LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 24.2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.january24.20.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 05/27-32/:”After this Jesus went out and saw a tax-collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’And he got up, left everything, and followed him. Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house; and there was a large crowd of tax-collectors and others sitting at the table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to his disciples, saying, ‘Why do you eat and drink with tax-collectors and sinners?’Jesus answered, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.’”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on January 23-24/2020
A New Hezbollah Government Per Excellence In Occupied Lebanon/Elias Bejjani/January 22/2020
Pompeo on Lebanon: Only a Cabinet Committed to Reform Will Unlock Int’l Aid
Lebanese Have Mixed Reactions to New Government
Paris Urges Lebanon’s New Cabinet to Take Emergency Measures
ISG Urges Govt. to Adopt 'Substantial, Credible and Comprehensive' Reforms
Give the Government a Chance, Says Bassil
Security Walls Erected outside Beirut's Nejmeh Square
Paris Urges New Govt. to 'Work Collectively', Take 'Urgent Measures'
UK Ambassador Urges Govt. to Show 'Commitment to Reforms'
New FM Denies Announcing Walid al-Muallem's 'Death'
EU Envoy Meets Diab, Says Aid Hinges on Reforms
Ambassador Tells Diab Switzerland Ready to Help on Capital Flight Reports
Foreign states waiting for new government’s reforms: Lebanon finance minister
Political manipulation seen behind Lebanon violent protests: UN
New Interior Minister Says He Won't Permit Attacks on Security Forces
Daryan Says Riots Tarnish Popular Cause
Wazni: Lebanon Seeks Loans to Purchase Wheat, Fuel and Medicine
Greece Seizes 1.25 Tons of Lebanese Cannabis
U.S. Senator Drafting Lebanon Sanctions over Amer Fakhoury
Bassil Feels Heat in Testy Davos Debate
Japan Prosecutors Hit Back at Ghosn's '8 Hours of Questions' Claim
Why EU should ban Hezbollah/Richard A. Grenell/ U.S. ambassador to Germany/Politico/January 23/2020
Former Lebanese FM Gebran Bassil comes under fire in Davos panel/Tarek Ali Ahmad/Arab News/January 23/2020
Lebanon's former foreign minister tries to defend Davos trip as country faces economic collapse/Natasha Turak/CNBC/January 23/2020
U.S. Withholds Support for New Lebanon Government/Dion Nissenbaum and Nazih Osseiran/The Wall Street Journal/January 23/2020
The ‘Culture’ of Assadist Punishment in Beirut/Hazem Saghieh/Asharq Al Awsat/January 23/2020
On the Government of Collapse and Violence!/Hanna Saleh/Asharq Al Awsat/January 23/2020
Saving The Revolution And Lebanon/Robert G. Rabil/Eurasia Review/January 23/2020
From Robert Rabil’ Face Book Page/Main arguments:
Lebanon, Japan have 40 days to agree on fate of ex-Nissan boss Ghosn

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 23-24/2020
US imposes fresh Iran-related sanctions on two people, six companies
US Bars Iranians from Certain Types of Visas
A second Trump term would be too much for Iran: Expert
Secrets of Soleimani-Led Golden Death Squad
Iran: Masked Gunmen Kill Local IRGC Commander
Fears mount over health of French academic held in Iran: Committee
Iranian IRGC officer suggests taking US hostages to make up for sanctions
World must stand strong’ against Iran: US VP Pence
Iran ‘most anti-Semitic regime on the planet’ says Israel’s Netanyahu
French Chief of Staff: Assassination of Soleimani 'Was Not a Good Idea'
Iran: US threat to kill Soleimani successor a sign of ‘governmental Washington says no uptick in violence from ISIS in Syria, Iraq
Syrian army suffers losses, retreats after Idlib attack: Russia
Russia Says Syrian Regime Suffers Losses in Idlib
Syria: 70,000 Civilians Displaced in a Week
Trump Invites Netanyahu, Gantz to U.S. for Peace Plan Talks
Netanyahu & Gantz invited to White House for Trump unveiling of Mid-East peace plan/DEBKAfile/January 23/2020
Trump says plans to release ‘Deal of the Century’ plan next Tuesday

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on January 23-24/2020
What Does It Mean that European States Have Triggered the Dispute Resolution Mechanism in the Nuclear Deal With Iran/Michael Young/Carnegie MEC/January 23/2020
Erdogan's Bold Plan for a New Muslim Brotherhood Regime in Libya/Con Coughlin/Gatestone Institute/January 23/2020
The EU Needs to Take Tougher Stance Towards Iran's Mullahs/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone Institute/January 23/2020
The US Must Facilitate Regime Change in Iran/Dr. Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/January 23/2020
Muslim Deceit and the Burden of Proof/Raymond Ibrahim/January 23/2020
Syria May Be the Test Case For Russia's Influence/Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy/Asharq Al Awsat/January 23/2020
A Liberal Manifesto in a Time of Inequality, Climate Change/Andreas Kluth/Bloomberg/Asharq Al Awsat/January 23/2020
Libya and the Egyptian-Turkish Confrontation/Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al Awsat/January 23/2020
Iran exploiting Iraq to achieve its regional goals/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/January 23/2020
Saudi support of Cyprus key as tempers flare in Mediterranean/Dr. Theodore Karasik/Arab News/January 23/2020

Details Of The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorial published on January 23-24/2020
A New Hezbollah Government Per Excellence In Occupied Lebanon
Elias Bejjani/January 22/2020
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/82508/elias-bejjani-a-new-hezbollah-government-per-excellence-in-occupied-lebanon-%d8%ad%d9%83%d9%88%d9%85%d8%a9-%d9%84%d8%a8%d9%86%d8%a7%d9%86%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d8%ac%d8%af%d9%8a%d8%af%d8%a9-%d9%85%d9%86/
In reality and actuality it is worth mentioning that all The governments in Lebanon since 2005, and all those that took place during the entire savage-Stalinist Syrian occupation era were mere puppets, clowns, and masks no more no less.
Sadly the new so called falsely Lebanese government that was imposed by force today by the occupier Hezbollah has nothing that is Lebanese and practically it is not going to be different by any means.
It remains that Lebanon’s main problem and devastating cancer is the Hezbollah-Iranian occupation, and accordingly no solutions are possible in any field or sector as long as this occupier remains in control and have the upper hand in all domains and all levels.
In conclusion Lebanon is an Iranian occupied country, while all its officials and politicians from top to bottom are castrated in all domains of sovereignty, independence, decision making process, dignity, self respect, faith, and freedom.
All these clowns have no say in any matter and did actually sell themselves and the country with much less than thirty coins.
They are officials and politicians who shamelessly obey Hezbollah’s Faramens (orders and decrees) and happily serve its Iranian schemes of occupation, oppression, iranization and expansionism
Meanwhile the Hariri last government was a Hezbollah facade too and Hariri himself was a number one advocate for the Hezbollah occupation regionally and globally.
It remains that this third government during Michael Aoun’s presidency is a Hezbollah one per excellence while Aoun himself as a president was made by Hezbollah.
Unfortunately, Aoun and since year 2006 has been openly and boldly serving Hezbollah’s Iranian hegemony and Occupation on the account of every thing that is Lebanon and Lebanese.

Pompeo on Lebanon: Only a Cabinet Committed to Reform Will Unlock Int’l Aid
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 January, 2020
The United States called Wednesday on the new government of Lebanese PM Hassan Diab to enact serious reforms to tackle the twin challenges of a collapsing economy and angry street protests. "The test of Lebanon's new government will be its actions and its responsiveness to the demands of the Lebanese people to implement reforms and to fight corruption," US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement. "Only a government that is capable of and committed to undertaking real and tangible reforms will restore investor confidence and unlock international assistance for Lebanon," he added. Diab said Wednesday his country faces a "catastrophe" after the cabinet held its first meeting. A long-brewing discontent has been compounded by fears of a total economic collapse in recent weeks, with a liquidity crunch pushing banks to impose crippling capital controls. On Wednesday, some protesters unhappy with the new cabinet breached a small security barricade near parliament in downtown Beirut and set on fire a tent for security forces, who responded with tear gas and water cannon. The skirmishes extended to a nearby luxury shopping district. A civil defense worker told local media some people suffered slight injuries. Last weekend, hundreds were injured in similar clashes. President Michel Aoun tasked the government at its first meeting on Wednesday with restoring international confidence,

Lebanese Have Mixed Reactions to New Government
Beirut - Sanaa el-Jack/Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 January, 2020
The Lebanese people have responded differently to the new government lineup. While some said the new ministers should be given the chance to prove their abilities, others argued that the government could not be trusted since its members were appointed by the same political blocs which the protesters accused of leading the country into the current crisis. “What can we expect from ministers, who thank their leaders on the air as soon as they are nominated, and others who publicly visit their political authority even before receiving their portfolios?!” one protester asked.
Dr. Elie Chaaya, a dentist, said he believed the new government would neither be productive nor would it last long. “Had [Hezbollah] been able to rule the country in the shadow of Saad Hariri, it would have achieved its highest goals. But, for many reasons, it was left alone in the face of Western pressures amid the growing US-Iranian tension.” “So it had no other choice but this government that includes some distinctive figures, but which will not be able to secure sufficient support in the coming stage,” Chaaya told Asharq Al-Awsat. Others, however, are more optimistic.
Nada Rizk, an employee at a food company, said: “The attack on the government in this violent manner ahead of its formation through road closures and stone throwing, confirms that some parties want to harm Lebanon.” “Didn’t the protesters call for a government of specialists? This government has been formed. How do you condemn it to failure even before it starts working? We have to give it a chance and see if it is able to ... stop the economic and financial collapse,” she remarked. “We must not expect miracles; but some wise policies may open the way for effective rescue plans,” she added.

Paris Urges Lebanon’s New Cabinet to Take Emergency Measures
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 January, 2020
France stands ready to help Lebanon tackle a financial and economic crisis which requires the new government of Prime Minister Hassan Diab to take "emergency measures", said the French embassy in Beirut on Thursday. "The difficult situation in Lebanon requires the new government to prioritize emergency measures and restore confidence," the statement issued on the embassy website said. On Wednesday, President Emmanuel Macron said Paris will do "everything" to help Lebanon. "We will do everything, during this deep crisis that they are going through, to help ... our Lebanese friends," Macron said. Protesters first took to the streets in mid-October in a mass uprising against the country’s ruling elite, which they blame for decades of corruption and mismanagement that have brought Lebanon to the brink of economic collapse. Shortly after the demonstrations, Prime Minister Saad Hariri's government resigned. Since then, the country has sunk deeper into a political crisis. The Lebanese pound, long pegged to the dollar, has lost up to 60% of its value against the dollar and banks have imposed unprecedented capital controls to preserve liquidity. Diab vowed on Wednesday to tackle the country's crippling crisis — the worst since the civil war — saying his cabinet will adopt financial and economic methods different than those of previous governments. But analysts said it was highly unlikely he would be able to drum up the international and regional support needed to avoid economic collapse. Finance Minister Ghazi Wazni said Thursday the government must reassure international donors it is serious about reforms to tackle the financial crisis as it looks initially to secure up to $5 billion in soft loans for basic goods.

ISG Urges Govt. to Adopt 'Substantial, Credible and Comprehensive' Reforms
Naharnet/January 23/2020
The International Support Group for Lebanon (ISG) on Thursday urged Lebanon’s new government to swiftly adopt a ministerial policy statement with the “necessary substantial, credible and comprehensive policy package of measures and reforms that can address the demands of the Lebanese people.”“Their timely and decisive implementation will be essential to stopping and reversing the deepening crises facing the country and its citizens,” the ISG said in a statement. “Recalling the ISG statement of 11 December 2019 which laid out a way forward on immediate and longer-term reforms in line with Lebanon’s prior commitments, the ISG encourages the new Government to move forward with such reforms that are needed in order to halt the deteriorating economic situation, restore fiscal balance and financial stability and address long-standing structural deficiencies in the Lebanese economy,” the statement added. It said Lebanon’s economy and its population, in the absence of reform, remain reliant on external funding and are vulnerable to increased hardships. Accordingly, the ISG encouraged Lebanese authorities to take “the necessary decisive actions to restore stability and sustainability of the funding model of the financial sector, including by immediately adopting a reliable 2020 budget, implementing the electricity reform plan, reforming state-owned enterprises and passing and implementing effective procurement laws.”“In response to the demands of the Lebanese people and the needs to restore investor confidence in the economy, the authorities are further urged to tackle corruption and tax evasion, including through adoption and implementation of its anti-corruption national strategy, the anti-corruption agency law, judicial independence reform and other measures to instill transparency, accountability and strengthen good governance,” it said. The ISG also reaffirmed the need for internal stability and the right to peaceful protest to be protected. “The ISG reiterates its strong support for Lebanon and its people, for its stability, security, territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence in accordance with Security Council resolutions 1701 (2006), 1680 (2006), 1559 (2004), 2433 (2018), 2485 (2019) as well as other relevant Security Council resolutions and statements of the President of the Security Council on the situation in Lebanon,” it said.
It called upon all Lebanese parties to implement “a tangible policy of disassociation from any external conflicts, as an important priority, as spelled out in previous declarations, in particular the 2012 Baabda Declaration.”
“They recall the importance of implementing relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and previous commitments which require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon so that there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than those of the Lebanese State. The ISG recalls that the Lebanese Armed Forces are the only legitimate armed forces of Lebanon, as enshrined in the Lebanese constitution and in the Taif Agreement,” the ISG added. Reaffirming its willingness to “support a Lebanon committed to reforms in the implementation of a comprehensive set of actions,” the group said “the above measures once implemented will start to rebuild confidence in the economy among the Lebanese and the international community and help facilitate sustained international support.”The ISG also called on the international community, including international organizations, to ensure continued support for Lebanon in addressing the security, economic, and humanitarian challenges facing the country. The International Support Group has brought together the United Nations and the governments of China, France, Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, together with the European Union and the Arab League. It was launched in September 2013 by the U.N. Secretary-General with former President Michel Suleiman to help mobilize support and assistance for Lebanon.

