-and-run is over. If you hit, you get hit back.” Iran's minister of telecommunications Mohammed-Javad Azari Jahromi also took to Twitter following the US missile attack in Iraq, writing: “Get the hell out of our region.”
Iran must de-escalate tensions and refrain from turning the region into a battlefield. Tehran’s leaders can take several steps to prevent the heightened tensions from spiraling further. First of all, it must take the diplomatic route and stop intervening in the internal affairs of other nations and using foreign territories as a proxy battleground to advance its geopolitical and revolutionary ambitions.
Across the region, it has become apparent that millions of people are turning against Tehran’s meddling in their country’s internal affairs. Lebanon and Iraq, in particular, have seen people taking to the streets, openly rallying against the strategy Soleimani so carefully cultivated for decades. They seek to be free, once and for all, from Iranian-generated agitation. These protests, combined with the Iranian people also speaking out against their regime’s foreign adventurism, offered hope that Tehran might finally change its approach and pull back from spreading instability.
Amid the fear and animosity that clouds the political picture in the Middle East, Iran must take actions to de-escalate tensions and recognize the need to start dismantling their network of violence across the region.
The sad truth is that Iran has driven much of the increase in tensions in the Middle East over the past year. The raid on shipping off the UAE’s port of Fujairah, the drone and missile attack on Saudi Aramco facilities and the impounding of British tanker Stena Impero were all unprovoked aggressions that saw Iran further alienate itself from the international community.
The sad truth is that Iran has driven much of the increase in tensions in the Middle East over the past year
Tehran’s clerical establishment ought to change its political calculations when it comes to its ties to its militias and proxies. This means it must refrain from ordering these groups to inflict harm on nations and governments that the Iranian leaders view as rivals.
The death of Soleimani is undoubtedly a seismic moment in our region and a considerable escalation. This is a man who almost single-handedly built up and oversaw Iran’s vast network of violent, disruptive proxies. His work has been the driving force behind instability in the Middle East. We now stand at a moment where this instability and tension risk escalating further — something both the region and the world simply cannot afford.
We should be under no illusions and there must be no false revisions about the devastating and destructive impact of this man’s actions. Soleimani bears responsibility for the elevation and influence of some of the region’s most destructive elements.
The likes of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and militias in Syria and Iraq, which have brought death and misery to millions, owe their subversive successes to him above all others. In Yemen, Soleimani provided immediate backing for the illegal overthrow of the legitimate government by a violent Houthi force, which was directly backed, armed and resourced by Tehran. Their actions plunged the country into devastating chaos. In Lebanon, his actions elevated Hezbollah to a position where they have been able to perpetuate a cycle of political instability that has seen the ordinary population lose out.
Tehran has two paths to choose from: To seek to further this alienation through continued violence or take the opportunity for de-escalation via diplomacy. The latter would require cool heads on both sides in order to see this moment not as an opportunity for violence, but a chance to take the heat out of long-running tensions. It would be foolish to view the death of Soleimani as triggering these pressures — the reality is it is just the latest chapter in tensions that have existed for many years.
Media and political reaction in recent days has seen intense speculation about how the Islamic Republic will continue to seek revenge. But Iran must immediately de-escalate tensions. The Iranian regime should be urged to not continue going down its violent and militaristic route and instead view this as an unlikely opportunity to work toward dialing down hostility, reducing simmering tensions and starting down the path of longer-term peace and prosperity. Iran’s overriding priority must be seeking peace instead of war.
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman and president of the International American Council. He serves on the boards of the Harvard International Review, the Harvard International Relations Council and the US-Middle East Chamber for Commerce and Business. Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh

No Iranian terrorists are safe in wake of Soleimani’s death
Dr. Hamdan Al-Shehri/Arab News/January 09/2020
The elimination of Qassem Soleimani can be considered one of the noblest actions in combating terrorism, and has removed one of the world’s most important terrorist leaders, who was responsible for managing terrorism in the region and its ramifications.
Most of the countries in this region have complained about the terrorist militias affiliated with Tehran and their criminal roles, and many have called for their dismantling and elimination. These militias are exporting Iran’s terrorism and tearing at the fabric of the social unity in countries around the region.
The targeting of the head of these terrorist militias is the largest and most important step that has been taken to confront and counter terrorism. Many people wished that this would have happened a long time ago. And if the same had also been done with those who lead the militias affiliated with Tehran in countries such as Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq, the world would be better off today.
Soleimani’s hands were stained with the blood of millions of Arabs, while he was also responsible for their displacement around the world and the killing of many Americans. Eliminating him sends a message to the rest of the terrorists that they are not safe anymore.
Once again, we must stress on action to eliminate terrorists and dismantle militias, which are considered the most important steps that lead to peace and the elimination of terrorism. The international coalition that was formed to defeat Daesh should continue to carry out its war on terrorism by defeating the Iran-aligned militias, which are considered a source of danger that destabilizes the region and the world.
In order to confront and combat terrorism, there may well be reactions, but the stability and security the world will enjoy after the eradication of terrorism will be more important. Every action has side effects, such as with medicine, but the danger of staying silent and letting threats grow is the real danger that will make the region and the world suffer harm at the hands of these militias. As they expand more and more, their danger becomes greater.
The representatives of the Iraqi government are now biting the hand that fed them
Whoever condemns this process is nothing but a supporter of Soleimani and his terrorism. No one wants to be on the side of someone who defends or sympathizes with a murderer like Soleimani.
It had recently become obvious to Tehran that the Iraqi people, including the Shiite street, and other Arab nations demanded the exit of Tehran and the dismantling of terrorist militias that carry weapons outside the framework of the state and are instructed by Ali Khamenei’s orders.
Soleimani did not like this message, so he had his militia conduct an airstrike that killed an American contractor in Iraq. The US then responded in the framework of protecting its forces and interests in the country. Soleimani escalated his orders to storm the Green Zone and the Iraqi government did not carry out its work by protecting the US Embassy, which was attacked by Iran’s agents in Baghdad. Tehran was aiming to control all parts of the Iraqi state, liquidate the demonstrators, spread terrorism and attack US bases in Iraq. It had to be stopped by the removal of the mastermind Soleimani from the scene once and for all.
What happened in Iraq after Soleimani’s killing was a demand by the country’s Parliament — minus most of the Kurdish and Sunni MPs, who did not attend the vote — to request the withdrawal of foreign forces. It is strange for this Iraqi government and its Parliament to make this demand, especially since it was the Americans who enabled them to be in such a position in the first place by removing Saddam Hussein from power. The representatives of the Iraqi government are now biting the hand that fed them.
In any case, it is the people — who have demonstrated against Iran and its militias — that are the real representative of Iraq, not this submissive government or the Parliament represented by the Tehran-aligned militias.
The US will ignore this request as it is non-binding, unacceptable and, in reality, represents only the views of Iran and the terrorist militias that voted for Khamenei’s wishes. Therefore, acceptance of this move could be considered as approving and recognizing Iran’s occupation of Iraq.
• Dr. Hamdan Al-Shehri is a political analyst and international relations scholar. Twitter: @DrHamsheri

Republicans, Democrats and the Killing Of Soleimani: Is Appeasement Back in Style?
Clifford Smith/The Daily Wire/January 08/2020
The killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq at the hands of an American drone has stirred up a partisan hornet's nest. Republicans overwhelmingly approve of the killing of the individual responsible for the recent attack on the U.S. embassy in Iraq. Democrats, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly focused on the risks of "escalation" with Iran.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, the leading Democrat for his party's 2020 presidential nomination, acknowledged blood on Soleimani's hands, but the main thrust of his statement concerns the risk of escalation: "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox, and he owes the American people an explanation of the strategy and a plan to keep safe our troops and embassy personnel, our people and our interests."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), another 2020 presidential candidate, called the move "reckless" and feared it would "lead to a new Middle East conflict." Similar sentiments were offered by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Patty Murray (D-WA), and many others.
Some went further. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) made no condemnation of Soleimani's actions, instead decrying President Trump for putting us on a path to "endless war." Senator Warren later suggested that killing Soleimani was motivated by a desire to distract from impeachment. The usually hawkish Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he would do everything he could to prevent war with Iran — suggesting the killing of Soleimani, rather than Iran's numerous attacks on the U.S., would be responsible for any such war. Legislation to tie the administration's hands has already been introduced.
Republicans, on the other hand, were having none of it. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) accused fellow Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), who largely echoed the party line, of "drunk partisanship." Sasse declared that "General Soleimani is dead because he was an evil bastard who murdered Americans." Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) put it most starkly: "For too long, this evil man operated without constraint, and countless innocents have suffered for it. Now his terrorist leadership has been ended."
Democrats fear the risk of "open war," while Republicans insist that "open war" is already upon us.
In short, to paraphrase a popular film, most Democrats are critical of the Trump administration risking "open war," while Republicans insist that "open war" is already upon us.
The Republicans have the better argument. There has been a steady escalation of tensions in recent months — by Iran, not the U.S. In addition to the previously mentioned attack on the American embassy in Iraq, which was not a "protest," but an attack perpetrated by Kataib Hezbollah, one of Soleimani's most loyal terrorist proxy militias in Iraq, Soleimani was responsible for repeated escalation.
Republicans have eagerly pointed this out. Sen. James Risch (R-ID), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, noted that Soleimani had been actively involved in an attack that killed an American contractor and wounded four American troops just days before the embassy attack. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) pointed out that there had been over 10 rocket attacks against Americans since October. Moreover, Iran's attack on Saudi oil fields, attack on a British ship in the Persian Gulf, and downing of a U.S. drone are all part of Iran's provocations. These events were seen as escalations by both sides of the isle.
All this is not even considering that, according to the State Department, Iran, and thus Soleimani, its chief unconventional warfare strategist, are responsible for the deaths of over 600 American soldiers in previous years — nor is it even considering Soleimani's boundless support for Bashar al-Assad in Syria vis-à-vis proxy groups. Nor, still, is it considering Soleimani's part in Iran's support of the radical Houthi movement in Yemen, resulting in one of the bloodiest civil wars in recent history. The list goes on.
Unlike the killing of Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the killing of Soleimani presents significant risk. Soleimani was at the height of his power, and while the Quds Force he oversaw is indisputably a terrorist organization, it is also a branch of a state actor. This creates a more complicated, and dangerous, situation. President Donald Trump's flirtation with attacking Iranian cultural sites in response to further provocation doesn't help matters. Sen. Mitt Romney's (R-UT) insistence that the administration explain the path going forward to protect our troops and our interests is reasonable.
The focus on U.S. "escalation" is a potentially catastrophic mistake.
However, the focus on U.S. "escalation," ignoring recent history, is a potentially catastrophic mistake. The word "appeasement" is overused, but no other word accurately describes the position of most Democratic politicians, who are ignoring the pattern of increasingly bellicose Iranian behavior. As Garry Kasparov recently said, appeasement kills because it "raises the stakes, postpones the inevitable, and encourages aggressors to assume they can act with impunity."
Moreover, Democratic worries about endless escalation seem unwarranted. Iran's recent "retaliation," launching missiles that resulted in zero U.S. or Iraqi casualties and even giving the Iraqi government advance notice, seems aimed at face-saving more than a desire to escalate further.
The temptation to take a partisan stance on such a major issue, during an election year, may be almost irresistible. But that doesn't make it right. Leader McConnell was indignant, asking in a rousing speech, "Can we not maintain a shred, just a shred, of national unity for five minutes ... before deepening the partisan trenches?"
The maxim that "politics stops at the water's edge" is more aspirational than real.
As former Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman recently wrote, "In their uniformly skeptical or negative reactions to Soleimani's death, Democrats are ... creating the risk that the U.S. will be seen as acting and speaking with less authority abroad at this important time."
The late Sen. Arthur Vandenberg's (R-MI) maxim that "politics stops at the water's edge" has always been more aspirational than real. But in preaching what amounts to appeasement, Democrats are endangering the country.
* Cliff Smith (@CliffSmithZBRDZ) is Washington Project Director for the Middle East Forum.

Trump Has Ended 'Proportionate Warfare' against Iran — Will It Last?
A.J. Caschetta/The Hill/January 09/2020
أي كاسشيتا/مجلة الهل: ترامب انهى حقبة الحرب النسبية ضد إيران، فهل سيستمر هذا الوضع على حاله؟
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/82149/%d8%a3%d9%8a-%d9%83%d8%a7%d8%b3%d8%b4%d9%8a%d8%aa%d8%a7-%d9%85%d8%ac%d9%84%d8%a9-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%87%d9%84-%d8%aa%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%85%d8%a8-%d8%a7%d9%86%d9%87%d9%89-%d8%ad%d9%82%d8%a8%d8%a9-%d8%a7%d9%84/
Following Iran's firing of 15 missiles at Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops last night, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted that "Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense." Even if early reports are accurate that the missiles killed no Americans — perhaps even deliberately — the days when Iran could count on its aggression being met by a "proportionate" response from Washington may be over.
Iran's proxy forces assaulted the U.S. embassy in Baghdad late last month and, in response to a purported "imminent attack" organized by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), President Trump took the splendidly disproportionate step of killing General Qassem Soleimani, the leader of the IRGC's Quds Force, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the commander of the Iranian-sponsored Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), thus breaking what journalist Jonathan Tobin called "the wheel of appeasement."
This followed the equally disproportionate killing days before of 25 Kataib Hezbollah fighters who killed one American contractor.
Trump seems to have ended, at least temporarily, the era of proportionate warfare against Iran.
The folly of fighting a "proportionate" war — the type imposed upon Israel — is self-evident to those who understand that wars are won by the sides that inflict more damage than they receive. Fighting proportionately only prolongs wars and produces stalemates.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is a proponent of proportionality. In 2017, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on civilians, she applauded Trump's "proportionate" strike on the chemical weapons facility in Syria, but this time, she complained that killing Soleimani was "provocative and disproportionate."
Trump himself is using the term as if finally responding to criticism. For example, answering an IRGC claim that "some 35 U.S. targets are within our reach," Trump replied on Saturday that he is eyeing 52 sites in Iran. And then on Sunday, he tweeted a warning: "Should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner."
It wasn't always this way. In May 2019, the IRGC began harassing and sabotaging ships in the Persian Gulf. In June, after Iran downed an American drone conducting surveillance in the area, Trump said the U.S. military was "cocked and loaded," ready to hit Iran hard in retaliation. But at the last minute, the president called off the attack — mid-flight, according to his tweet — after learning that up to 150 people might be killed in the attack. It would not be proportionate, he said.
After Iranian drones struck Saudi Arabian oil fields on Sept. 14, the world waited for a U.S. or Saudi response. This time, Trump said that the military was "locked and loaded." But again nothing happened, proportionate or otherwise.
For a while, many agreed that Trump's restraint was a problem. The New York Times investigation into "The Secret History of the Push to Strike Iran" concluded that his "tendency to bluster about American power, but avoid actually using it, has made the situation in recent months even more volatile."
Even from the right, Trump's critics wanted action — but proportionate action. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) offered the ultimate in proportionate tit-for-tat, tweeting: "It is now time for the U.S. to put on the table an attack on Iranian oil refineries."
Graham was right that "Iran will not stop their misbehavior until the consequences become more real, like attacking their refineries, which will break the regime's back," but proportionately destroying Iranian oil refineries could be counterproductive, hindering the peaceful government everyone hopes one day will replace the current regime and perhaps rousing more anti-Americanism. Better to strike disproportionately at Iranian forces and proxies at the borders of the Iranian empire: Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen. Just as sanctions are shrinking Iran's economy, crippling its proxies will shrink its influence.
This is precisely what Trump did on Dec. 29 after an American contractor was killed and others wounded by missile fire from Kataib Hezbollah in Kirkuk, Iraq, on Dec. 27. Rather than killing one Iranian proxy member in a "proportionate" response, the larger strike killed up to 25. A 25-to-1 ratio might deter some enemies, but in the 1980s, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini sent thousands of Iranian children to die as martyrs in human wave attacks against Iraq. Now, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would just as willingly sacrifice Arabs and Iranians as martyrs to his cause. He is less willing to sacrifice his war-making materiel.
Predictions about Iranian retaliation for Soleimani's death have run the gamut from cyber attacks to more assaults on U.S. embassies. Few believe that last night's missiles are the end of it. One likely form of Iranian retaliation is additional sabotage in the Persian Gulf, where the IRGC's estimated 1,500 boats are the primary source of Iranian harassment, whether they are attaching limpet mines to oil tankers or seizing them and their crews.
It was an IRGC boat that seized 10 U.S. Navy sailors and held them captive in January 2016. President Obama did not respond, proportionately or otherwise. Instead, he invited more mischief by having Secretary of State John Kerry negotiate for their release and then issued a statement expressing "gratitude to Iranian authorities for their cooperation in swiftly resolving this matter." The IRGC is a designated foreign terrorist organization, so its assets, including its navy, could be targeted and its ships sunk whenever they are encountered.
Iran has been at war with the U.S., ideologically, since Feb. 1, 1979, when Khomeini's airplane landed in Iran, ending his exile in France and establishing the Islamic Republic. Its first physical attack against the U.S. came on Nov. 4, 1979, when Khomeini's followers stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held diplomats hostage for 444 days.
The U.S. has been fighting Iran proportionately for almost 40 years, exercising restraint and attempting diplomacy. By returning fire, Trump has changed that pattern.
What we don't know is whether the president had an epiphany and the emphasis on disproportionate fighting augurs a new policy, or if are we witnessing just another ephemeral twist in the unpredictable foreign policy of an unpredictable president.
*A.J. Caschetta is a Ginsberg-Ingerman fellow at the Middle East Forum and a principal lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Forcing US Troops from Iraq Will be a Victory for ISIS, Iran
Con Coughlin/Gatestone Institute/January 09/2020
كوك كوغلن/معهد كايتستون: اجبار اميركا على سجب جيشها من العراق سيكون انتصار لإيران وداعش
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/82151/%d9%83%d9%88%d9%83-%d9%83%d9%88%d8%ba%d9%84%d9%86-%d9%85%d8%b9%d9%87%d8%af-%d9%83%d8%a7%d9%8a%d8%aa%d8%b3%d8%aa%d9%88%d9%86-%d8%a7%d8%ac%d8%a8%d8%a7%d8%b1-%d8%a7%d9%85%d9%8a%d8%b1%d9%83%d8%a7-%d8%b9/
"They [surviving ISIS fighters] have better techniques, better tactics and a lot more money at their disposal. They are able to buy vehicles, weapons, food supplies and equipment. Technologically they're more savvy. It's more difficult to flush them out. So, they are like al-Qaeda on steroids." — Lahur Talabany, a top Kurdish counter-terrorism official, in an interview with the BBC.
Calling on America to withdraw its forces from Iraq could therefore prove to be utterly self-defeating for the Iraqi government... they will simply be placing themselves at the mercy of a new, and bolder, generation of Islamist fanatics.
A US withdrawal from Iraq would also suit Tehran, where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not only called for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, but the entire Middle East. Not having the US to provide moral and military support to the Iraqi government would allow Iran to continue its meddling in Iraq's internal affairs, as well as consolidating its malign influence throughout the rest of the region.
Calling on America to withdraw its forces from Iraq could prove to be utterly self-defeating for the Iraqi government. The most likely consequence of a withdrawal will be the return of ISIS as a major terrorist force. Pictured: The remains of a church that was attacked by ISIS in Mosul, Iraq. (Photo by Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP via Getty Images)
The most likely consequence of any attempt by the Iraqi government to demand the removal of American forces will be the return of ISIS as a major terrorist force, as President Donald J. Trump singled out in his televised address January 8.
The issue of whether the estimated 5,200 US troops currently based in Iraq will be allowed to remain in the wake of the assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qassem Soleimani has been raised following a nonbinding vote by the Iraqi parliament calling for the withdrawal of American forces.