Give the Government a Chance, Says Bassil
Associated Press/Naharnet/January 23/2020
Free Patriotic Movement chief MP Jebran Bassil, who is also a former foreign minister who has been a frequent target of protesters in crisis-hit Lebanon, said Thursday he understands the people want change, but said he's not going anywhere until voters drive him out. Bassil was officially replaced as foreign minister this week with the appointment of a new technocratic government backed by his party and the allied Hizbullah group. He said the new team should get right to work pushing for reform -- and demanded results in a reasonable amount of time. "We should give the government a chance, and a small delay of time," Bassil told The Associated Press, suggesting "three months or 100 days." Bassil emerged as a power broker in Lebanese politics over the last decade. The new government of 20 ministers has at least six ministers his party backs. Bassil is the son-in-law of President Michel Aoun and many say he himself harbors presidential aspirations. He appears frequently in the media and many blamed him for fanning anti-refugee sentiment, often faulting them for the country's woes. As the head of one of the country's main Christian parties since 2015, Bassil currently leads the largest bloc in Parliament, controlling with allies 29 out of the 128 seats.Bassil's appearance at the World Economic Forum on Thursday stoked fury among his critics in Lebanon, who accuse him of corruption and blast him as the embodiment of a sclityuerotic democratic system. The country's woes have been compounded by unpaid salaries and public services, jockeying for influence by foreign powers and sectarian divisions. Also, nearly one in four people now living in Lebanon is a refugee from neighboring Syria.
"This government has to quickly adopt new policies in economy and finance and implement the new plans that are already in place and this is what will make it succeed or fail," Bassil said. He noted, in particular, changes needed in waste management and electricity in a country beset by sporadic power outages and trash piling up in public areas. Bassil once served as electricity minister from 2009 until 2014, when he returned as foreign minister. Bassil said he thought Lebanon could enact change even without Western government support. However, he said, "If we prove internally that we can have the ability to reform, then we can ask the international community to help."Bassil took aim at those who consider him corrupt, defending himself as "the first one in Lebanon to reveal my accounts," and listing steps including pushing for laws that would limit bank secrecy and immunity of public servants.
"So put your pressure on the deputies that are refusing to adopt these laws," he said, when asked to respond to his critics. When word came out that Bassil was invited to Davos, many Lebanese campaigned against his trip, petitioning the World Economic Forum to un-invite him, arguing that he no longer represents Lebanon. Many also argued it was a costly trip for a bankrupt country. Asked at the forum if he paid for the trip from state money, Bassil said he paid for it privately, adding that he arrived on a private jet that "was offered to me." He didn't elaborate. Bassil said the street protesters who shouted and chanted against him do not represent the majority of Lebanese. "When, in elections they do (voice their opposition), definitely we will obey their desire," he said. In the meantime, Bassil said he's not going anywhere. "It is my obligation, as a deputy to this parliament, to be representing the people," he said.

Security Walls Erected outside Beirut's Nejmeh Square
Associated Press/Naharnet/January 23/2020
Cement security walls were on Thursday erected at the entrances to the street leading to the Lebanese parliament in central Beirut, the site of recent clashes. The blast walls, some painted with Lebanese flags, were installed as security forces guarded the area.
They replaced metal barriers that protesters tried to climb. The protesters had also hurled stones and other projectiles at security forces through the metal barriers. Dozens of protesters gathered in the area as the walls were being erected on Thursday. They objected to the move and some of them sat on the ground before being removed by riot police. The small rally has however remained peaceful, in contrast to the fierce clashes of the recent days. Over the weekend, Beirut saw some of the most violent clashes between protesters and security forces yet. More than 500 people, including over 100 security forces, were injured in clashes outside the parliament building. Protesters hurled stones, firecrackers and flares at security forces who responded with rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannon. Several protesters were hit in their eyes. On Wednesday, hours after the new government held its first meeting, hundreds of protesters gathered again outside parliament, attempting to break through security barriers and hurling stones, firecrackers, tree branches and Molotov cocktails. Clashes lasted late into the night, as security forces chased protesters down the streets.

Paris Urges New Govt. to 'Work Collectively', Take 'Urgent Measures'
Naharnet/January 23/2020
The French foreign ministry on Thursday noted that “the difficult situation that Lebanon is going through requires its new government to give the priority to taking urgent measures that can restore confidence.”“It’s about time all Lebanese officials worked collectively in a manner that achieves the interest of all Lebanese,” the ministry urged in a statement. “Accordingly, France is ready to support Lebanese authorities in implementing the necessary reforms and it will exert utmost effort to help Lebanon overcome its crisis,” the ministry added. Reiterating Paris’ keenness on Lebanon’s “sovereignty, stability and security,” the ministry stressed the need to dissociate Lebanon from the current crises in the region. “France, as always, stands by the Lebanese,” the ministry added.

UK Ambassador Urges Govt. to Show 'Commitment to Reforms'
Naharnet/January 23/2020
British Ambassador to Lebanon Chris Rampling met Thursday with Prime Minister Hassan Diab at the Grand Serail.After the meeting, Rampling said: “The formation of a new government is an important step for Lebanon. The UK has been consistent in calling for the urgent formation of an effective and credible government, which reflects the aspirations of the Lebanese people.”He added that along with “other members of the international community,” Britain stands ready to “support Lebanon.”He, however, noted that the government must first “demonstrate its commitment to the reforms which Lebanon desperately needs.”The meeting was also attended by Lebanon’s new environment and administrative development minister Demianos Qattar, who had served as finance and economy minister in the past and was once nominated for the Lebanese presidency.

New FM Denies Announcing Walid al-Muallem's 'Death'
Naharnet/January 23/2020
Lebanon’s new foreign minister Nassif Hitti on Thursday denied announcing the “death” of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem.
“He has not used the account carrying his name for the past three and a half years and he has not created any Twitter account recently,” a statement issued by his office said. The office earlier announced that the account in question had been “hacked” and that efforts were underway to recover it. The account, @NassifHitti, was later deactivated. The tweet had been reported as real news by some media outlets. Several parody accounts impersonating a number of ministers have popped up since the formation of the new government on Tuesday night, most notably one claiming to be the new information minister – Manal Abdul Samad. Syria’s information minister and deputy foreign minister meanwhile denied the death of Muallem, stressing that he is in good health.

EU Envoy Meets Diab, Says Aid Hinges on Reforms
Naharnet/January 23/2020
EU Ambassador to Lebanon Ralph Tarraf held talks Thursday with Prime Minister Hassan Diab at the Grand Serail and noted that the European Union’s assistance to Lebanon hinges on the implementation of economic reforms. The meeting was held in the presence of Environment and Administrative Development Minister Demianos Qattar. Speaking to reporters after the talks, Tarraf said the conferees agreed that the new government needs to focus on the economic files and implement structural reforms in order to improve the government’s performance.
He added that the EU is willing to help Lebanon should the government carry out the necessary reforms. Tarraf also stressed that Lebanon should dissociate itself from the regional conflicts, adding that the European Union will monitor the government’s political alignment. He also declined to answer a question on whether the government is one-sided or under Hizbullah’s control. Diab also met on Thursday with French Ambassador to Lebanon Bruno Foucher in the presence of Minister Qattar.

Ambassador Tells Diab Switzerland Ready to Help on Capital Flight Reports
Naharnet/January 23/2020
Swiss Ambassador to Lebanon Monika Schmutz Kirgoz on Thursday held talks with Prime Minister Hassan Diab at the Grand Serail. Commenting on reports that a number of Lebanese politicians have recently transferred billions of dollars to Swiss banks despite the de facto capital controls imposed by Lebanese banks, the ambassador said her country is willing to investigate the claims should the Lebanese government request help. Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh said on January 16 that legal measures would be taken to know the fate of the transfers allegedly sent to Switzerland. "All legal measures needed will be taken to know the fate of money transfers to Switzerland in 2019 and if they truly happened,” he said. Asked whether Lebanon is going to contact Switzerland to inquire on the issue, Salameh said: “We have to confirm first whether these remittances actually came out of Lebanon.”On December 30, State Prosecutor Ghassan Oueidat had requested information from Swiss and Lebanese authorities about the alleged transfers. The National News Agency said Oueidat has sought the help of “the Swiss judiciary, the Special Investigation Commission of Banque du Liban and the Banking Control Commission of Lebanon.”The agency added that the prosecutor has asked for information to verify whether or not Lebanese politicians had recently made any “suspicious” transfers. Asharq al-Awsat newspaper had reported that the Lebanese judiciary had launched an investigation into reports claiming that nine Lebanese politicians had transferred $2 billion abroad over 15 days. It said a judicial probe got underway simultaneously with investigations that were being carried out by the central bank.

Foreign states waiting for new government’s reforms: Lebanon finance minister
Reuters, Beirut/Thursday, 23 January 2020
Lebanon’s Finance Minister Ghazi Wazni said on Thursday that foreign donors were waiting to see what reforms the new government would enact and whether it was ready for support. “The entire international community has its eye on what this government will do,” he said in televised comments. “What is its program, what are the reform steps, is it ready for support or no?”

Political manipulation seen behind Lebanon violent protests: UN
Reuters, Beirut/Thursday, 23 January 2020
Violence by some protesters in the Lebanese capital Beirut appears to be politically driven to undermine security and stability, a senior United Nations official said on Thursday. “This looks more like a political manipulation to provoke the security forces, to undermine civil peace, to fan up sectarian strife,” Jan Kubis, UN special coordinator for Lebanon, wrote on Twitter, mentioning attacks on security forces and vandalism of state institutions and private property.

New Interior Minister Says He Won't Permit Attacks on Security Forces
Associated Press/Naharnet/January 23/2020
Lebanon's new interior minister said Thursday he won't permit attacks on security forces amid angry rioting that has gripped the country's capital amid a deepening economic crisis. Mohammed Fahmi spoke during a handover ceremony from the outgoing minister, two days after a new government was formed. That ended a three-month political vacuum on the heels of nationwide protests against the country's long serving political class. "I will not allow attacks on security forces who are carrying out their duties" to protect the country's laws and properties, he said.
Meanwhile, Amnesty International called on the new government to "immediately rein in" security forces, which it said unlawfully used rubber bullets at close range against the protesters, injuring hundreds over the weekend before Fahmi took office. On Wednesday, the security forces did not use rubber bullets.
Many protesters have rejected the new government, saying it is still backed by the same traditional political powers they accuse of corruption. Fahmi said he would guarantee that security forces won't attack protesters and will protect their rights to freely express their opinion. He vowed to investigate any security forces violations "if they happen."Over the weekend, Beirut saw some of the most violent clashes between protesters and security forces yet. More than 500 people, including over 100 security forces, were injured in clashes outside the parliament building. Protesters hurled stones, firecrackers and flares at security forces who responded with rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannon. Several protesters were hit in their eyes.
On Wednesday, hours after the new government held its first meeting, hundreds of protesters gathered again outside parliament, attempting to break through security barriers and hurling stones. Clashes lasted late into the night, as security forces chased protesters down the streets.
Amnesty said with protests likely to continue over the next weeks, Lebanon's newly formed government must "as a matter of urgency" prioritize reining in security forces and investigate the unlawful and excessive use of force. It said security forces "shoot to harm," causing serious injuries in the head, face, chin and mouth. At least three protesters were hit directly in the eye with rubber bullets. Amnesty said police also threatened two female protesters with rape. Red Cross said at least 409 protesters were injured in clashes over the weekend. "The new minister of interior must immediately rein in the (Internal Security Forces) and order them to comply with international standards and respect the right to assembly," Heba Morayef, Middle East and North Africa regional director at Amnesty said. "Acts of violence by a minority of protesters does not justify a violent dispersal but should have been dealt with in a targeted manner." Morayef called for an investigation to provide "redress for the victims and send a strong signal that violence will not be tolerated."

Daryan Says Riots Tarnish Popular Cause
Naharnet/January 23/2020
Grand Mufti of the Republic Sheikh Abdul Latif Daryan condemned the massive acts of “sabotage” that were witnessed in downtown Beirut yesterday evening, the National News Agency reported on Thursday. The Mufti utterly rejected acts of vandalism against private and public property, saying “infiltrators have smashed shops, uprooted trees and violated private and public property.”"What is happening in the streets of Beirut is an insult to the popular movement and its just demands," Daryan warned, calling for preserving the security of the country and the safety of its property, as well as that of the Lebanese people.He finally appealed to the security forces to intensify their efforts to preserve the security of the homeland.

Wazni: Lebanon Seeks Loans to Purchase Wheat, Fuel and Medicine
Naharnet/January 23/2020
Finance Minister Ghazi Wazni on Thursday said that around 4 to 5 billion dollars will be requested from international donor countries to finance purchases of wheat, fuel and medicines in crisis-hit Lebanon, according to media reports. Named as new minister on Tuesday, Wazni said that Lebanon is looking to secure 4-5 billion dollars in soft loans to finance the purchase of the country’s needs of wheat, fuel and medicines in light of a dollar shortage crisis. In December, Lebanon's appeal for foreign aid at the International Support for Lebanon was rebuffed pending reforms and the formation of the government. Prime Minister Hassan Diab formed Lebanon’s government on Tuesday set to tackle the twin challenges of a tenacious protest movement since October and a nosediving economy.

Greece Seizes 1.25 Tons of Lebanese Cannabis
Associated Press/Naharnet/January 23/2020
Greek authorities said Thursday they found more than a ton of processed cannabis camouflaged among a shipment of date paste headed by sea from Lebanon to Libya. A police statement said the drugs were discovered on Jan. 16 in a ship's container on a freighter that had stopped at Greece's main port of Piraeus. The statement said the raid was carried out in cooperation with U.S. and Saudi authorities. No arrests were announced. A total 1.25 tons of processed cannabis were confiscated. Greek police said the drugs were loaded in Beirut and were destined for the Libyan port of Misrata.

U.S. Senator Drafting Lebanon Sanctions over Amer Fakhoury
Associated Press/Naharnet/January 23/2020
U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen is drafting sanctions legislation to hold Lebanese officials accountable for jailing Amer Fakhoury, a former official at the Khiam prison, which was operated by the Israeli-backed South Lebanon Army militia. "Time is of the essence and the Lebanese government needs to understand there will be consequences for his continued detention," Shaheen, a Democrat and member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said in a statement this week.
Fakhoury, 57, who owns a restaurant in Dover, New Hampshire and who became a U.S. citizen last year, has been jailed since Sept. 12 in his native country. He went on vacation to visit family he hadn't seen in nearly two decades.
Fakhoury was once a member of the SLA and worked at a former prison described by human rights groups as a center for torture. His lawyer and family say he fled Lebanon in 2001 through Israel and eventually to the United States, because of death threats he and other SLA members received after Israel ended its occupation of Lebanon in 2000. Before Fakhoury went back, he received assurances from government officials in Lebanon that there were no legal matters that might interfere with his return. But days after he arrived, an article in the pro-Hizbullah al-Akhbar newspaper accused him of torture and murder at the former Khiam Prison. He has been detained since then.Fakhoury's lawyer and family say he was never involved in the interrogation or torture of prisoners and was never accused when the prison was investigated years ago. They said Fakhoury, who has been hospitalized, has now been diagnosed with stage 4 lymphoma and has developed a new infection. They recently learned that medical records show he is suffering from a broken rib cage.
Lebanon itself has been in the middle of an unprecedented economic and political crisis amid nationwide protests since October, leading to the prime minister's resignation. A new government was formed Tuesday. It was unclear who could address Fakhoury's case.
Guila Fakhoury, the oldest of Fakhoury's four daughters, said doctors cannot always reach her father because of the protest road closures. She said he has missed chemotherapy treatments. "It's a life and death situation right now," she said. "I'm just frustrated we're not able to get him home. We're talking about a sick, innocent U.S. citizen."Shaheen was part of the effort to bring sanctions against Turkey in the detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson, who was eventually freed in 2018. She raised the idea of sanctions against Lebanon in December, saying that U.S. officials have been unable to persuade the Lebanese government to release Fakhoury on humanitarian grounds. She said then that sanctions should include ones that would make any involved officials and their family members ineligible for entry into the United States.
In her statement, Shaheen said she is drafting the legislation "to hold those accountable who are complicit in Mr. Fakhoury's arrest, beating and prolonged detention." She added, "Whenever an American is held unjustly by a foreign government, we as a nation need to do everything we can do bring them home. All options are on the table to secure Mr. Fakhoury's freedom, reunite him with his family and provide the care he urgently needs."Shaheen's office said she has been in frequent contact with the State Department and White House. A State Department spokesperson said Wednesday that consular officers from the U.S. Embassy in Beirut most recently visited Fakhoury on Jan. 16. "We are concerned about his welfare, as doctors report his health is failing and he requires urgent specialized medical treatment," the spokesperson said a statement. "We have raised these concerns at all appropriate levels with the Lebanese government. We will continue to follow his case closely, and to provide him and his family all appropriate consular assistance," the spokesperson added.

Bassil Feels Heat in Testy Davos Debate
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 23/2020
Former foreign minister Jebran Bassil on Thursday faced accusations over his personal wealth and record at the top of a country mired in corruption, during a hugely uncomfortable appearance at the Davos economic forum. Bassil, the son-in-law of President Michel Aoun, lost his post as foreign minister when a new government was finally announced this week after months of street protests over a collapsing economy. His appearance at the luxury Swiss resort had caused howls of outrage in Lebanon where thousands signed petitions asking about the financing of his trip at a time when Lebanese are trying to make ends meet. "How did you get here?", asked the moderator. "Did you take a private plane?""I came simply on my own expenses," Bassil replied. "I know rumors and lies circulate always but this is the reality. Not one lira at the expense of the Lebanese treasury!" "So this is family money?" the moderator pressed. "No this was offered to me. I was invited here," Bassil replied. "We are not allowed to have friends like that when we are in government," witheringly pointed out Dutch Trade Minister Sigrid Kaag, who previously served as U.N. coordinator for Lebanon. Turning to the situation in Lebanon, Bassil insisted the protests were not political in nature and he even supported them. "What is happening in the street is very positive," said Bassil, still seen as a key powerbroker as leader of the Free Patriotic Movement. "They are protesting as they lost their money, they are not united on any political issue."
Opponents of Bassil reacted with glee on social media to his performance. "Watching Jebran Bassil getting roasted is so good," commented one on Twitter. Bassil, who served half a decade as foreign minister after a similar time as energy minister, has consistently come under fire from demonstrators mobilized to demand the removal of a political class they deem incompetent and corrupt. "Lebanon is a country that has been stymied by top-level corruption across the board," commented Kaarg. "The sectarian system, coupled with the former warlords, have hijacked the state," she said.

Japan Prosecutors Hit Back at Ghosn's '8 Hours of Questions' Claim
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 23/2020
Japanese prosecutors hit back Thursday at claims made by fugitive former Nissan boss Carlos Ghosn that he was interrogated for "up to eight hours per day" during questioning over financial misconduct allegations. Ghosn, who dramatically skipped bail earlier this month and fled to Lebanon, had painted a picture of harsh conditions in Japanese custody that authorities have contested. "I had spent the previous months being interrogated up to eight hours a day without any lawyers present, without an understanding of exactly what I was being accused of, without access to the evidence that justified this travesty against my human rights and dignity," he told reporters in Lebanon. But the deputy head of the Tokyo district public prosecutors' office, Takahiro Saito, said Ghosn's claims were "clearly false and designed to fool the media". "Mr Ghosn spent 130 days in detention and was questioned in total on 70 of those days. So 60 days without questioning," said Saito. "On average, he was questioned for less than four hours per day." He said questioning was halted for meals, visits, showers and to give Ghosn a chance to consult his lawyers -- time he said the tycoon had counted as "interrogation". "The longest questioning over one day was for around six hours, not continuously, with breaks. It never went as long as seven hours, still less eight," this prosecutor stressed. He also said that everything was on tape and would have been available during Ghosn's trial if he had not fled. The high-profile case has put the spotlight on the Japanese justice system, which has come under fire for its ability to keep suspects in custody for lengthy periods, its reliance on confessions and an almost 100 percent conviction rate. "Everything has been recorded and would have been used as evidence for a judgement," Saito said. "In such conditions, if we were extracting confessions by force, it would be visible." In his first comments about Ghosn's daring escape, which has left Japanese officials red-faced, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Thursday it was "extremely regrettable".

Why EU should ban Hezbollah
Richard A. Grenell/ U.S. ambassador to Germany/Politico/January 23/2020
السفير الأميركي لدى ألمانيا، ريتشارد كرانيل: لكل هذه الأسباب مطلوب من الإتحاد الأوروبي منع حزب الله ووضعه على قوائم الإرهاب
Terror group relies on European recruiting and fundraising networks to survive.
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/82560/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b3%d9%81%d9%8a%d8%b1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a3%d9%85%d9%8a%d8%b1%d9%83%d9%8a-%d9%84%d8%af%d9%89-%d8%a3%d9%84%d9%85%d8%a7%d9%86%d9%8a%d8%a7%d8%8c-%d8%b1%d9%8a%d8%aa%d8%b4%d8%a7%d8%b1/
BERLIN — In one of its last acts of 2019, the German parliament called on the government to ban Hezbollah. Recent developments show the government is ready to act, using available legal tools to deny the Iranian terror proxy the ability to plan, recruit and raise funds on German soil.
The European Union should follow the German parliament’s lead and recognize Hezbollah in its entirety as a terrorist organization.
Berlin’s action comes in the wake of continued paralysis in Brussels, where some member countries still argue for Hezbollah’s legitimacy due to its political role in Lebanon.
The EU thus maintains an artificial distinction between Hezbollah’s “political wing” and “military wing,” a division the terror group itself does not recognize.
The EU’s stated intent for creating this false distinction is to preserve an open channel with Hezbollah and its representatives in the Lebanese government.
The facts belie the EU’s stance.
Hezbollah works for the Iranian regime, not the Lebanese people, who have protested against Iran’s influence in their country since October. It contributes to the 400,000-plus death toll in Syria, and remains dedicated to the extermination of Israel. It has planned and executed terrorist attacks on European soil. And it flouts the rule of law, raising hundreds of millions of dollars in financing per year through criminal networks and transnational money laundering schemes originating in or transiting Europe. An EU-wide designation of Hezbollah is necessary to deny it the vast European recruiting and fundraising networks it needs to survive.
This designation would not deprive Brussels of its open channel to the Lebanese government. The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, and others each recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and each maintains a robust relationship with Lebanon. In fact, Lebanon receives more foreign assistance from the U.S. than from any other country in the world. Designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization does no harm to U.S.-Lebanese relations, but it does empower the U.S. to disrupt the international criminal networks that help fund Hezbollah’s support for the Assad regime and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The U.S. is resolute in its efforts to stop the spread of Hezbollah’s terror, but we cannot contain the threat on our own.
On January 10, U.S President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting revenue used by the Iranian regime to fund and support its terrorist proxy networks. The U.S. imposed additional sanctions against broad sectors of the Iranian economy, including construction, manufacturing, and mining, to further deny funding to terrorist groups that threaten the U.S., Europe and our partners in the Middle East.
As a result, Hezbollah is under enormous financial pressure. The group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has called on his supporters to make an unprecedented increase in “charitable” donations to pay for fighters perpetuating violence in the Levant. But in the meantime, Hezbollah’s coercive influence over Lebanon’s financial sector, and its operational freedom within the European Union, allow it access to the revenue it needs to weather the storm of sanctions.
The U.S. is resolute in its efforts to stop the spread of Hezbollah’s terror, but we cannot contain the threat on our own. As with similar challenges, the U.S. requires the support of its European allies. If the EU wants to take a stand against the Assad regime’s violence in Syria and the export of that violence and instability to Europe, it should follow the German parliament’s lead, and designate all of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.https://www.politico.eu/article/why-eu-should-ban-hezbollah/