President Trump immediately responded by threatening Iraq with sanctions and a bill for billions of dollars if Baghdad insisted on the withdrawal taking place, although questions remain about the legitimacy of the Iraqi parliament's demand.
The resolution was put forward by a pro-Iranian faction in the parliament with the backing of the country's pro-Iran prime minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, who was forced to resign from office at the end of last year over accusations of corruption. The session, however, was not attended by Kurdish and Sunni parliamentarians, who are keen for Washington to maintain its military presence in the country, as well as other Western allies such as Britain, to help support the Iraqi military's efforts to prevent ISIS from making a comeback.
It is also questionable how binding the resolution will be on Iraq's caretaker government, which is only in power until the country's politicians can agree on a new leader to replace Abdul-Mahdi.
The Trump administration has insisted that the US military will maintain its presence in Iraq for the time being, with Mr Trump remarking that withdrawing American forces would be the "worst thing to happen to Iraq."
"At some point, we want to get out," Trump added. "But this isn't the right point."
This is certainly the view of many senior Iraqi military officials, who are well aware that without Western support, there is every possibility that the fanatics of ISIS will be able to regroup and make another attempt to establish their so-called caliphate.
Back in the summer of 2014, when ISIS fighters first succeeded in capturing large swathes of territory in northern Iraq, they were able to do so because forces loyal to the Iraqi government were either ill-equipped or unwilling to defend their country against the Islamist extremists.
This success resulted in Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Iraqi-born leader of ISIS, fulfilling his long-held ambition of establishing his caliphate in territory captured by ISIS fighters in northern Iraq and Syria, where the group imposed a brutal reign of terror over the inhabitants, with mass beheadings and torture becoming an everyday feature of their brutal rule.
It was only after the intervention of the US-led coalition that ISIS was eventually defeated last year and the caliphate destroyed, forcing thousands of ISIS fighters to flee into exile throughout the Middle East.
Now there are mounting concerns that, with Washington's primary focus on containing the threat posed by Iran in the wake of the Soleimani assassination, ISIS will be able to take advantage of the mounting chaos in Iraq and regroup, an ambition that would be far easier to realise if the Iraqi government insisted on the withdrawal of US forces.
Western intelligence experts believe that there are now around 10,000 ISIS supporters based in Iraq, with between 4,000-5,000 fighters and a similar number of sleeper cells and sympathisers.
The surviving fighters from Baghdadi's caliphate, moreover, are seen as being more experienced and more determined than they were under their previous incarnation under the command of Baghdadi, who was killed during a US Special forces operation last year.
As Lahur Talabany, a top Kurdish counter-terrorism official, recently said in an interview with the BBC:
"They have better techniques, better tactics and a lot more money at their disposal. They are able to buy vehicles, weapons, food supplies and equipment. Technologically they're more savvy. It's more difficult to flush them out. So, they are like al-Qaeda on steroids."
Calling on America to withdraw its forces from Iraq could therefore prove to be utterly self-defeating for the Iraqi government. By breaking ties with the country that helped to defeat ISIS, they will simply be placing themselves at the mercy of a new, and bolder, generation of Islamist fanatics.
A US withdrawal from Iraq would also suit Tehran, where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not only called for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, but the entire Middle East. Not having the US to provide moral and military support to the Iraqi government would allow Iran to continue its meddling in Iraq's internal affairs, as well as consolidating its malign influence throughout the rest of the region.
*Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
© 2020 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Why Hamas Supports Turkey's Invasion of Northern Syria
Omer Demir/Gatestone Institute/January 09/2020
The American pullout from the area, which borders on Turkey, was evidently perceived by Erdoğan as a green light for an invasion for which he had been waiting for nearly a decade.
Hamas, like Turkey, not only seeks Israel's destruction, but also has close ties with the Erdoğan government.
Like its terrorist counterparts across the Middle East, many of which are funded by the Iranian regime, Hamas aims to annihilate Israel not only for being a Jewish state, but for sharing American values of freedom and democracy. In Hamas's eyes, the Kurds are an extension of that Western alliance.
Hamas's support for Turkey's aggression in northern Syria should come as no surprise. Hamas, like Turkey, not only seeks Israel's destruction, but also has close ties with the Erdoğan government. Pictured: Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (then serving as prime minister) poses beside Hamas leaders Khaled Mashaal (center) and Ismail Haniyeh (left) during a meeting in Ankara, Turkey on June 18, 2013. (Image source: Turkish Prime Minister Press Office/Yasin Bulbul/AFP via Getty Images)
In mid-October, following US President Donald Trump's announcement of a withdrawal of American troops from northern Syria, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's military invaded the Kurdish-held area.
Ankara views the Kurds in northern Syria as PKK-affiliated terrorists who, for wanting freedom, are regarded as a serious threat to Turkish national security. Eliminating Kurdish autonomy has been a key priority for Erdoğan since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011.
The American pullout from the area, which borders on Turkey, was evidently perceived by Erdoğan as a green light for an invasion, for which he had been waiting for nearly a decade. Although there is no doubt about the devastating effect that this move is having and will continue to have on the Kurds, there is a question about whether and to what extent it will affect Israel, a neighboring country that has been a supporter of Kurdish independence and rightly fears an even greater Iranian power-grab in Syria.
Israel's enemies, unsurprisingly, immediately championed Trump's announced exit and praised Erdoğan's invasion. Take Hamas, the terrorist organization that rules the Gaza Strip, for example.
Hamas, like Turkey, not only seeks Israel's destruction, but also has close ties with the Erdoğan government. Hamas's military wing maintains an office in Istanbul, in spite of international pressure on Turkey to shut it down. During an official visit to London in May 2018, Erdoğan stated:
"...I do not deem Hamas a terrorist organization. Hamas is one of the resistance movements working to liberate the occupied territories of the Palestinians."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the above comments on Twitter, writing:
"Erdogan is among Hamas's biggest supporters and there is no doubt that he well understands terrorism and slaughter. I suggest that he not preach morality to us"
In other words, Turkey's "ideological love affair" with Hamas is no secret.
However, while Turkey, a member of NATO, may be playing a double game with the West -- simultaneously supporting Hamas and engaging in realpolitik diplomacy with Washington and Jerusalem -- Hamas is clear about its radical Islamist agenda. Like its terrorist counterparts across the Middle East, many of which are funded by the Iranian regime, Hamas aims to annihilate Israel not only for being a Jewish state, but for sharing American values of freedom and democracy. In Hamas's eyes, the Kurds are an extension of that Western alliance.
As Gatestone's Khaled Abu Toameh recently wrote:
A statement issued by Hamas on October 14 said that the terror group "understands Turkey's right to protect its border, defend itself and remove threats harmful to its national security against the tampering of the Zionist Mossad in the region, as part of [Israel's] effort to undermine Arab and Islamic national security."
Hamas also praised Erdogan for his "support for the Palestinian cause and the rights of the Palestinian people" and expressed opposition to "the Zionist and US presence in the region."
Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, voiced support for Turkey. "The Israeli media campaign against Turkey is rude and unacceptable. Israel will remain the enemy and Turkey will remain in the hearts of Muslims," he wrote on Twitter.
Another Hamas leader, Izzar al-Risheq, said that his group is "confident that President Erdogan has no ambitions in Syria and he only wants to preserve the security of his country." The Muslims, he added, need to "end their conflicts so they would have the time to confront the big challenge imposed by the presence of the Zionist enemy."
Hamas's support for Turkish aggression, therefore, should come as no more of a surprise than Erdoğan's campaign against the West and extensive military efforts to achieve regional hegemony.
© 2020 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Following Killing Of IRGC Qods Force Commander Soleimani, Lebanese, Syrian Press Reveal New Details About His Aid To The Assad Regime And Hizbullah, His Struggle Against The U.S., And The Arming Of Gaza Terrorist Organizations
MEMRI/January 09/2020
موقع ميمري: عقب اغتياله الصحف السورية واللبنانية تلقي الأضواء على أدوار قاسم سليماني الإرهابية سوريا ولبنانياً وفلسطينياً وفي مواجهة أميركا
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/82154/%d9%85%d9%88%d9%82%d8%b9-%d9%85%d9%8a%d9%85%d8%b1%d9%8a-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b5%d8%ad%d9%81-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b3%d9%88%d8%b1%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%84%d8%a8%d9%86%d8%a7%d9%86%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d8%aa/
Following the U.S. killing of IRGC Qods Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, Lebanese and Syrian media outlets, particularly the Hizbullah-affiliated Lebanese Al-Akhbar daily, published many reports providing new details about Soleimani's activity and his support for Hizbullah, the Assad regime in Syria, the Palestinian factions in Gaza, and the Iran-backed Shi'ite resistance factions in Iraq. The articles explain how Soleimani managed and equipped fighters to confront the U.S. forces in Iraq; how he turned Syria into a center for coordination between the various resistance forces in Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine, with the cooperation of Hizbullah military chief 'Imad Mughniyeh; how he helped the Assad regime deal with the protests against it and persuaded Russian President Putin to intervene in Syria; and how he oversaw the arming of Gaza via many channels, and even on occasion mediated among the Palestinian factions.
The following are translated excerpts from these reports:
Soleimani Made Syria Into An Aid And Supply Base For The Resistance In Iraq, Lebanon, And Palestine
In a January 4, 2020 article in Al-Akhbar, writers Elie Hanna and Hussein Al-Amin described how in 1998 Soleimani had operated in Syria and made the country into an aid and supply base for conducting the fight against the Americans in Iraq and for supporting Hizbullah in Lebanon: "This [Soleimani-Syria] relationship began in 1998, two years before the liberation of South [Lebanon] in 2000, when Soleimani was appointed Qods Force commander. At that time, the commanders of [Iran's] Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC], who wanted to monitor foreign affairs, particularly the relations with the resistance forces in Lebanon and Palestine, chose to live in Syria. Since then, Hajj Qassem [Soleimani] considered Syria a 'safe' base for assigning missions, holding meetings, and utilizing the resources and capabilities of the Syrian military, as well as [Soleimani's close relationship with] Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.