Former Lebanese FM Gebran Bassil comes under fire in Davos panel
جبران باسيل: نيران انكشاف وتعري في دافوس
Tarek Ali Ahmad/Arab News/January 23/2020
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/82563/%d8%ac%d8%a8%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d8%b3%d9%8a%d9%84-%d9%86%d9%8a%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86-%d8%a7%d8%ad%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%88%d8%ac-%d8%a7%d9%86%d9%83%d8%b4%d8%a7%d9%81-%d9%88%d8%aa%d8%b9%d8%b1%d9%8a/
*Bassil, who has been the target of protesters' anger, was speaking on a panel named “The return of Arab Unrest”
*CNBC's Hadley Gamble, who moderated the discussion, put pressure on Bassil over his comments on governance
DAVOS: Lebanon’s new government needs to win the confidence of the parliament, the confidence of the people, and the confidence of the international community, former Lebanese foreign minister Gebran Bassil said at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday.
In a much-anticipated panel discussion plagued by controversy and uncertainty since its announcement, Bassil appeared despite a social media campaign and petition calling for his invitation to be rescinded.
He said the country was in its current position because of 30 years of “wrong policies.”
“The responsibility of the Lebanese government is to take the challenge of changing and reforming the system,” he said. “What is happening now in the streets is very positive because it is creating a dynamic for change.”
Joining Bassil for the discussion — “The return of Arab Unrest” — were Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation Sigrid Kaag and Damac Properties chairman Hussein Sajwani.
Kaag spoke of the importance of Lebanon as a “regional public good in a volatile region” saying the country has “so much to offer.” However, she added, “It is so painful to see a model of consensual democracy turn away to provide a disservice.
“One should not need wasta,” she continued, referring to the Arabic word for influence and/or bribery. “Wasta is a total sign of poverty, whereby only if you have means, access, and influence, you are someone.”
Panel moderator, CNBC anchor Hadley Gamble, did not hold back when questioning the former foreign minister, repeatedly reminding him of his infamous quote at Davos last year, when he said, “Washington and London should maybe learn from Lebanon how to run a country without a budget.”
Bassil’s spokesperson May Khreish had earlier accused Gamble of being part of “a Zionist campaign against Bassil's participation in the conference.”
“We have a malfunctioning system because of confessionalism. What the young people are calling for in the streets is a secular system whereby citizens are equal,” Bassil said.
He also expressed his hope that Lebanon’s current crisis could be resolved in-house. “Let the people of the region decide what they want,” he said. “Don’t dictate to them foreign recipes. Let the international community help not dictate.
“Lebanon is still a democracy — we have a high level of freedom and they are encouraged to keep this force of change, and when they decide we don’t represent them anymore, we step aside,” he continued, referring to former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s government resigning a few weeks after the start of the protests in October 2019.
Damac boss Sajwani suggested that the general public in the region did not treat democracy with appropriate gravitas. “The challenge we have in the Middle East is that people are not being professional when it comes to elections,” he said. “They are going by emotions and religion, which is totally unacceptable.”
Kaag praised the determination and persistence of Lebanon's youth. “The specter of possible civil war will not work anymore (as a deterrent for protests),” she said.
Lebanon’s new coalition government was formed on Tuesday after almost 100 days of widespread public protests about the state of the economy, corruption, high unemployment and a lack of basic services. The majority of its 20 ministers are aligned with Hezbollah and its allies.

Lebanon's former foreign minister tries to defend Davos trip as country faces economic collapse
Natasha Turak/CNBC/January 23/2020
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/82563/%d8%ac%d8%a8%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d8%b3%d9%8a%d9%84-%d9%86%d9%8a%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86-%d8%a7%d8%ad%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%88%d8%ac-%d8%a7%d9%86%d9%83%d8%b4%d8%a7%d9%81-%d9%88%d8%aa%d8%b9%d8%b1%d9%8a/
Gebran Bassil, Lebanon's former foreign minister, came to Davos "on his own expenses," he told CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland on Thursday.
Bassil's claim came as a defense against a torrent of accusations of public funds misuse by a politician viewed as the face of Lebanon's political corruption and economic disintegration. His presence at Davos has drawn widespread anger among Lebanese, with petitions to ban his participation at the elite event garnering tens of thousands of signatures.
Hundreds of Lebanese citizens are reported to have been injured, arrested and hospitalized in nationwide anti-government protests in the Middle Eastern country as the alpine conference got underway.
"I came simply on my own expenses," Bassil, who heads the largest political bloc in Lebanon's parliament, told CNBC's Hadley Gamble.
"I know rumors and lies circulate always on issues like this, but I am used to this and this is the reality. On my own expenses."
The claim raised immediate questions of how someone on a civil servant salary could charter a personal plane. Bassil added that "This was offered to me. You know I was invited here ... Not one Lebanese leader on the expense of the Lebanese treasury. Very simple."
Bassil is a target of growing rage across Lebanon and the subject of a popular anti-government protest chant.
The son-in-law of Lebanese President Michel Aoun, Bassil is supported by Shiite militant and political group Hezbollah, which is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. Many in and outside of Lebanon accuse him of corruption, pilfering the country's bankrupt electricity utility and proliferating the sectarian politics that stymied an economy now facing its worst crisis since the country's bloody 15-year civil war that ended in 1990.
Popular protests have rocked the small country of 6 million since October, and have recently spiraled into violent clashes with police as security forces use rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons on demonstrators. More than 100 people have been injured.
The protests — the country's largest in 14 years — are a manifestation of widespread anger at decades of corruption, dysfunctional government and the deterioration of basic public services. A new government announced Tuesday failed to satisfy the demonstrators, who want a full overhaul of the country's sectarian political system.
Lebanon's debt-to-GDP stands at more than 150%, one of the highest in the world, and unemployment hovers between 35% and 40%. Lebanon is ranked 138 out of 175 countries by Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index.
The sheer scope of the protests — spanning all age groups, religious sects and cities all over the country — make it unprecedented and more significant than perhaps any that have taken place before.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/01/23/lebanons-former-foreign-minister-tries-to-defend-davos-trip.html?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR1CeowPtdsCePUD-PuI3JKyXxIfYOo9eqSL38el6l1fa628_qZ4jxMQj6o

U.S. Withholds Support for New Lebanon Government
Dion Nissenbaum and Nazih Osseiran/The Wall Street Journal/January 23/2020
ولستريت جورنال: الولايات المتحدة تحجب المساعدات عن حكومة لبنان الجديدة
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/82557/the-wall-street-journal-u-s-withholds-support-for-new-lebanon-government-%d9%88%d9%84%d8%b3%d8%aa%d8%b1%d9%8a%d8%aa-%d8%ac%d9%88%d8%b1%d9%86%d8%a7%d9%84-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%88%d9%84%d8%a7%d9%8a%d8%a7/
BEIRUT—Lebanon’s new government received a tepid welcome on Wednesday as police used water cannons to prevent protesters from marching on parliament and the Trump administration said it wasn’t certain it would work with the coalition dominated by Iranian ally Hezbollah and its Christian allies.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo withheld support for Lebanon’s government as it met for the first time in hopes of ending a deepening economic crisis. Asked in a Bloomberg News interview if the U.S. would work with a government dominated by Hezbollah, one of Iran’s most important allies in the Middle East, Mr. Pompeo demurred.
“I don’t know the answer to that yet,” he said. “We’re prepared to engage, provide support, but only to a government that’s committed to reform.”
Mr. Pompeo and top Trump administration officials have pressed the Lebanese government for years to sideline Hezbollah political leaders. But Hezbollah is a dominant military and political force with grass roots support in Lebanon, securing its influence and stature inside the country.
After weeks of nationwide protests brought down Prime Minister Saad Hariri, a weakened political leader supported by Saudi Arabia and the U.S., Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun tapped Hassan Diab, a relatively unknown university professor backed by Hezbollah, to lead the new government.
Mr. Diab unveiled his cabinet on Tuesday after a weekend of street protests devolved into outbursts of violence with police firing rubber bullets at demonstrators and activists smashing windows around the capital.
The protests and political uncertainty have rattled Lebanon, where the currency is collapsing, power outages are increasing, businesses are closing, and no one is eager to swoop with a financial bailout for the country.
“We are facing the most difficult and dangerous stage in the history of Lebanon,” Mr. Diab said during his government’s first session on Wednesday. “We are facing a disaster.”
Trump administration officials have been considering cutting off aid to the new government amid concerns about Hezbollah’s influence, according to U.S. officials. Last year, without public announcement, the U.S. temporarily suspended more than $200 million in military and economic aid to Lebanon as it pushed the previous government to sideline Hezbollah.
Across Lebanon, demonstrations have been united in their call for an overhaul of the fractured political system and a clean sweep of longtime leaders from all ruling parties, including both those supported by America and those aligned with Iran.
On Wednesday, Mr. Pompeo pointed to the continuing protests as a reason to be wary of working with the new government.
“The protests taking place today in Lebanon are saying to Hezbollah ‘No Mas.’ No more,” he said. “We want a noncorrupt government that reflects the will of the people of Lebanon.”
Later in the day, Mr. Pompeo suggested that international aid would be contingent upon the Lebanese government’s ability to enact reforms needed to pull the economy out of a tailspin.
“The test of Lebanon’s new government will be its actions and its responsiveness to the demands of the Lebanese people to implement reforms and to fight corruption,” he said in a statement that did not specifically mention Hezbollah. “Only a government that is capable of and committed to undertaking real and tangible reforms will restore investor confidence and unlock international assistance for Lebanon.”
The European Union appeared to offer more support by trumpeting its “strong partnership” with Lebanon and describing the new government’s formation as “an essential step” in resolving the country’s problems.
On Wednesday, security forces again used tear gas and water cannons against demonstrators trying to march on parliament. They also erected a metal fence that blocked demonstrators.
“We are not scared, we are not scared,” a group of young men chanted as they made their way through the crowd toward the barricades.
Activists tore down tiles from surrounding buildings using metal roads and hammers and then threw them at police. Demonstrators said the new government didn’t satisfy their calls for a technocratic government capable of enacting widespread reforms.
The new cabinet includes no members from Mr. Hariri’s Sunni party or the country’s Christian Lebanese Forces political group.
“We don’t want a one-colored government,” one protester said, referring to the lack of political representation from rival parties. “We want a cabinet on our terms. We want one like our own minds, not like them.”
—Laurence Norman contributed to this article.
Write to Dion Nissenbaum at dion.nissenbaum@wsj.com
Copyright ©2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The ‘Culture’ of Assadist Punishment in Beirut
Hazem Saghieh/Asharq Al Awsat/January 23/2020
Last Tuesday night, on the 14th of January, tens of youths were taken to the El-Helou Police Station in Beirut after the security forces experimented with the use of excessive violence on them. Once they were released, they spoke of the beatings and humiliation that they were subjected to. However, they also mentioned a few brief “political” phrases that they had heard, phrases that reflect the “culture” of the Lebanese security apparatus.
We know that jailers are “honest” when speaking to prisoners, in the sense that what they say to them accurately mirrors the jailer’s true thoughts and feelings. For there is no media or public opinion in dark rooms and halls that bring the two together, and the punishment to protect the victim and tie the perpetrator’s hands is absent. Indeed, there is also an absence of the standards of civil treatment that govern the relationship between two supposedly equal individuals. Thus, the jailer, who is by definition in a superior position, is freed from all restraints and acts under his most primitive natural disposition.
More than this, the jailer treats his prisoner like he is nobody, and he who is nobody can't hear or convey what he hears to a ’’respectable ’’ audience. All of this allows the jailer to beat what he views as a corpse. For he is not satisfied with avenging a deep-rooted feeling of inferiority that lurks inside him, he lets out the accumulation of times he felt this inferiority, the last of which stems from his tiring efforts to confront the angry protesters.
Briefly, these factors come together to bring out the sadism inside the jailer and loosen his inhibitions.
Because eavesdropping on jailers’ monologues is certainly tempting and the tales told by those released from custody satiate this curiosity, any doubts we have over the prisoners’ truthfulness are quelled. Among the things the prisoners relayed is that the jailers lamented the fact that they were “not in Syria” and their deep desire to be there. Being in the “beating heart of Arabism” would have allowed them to enact a greater degree of harm and destruction on the prisoners, degrees they are reluctant to use in Lebanon. This adoration that the jailers proclaim for “Assad’s Syria”, which they see as an ideal model, finds its culmination in their grudge against Syrian victims. For those victims, according to the same story, are subjected to a greater degree of violence and humiliation at the Helou station, and they are incarcerated for longer periods.
The combination of adoring Assad and hating Syrians summarizes a pillar of Lebanese prison cell ’’culture, ’’ a side to that ’’culture ’’ which demonstrates some of the worst aspects of Lebanese society, that bring blaming the victim together with sympathizing with the perpetrator.
This behavior was partly formed during the years of Syrian military presence in Lebanon. At the time some “intellectual” circles specialized in propagating a “theory” to the effect of: We (the Lebanese) are a great nation and Syria’s ruler Hafez el-Assad is a great leader. He suits us, while our mediocre leaders (Assad’s employees in Beirut) suit the mediocre Syrian nation.
This “theory” was based on a desire to switch roles: identifying with the victor from a position of inferiority while looking down on the vanquished, i.e. the Syrian partners of the Lebanese in their submission to Assad, in an effort to escape their humiliation.
This “theory” is foundational to the subsequent “alliance of minorities”: the great Lebanese people were biased in favor of the great ruler’s son against the mediocre Syrian people with whom the mediocre Lebanese people sympathized with. As for Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian War, it improved the terms of vassalage that link the smaller great with the bigger great. The debt was paid off with high interest.
However, deploying this combination of adoration for Assad and hatred of the Syrian people in the context of the Lebanese revolution and its repression is indicative of an unseen hand playing a role in the repression: the counter-revolution in Assad’s Syria and the region at large, something that Lebanese revolutionaries ought not forget or ignore, thinking that big brother’s eyes are not watching them.
There is a third issue mentioned by those who were released, which completes this “culture” and sheds more light on its dangers. Those detained were called “Zionists”, applying an Assadist principle that it applied in Lebanon until 2005, when Hezbollah inherited it. The purpose of the principle is to blackmail opponents and oppositionists with an automatic verbal exercise.
Behind the humiliation of those accused of being Zionists, lurks a greater humiliation for the charge itself. The fact is that this continuous exchange of verbal attacks in the bazaar of verbal conflict with Israel is as much a part of the "culture" of the big Syrian prison as it is the "culture" of the smaller prisons that spring from it in Syria and in Lebanon. The only solid result of these verbal attacks is the real enmity towards the Palestinians. For example, the Aounist OTV television station, tells us that “Palestinians masked in the kufiyas speaking the Lebanese dialect” participated in a demonstration in Hamra Street.
Now, with the government of ''one color,'' this “culture” might spread and expand. In any case, the violence of Saturday and Sunday, on the 18th and 19th of this month, was much more ferocious than it was on Tuesday night, and many more people were taken to jail cells. When they are released, they will tell us what they heard there, and they will, for the most part, confirm what we already know about the "culture" of Assadist punishment in Beirut.

On the Government of Collapse and Violence!
Hanna Saleh/Asharq Al Awsat/January 23/2020
Hezbollah has made up its mind and decided to announce the formation of the Lebanese government, headed by Hassan Diab, 33 days after he had been appointed and following 85 days of governmental vacuum. The partisan power-sharing in this government of twenty is restricted to the “axis of resistance”, with Hezbollah’s direct presence among faces that, politically speaking, belong to the era of the Syrian occupation. In this sense, this is a pre-2005 government. If the 2018 elections had, to some extent, as per Deputy-Speaker of Parliament Elie Ferzli “corrected the error” made after the independence uprising, then announcing this government is nothing but a desire to deliver two messages: First, that all of the positive implications of the second independence have been undone, and second, that there is a definitive divorce between the ruling side led by Nasrallah and the October 17 revolution.
Diab’s word after announcing the government formation, which overlooked the truth and reality when he claimed it was “a government of exception” and that it included exceptional non-partisan ministers, set a precedent when the public demanded its overthrow before the memorial photo of the government was even taken. Diab broke the promises he made the day he was appointed, as he is happy with entering the Prime Ministers’ club. Nevertheless, he remains the weakest link in a government formed for him by those responsible for the country's collapse and isolation. He doesn't have a political banner, no popularity and no political experience to make use of.
This means that the constitutional authority invested in such a prominent decision-making and executive position was already confiscated before the formation, as evidenced by the fierce conflict over seats, forcing him to name only his share of ministers, even though the Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri did not reveal the names of his representatives until the moment that the legislation of the government formation was printed.
The announced government provided more than one indicator of a new type of Iranian-Syrian coexistence/competition within the “axis of resistance” camp, and it pointed towards a reinstatement of certain limits on the influence of every party. In a decisive moment, it seemed that Hezbollah’s control over its allies had been shaken. In a crucial moment, Hezbollah rushed to form a favorable government as it is in dire need for internal fortification in light of the pressures and dangers that it is facing after Soleimani’s death! This is not far removed from the political dimensions drawn by Putin’s visit to Syria and his reception of the Syrian president in a Russian military base in Damascus. This has unambiguously revealed that the Syrian regime has subjected itself to Russia, which shows that there is indeed disagreement, however limited, between Tehran and Moscow regarding Lebanon.
While the Lebanese did not discuss the qualifications of any of the candidates in the government of masks, and there were no ideas or visions on the priorities of this government that is facing total collapse and the implications of isolation as a result of Hezbollah being at its forefront, the people who took to the street saw Diab’s government as a provocation and an insult to the revolution that has repeatedly declared that any government that goes against the October 17 Revolution will not receive the support of the interior nor the exterior, both of which had urged for a government that is independent of the ruling parties capable of meeting the peoples’ demands and implementing the necessary reforms.
Putting aside the structural flaws in the formation of speech, so far, there is also a political program, and nobody knows what the government’s economic agenda is. Meanwhile, the Lebanese Pound is collapsing, salaries are no longer sufficient to cover the needs of families, peoples’ savings are diminishing, and hunger has started to haunt citizens. This is not limited to rural areas, but also to cities where working-class neighborhoods have become hotspots of poverty.
In this context, the immediate response of the demonstrators is to try to avoid the imminent collapse being overseen by an authoritarian formula whose decision is not made by the ministers of the government, inasmuch as they are in the hands of Nasrallah and what he represents and the parliamentarian General Jamil al-Sayyed and his affiliates. Consequently, the government may resort to the language of repression and violence with the protesters. Notably, the new Minister of Interior commended the security forces performance, the same performance that has led to more than 500 injured and several losing their eyes, instigating a wave of internal and international criticism and what Head of the Order of Lawyers found to be a “clear violation of all standards of security”. A legal campaign to hold officials responsible for the excessive violence and the use of rubber bullets from up close accountable has taken shape, in an attempt to prevent the most vulnerable from paying the price of the collapse and the persistence of ensuring the security of the cartel-like banking, thereby legitimizing their turning of the Lebanese into beggars at the doors of their banks.
The night of the 100th day of the dignity revolution is almost upon us, and not a single official has addressed the peoples’ pain. Instead, they continue to be indifferent and stubborn. The announcement of the government signaled a desire for isolation and ex-communication, and this kind of behavior amounts to a formula that will aggravate rage and heighten the revolution. Far from any discussion on violence and concerns about what it may lead to, it has become apparent that the demonstrators are the most cautious about keeping Beirut a pearl among cities. They will remain peaceful, and this is affirmed by the extensive participation by women and families. People have lost a lot, and they have placed all their stakes on the success of the revolution, the peaceful nature which has resonated with all groups in society will persist until the formation of a real rescue government to save the country from collapse! The popular rage is nothing but an expression of self-defense instigated by a long line of insults and violations of dignity.
The regime’s behavior after October 17, as well as this government, are the only ones responsible for the rage that is traversing Lebanon. Whoever is threatening civil peace is hoping that chaos will save the power-sharing confessional system that Hezbollah has been at the forefront of, while the revolution for dignity has, for the first time in the history of this country, undone the outcomes of the civil war, and has articulated demands for change and affirmed that the people who took the country to collapse are not capable of rescuing it. It is as if the revolution is saying: You have deprived us of the most fundamental rights, the right work, water, electricity, healthcare, and education. You increased the poverty rate and turned the Lebanese into beggars, all while making wealth beyond imagination and yet you call for fighting corruption!!
Lebanon has entered a new phase. The October rebels are challenging lies with truth, and there is no retreat. No attempt to turn the revolution violent will be successful. The general conviction that the revolution should be peaceful will stop this destruction and rebuild the state, and Beirut will remain a “flower that never dies”!

Saving The Revolution And Lebanon
Robert G. Rabil/Eurasia Review/January 23/2020
روبرت رابيل: انقاذ الثورة ولبنان
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/82550/%d8%b1%d9%88%d8%a8%d8%b1%d8%aa-%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%a8%d9%8a%d9%84-%d8%a7%d9%86%d9%82%d8%a7%d8%b0-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ab%d9%88%d8%b1%d8%a9-%d9%88%d9%84%d8%a8%d9%86%d8%a7%d9%86-robert-g-rabil-eurasia-review/
Lebanon is fast approaching a failed state status, nearing the precipice of economic bankruptcy, social disruption and civil strife.
The recent violent altercations between the Lebanese Armed Forces (and Internal Security Forces ISF) and protestors are extremely dangerous for they have created a rift between the two entities most needed for ensuring stability and political transition.
Contrary to its initial position to not use force against peaceful protesters, the LAF has used what Human Rights Watch condemned as excessive use of force.
The LAF threw tear gas and fired rubber bullets at protesters to disperse them.
Conversely, some protesters threw rocks and firecrackers at the LAF.
By Monday January 20, following two days of violence in Beirut and other areas, over 400 persons were injured, the majority of whom from the protesters.
Clearly, the LAF has been under immense pressure from political parties, including Hezbollah, for their actions cannot be separated from the political maneuvering of their leadership who are trying to protect their political survival.
The ISF and parliament police, which have been most harsh with protesters, answer in no small measure to former Sunni Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s Future Movement and the Shi’a Speaker of the House Nabih Berri’s Amal movement, respectively.
Yet the core of the Command leadership of LAF is apprehensive of the deepening rift between them and protestors.
This core believes its acquiescence to the country’s political leadership is a necessary evil to prevent the army from disintegrating along confessional lines, as happened during the civil war, or paving the way for civil strife including an open confrontation with Hezbollah.
Interestingly, Hezbollah, which initially sent its thugs to beat protesters and trash their tents in the capital, has signaled to the protesters its readiness to support their reformist demands.
At the same time, Hezbollah enjoined its wrangling allies to realign their priorities in order to forge a new coalition government, which was formed under the premiership of American University professor Hassan Diab.
This dangerous and convoluted situation is not only the product of the Iran-US deepening tension in the region but also of the country’s confessional dynamics in relation to Iran and Syria’s meddling in Lebanon’s state of affairs.
On the surface, observers had imputed the inability to form a government to American objection of creating one under the suzerainty of Hezbollah.
Others blame the political parties for their selfish and insatiable interest in confessional power and spoils of the state.
On a deeper level, however, a stealthy scuffle had taken place between Syria and its allies in Lebanon, supported by Russia, on one side, and Hezbollah, supported by Iran, on the other.
In contrast to conventional wisdom about Lebanon’s politics, as astutely observed by former parliamentarian Basem Schabb, “Mr Diab, far from being weak and isolated, has considerable support from Pro-Syrian factions opposed to Mr. Hariri.”
Apparently, Diab tried to form a government of technocrats in conformity with the demands of protesters, with active support from pro-Syrian politicians including Jamil al-Sayyid. Reportedly, pro-Syrian factions and politicians expressed their desire to be part of the new government.
Syria, whose hegemony of Lebanon virtually dissipated following the withdrawal of its occupying forces in 2005, is apparently trying to revive its influence in Beirut.
Notwithstanding the fact that it has managed to exercise its political influence in Beirut through its ally Hezbollah, the Syrian regime has had to concede to Hezbollah’s political expediencies, especially after Russia curbed Hezbollah and Iranian activities next to the border of Israel in Syria.
Consequently, Hezbollah, backed by its Iranian patron, has been circumspect in allowing Syria to revive its former power in Lebanon so that Russia, Syria’s patron, would not be able to challenge Hezbollah’s policies under certain circumstances.
Moreover, Syria’s stealthy desire to regain its influence in Lebanon has been frowned upon by the Lebanese Forces, Future Movement, and Druze leader Walid Jumblat, who has been indefatigably harsh in his criticism and opposition to the Syrian regime.
As a result, most political parties, though for different reasons, had shared a common reservation about Diab forming a government.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Christian Lebanese Forces and Sunni Future Movement have reservations about Diab as being a front for Hezbollah, Syria and Iran’s allies in Lebanon had scuffled with each other over the extent to which Syria, and by extension Russian, should revive its power in Lebanon.
Eventually, Hezbollah criticized its allies and prodded them to help create a new government.
As it turned out, Hezbollah, following 33 days of wrangling over the formation of a new government, saw in the dangerous escalation of violence an opportune moment to midwife the birth of the government.
Clearly, the violence, which rocked Beirut and alarmed Washington among other capitals, has apparently offered Hezbollah an opportunity to wear the mantle of the peacemaker and statesman in Lebanon’s hodgepodge mafia-like environment.
In the words of a perceptive observer Hezbollah embraced “strategic patience” until the appropriate moment when the country faced the abyss of civil strife, assuming that Lebanon’s stability coexisting with Hezbollah’s preponderance influence is more favorable than civil strife.
Before long, on January 21, a new government was born filled with technocrats.
However, the members of the new government were nominated by Hezbollah and its allies.
In other words, the new government has worn the technocratic mask on the face of the political elite that the rebels have striven to dislodge.
Moreover, on closer observation, it seems that Hezbollah has reached an agreement with the Syrian regime by placing the important interior ministry in the hands of General Muhammad Fehmi, reportedly considered close to both the Syrian regime and Hezbollah. General Fehmi served as the head of the Military Security branch in Military Intelligence during Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
Thereafter, he headed the Lebanese Mine Action Center, which worked to clear Israeli cluster bombs and mines in southern Lebanon.
To be sure, the formation of the government was a virtual revolution against the popular revolution. No doubt, the protesters would not only continue but also escalate the tempo of their revolution for many of them feel they have nothing more to lose.
Besides being angry and desperate, they feel their present and future and that of the country have been robbed by the gangsters who have ruled Lebanon since the end of the civil war in 1990.
Significantly, though it’s hard to control angry people feeling trampled upon by central authorities, it’s imperative that protesters remain peaceful in withstanding the vagaries of their revolution.
The revolution cannot and should not be militarized and/or turn violent, as some rebels are calling. There are already voices on social media asserting that a revolution cannot succeed without blood. This is wrong and immature.
In fact, this is tantamount to suicide and/or making the hope of the political elite including Hezbollah come true, for they will in the name of stability suppress violently the revolution.
Some observers look at the protests in Hong Kong as a recent example. Violence by the protesters gave legitimacy to the ruling party to maintain its position and suppress the protest.
No less significant, the revolution has a number of great leaders but it does not have a leadership to provide and implement strategy and discipline. Despite its appeal and rightful demands, the Revolution has underestimated the staying power of the political parties that have monopolized power and patronage.
The revolutionary slogan removing them all (Kullun Ye’ni Kullun) is easier said than done, especially without a unified leadership and strategy.
At this critical juncture, in order to save the revolution and save the country, it is essential for the leaders of the revolution to unify their ranks and outlook under one leadership and partner with retired army officers who have been supporting the revolution.
A leadership combining civil activists/leaders and honorable retired officers is essential to narrow the dangerous deepening gap between the LAF and demonstrators.
Generals Khalil Helou, Chamel Roukoz, George Ghanem, among others, could play profound roles in helping secure stability while continuing the struggle for reform.
Fundamentally, strategic priority should be given to early elections.
The Christian Phalange party and Lebanese Forces have publicly called for early elections. Efforts must be made to bring first Harriri’s Future Movement and Jumblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party on board, then Gibran Bassil’s Free Patriotic Movement.
Bassil, son-in-law of President Michel Aoun and former foreign minister will most likely follow suit, given his recent statements indicating his readiness to make concessions to save the country. It will then be difficult for Hezbollah to oppose or boycott the election.
The protesters, whose grievances, courage and aspiration for better Lebanon, have created an unprecedented non-sectarian, reformist revolutionary movement to stifle endemic corruption, patronage and foreign meddling in Lebanon’s affairs. Yet their path will be hardly navigated employing violence and/or lacking a unified leadership and strategy to challenge the formidable power and machinations of the developing Russian-Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah alliance.
*Robert G. Rabil is a professor of Political Science at Florida Atlantic University. He can be followed @robertgrabil and www.robertrabil.com.
https://www.eurasiareview.com/23012020-saving-the-revolution-and-lebanon-oped/?fbclid=IwAR1HO5Lj-G8hebXvkwZ37He9Cu1nA3aFTOTrmH52ELPSR7nlREz_azKJsJ8