"Then came the American invasion of Iraq, in 2003, and it appeared that Syria would be next in line to be invaded by the U.S. At that time, a base was established [in Syria] for aiding the Iraqi resistance [by supplying it] with arms and equipment for it to fight the Americans, and Qassem Soleimani played a prominent role in this aid...
"The real turning point in the Soleimani-Syria relationship came after the July 2006 [Second Lebanon] war. His role in Syria grew by orders of magnitude, as a new stage began in the activity of his comrade and partner in Hizbullah, the martyr 'Imad Mughniyeh. Two years later [in 2008], Mughniyeh, the partner in Soleimani's projects in Syria, was martyred,[1] and therefore this entire burden fell on the shoulders of Soleimani alone."[2]
Soleimani Helped Establish The National Defense Forces Militia To Protect The Assad Regime From The Rebels
Hanna and Al-Amin also revealed that Soleimani played a major role in drawing up a work plan to strengthen the Assad regime after the protests against him broke out in 2011: "Another turning point in the Soleimani-Syria relationship came in 2011. Soleimani foresaw the plot against Syria [i.e. the anti-Assad uprising] and after monitoring [the developments] for a short time decided to boost the role of the Iranian advisors in the country under the Iran-Syria agreements, and later drew up a work plan of principles based on the following: protecting President Assad and his status; protecting the unity of the Syrian Army as much as possible; protecting the capital Damascus following the fall of the other provinces; and preventing western Syria from being cut off from Damascus by protecting Homs. Later on, Hajj [Soleimani] began to collaborate with the Syrian leadership in building and developing a supporting army – the National Defense [Force]..."[3]
Soleimani Persuaded Putin To Intervene In Syria
Al-Akhbar also claimed that, after the fighting in Syria intensified in 2015, Soleimani contacted Russia and it was effectively he who persuaded President Putin to intervene in the country. Hanna and Al-Amin wrote: "In 2015, when the threat posed by ISIS increased and fighting broke out around Aleppo, Soleimani began to make efforts to arrange a Russian intervention in the Syria war. He left for Moscow following 'high-level contacts between Russia and Iran that yielded an agreement for transferring additional aid to Assad,' for 'supplying more advanced Russian weapons to the Syrian army and for establishing a joint war room of the two allies [Iran and Russia], and Iraq.'"[4]
An article by Hussein 'Aliq stated: "Soleimani was... the architect of the Damascus defense lines, and was Assad's partner on the ground in the Syria battles, like the battle for Aleppo. It was he who persuaded Putin to intervene in Syria, and he was [also] the partner of the Turkish intelligence chief in the north Syria arrangements..." [5]
Soleimani Found Ways To Smuggle Weapons Into Gaza, Established Cyber And Information Units To Handle Palestinian Issues
Another Al-Akhbar reporter, 'Abd Al-Rahman Nassar, wrote about Soleimani's extensive military aid to the Palestinians in Gaza, the various sophisticated methods he developed for smuggling weapons there, and his occasional role in mediating between Palestinian factions. He wrote: "A commander in the [Palestinian] resistance says that nearly every missile and rifle in Palestine bears Soleimani's fingerprints... He personally oversaw the establishment of the route for transferring game-changing missiles and weapons to the Gaza Strip. The route was roundabout: from the [Persian] Gulf to the Red Sea and through Eritrea to Sudan, where there were factories for assembling [the missiles], and then via Sinai to the resistance [in Gaza]. That was the initial route of the missiles, before it was decided that Gaza would manufacture its own weapons, of every kind. At certain points, when the situation in Sinai was difficult and the resistance needed weapons urgently, Hajj [Soleimani] took a gamble [and came up] with the idea of throwing the weapons from ships passing through the Suez canal, in barrels, after verifying the direction of the sea currents [and making sure] that they will reach Gaza. The resistance [fighters] would sail out a short distance into the sea and collect most of the barrels...
"There is no prominent Palestinian leader, political or military, who did not meet with Soleimani... He even mediated in several disputes between the factions, in various periods. He ate with them and met with them in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and other countries... and established units with many missions related to Palestine, including in the fields of cyber and psychological warfare, and the like... When Hamas decided to change its political charter, it sent Soleimani a copy so he could review it and make recommendations before the [Hamas] political bureau approved it...
"Soleimani received special dispensations for the Palestinian resistance from the Syrian regime... He obtained Assad's permission to conduct missile tests in the Syrian desert, and permission to land planes on a special landing strip in one of the Syrian air bases, without the Syrian soldiers questioning the identity of those coming and going. There were many other favors as well...
"Even during the worst periods of tension between Hamas and Iran, Soleimani did not end his contact with the movement, especially with its military wing, but continued to supply it with weapons, without any delay...
"In the recent weeks, Soleimani met with many political and military Palestinian leaders, to examine in minute detail their needs in light of the growing economic pressure on the resistance axis and to assess the outcomes of the latest confrontations with Israel. In 2017, after Trump declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, Soleimani called the headquarters of [Hamas's military wing], the Al-Qassam [Brigades], and of Saraya Al-Quds, the military wing of the [Palestinian] Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and spoke with them directly and warmly, promising to continue his 'open-ended assistance' to the resistance factions..."[6]
Israel Passed Up Opportunities To Assassinate Soleimani
Al-Akhbar reporter Hadi Ahmad wrote that Israel had two opportunities to assassinate Soleimani, but passed them up. One was on February 12, 2008, the day of 'Imad Mughniyeh's assassination: "When 'Imad Mughniyeh disembarked from his vehicle in the vicinity of the village of Susa [in Damascus], the [Mossad] operatives noticed another man by his side. It was none other than Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani. The two stood there talking for a while, and then entered a building for a meeting with Palestinian officials. At that moment, the Mossad [operatives] had a one-time opportunity to kill them both, but at the time the equations caused them to refrain from targeting Soleimani. They waited for Mughniyeh to exit the building alone... and then Zero hour arrived, and they pressed the detonator. Almost five years later, Israeli and American intelligence chiefs expressed regret for missing that opportunity...
"That was not Soleimani's first brush with death, nor was it his last... Being one step away from the enemy was routine for him. In 2004, while touring Lebanon and visiting the Israeli border with 'Imad Mughniyeh and other commanders, near the Al-Manara [border crossing]... two Israeli tanks suddenly appeared before them, and Israeli soldiers disembarked and aimed their weapons at them, but not one of [the commanders] moved. On the contrary, they aimed their own weapons at the [Israeli] soldiers. After several moments of silence in which none of them fired, the Israeli soldiers turned tail and resumed their patrol, while Soleimani and the others stood their ground..."[7]
Soleimani Conferred With Syrian Clans On Attacking U.S. Forces
A report by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights stated that "on December 26, 2019, a delegation of [Syrian] Arab clans met with... Soleimani with the aim of uniting forces against the U.S. troops... [The meeting] with these figures was held at the official invitation of Iran, [and included] Faisal Al-'Azil, a dignitary of the Al-Ma'amara clan; Khatib Al-Talib, representative of the Al-Bu 'Asi clan and commander of the National Defense [Forces] headquarters in Al-Qamishli; the sheikh the Al-Sharayin clan, Nawaf Al-Bashar, and the sheikh of the Harb clan, Mahmoud Mansour Al-'Akoub. The meeting dealt with attacking the American forces and the Syria Democratic Forces."[8]
[1] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2302, Lebanese Daily Reveals New Facts about 'Imad Mughniyah's Career in Hizbullah, April 1, 2009.
[2] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), January 4, 2020.
[3] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), January 4, 2020.
[4] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), January 4, 2020.
[5] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), January 3, 2020.
[6] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), January 4, 2020.
[7] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), January 4, 2020.
[8] Syriahr.com, January 3, 2020.
https://www.memri.org/reports/following-killing-irgc-qods-force-commander-soleimani-lebanese-syrian-press-reveal-new#

Iran’s entrenchment in Iraq
Neville Teller/FDD/Jerusalem Post/January 09/ 2020
KH is an Iranian-sponsored Shi’ite militia operating in Iraq and throughout Syria. Founded in 2003, it is in sympathy with the Lebanon-based Hezbollah organization.
KH is an Iranian-sponsored Shi’ite militia operating in Iraq and throughout Syria. Founded in 2003, it is in sympathy with the Lebanon-based Hezbollah organization.
Iran has literally been getting away with murder for decades. On the night of December 29, 2019, the United States launched its first airstrikes in nearly a decade on the forces of Iran’s proxies. Four nights later it carried out a precision drone-based attack just outside Baghdad airport, and killed Iran’s top military commander and the leader of a major Iran-supported proxy fighting organization.
It has long been clear that a key aspect of Iran’s geopolitical strategy is to use proxies to execute its less savory operations, thus avoiding direct responsibility for the atrocities committed at its behest. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, and a plethora of jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq are, in addition to its own Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the instruments Iran uses to reach its political goals. For the past decade these groups have been recognized by the US simply as Iran’s tools, and have not been considered central enough to warrant direct retaliation.
A rocket attack on an Iraqi military base on December 27 by an armed group known as Kataib Hezbollah was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
KH is an Iranian-sponsored Shi’ite militia operating in Iraq and throughout Syria. Founded in 2003, it is in sympathy with the Lebanon-based Hezbollah organization.
The US has expressed concern in the past about pro-Iranian militias targeting coalition forces in Syria. This anti-KH operation was characterized by US Assistant Secretary of Defense Jonathan Hoffman as “defensive strikes,” in retaliation not only for the attack on December 27, but for “repeated Kataib Hezbollah attacks on Iraqi bases that host Operation Inherent Resolve coalition forces.”
KH’s leader Jamal Jaafar Ibrahimi – also known as Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis – was the alleged mastermind behind the US and French embassy bombings in Kuwait in 1983. During the war in Iraq the group specialized in planting roadside bombs and using improvised rocket-assisted mortars to attack US and coalition forces. A string of other atrocities, abductions and murders are attributed to it. KH has been closely linked to Iran’s external military branch, the IRGC. Muhandis operated in close liaison with the IRGC Quds Force commander, Qasem Soleimani. Now both have been eliminated.