From Robert Rabil’ Face Book Page/Main arguments:
January 23/2020
Colleagues,
Main arguments:
1- Lebanon has reached a failed state status.
2- Violent altercations between LAF and protesters need to stop, for both entities are most needed for stability and political transition.
3- The new technocratic government is in name only! It’s a decorated facade.
4- Hezbollah and Syrian regime, by extension Russia and Iran, reached an understanding over reviving some Syrian role in Lebanon.
5- a violent revolution is tantamount to suicide.
6- An alliance between honorable retired generals (who supported revolution) and revolution leaders is a must to provide stability.
7- Revolution must appoint a unified leadership to speak with one voice and apply a strategy, minimizing the swelling of voices calling for violence.
8- Strategy should revolve around how to continue revolution toward early elections.
9- Revolutionaries have a taken an unprecedented inclusive stand for better Lebanon. Yet path is difficult as new dynamics include machinations and developing alliance not yet fully shaped by Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and Russia. Russian role is a variable.

Lebanon, Japan have 40 days to agree on fate of ex-Nissan boss Ghosn
Reuters, Beirut/Thursday, 23 January 2020
Lebanon and Japan have about 40 days to decide whether ousted Nissan boss Carlos Ghosn will be extradited to Japan or stand trial in Lebanon, a judicial source and a source close to Ghosn said on Thursday, following his escape from Japan last month. Ghosn fled to Lebanon, his childhood home, as he was awaiting trial on charges of under-reporting earnings, breach of trust and misappropriation of company funds, all of which he denies. Japan and Lebanon have no extradition agreement and Lebanon does not typically hand over its nationals. Ghosn’s legal team is hoping to hold the trial in Lebanon, where the former auto executive enjoys deep ties and hopes to clear his name. Japan has in recent days asked Lebanon to clarify what files Tokyo needs to send as part of an official extradition request, the two sources said. “They came back and requested a clarification. Today, we sent that to the Japanese,” the judicial source said. That communication is significant because, according to Interpol rules on due process, it triggers a 40-day period by the end of which agreement must be reached between the countries on where and how Ghosn will stand trial, the sources said. The source close to Ghosn said Japan must now either send a formal extradition request to Lebanon or send Ghosn’s file to Beirut and agree on a process for trying him there. Ghosn, who holds Lebanese, French, and Brazilian nationality, was questioned earlier this month by Lebanese prosecutors who imposed a travel ban as part of the Interpol arrest warrant process. Japanese prosecutors have said they are still pushing for Ghosn to be tried in Japan. Ghosn has struck out at what he has called Japan’s unjust judicial system and said the alternative to fleeing would have been to spend the rest of his life languishing in Tokyo without a fair trial.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 23-24/2020
US imposes fresh Iran-related sanctions on two people, six companies
Reuters, Washington/Thursday, 23 January 2020
The United States on Thursday imposed Iran-related sanctions on two individuals and six companies, including four firms tied to the National Iranian Oil Company. The National Iranian Oil Company is “an entity instrumental in Iran’s petroleum and petrochemical industries, which helps to finance Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF) and its terrorist proxies,” the US Treasury said in a statement on its website.
Tensions between Iran and the United States have ratcheted up since 2018, most recently over an US attack that killed a top Iranian general.

US Bars Iranians from Certain Types of Visas
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 January, 2020
The United States has barred Iranians from entering the country on trade and investment visas from Thursday. US Citizenship and Immigration Services attributed the change to the termination in October 2018 of a treaty of amity with Iran, which is the target of US sanctions over its nuclear and missile programs. The E-1 and E-2 nomimmigrant visas allow citizens of other countries to be admitted into the United States to engage in international trade or to invest a large sum of capital. Iranians are no longer eligible for such visas, the service said. Those already in the country with these visas must leave once their authorized stay expires, it said. It was not clear how many Iranians will be affected. The little-known agreement was signed long before Iran's 1979 revolution that turned the two countries into archenemies.
The new regulation does not bar Iranians from applying for or extending other types of visas for which they are eligible. About 48,000 E-visas are issued annually to people from all nations. US President Donald Trump pulled out of a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers in May 2018 and reimposed sanctions on Iran. The US killing this month of Iran’s Quds Forces commander Qassem Soleimani in Iraq and an exchange of military strikes has raised tensions to a new level.

A second Trump term would be too much for Iran: Expert
Matthew Amlôt, Al Arabiya English/Thursday, 23 January 2020
A second term of US President Donald Trump would be “too much for [Iran] to bear,” Chatham House Director Robin Niblett told Al Arabiya on the sidelines of the 2020 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. “Iran is under enormous pressure. We know internally the policy of maximum pressure is creating pressure for the government,” he added. This pressure appears to be forcing Iran to reach out to other countries for deals ahead of the US Presidential elections in Novemeber, in case Trump wins and continues the maximum pressure policy, commented Niblett.
The original JCPOA nuclear deal, assuming it has not been completely abandoned by all parties, would have only four years left at that point so “even the Europeans at that point would be wanting a new deal, rather than hang on to the old deal,” he said. Alongside pressure on Iran, Trump would also aim to withdraw US troops from the region, according to Niblett. Trump would “try to make sure that America, when he leaves office, really is less physically engaged in terms of troops, in terms of presence in the region, than when he started,” he said.
EU tension
Niblett also predicted that Trump would put pressure on the EU if he wins a second term. There is a “very high likelihood” that he will turn to Europe and try to force through change that’s “not just about cars and tariffs,” Niblett said. “The EU is the antithesis, the opposite of what Trumpian form of governance is … for Trump the EU is something unnatural, that America by being strong demonstrates the failure of Europe,” he added. Perhaps in a move to calm trade war fears, Trump announced on Wednesday at WEF 2020 that he believes he will have a deal with the EU before the elections.
Global economic fears
The US-China trade war had hit global economic growth, added Niblett.
“The hangover of the Trump trade wars is affecting the global economy overall,” he said. The latest figures from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) suggest that the global economy is undergoing its slowest rate of growth since the 2008 financial crisis. On Wednesday, there was some relief for businesses, as Trump told attendees that negotiations for Phase 2 of the US-China trade deal would soon begin and that tariffs will remain as part of the deal. “The relationship with China has never been better,” Trump added. However, climate change remains a concern, according to Niblett, who said improvements in US-China relations did little to assuage the issue, which has begun to impact economies as authorities put regulation in place on coal and energy power plants. “A kind of smooth global economy is facing real challenge here with a slowing growth overall and also the impact of climate into the agenda,” he said.

Secrets of Soleimani-Led Golden Death Squad
Washington - Heba El-Koudsy/Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 January, 2020
Before his death in a US air strike in Baghdad earlier this month, Qassem Soleimani, commander of the IRGC Quds Force, was one of the notorious names in the Western media. US newspapers have published many reports of his operations and threats to US interests and facilities in Iraq.
Soleimani has emerged since the American occupation of Iraq as a terrorist who smuggled spies, money and weapons into the country, while his agents sowed chaos and carried out operations that claimed the lives of more than 600 US soldiers. Soleimani was in fact the open card in the IRGC's foreign activities, but he was hiding behind an officer who is the actual mastermind of terrorist operations that have continued since mid-2010 until now. It is Brigadier General Ahmed Foruzandeh, who rose to command the Ramazan Corps, part of the Guard’s Quds Force. The Daily Beast magazine published on Tuesday new details of declassified documents about the role of this mysterious leader in Iraq. He was portrayed in some documents as a “shadow commander, possessed of superhuman abilities and cunning.”Foruzandeh was included on the US sanctions list in 2007, after he plotted and commanded terrorist operations against US forces in Iraq and planned to assassinate senior Iraqi figures. According to the documents, he also accompanied Major General Muhammad Jaafari Sahrawdi, from the Revolutionary Guards Corps, to Iraqi Kurdistan, to plan terrorist attacks there. At that time, US forces raided and arrested a number of the IRGC elements in the city of Erbil, but the two men managed to escape to Tehran. The documents revealed by The Daily Beast noted that Foruzandeh also led the Golden Death Squad, which “targeted, approved, and carried out assassinations against Iraqis they viewed as obstacles.”The unit, according to the report, “consists of Iranian intelligence leadership that provide guidance and funding to Iraqis that are recruited from [Jaish al-Mahdi], Badr Corps, the Al-Fadilah Party, and other Shiite Iraqi parties and militias that conduct assassination operations against former Baath party members, Iraqis that are working with the [Coalition Forces], and Iraqis that are not supporting Iranian influence in Iraq.” In addition to the assassinations, the Ramazan Corps also smuggled Iranian weapons and trainers. Documents obtained by The Daily Beast note that the unit oversaw a “complex smuggling apparatus from Ahwaz, Iran into Iraq” that included “weapons, information, financial support, and Iranian intelligence officers.”
The money, guns, and Iranian personnel began their journey in Ahwaz and were handed off to smugglers at the border with Iraq.

Iran: Masked Gunmen Kill Local IRGC Commander
London/Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 January, 2020
Masked gunmen on Wednesday ambushed and killed the local commander of a paramilitary security force in southwestern Iran, an associate of Iran's top general recently killed in an American drone strike in Baghdad, the official IRNA news agency reported. The slain commander, Abdolhossein Mojaddami, headed the Basij forces, a paramilitary wing of the Revolutionary Guard used for internal security and other tasks, in the town of Darkhoein. He was gunned down in front of his home in the town in the country's oil-rich Khuzestan province. Two gunmen on a motorcycle, armed with an assault rifle and a hunting rifle, ambushed Mojaddami, IRNA reported. Other Iranian media said the gunmen's faces were covered with masks and that four shots were fired. The case is under investigation and a motive was not immediately clear, but Basij units had been involved in violent clashes with demonstrators in the area in November in which many protesters were injured and killed. Amnesty International has reported that more than 300 people were killed in the unrest across the country, though Iran has not announced a death toll. Mojaddami's killing is seen another blow to the Revolutionary Guard, following the death of top general Qassem Soleimani earlier this month in a US drone strike in Iraq. Mojaddami was described by IRNA as an associated of Soleimani, who was the head of the Quds forces, the foreign wing of the Guard.

Fears mount over health of French academic held in Iran: Committee
AFP, Paris/Friday, 24 January 2020
French-Iranian academic Fariba Adelkhah has requested access to her French colleague Roland Marchal in detention in Iran, saying she has “serious concerns” about his health, a committee supporting the pair said on Thursday. The two researchers have been held in the Islamic Republic since June, two of a number of foreigners arrested in Iran during a spike in tensions between Tehran and the West. Adelkhah would be willing to end her hunger strike, which she started on December 24, if Marchal was freed, the support committee said in a press release sent to AFP. “She has the most serious concerns about his health - an alarm that we share,” because the Revolutionary Guards have refused a consular visit to Marchal since December, the committee said. French nationals held abroad can usually receive consular visits, during which detention conditions - and their health - can be checked. But Iran does not recognize dual nationality and has lashed out at Paris for what it has described as “interference” in the cases of the academics, both from Sciences Po university in Paris. Adelkhah has refused to return to her cell and held a sit-in in a public area of the prison over the last week, demanding to see Marchal “to comfort him and check the state of his health,” the committee said. Iran has dropped espionage charges against Adelkhah but she still faces charges of spreading “propaganda against the political system” and “conspiracy against national security.” Marchal is accused of “collusion against national security,” according to his lawyer. The two researchers are not the only foreign academics behind bars in Iran - Australian Kylie Moore-Gilbert of the University of Melbourne is serving a 10-year sentence on espionage charges. Moore-Gilbert is sharing a cell with Adelkhah and joined her on the hunger strike. Arrests of foreigners including dual nationals in Iran have increased since the United States pulled out a landmark nuclear agreement with Tehran in 2018 and reimposed crippling sanctions. France and other European nations have tried to salvage the deal, but tensions soared further after the US killing of Iranian commander Qassim Soleimani earlier this month. France has regularly called on Iran to release Adelkhah and Marchal, with Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian saying earlier this month that their detention was “unacceptable.”

Iranian IRGC officer suggests taking US hostages to make up for sanctions
Leen Alfaisal, Al Arabiya English/Thursday, 23 January 2020
A video surfaced online Wednesday of an official Iranian political strategist suggesting that Iran should take Americans hostage because their lucrative ransoms would make up for sanctions on the country. “Do you want to solve the sanctions problem? Our naval forces should take 10 or 20 Americans as hostage every month. For each one of them, we should get $1 billion. If we get $1 billion per week, and the year has around 50 weeks. That’s at least $50 billion,” the IRGC officer Hassan Abbasi said. The widely shared video shows Abbasi, who also heads the IRGC-affiliated think-tank Andishkadeh Yaghin, giving a speech on January 17 reportedly in a mosque in the Iranian city of Nowshahr. In the video, the strategist makes an example of Jason Rezaian, the Iranian-American journalist who served as the Tehran bureau chief for The Washington Post. He spent a year and a half between trial and Evin Prison until he was released in 2016. The Obama administration denied any link between the payment, which it said was a settlement to end a dispute over a failed arms deal, and the prisoner exchange at the time.Abbasi also said that the Iranian government received $3 million from Qatar in blood money for the killing of Qassem Soleimani, in what could be a reference to Doha’s role in housing the base from which the drones used in the attacks were launched. Qatar’s Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani went to Iran to offer condolences on the killing of the former commander of the IRGC, Qassem Soleimani.

World must stand strong’ against Iran: US VP Pence
Jerusalem, AFP/Thursday, 23 January 2020
US Vice President Mike Pence urged world leaders gathered Thursday in Jerusalem to “stand strong” against Iran, calling it the only country where Holocaust denial is “state policy.”“We must also stand strong ... against the one government in the world that denies the Holocaust as a matter of state policy,” Pence told the event held 75 years after the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp. “The world must stand strong against the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Iran ‘most anti-Semitic regime on the planet’ says Israel’s Netanyahu
Reuters, Jerusalem/Thursday, 23 January 2020
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday called Iran “the most antisemitic regime on the planet” during an address during a Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem. “I am concerned that we have yet to see a unified and resolute stance against the most anti-Semitic regime on the planet. A regime that openly seeks to develop nuclear weapons and annihilate the one and only Jewish state,” Netanyahu told assembled world leaders.“Israel salutes President Trump and Vice President Pence for confronting the tyrants of Tehran,” he told the audience, which included Pence.

French Chief of Staff: Assassination of Soleimani 'Was Not a Good Idea'
Baghdad, Paris/Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 January, 2020
Chief of the General Staff of the French Armed Forces General Francois Lecointre said Iranian chief of al-Quds Force General Qassem Soleimani was a “real instigator,” but killing him in Iraq contributed in destabilizing the country. He condemned the assassination of Soleimani and told the press that he “was not a saint” and a very destabilizing agent, but “it seems to me that going to kill Soleimani in Iraq was not a good idea."Soleimani and deputy chairman of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) Abu Mahdi al-Mohandis were assassinated in a US drone attack in Iraq earlier this month. Lecointre indicated that this evidently weakens Iraq’s position, adding that the coalition and Western states want to secure Iraq and help it become a stable state in the region. Asked whether it is possible for the PMF to execute any operation, Lecointre said that the current stage is risky. He said he doesn’t know if they will be able to continue with integrating PMF within the Iraqi army or if the party will become a more destabilizing tool in the hands of the Iranians, according to the French Press Agency (AFP). France has deployed about a thousand soldiers operating within the framework of the international coalition against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile, PMF denied reports that Abu Ali al-Basri was appointed as the deputy chairman succeeding Mohandis. The Forces issued a brief statement refuting the reports that spoke about the appointment of Basri, asserting that no decision was taken in this regard. A source close to the PMF explained that the position of deputy chairman occupied by Mohandis before his assassination was dropped upon the issuance of the new amendment to the authority’s law, noting that the position remains vacant.

Iran: US threat to kill Soleimani successor a sign of ‘governmental terrorism’
Al Arabiya English/Thursday, 23 January 2020
The US threat to kill the successor to Iran’s General Qassim Soleimani is a sign of “America’s targeted and governmental terrorism,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said on Thursday. The US special representative for Iran Brian Hook said that the successor to Soleimani, who was killed in a US drone strike on January 3, would suffer the same fate if he followed a similar path by killing Americans. In an interview with Asharq al-Awsat on Wednesday, Hook said that the death of Soleimani “created a void that the Iranian regime will not be able to fill.”(With Reuters)

Washington says no uptick in violence from ISIS in Syria, Iraq
Reuters, Washington/Thursday, 23 January 2020
The United States has seen no uptick in ISIS activity in Iraq and northeastern Syria, US special representative for Syria James Jeffrey said on Thursday, weeks after a US drone strike killed Iranian military commander Qassem Suleimani in Baghdad. Jeffrey said US-led coalition operations have been on pause in Iraq as the focus has been on force protection and talks with the Baghdad government on the way forward after Iraq’s parliament voted to expel foreign troops. The lawmakers were furious at the January 3 drone strike on Iraqi soil that killed Soleimani, the architect of Iran’s drive to extend its influence across the region, and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes. “We have not seen an uptick in violence in Iraq by Daesh in this period,” Jeffrey told reporters at the State Department, using a term for ISIS. Jeffrey said officials will meet in Copenhagen on Wednesday to discuss the way forward in the US-led operation against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. “The coalition is very, very much committed to this mission,” Jeffrey said.Jeffrey acknowledged the pause in Iraq could hamper the fight against ISIS if it continues. “Over time, obviously there is a possibility of a degradation of the effort against Daesh if we’re not able to do the things that we were doing so effectively up until a few weeks ago,” he said.

Syrian army suffers losses, retreats after Idlib attack: Russia
Reuters, Moscow/Thursday, 23 January 2020
Hundreds of Syrian militants have launched attacks against government forces in several parts of Syria’s Idlib province, killing up to 40 Syrian soldiers, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Thursday. The militants had seized two settlements in one of the offensives, the ministry said, saying Syrian army troops had been forced to abandon some of their positions in the southeast of the so-called Idlib de-escalation zone under rocket fire. Idlib is the last rebel-held swathe of territory in the country and hundreds of thousands of people in the area have fled in recent weeks amid heavy air strikes by Russian and Syrian forces. Russia, which is helping President Bashar al-Assad’s forces, said Syrian government forces had killed up to 50 militants and wounded up to 90 attackers. The attacks began on Wednesday, it said, saying some fighting was still going on. About 40 soldiers had been killed and up to 80 wounded. Moscow said the attackers were from different groups, including the Islamic Party of Turkestan and Tahrir al-Sham, the latest incarnation of the former Nusra Front that was part of al Qaeda until 2016. The militants were equipped with pickup trucks, armored personnel carriers, tanks and heavy machine guns, it said.

Russia Says Syrian Regime Suffers Losses in Idlib
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 January, 2020
Hundreds of Syrian militants have launched attacks against regime forces in several parts of Syria's Idlib province, killing up to 40 Syrian soldiers, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Thursday. The militants had seized two settlements in one of the offensives, the ministry said, saying Syrian army troops had been forced to abandon some of their positions in the southeast of the so-called Idlib de-escalation zone under rocket fire.
Idlib is the last opposition-held swathe of territory in the country and hundreds of thousands of people in the area have fled in recent weeks amid heavy air strikes by Russian and Syrian forces. Russia said Syrian regime forces had killed up to 50 militants and wounded up to 90 attackers.
The attacks began on Wednesday, it said, saying some fighting was still going on. About 40 soldiers had been killed and up to 80 wounded.
Moscow said the attackers were from different groups, including Hayat Tahrir al-Sham that were equipped with pickup trucks, armored personnel carriers, tanks and heavy machine guns. UN Special Envoy to Syria Geir Pedersen will visit Russia on Friday, according to Russia’s Foreign Ministry.
Pedersen is scheduled to hold talks with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. Diplomatic sources suggested that discussions will likely focus on the work of the Constitutional Committee and the evolving situation in Syria’s northwest.
Although Moscow hasn’t previously announced details of the visit, a Russian Foreign Ministry source told Sputnik news agency that Lavrov’s agenda includes holding a round of talks with Pedersen on Friday.
Spokesperson for the Office of the UN Special Envoy for Syria Jenifer Fenton pointed out that Pederson’s visit comes in line with talks held by him before briefing the Security Council on Jan. 29. Lavrov had announced that the formation and activation of the Constitutional Committee was the most prominent outcome in Syria during 2019. Priority is on advancing the work of the Committee, he stressed, indicating that the issue is on the agenda of his talks with the UN envoy and the influential parties.
Talks are expected to focus on the humanitarian situation in Syria, especially after Moscow succeeded in confirming its view on extending the international mechanism for humanitarian aid for six months.

Syria: 70,000 Civilians Displaced in a Week
Beirut, London/Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 January, 2020
Towns and villages of the western sector of Aleppo countryside are witnessing ongoing displacement against the backdrop of the escalating military operations of the Syrian regime and Russia, over the recent week, reported the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).
The Observatory noted that more than 10,000 families, estimated as nearly 70,000 civilians, were forced to flee the area during the recent week. The London-based war monitor said in a press release that a large portion of people who got displaced over the past week, were originally displaced earlier from Idlib, Hama, and other Syrian areas to the western countryside of Aleppo. The number of people displaced from the southern and southeastern countryside of Idlib and the western countryside of Aleppo since last December rose to nearly 400,000 civilians. SOHR reported that various areas in both rural Aleppo and Idlib were hit by over 110 “hysterical airstrikes carried out by the regime and Russian jets.”The official Syrian News Agency (SANA) stated that the retaliatory missile attacks attributed to the armed factions killed three civilians, near government-controlled Aleppo in northern Syria.The Observatory said that ten civilians, including an entire family of eight, were killed in raids in the west of Aleppo, an area close to Idlib. Director of the Observatory Rami Abdul Rahman told French Press Agency that one of the raids targeted a house on the outskirts of the village of Kfar Taal, killing an entire family, including six children. Abdul Rahman added that the bombing in and around Idlib, especially west of Aleppo, was exclusively Russian, noting that they want to keep extremists away from Aleppo and the Aleppo-Damascus road. He believes the shelling may be a prelude to a ground military operation, especially since the regime sent troops to the outskirts of Aleppo during the past weeks. Earlier this month, Russia announced a ceasefire agreement which Turkey later confirmed. However, it did not last, and warplanes resumed escalation in the area.Idlib suffers from a serious humanitarian situation, with relief groups warning of a wave of displacement on an unprecedented scale. At least 3 million people reside in the region, many of which are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. The International Rescue Committee warned that another 650,000 people, mostly children, and women, may also be displaced if violence continues. SOHR also reported that regime air force “hysterical bombardment on both Idlib and Aleppo countryside, along with ongoing operations by Russian jets and regime helicopters on the area,” recorded 239 raids targeting various areas. It also indicated that regime helicopters dropped 66 barrel bombs on places in Hama countryside, the southern and western countryside of Aleppo, and Idlib countryside.
For their part, Russian jets carried out 62 airstrikes targeting places in the north-west of Aleppo, west of Aleppo, the southern countryside of Aleppo, and Idlib countryside.