The first US airstrikes targeted at least five KH locations. The Pentagon says three were in Iraq and two in Syria. The targets included weapons depots and command posts, and the attack may have involved drones, according to some reports. The US says that the areas it struck were also used to “plan and execute attacks.”As for targeting Soleimani, President Donald Trump has explained the US action as a preemptive intelligence-based strike aimed at preventing an impending onslaught on American troops.
A MORE fundamental issue is at stake. Taking advantage of the chaos currently reigning in Iraq, which is almost at a standstill as a result of mass anti-government protests and demonstrations, Iran is attempting to entrench itself even further inside the country, both politically and militarily. It has certainly been building up resources to boost its anti-US, anti-Israel power base. In December reports emerged that Iran was moving ballistic missiles to Iraq.
Iran’s dominant position within the Iraqi body politic has emerged as a key issue during the current anti-government crisis. Iraqi President Barham Salih has resisted recent attempts by the pro-Iran coalition to put forward nominees for prime minister that included a resigned minister and a controversial governor, Asaad al-Eidani. The mass street protests are supporting the president’s threat to resign rather than accept the pro-Iran coalition’s candidate.
Yet Iraq’s Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, clinging to office as the political storm rages around him, has condemned Soleimani’s assassination, just as he is reported to have “strongly objected” to the US strikes on KH positions in Iraq and Syria as “a violation of Iraqi sovereignty and a dangerous escalation.”
The increasing attacks on US military bases by Iran’s proxy militias have plainly been an assertion of Iran’s powerful position within Iraq – a situation that has not gone unnoticed by the public. The street demonstrators saw Iran’s growing dominance as further evidence of the weakness and inadequacy of the old government establishment, which they are seeking to sweep away. How Soleiman’s death at Washington’s hands will affect the political dynamic, the next few weeks will demonstrate.
The extent to which Iran has managed to infiltrate Iraq’s political and military establishment was revealed in November 2019, when 700 pages containing secret intelligence cables were leaked to two US media organizations. They describe a carefully conceived plan, going back to 2014, for Iran’s ministry of information and security, along with the Quds Force, to expand Iran’s influence inside Iraq, and to identify and run sources at the most senior levels of government. The aim was to keep the country pliant and aligned to Iran’s objectives.
The leaked cables reveal that Iranian intelligence officers co-opted much of the Iraqi government’s cabinet, infiltrated its military leadership, and even tapped into a network of sources once run by the CIA. The cables claim that so prevalent is Iran in Iraq’s affairs that Iranian officers effectively have free rein across key institutions of state, and are central to much of the country’s decision-making.
The intelligence haul threw new light on how Iran’s agents operate, and the extent to which each prime minister and cabinet member was vetted to ensure they were serving the Islamic Republic’s interests.
A key role in this operation had been assigned to Soleimani, de facto leader of Iran’s constellation of proxies across the Middle East. Soleimani it was who instituted the brutal crackdown on the early anti-government street demonstrations in Iraq, leading to scores of deaths and wounded. It proved ineffective. This has been one military operation from which Soleimani failed to emerge victorious. Now he has been removed from the scene.
Popular protest and demand for reform, allied to a new US determination to crack down on Iran’s puppet militias, may yet carry the day – or, alternatively, Soleimani’s death may soften the popular anti-Iran sentiment. Time will tell.
*The writer is Middle East correspondent for Eurasia Review. His latest book is The Chaos in the Middle East: 2014-2016. He blogs at: www.a-mid-east-journal.blogspot.com

Soleimani was a monster, wanted atomic cloud over Tel Aviv - German newspaper
Benjamin Weinthal/Jerusalem Post/January 09/ 2020
The title of Reichelt’s commentary was, “Trump has freed the world from a monster.”
Julian Reichelt, the editor-in-chief of best-selling German newspaper Bild, on Friday authored a barn-burning commentary praising US President Donald Trump for authorizing a military strike to eliminate Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
"President Trump has freed the world of a monster whose aim in life was an atomic cloud over Tel Aviv. Trump has acted in self-defense – the self-defense of the US and all peace-loving people," wrote Reichelt.
He added that “the Iranian terror godfather Qassem Soleimani stood for a world that no peace-loving person can want: a world in which you can be torn apart by a bomb at any time because you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
The commentary singled out Soleimani’s scorched-earth campaign in the Syrian war: "A world in which entire cities are wiped out – like Aleppo. In which bloodthirsty militia go from door to door and execute civilians."
Reichelt noted the potential of Iran’s regime to carry out terrorism in Germany and Israel, "in which the kindergartens in Germany could burn up in fireballs at any time because its children are Jewish. In which Israel is under threat of extinction every day."
The title of Reichelt’s commentary was, “Trump has freed the world from a monster.”
The US Pentagon said it took preventive military action against Soleimani because he planned attacks against American diplomats. According to the US State Department, Soleimani oversaw terrorist operations that were “responsible for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq.”The US Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, wrote on Twitter, “As a diplomat, I believe there isn’t enough media attention on the fact that General Soleimani was planning to attack US diplomats. @realDonaldTrump caught Soleimani in the act. And saved lives by stopping him.”
Reichelt wrote: "Soleimani, the world’s most repelling and bloodthirsty terrorist, who brought suffering and harm over humanity on the mullahs’ behalf, was an enemy of our civilization. He represented the unbearable thought that murderers will live more safely and be more untouchable the more people they kill (with the support of the state)."
The editor-in-chief declared that, "His violent and overdue end will not stop global terrorism, but the image of his burnt-out car still sends out a powerful message. US President Donald Trump has made it clear that the worst figures in the world, however big-mouthed and ruthless they may be, cannot hide from America’s strength."

Air strike that targeted Soleimani and Muhandis also killed key aides
Tzvi Kahn/FDD/January 09/ 2020
Last week’s killing of Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis also reportedly claimed the lives of eight lesser-known, but key aides. The death of these aides reaffirmed that those who serve designated terrorists may suffer the same fate as their superiors.
According to a report by Voice of America (VOA), citing Iranian and Iraqi officials, the U.S. airstrike on two cars departing Baghdad International Airport claimed the lives of five officials of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and three members of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF).
One of the targets, IRGC Major General Hossein Pourjafari, served as Soleimani’s “right-hand man” and “most trusted assistant,” VOA said. He likewise played “a critical role in the formation” of the IRGC’s intelligence wing. Another target, IRGC Colonel Shahroud Mozaffari Nia, was a member of the IRGC’s intelligence unit as well.
Hadi Taremi, an IRGC lieutenant, was “one of the closest people in Soleimani’s inner circle and his No. 1 bodyguard,” and “accompanied Soleimani in most of his official visits inside Iran,” according to VOA. Vahid Zamanian, another IRGC lieutenant, served as “one of the rotating bodyguards of Soleimani and accompanied him in some unofficial international visits.” (An IRGC Quds Force statement cited by Iranian state media described Taremi and Zamanian as holding the ranks of major and captain, respectively.)
Muhammad Radha al-Jabri “was in charge of airport protocol” for the PMF, said VOA. A report by Deutsche Welle, citing the PMF, also described him as the PMF’s “head of public relations.” The remaining targets, Hassan Abdu al-Hadi, Muhammad al-Shaybani, and Haider Ali, were bodyguards affiliated with the PMF. This complement of bodyguards – five in total – may have helped the United States pinpoint Soleimani’s location. Confident that their stature would deter U.S. action, Soleimani and Muhandis apparently made no effort to conceal their movement from the Baghdad airport, making their vehicles easy targets for a U.S. drone.As The Times of London put it, when Soleimani “flew from Damascus to Baghdad late on Thursday night, from one of the key capitals Tehran believes it has in its pocket to another, he did not use some secret military or militia air base. He flew in his personal, Iranian-regime jet to Baghdad’s main international airport.”
This overconfidence proved his undoing.
The attack on Soleimani and Muhandis sent a message that the aides and assistants to U.S.-designated terrorists cannot count on the presence of their superiors for protection. Perhaps the staff of Esmail Qaani, Soleimani’s successor, should take note.
*Tzvi Kahn is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where he contributes to FDD’s Center on Military and Political Power (CMPP).

United States and Iran back away from imminent conflict as Trump says he is ready for peace ‘with all who seek it’
By: Anne Gearan, Siobhán O'Grady, Mike DeBonis and Felicia Sonmez /The Washington Post/January 09/2020
President Trump backed away Wednesday from potential war with Iran, indicating he would not respond militarily to the launch of more than a dozen ballistic missiles at bases housing American troops, as the United States and Iran blamed each other for provoking the most direct conflict between the two adversaries since Iran seized American diplomats in 1979.
The war footing that took hold last week after Trump approved the targeted killing of a senior Iranian military commander he accused of plotting to kill Americans appeared to ease by mutual agreement, following days of chest-thumping in both Washington and Tehran and what Iran called its rightful response.
No one was killed in Iran’s attack on two military bases in Iraq, according to the administration, and Trump dismissed the damage to U.S. facilities as “minimal.” Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the attack a “slap in the face” of the United States and insufficient to end the U.S. presence in the region, but he did not threaten any specific further military action.
“Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world,” Trump said at the White House on Wednesday morning. “No American or Iraqi lives were lost because of the precautions taken, the dispersal of forces and an early-warning system that worked very well.”
Despite the apparent easing of tensions, there is continuing uncertainty over Trump’s policy toward Tehran going forward and how he would respond to any future military provocations.
The president included an ultimatum against Iran developing a nuclear bomb in an offer for new negotiations, but it’s unclear what would bring Iran back to the table after Trump scrapped the deal it struck with the Obama administration and other world powers in 2015. He said new sanctions would be imposed, but the Iranian economy has already been hit hard by the United States. And Trump issued only a general warning against Iranian action that would trigger a U.S. military response after previously threatening severe consequences.
“To the people and leaders of Iran: We want you to have a future and a great future — one that you deserve, one of prosperity at home, and harmony with the nations of the world,” Trump said. “The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.”
U.S. officials said Wednesday they knew Iranian missiles were coming hours in advance, after warnings from intelligence sources and communications from Iraq. Iraq’s acting prime minister has said he was informed of the attack ahead of time. “We knew, and the Iraqis told us, that this was coming many hours in advance,” said a senior U.S. administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the communications.
Iraqi leaders said they remain concerned about the possibility of more conflict on their soil, with President Barham Salih describing the intensifying U.S.-Iranian showdown as a “dangerous” development.
In a statement early Wednesday, Salih condemned Iran’s overnight rocket attacks “against Iraqi military locations” and said he rejects attempts to turn Iraq into a proxy battlefield. Iraq alone will decide whether to expel U.S. forces after a 17-year military presence in the country, Salih said.
Despite acknowledging that it notified the Iraqi government that it was “repositioning” troops, the Pentagon says that it has no immediate plans to close out its mission countering Islamic State militants. Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this week that a letter notifying the Iraqis incorrectly implied withdrawal and “was a draft, it was a mistake, it was unsigned, it should not have been released.”
Iran sought to continue to sound an aggressive tone Wednesday while signaling it did not want the military back-and-forth to continue.
“Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter shortly after the attacks, which occurred early Wednesday local time in Iraq. “. . . We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.”
The often voluble diplomat remained mum on Twitter the rest of the day, adding to the sense that the immediate tit for tat was over.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress remained divided along partisan lines over Trump’s actions.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced hours after the president’s remarks that the House will vote Thursday to limit his war options on Iran.
“Members of Congress have serious, urgent concerns about the Administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward,” Pelosi said in a statement.
Congressional Republicans quickly praised Trump’s speech and actions as commander in chief, with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) calling it “a home run.”
In mostly measured tones, the president, whose focus on Iran has been a constant from the start of his political career, issued an invitation for new international diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear program and an apparent reassurance to Iran’s leaders that the United States does not seek their overthrow.
In slamming the 2015 Iran nuclear deal negotiated under President Barack Obama, Trump also asserted without evidence that Iran is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons and that “the missiles fired last night were paid for by the funds made available by the last administration” under the accord that eased economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran curtailing what it claimed was a peaceful nuclear energy program.
Trump said Maj. Gen Qasem Soleimani was “responsible for some of the absolute worst atrocities” in the Middle East and should have been “terminated” long ago. He repeated his allegation that Soleimani was planning new attacks on Americans but did not provide evidence.
Lawmakers left a closed-door briefing Wednesday with some of the Trump administration’s most senior national security officials deeply divided over whether the administration was authorized to carry out the strike on Soleimani in Baghdad last week.
Democrats said the briefing did not make a convincing case that any looming threat against the United States was averted when Soleimani was killed.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.) said he did not leave the briefing persuaded of an “imminent threat” and that his committee would invite Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to hearings next week.
Rep. Marcia L. Fudge (D-Ohio) said she wasn’t certain officials who came to Capitol Hill even understood why Soleimani was killed. “I don’t know that they know the rationale,” she said. “Certainly they didn’t tell me what it was.”
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said officials walked lawmakers through the history of Soleimani’s threats against the United States and its allies, adding that “the fact that he was plotting further attacks to kill Americans made it clear that it was time to take him out.”
“And obviously, you can’t go into full detail about the intelligence of those future attacks,” Scalise said. “But how much is enough?”
But one Republican senator, Mike Lee of Utah, called the administration’s classified national security briefing “probably the worst briefing I’ve seen at least on a military issue in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate.”Lee said the message from the administration officials was that lawmakers need to be “good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public” — an instruction he described as “insane.”
“Drive-by notification or after-the-fact, lame briefings like the one we just received aren’t adequate,” Lee said.
Trump on Tuesday evening announced the unusually formal White House address in his preferred informal way: On Twitter. “All is well!” he wrote, saying assessments of damage and casualties were then ongoing. He added: “So far, so good!”
At the address, Trump was flanked by top national security aides and senior military leaders in a show of unity. Among them was Pompeo, the administration’s leading hawk on Iran.
But the next steps Trump listed — sanctions and diplomacy — represent a stay-the-course strategy. He also urged broader NATO participation in the Middle East, though it was not clear what he meant.
The approach may reassure allies alarmed that a superpower and an oil-rich regional power were headed for war.
Trump spoke Wednesday with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who had pointedly refused to endorse the killing of Soleimani, and with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
Trump also spoke Wednesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the White House announced. Netanyahu considers Iran an existential threat, and his fierce opposition to the Iran nuclear deal helped forge a close bond with Trump. But Netanyahu was also alarmed that Iran would target Israel following Soleimani’s killing.
“As we continue to evaluate options in response to Iranian aggression, the United States will immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime,” Trump said. “These powerful sanctions will remain until Iran changes its behavior.”
The Trump administration reimposed tough sanctions on Iran after Trump pulled out of the international nuclear accord. Trump urged Britain and the other four signatories to the 2015 deal to declare the accord dead and work with him to forge a new one.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose country shares borders with Iran and Iraq, said Wednesday that “no one has the right to throw the whole region, especially Iraq, into a new ring of fire for the sake of their own interests.”
The killing of Soleimani, a charismatic warrior who held cultlike appeal for many in Iran, marked the single greatest military provocation between the United States and Iran in decades. Iran’s response in turn represented its largest direct show of military force against the United States since the inauguration of the anti-American government in 1979.
The United States blamed Soleimani for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, including those killed by unique explosives made in Iran and dispensed to pro-Iranian militias in Iraq under Soleimani’s direction.
The United States and allies also blamed him for sowing terrorism across the Middle East. But his targeted killing brought allegations that Trump had violated international law and Iraqi sovereignty.
Iran’s promised response was both larger than some had predicted and apparently calibrated to be more symbolic than deadly. Iran used sophisticated ballistic missiles instead of crude rockets or indirect attacks, but the weapons mostly missed important targets.
Tensions had built last year, with Iran’s downing of a U.S. drone, and attacks on oil tankers and a Saudi oil facility that the United States blames on Tehran.
At the same time, Trump issued an open invitation to Iranian leaders to talk, but they spurned the offer and the issue appears moot at least until after the November presidential election in the United States.

The Doha Plot To Give Afghanistan To The Taliban
Tufail Ahmad/MEMRI/January 09/2010
It is an international plot against the Afghans, hatched in Doha but authored by America. It is facilitated by the Qatari government and it will destroy Afghan women's liberty.
Until the 1970s, Afghan women, dressed in miniskirts, breathing in the air of liberty, upholding their personal individualism, walked the streets of Kabul, going into offices, schools, and universities. Kabul was the most cosmopolitan city. Delhi was a village of orthodoxy, irrational ideas, and obscurantism. From Afghanistan to Pakistan and India and beyond, Afghan women were the first to get the right to vote as early as in 1919. American women were not yet allowed to vote at that time.
Then the Russian military intervention in 1979 destabilized the order of Afghan liberty. The mujahideen, backed by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, mentored and guided by Pakistan, emerged victorious by the end of 1980s. The Taliban are their successors. During the 1990s, the Taliban seized power and unleashed their orthodox and obscurantist ideas on the Afghans. The burqa-clad Afghan woman became the global face of Afghanistan. Benazir Bhutto, the leader of Pakistan on a visit to Washington D.C., called the Taliban "our children."
In 2001, history offered a chance to Afghans to redeem their glorious, liberal past. American soldiers, arriving to avenge the attacks of 9/11, were seen as harbingers of democratic rights, as a promise to re-establish the order of Afghan liberty. Pakistan, which had been seeking for decades to establish an Islamic corridor to Central Asia, sheltered the Taliban jihadis fleeing Afghanistan. Over the next 18 years, while the American soldiers fought in Afghanistan, Pakistan hosted the Taliban commanders, on the watch of the U.S., in Quetta.
As we move into the year 2020, an international plot against Afghanistan, conceived in Doha, has unfolded before our eyes. Over the past few years, the Taliban safehavens in the Pakistani city of Quetta and the region of Waziristan have moved to Qatar – facilitated by America and Pakistan. It is in Doha from where the Taliban's topmost leadership plots and directs jihadi terrorists in Afghanistan. While the safehavens continue to exist in Pakistan, Doha has emerged as another safehaven for the Taliban.
On December 30, 2019, it emerged that the U.S. has agreed to the release of 5,000 Taliban terrorists from Afghan prisons as part of a future agreement with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban organization). According to a report by the Associated Press, the Taliban prisoners' release has been written into the draft agreement. The move to free 5,000 Taliban jihadis is a Doha plot to arm the Islamic Emirate and transform it into a formidable force of terror, which will protect Qatar, whenever needed, alongside the Turkish forces.
It's a tragedy – desired by Qatar, facilitated by America, authored by Zalmay Khalilzad, the lead U.S. negotiator with the Taliban. It helps Pakistan. It harms Afghans; it damages the democratic government of Afghanistan elected by the people just a few months ago. It curbs women's rights and liberties; it blocks the path of individual freedom necessary for the advancement of tribes, communities, and nations. If America's sole goal is to withdraw its soldiers from Afghanistan, it is free to do so without handing land to the Taliban in a peace agreement by which they will not abide anyway.
On December 27, 2019, media reports indicated that some Taliban leaders were open to a short ceasefire. However, the Taliban are a jihadi force, motivated by a religious ideological outlook, not the interests of Afghans, especially women and civil society groups that form the infrastructure of a modern society in any country. It came as no surprise that Zabihullah Mujahid, the spokesman of the Islamic Emirate, released a statement saying that the Taliban will not agree to a ceasefire.
Zabihullah Mujahid described media reports about the ceasefire as "false and baseless" and as "propaganda" by media organizations. He wrote: "The reality of the situation is that the Islamic Emirate has no intention of declaring a ceasefire." Through ten rounds of talks between the U.S. and the Taliban, the Taliban strategy has been to use Doha to hold international talks and gain diplomatic legitimacy and sign an agreement in which the Taliban are equal with the U.S. without committing even to a ceasefire.
If the U.S. wants to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, it should just walk out and continue to support the democratically elected government of Afghanistan with no boots on the ground. The withdrawal of American troops without a ceasefire monitored by a United Nations peacekeeping force will unleash an era of repression on the Afghans. The result of a shady pact with the Taliban jihadi force will not be different. The Doha agreement will herald a new dark age for Afghans and will, more worryingly, arm the Taliban again, much to the delight of Pakistan and Qatar.
* This article was first published on January 1, 2020, by Afghan news agency Khaama.com. Tufail Ahmad is Senior Fellow for the MEMRI Islamism and Counter-Radicalization Initiative.

Childhood of Horror: Tales of Muslim Mothers and Daughters
Phyllis Chesler/Middle East Forum/January 09/2020
The Investigative Project on Terrorism
Ex-Muslim Yasmine Mohammed, a Canadian citizen of Egyptian and Palestinian ancestry, just published a dramatic and heartbreaking memoir, Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam. In it, she describes a childhood of horror, one in which as a girl, "you are taught to be ashamed of everything you do, everything you are."
Daily beating, strangling, slapping, hair pulling, death threats, and domestic servitude are normalized, as is the most extreme verbal abuse, mainly from her mother: "I pissed you out," she said. "You are my urine...You are a turd that I should have flushed...You are nothing."
Yasmine Mohammed's childhood reads like a page taken from my book, Woman's Inhumanity to Woman, a book that major feminist leaders in the West cautioned me not to publish lest the "men use it against us."
But Yasmine understands:
"Quite often, unfortunately, in misogynistic societies, mothers are vicious to their daughters. Exerting power over their (female) children is the only domain where it is acceptable."
Yasmine is taught to bow to her mother every morning, to literally kiss her mother's feet. She is sleep-deprived, forced to rise before dawn to memorize the Qur'an. Yasmine's mother ignores the fact that her husband (Yasmine's stepfather) is "molesting" Yasmine and participates happily in her daughter's being beaten, hung upside down from a hook "like a dead animal" so that the soles of her feet could be whipped. Yasmine dealt with the pain inflicted by the torturous punishments by escaping her body, "disassociating" is the word currently used in psychiatry.
Like other victims of torture, and prisoners of war and combat, such extreme childhood abuse leads to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It is rarely valorized or viewed compassionately when the sufferer is a woman.
Eventually, Yasmine's mother forces her into an arranged marriage with a man – whom the mother herself covets and endlessly tries to seduce – who turns out to be an al-Qaida operative who rapes and beats her. He flees—but is ultimately jailed in Egypt as a jihadist.
If I had not read at least 50 other memoirs published mainly by Muslim and ex-Muslim women, but also by or about Sikh and Hindu tribal childhoods, all of which detail similar childhoods, I would probably view Yasmine's tale as a one-off. However, it is a terrifying typical account of growing up in a tribal family, trapped with a mother whose only power resides in tormenting, breaking, controlling, and destroying her daughters.
For similar examples of normalized extreme child abuse, we have Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel; Sami Alrabaa's Veiled Atrocities; Sunny Angel's Wings; Sarbit Kaur Athwal's Shamed, Aruna Papp's Unworthy Creature, Jasvinder Sanghera's Shame, Soraya Mire's The Girl with Three Legs, and Souad's Burned Alive.
In The Girl with Three Legs: A Memoir, Somali-American Muslim, Soraya Mire writes about her mother's insistence that she be genitally mutilated and about what happened when the butchering went south. Doctors wanted to open her scar but her mother refused, thus sentencing Mire to a lifetime of pain caused by edema, inflammation around the scar, a permanent urinary tract infection...a vaginal obstruction, blood clots, and a swollen abdomen." Her mother refused surgery: "Tell these doctors I respect their opinions but they have to show respect for our life."
The scar sealing her vagina was proof of Soraya's virginity.
Then, Soraya was married off to a first cousin who happened to be a sadistic drug addict. He torture-rapes her on their wedding night. Soraya turns to her mother for help—to the woman whose values Soraya herself has internalized.
Thus, for years, Soraya herself refuses to open her scar. She finally does so.
Many abused victims, both Muslim and non-Muslim, often return to their families for help. In the West, abused women tend to marry men who abuse them. Tribal women are forced into arranged marriages in which they are routinely abused. Too many face honor violence from relatives if they step out of line even slightly.
Soraya begins to help other genitally mutilated African women. After receiving a Winnie Mandela Award for the Upliftment of African Women at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, she rushes to call...her mother! "Mother listened calmly, then said: 'You would win all the awards and become famous but you will always be nothing to me.'"
Like Soraya, no matter how extreme the abuse, both Yasmine and Sunny continued to cling to their mothers, unable to give up the illusion of connectedness. All three return again and again to the mothers, who continue to express nothing but hate for their daughters.
Girls who have suffered such extreme abuse also have identities which are defined only as that of a daughter, sister, cousin, and wife; they would have a hard time breaking free, even to save their own lives. They do not exist, psychologically, as individuals and have been taught that they do not really deserve to live. This is what got me interested in studying the variables associated with successful escapes from honor violence.
Yasmine tried to escape when she was still a child but a politically correct Canadian judge sent her back into an abusive home despite the evidence of physical abuse. "The judge ruled that corporal punishment wasn't against the law in Canada," she wrote, "and due to our 'culture,' sometimes those punishments can be more severe than the average Canadian household."
Yasmine wonders: Had she been "white," would the authorities have removed her and sanctioned the parents/step parents who believed in practicing child torture?
What Yasmine does not understand is why Western feminists have refused to stand with feminist dissidents such as herself. In addition, "(the Western authorities) only see the skin color or the ethnicity of the perpetrator, not the acts they commit."
*Phyllis Chesler, a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, is an emerita professor of psychology and women's studies and the author of eighteen books, including Women and Madness, Woman's Inhumanity to Woman, An American Bride in Kabul, and A Politically Incorrect Feminist.

Soleimani is Gone, Will his Plan Survive
Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/January 09/2020
Qassem Soleimani exiting the Middle East’s arenas is undoubtedly a significant landmark; for the man was able to become a symbol, even a legend, in addition to being the epitome of a project and the face of a conspiracy.
Many of those who were monitoring Soleimani’s ascendancy regarded him as the symbol of the Iranian expansionist imperial dream, which threatens both the existence and identity of the Arab peoples.
Indeed, for decades, he never failed to enhance his symbolism in the Arab world where many worried about his role, while others became henchmen to him and to the authority he represented. As for Iran itself, he was turned into a legend as the importance of the Revolutionary Guards (the IRGC) grew, including the Quds Force led by Soleimani from 1998 until his death a few days ago in Baghdad.
The Quds Force has actually been a fundamental element in the IRGC’s religious – liberation ‘legitimacy’. It has also become a ‘state within a state’ and a money and investment ‘mafia’, beside its role as a ‘special force’ entrusted with brutal suppression in defense of the Wilayat al-Faqih regime.
Here it is worth mentioning that the issue of Al Quds – i.e. Jerusalem – has never been absent from the IRGC’s rhetoric because it is part of the regime’s ‘legitimacy’ as far as external operations are concerned. In other words, the regime’s justifications of occupying other countries and exporting the ‘Khomeinist experiment’. Having said this, one must remember that all the Quds Force’s military activities were never close to Jerusalem; but rather, more interested in shelling Homs, destroying Aleppo, depopulating Zabadani, invading Beirut, and handing over Mosul to ISIS!
Yes, Soleimani became a legend to the younger Iranians, in parallel with the expanding economic and military power of the IRGC, and its increasing control of the political establishment, and its ‘conquests’ in neighboring Arab countries. Incidentally, the IRGC - specifically, the Quds Force – has been the incubator of almost all the sectarian Shiite militias currently active in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
Moreover, in Gaza, subservience to the IRGC has transcended sectarian divides, as ‘Islamic Jihad’ has become an Iranian arm, and so has a large section of ‘Hamas’. Also in Lebanon (the Resistance Brigades) and Syria (National Defence Forces) militias, which are not exclusively Shiite, were also founded to serve Iran’s project for which Tehran invented the name “Resistance” and sold to the masses.
This “Resistance” which is supposed to mean “Resisting Israel”, has not attacked Israel from south Lebanon since 2006. In Gaza, field hostilities have been nothing but messages exchanged between Tel Aviv and Tehran, and drawing the rules of engagement, without ever reaching the level of “resisting’ occupation let alone a strategy of “liberation”!
Even worse, looking at the way the “Resistance” dealt with the Syrian Revolt it becomes clear that it is based on a plan for Iranian regional hegemony leading, eventually, to a major deal with Israel and Turkey.
It also has to be said that the decision to suppress the uprising of the Syrian people was not taken by Hezbollah in Lebanon, or “Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haq” and “Liwa Abu Al-Fadhl A-Abbas” militias in Iraq; and sure enough not the Afghan Hazara “Liwa Fatemiyoun”, but in Tehran. In the ‘kitchen’ of the Iranian leadership and its IRGC. The systematic suppression and broad collective actions of sectarian militias was by far larger than merely “defending Lebanese-inhabited border villages inside Syria” or protecting Shiite shrines and ‘holy sites’ here and there. They were and are part of a regional map that was drawn with the Khomeinist Revolution and its plans to ‘export’ it.
Even the phenomenon of ISIS which proved to be instrumental in aborting the Syrian Revolt, and the pro-Iran militias’ control over Soleimani’s Arab ‘protectorates’, were in essence different from what the international community – as well as some Arabs – wanted to see.
Violent extremism that imbues some kind of sectarian fundamentalism is not something new; indeed, Arabs and Muslims have known it since Islam’s early days. Furthermore, throughout Islamic history many violent ultra-extremist groups of all creeds and sizes appeared and disappeared.
As for the idea of the ‘Caliphate’ – with ISIS as its latest claimants –, it did not recently emerge from Al-Qaeda or any of the extremist organizations during the last couple of centuries. However, Iran’s relatively recent exploitation of ultra-extremist Islam, in order to serve its own political agenda, has been quite significant.
Tehran has happily co-existed with extremist groups in Afghanistan. This ‘co-existence’, followed by ‘mutual neutralization’, reached high levels of understanding between Tehran and Osama bin Laden; and later between Tehran and Al Qaeda as well as Taliban.
In Syria, it was interesting how the pro-Iran Assad regime ‘co-existed’ with ISIS and its conquests. The Assad regime rarely attempted to bomb ISIS’ stronghold – all vulnerable to air attacks – while ruthlessly bombing civilian neighborhoods in Homs Aleppo, Barada Valley. On the other hand, ISIS spent more time attacking Syrian opposition areas than attacking the positions of the regime, with whom it also concluded oil deals!
The situation was not much different in Iraq. Under the Pro-Iran former Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki thousands of Iraqi army troops hurriedly withdrew from the city on Mosul in face of a few hundred ISIS fighters leaving behind brand new army weapons, full bank vaults, and a semi-deserted and broken city, very much in line of Tehran’s policy of uprooting and displacement.
Qassem Soleimani was one of the most important ‘executers’ of this policy of uprooting and displacement, which has nurtured, and later ‘demonized’ Sunni extremism in order to make Shiite extremism look moderate in comparison. Here, we must recall Barack Obama’s description of the Mullahs’ as being “not suicidal”; a belief he interpreted by deserting the Syrian people, ruining Washington’s traditional Arab relations, and betting on Tehran as a future friend and ally.
Today, with Soleimani out of the picture thanks to Donald Trump’s surgical strike, the Middle East must resort to deep thinking rather than jubilation.
What is hoped from Washington, now, is a new and clear strategy towards Tehran’s dangerous regional project, and a serious policy of confrontation rather than mere ‘punishment’ in the forlorn hope that Tehran would change its behavior!

Death to America: The History of a Slogan (1979 - 2020)
Hazem Saghieh/Asharq Al Awsat/January 09/2020
With the death of Qassem Soleimani, the slogan “Death to America” has returned to the forefront, with tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Iran chanting it furiously. This slogan/chant that oscillated, for years, between strategic expansion and a tactical recession has a very rich history. It was launched during Khomeini’s revolution in 1979, particularly after the US embassy in Tehran was taken over. At the time, this seemed like a great victory: The underdog humiliated the arrogant, and those who could not be insulted were insulted.
As with myths, birth stood against death. The revolution was born, and its enemies had to die. Indeed, those were glorious days for the death/birth binary. The “new dawn” would put an end to dark nights and oppression. “West, your face has died,” wrote Adonis.
Some in the East found that their desire to move from the position of the humiliated ill man to the position of the humiliating avenger had been satisfied. In 1904, they were proud that Japan, an Asian country, defeated Russia, a European country. Maoist phrases like “The winds of the East defeat those of the West” and the Nasserist “Raise your head, brother” still echoed in peoples’ heads.
At the time, Khomeini seemed like the person volunteering to fulfill our dreams: In his shadow, we will transcend our divisions to an Islamic unity that can achieve. Under his leadership, we will pray in al-Quds, and on the way, we would liberate Palestine. Nothing would stand in the way of he who insulted the US. As for the same prototype itself, the fact that he was a new face protected him. He was never tried before, so any argument against him would be unjust.
However, one loose stone could destabilize an entire building, regardless of how well built, and the loose stones were many indeed. Between the war with Iraq in 1980 and the Oslo Accords in 1993, millions of Arabs, including Palestinians, left the tunnel of the binary between Iran, the absolute good, and the US, the absolute evil. Between these two dates, Tehran resorted to suicide bombers in 1983 and not “human droves” to kill Americans in Beirut. The Iran-Contra affair widened the margin for doubt of the purity of the Qom Imams. When the USSR collapsed, many became certain that death haunted the US’s enemies. Despite the demonization of the latter after the Iraq War in 2003, that did not lead to the veneration of Iran as it was treated as a partner in that crime. In 2005, the majority of Lebanese people started to see in Tehran’s ambitions a completion of Tel Aviv’s ambitions. This conviction was strengthened after Beirut was invaded in 2008. In the meantime, the Green Movement in 2009 dampened the minimal enthusiasm for a model that barely worked to begin with. As for Syria, after the revolution, Iran’s rulers were seen as butchers. Some Syrians saw in them the most extreme colonial project they had ever witnessed.
Indeed the Arab revolutions have all dampened the voice of ideology towards the US and have raised the voice of national reconciliation instead: Some American positions warrant critique while others warrant admiration. Judgment is no longer wholesale but retail.
On the other hand, Iranian expansion into Iraq after both the Saddam and Taliban regimes were overthrown by the eliminated whatever remained of that image of absolute hostility to the US disseminated by Khomeinism. The later coexistence in Mesopotamia, which has only recently been seriously challenged, confirmed that the two supposed opposites are not always actually opposite.
On another note, with regards to culture, there is a balance between Iran’s strengths and weaknesses. It draws its strength from the age of identities. It has replaced its economic critique of the West as imperial with a cultural critique of it as a cultural invader. The other face, however, to this cultural issue is that it did not work in its favor: The culture of Iran’s youth is globalized, to the same extent as anywhere else, and perhaps even more. Though it is true that this does not hold true across classes, regions and ethnicities, the general opinion of the youth in large cities, which is also propagated by the media, is very hostile towards the regime. After the enthusiasm for the regime became limited to a particular set of the youth, not to be underestimated, as the streets of Iran show today, the enthusiasm in Iraq has started to seriously diminish, and such is the case in Iran itself. For politics is no longer the only form of social identification, the rejection of Trump’s policies by the youth does not mean they cannot admire his country. The US also represents music, image, fashion, university, hospital and many other things that ought not to die. In turn, the ruling ideology in Iran failed where others like it had succeeded; it did not lead to a production of consumable icons on its margin that could be circulated outside its sect. It remained a cold corpse, resilient to the market and against the image and dynamism. What had consecrated this lack was life in the barricade and the lack of financial capabilities, especially after the sanctions.
As for Israel, it certainly still poses a significant problem for the US, but it is no longer sufficient to wish death to the US and life to Iran. Furthermore, Tehran’s wishes, however violent, are colliding with the sensitivities of the peaceful youth, insistent on their new demand and its swift delivery. The naive discourse that the US is the murderer of Red Indians and the destroyer of Vietnam is dull. Alone are the orphans of a consciousness that has died over the last few decades, still shared today only among those who are not bored by violent slogans that they’ve repeated for 80 years and have remained enchanted by Iran. Unfortunately, they are the ones dying today.

Trump’s Deadly Message to Iran’s Terrorist Regime
Eli Lake/Bloomberg/Asharq Al Awsat/January 09/2020
For 40 years American presidents have pondered a fundamental question about Iran, best summed up by Henry Kissinger: Is it a country or a cause? On Thursday evening, Donald Trump gave his answer: Iran is a cause, a terrorist cause, and it will be treated as such.
That could be the lasting implication of the drone strike Trump ordered that killed Iran’s indispensable General Qassem Soleimani. Since Jimmy Carter, US presidents have sanctioned Iran and its leaders for sponsoring terrorist groups responsible for mayhem and murder worldwide. Until Thursday, however, those leaders have been spared the grisly fate of Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Nation-states are generally expected to cooperate against terrorists, but with Soleimani’s leadership Iran has been a major facilitator of terror. Starting in 2003, he built up a network of proxies throughout the Middle East that tipped the balance of power in Iran’s favor. Under his command, Shiite militias in Iraq injured or killed thousands of US troops with powerful roadside bombs. He orchestrated the arming and training of Yemen’s Houthi rebellion. He planned the intervention in Syria that saved Bashar Assad’s brutal war machine. He helped plan the Iraqi government’s crackdown against anti-Iranian protesters.
And yet Soleimani saw himself as untouchable. He did not take the precautions of a marked man, cloaking his movements and hiding his location. In fact, he would often post selfies from various fronts in Iran’s regional war, taunting his adversaries.
In some ways, this drone strike is surprising. In June, Trump called off at the last minute a strike on Iranian positions after it shot down an unmanned US drone over the Gulf. Over the summer and into the fall, Trump escalated sanctions against Iran’s regime, but also tried to restart negotiations with its political leaders. He has railed against the “endless wars” waged by his predecessors and sought to withdraw US forces from Syria.
Iran has responded to this economic pressure with military escalations. In September, the US accused Iran of striking a major Saudi oil processing facility. This followed a series of Iranian attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf. In October, Iranian-backed Shiite militias began hitting US positions in Iraq. Those attacks have become bolder in recent months, culminating in an attack last week in Kirkuk that killed a US contractor and wounded several US servicemen.
That crossed a red line for Trump. He has warned the Iranian regime since last spring that the US would respond in kind to any attack that killed a US citizen. The US responded last week by bombing Kataib Hezbollah bases in western Iraq and Syria.
Then Iranian-led militias stormed the US embassy in Baghdad on Wednesday, setting fires and essentially holding diplomats hostage for 24 hours before retreating. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper issued a prescient warning after the siege. “If we get word of attacks,” he said, “we will take preemptive action as well to protect American forces, to protect American lives.”
The consequence is that the man who orchestrated terror on behalf of Iran has met the same fate as the terrorists he oversaw. This counts as a significant escalation; Iran’s supreme leader has already vowed revenge. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has urged Shiite militias in Iraq not to let Soleimani’s death go to waste.
And Iran has many options for retaliation. Its militias have enough rockets to turn the US embassy in Baghdad into rubble. Its proxies are capable of kidnappings, suicide bombs and other mayhem against softer American targets in Europe. Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia and political party created by Iran in the 1980s, controls some networks inside the US.
That’s not to say the US attack was unjustified. Soleimani was “actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” the Pentagon said in a statement last Thursday. “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”
So it’s misleading to say that the killing of Soleimani is the opening of a new US war against Iran. It’s more accurate to say that it opens a new chapter in an ongoing war. Until this week, that war has been waged through economic sanctions against Iran’s regime and precision strikes against its proxies. Now Trump has erased the distinction between Iran and its proxies.
That’s a blow not just to Iran’s network of militias and terrorists. It’s also a blow to the regime’s campaign to bully the world into treating it like a normal country. Iran is a country run by terrorists, and Trump is right to treat them as such.