Trump Invites Netanyahu, Gantz to U.S. for Peace Plan Talks
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 23/2020
U.S. Vice President Mike Pence on Thursday invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his main election rival to Washington next week to discuss Donald Trump's long-awaited Middle East peace plan. The White House said the talks would take place on Tuesday. "President Trump asked me to extend an invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu to come to the White House next week to discuss regional issues, as well as the prospect of peace here in the Holy Land", Pence said. Netanyahu told Pence: "I think that the president is seeking to give Israel the peace and security it deserves," adding that he "gladly" accepted the invitation. "Thank you for what your administration does every day... We have no better friend than President Trump," he said at the meeting at the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem. Palestinian leaders have however dismissed the U.S. peace initiative as one-sided. They say it fails to address their wish to end Israeli occupation and the expansion, encouraged by Netanyahu, of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. On Thursday the Palestinian Authority reiterated its rejection of the U.S. peace plan. "We stress once again our categorical rejection of the American decisions," a spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in a statement. Trump has slashed aid to the Palestinians, while making big concessions to the Israelis, including formalizing U.S. recognition of the divided city of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. His concept for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is believed to revolve around encouraging massive economic investment. As caretaker premier Netanyahu faces new elections on March 2. Both he and the White House agreed that his main rival, Benny Gantz of the centrist Blue and White party, will attend the Washington meeting. Pence said Gantz, Israel's former army chief, had accepted the invitation. Trump, whose team has long been working on the outlines of such a plan, has repeatedly boasted that he is the most pro-Israeli U.S. president in history. After many postponements, Trump's peace initiative to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was expected in the autumn, after inconclusive elections were held in September. Netanyahu said: "With such friends in the White House ... we should get as broad a consensus as possible around the efforts to achieve security and peace for the state of Israel."

Netanyahu & Gantz invited to White House for Trump unveiling of Mid-East peace plan
DEBKAfile/January 23/2020
After numerous delays, President Donald Trump is to unveil the “Deal of the Century” – his Middle East Peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians – next week. He has invited Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and opposition Kahol Lavan leader Benny Gantz to the White House for the event. He is inviting both, to avoid appearing to interfere in the Israeli election of March 2, after deciding to publish the plan without further delay. The US president will reportedly include in his plan the transition of the Jordan Valley and the areas of Jewish habitation on the West Bank to Israeli sovereign rule. The Palestinians are assigned a demilitarized state. A high-ranking American source revealed that the Trump plan will shift Israel’s border substantially eastward. The White House invitation to Israel’s leaders next week was handed to them by Vice President Mike Pence in Jerusalem on Thursday, Jan. 23, when he represented the United States at the world gathering for the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. The White House ceremony for launching the Middle East peace process is unprecedented in that one of the parties is adamantly opposed to the Trump initiative and will not be present. As we reported in DEBKAfile on Jan. 21, the Trump plan will not be released in its entirety , but only the main political chapter. Before publication, he conferred in advance with key Arab rulers. The decisive conversation took place on Jan. 6 with Saudi Deputy Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman who visited the White House. The prince said that his government had no objection to the partial release of the Trump peace plan. Egyptian President Abdel-Fatteh el-Sisi and UAE ruler Sheikh Muhammed bin Zayed also agreed. But King Mohammad of Morocco sidestepped the question and avoided giving a clear answer.

Trump says plans to release ‘Deal of the Century’ plan next Tuesday
Agencies/Friday, 24 January 2020
US President Donald Trump said on Thursday he will release his long-awaited peace plan for the Middle East before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington next week. Speaking to reporters on Air Force One en route to Miami for a political event, Trump said Palestinians might react negatively to his plan at first, but that it would benefit them.“It’s a great plan,” said Trump, who will meet with Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday. “It’s a plan that really would work.”

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on January 23-24/2020
What Does It Mean that European States Have Triggered the Dispute Resolution Mechanism in the Nuclear Deal With Iran?
Michael Young/Carnegie MEC/January 23/2020
A regular survey of experts on matters relating to Middle Eastern and North African politics and security.
Darioush Bayandor | Historian and former Iranian diplomat
The preservation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal with Iran, as a linchpin of the non-proliferation regime has been a major European goal, vehemently pursued since the United States withdrew from the deal in May 2018. This same preoccupation underpins the decision, announced by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (E3) on January 14, to invoke the dispute settlement provisions of the accord, in reaction to Iran’s methodical reduction of its uranium enrichment undertakings.
It is known that before this announcement, the E3 was under pressure from Washington to join the maximum pressure campaign against Iran. German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer even confirmed that the White House had threatened to impose a 25 percent tariff on European-made cars.
Still, imputing the E3 move to U.S. extortion is off the mark—a parallax error caused by the volatility of the political climate. From the standpoint of the E3 the triggering of the dispute resolution mechanism, foreseen in Articles 36 and 37 of the JCPOA, could create a space for dialogue with Iran that could lead to a face-saving solution for both Washington and Tehran. The pathway proposed in the two articles is in effect long and arduous, allowing time for an exhaustive exploration of ground for compromise.
What is the Iranian attitude to this? There are ultra-hardliners in the country who advocate full withdrawal from the nuclear deal and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol. Yet, behind his rhetoric of defiance, Supreme Leader Ayatollah ‘Ali Khamenei remains a pragmatic politician. The aversion of President Donald Trump for war provides enough leeway for Tehran to blow hot and cold through its well-rehearsed practice of double talk, while awaiting the fate of Trump’s presidency in November.
Negar Mortazavi | Consultant editor for the Independent based in Washington, D.C., on Twitter @NegarMortazavi
The Europeans are in a difficult position and have few options ahead. The Trump administration has been threatening Europe with secondary sanctions and tariffs in order to pull them out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal with Iran. And Tehran has been pressuring Europe to stand up to the United States and deliver promised economic benefits to save the deal. The Europeans have been trying to convince Tehran to stay in the deal and convince Washington to reduce pressure. Both attempts have failed.
Now the dispute mechanism seems to be their last resort in trying to convince Iran to comply with the JCPOA, while postponing further escalation by the Trump administration. Since President Donald Trump took the United States out of the JCPOA, Washington and Tehran have been on an increasingly dangerous collision course. Events of the past month have proven that the two sides can easily stumble into a military conflict, although neither wants a full-on war.
‘Ali Vaez | Director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group
While British, French, and German officials are at pains to claim that triggering the dispute resolution mechanism in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal with Iran, is not a first step toward reimposing United Nations sanctions, failure to resolve the dispute in the allotted time would make such an outcome increasingly inevitable. The United States seems keen to accelerate this outcome, which is the only way Washington can prevent the lifting of the UN arms embargo on Iran in October.
In other words, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, known as the E3, now have a ticking bomb problem, which could spell the demise of the nuclear deal and maybe even Iran’s adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That is unless they use the time and space the mechanism creates to find ways to provide Iran with a meaningful economic reprieve (with or without U.S. consent) and deescalate tensions in the region. If the Europeans end up killing the JCPOA in an effort to save it, they are no longer likely to play a role in future negotiations with Iran given the history of their engagement on this dossier for the past seventeen years and Iran’s belief that they are strategically irrelevant in the face of U.S. obstructionism.
Jarrett Blanc | Senior fellow in the Geoeconomics and Strategy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Iran is in breach of its technical commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). That is not in dispute: Iran has announced each of its intended violations in advance and has permitted the International Atomic Energy Agency to continue its inspections, verifying each violation.
The Trump administration seems satisfied with a potential collapse of JCPOA restrictions on Iran. Tehran has, however, captured the attention of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The Europeans still prioritize restraining Iran’s nuclear program, but they have been unable to devise economic benefits for Iran that can be delivered in the teeth of U.S. sanctions.
Triggering the Dispute Resolution Mechanism (DRM) is a way of formalizing negotiations with Iran to roll back or at least slow Iran’s non-compliance. This is an effort to preserve at least a shell of the JCPOA that can be used as a platform for renewed diplomacy when both the United States and Iran are ready.
Triggering the DRM highlights Europe’s option—in extremis—of “snapping back” United Nations Security Council resolutions, which are suspended by the JCPOA, labeling Iran as a threat to “international peace and security” and sustaining UN limitations on arms sales with Iran, which are otherwise slated to expire in October 2020. Despite the current lack of economic benefits to Iran under the JCPOA, these are real costs that Tehran will need to weigh in considering how seriously to engage with DRM negotiations.

Erdogan's Bold Plan for a New Muslim Brotherhood Regime in Libya
Con Coughlin/Gatestone Institute/January 23/2020
The concern now is that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will use the failure of international mediators to end the fighting to intensify his support for the GNA, thereby strengthening the position of the numerous Islamist militias that are backing the UN-backed body.
Mr Erdogan was an ardent supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood when it held power in Cairo, and there is mounting concern, especially in Europe, that the Turkish leader has now set his sights on establishing a similar regime in Libya.
Support for Libya's rebel leader General Khalifa Haftar has grown as a result of his claim that one of the key aims of his military campaign is prevent the country from falling into the hands of Islamist militias which have aligned themselves with the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA). Pictured: Haftar (right) meets with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte on November 12, 2018 in Palermo, Italy. (Photo by Filippo Monteforte/AFP via Getty Images)
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's decision to intervene militarily in the Libyan conflict not only raises the prospect of the conflict entering a new and more dangerous phase; it also promises to provide a significant boost for the Islamist militias that are vying to take control of the country and establish a Muslim Brotherhood-style government in Tripoli.
Mr Erdogan's justification for sending Turkish troops to Libya, which has the backing of the Turkish parliament, is to provide support for Prime Minister Fayez al-Serraj, the head of the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA).
The GNA is under enormous pressure as a result of the offensive being undertaken by General Khalifa Haftar, the rebel Libyan leader who, with the backing of Russia, France and the United Arab Emirates, has overrun large swathes of the country and is now attempting to seize control of the Libyan capital.
The strength of Gen. Haftar's position was graphically demonstrated earlier this week when Haftar's forces seized control of Libya's vital oil production facilities on the outskirts of Tripoli, a move that has cut output to almost zero.
This move prompted Mr Serraj to warn that Libya faces dire consequences if the blockade is not lifted.
After the summit in Berlin called by German Chancellor Angela Merkel with the aim of establishing a ceasefire, Mr Serraj declared: "The situation will be catastrophic should it stay like this."
The summit ended with neither of the warring parties agreeing to a ceasefire, and only giving their lukewarm support to international calls for an arms embargo to prevent any further escalation in the fighting.
Support for Gen Haftar has grown as a result of his claim that one of the key aims of his military campaign is prevent the country from falling into the hands of Islamist militias which have aligned themselves with the GNA.
Many of these groups have links with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist party that briefly -- and disastrously -- held power in neighbouring Egypt.
Among the Islamist groups backing the GNA is the al-Watan Party headed by Abedelhakim Belhaj, the former head of the self-styled Tripoli Military Council. Belhaj was the emir of the now defunct Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an Islamist organisation that prevoiusly campaigned for the overthrow of former Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
The LIFG has been linked to the May 2017 Manchester Arena terrorist attack that killed 23 people during a concert given by the American singer Ariana Grande.
Belhaj has also been named on the list of Islamist terrorists drawn up by Saudi Arabia at the start of Riyadh's diplomatic dispute with Qatar in 2017.
The concern now is that Mr Erdogan will use the failure of international mediators to end the fighting to intensify his support for the GNA, thereby strengthening the position of the numerous Islamist militias that are backing the UN-backed body.
Mr Erdogan was an ardent supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood when it held power in Cairo, and there is mounting concern, especially in Europe, that the Turkish leader has now set his sights on establishing a similar regime in Libya.
It can certainly be no surprise that the region's most prominent supporters of the GNA are Turkey and the Gulf state of Qatar, both of which also happen to be committed backers of the Muslim Brotherhood. The only other country that is openly supporting the GNA is Italy, but that is only because its significant oil interests in Libya are located in GNA-controlled territory. France, by contrast, is backing Gen Haftar to prevent Islamist groups based in Tripoli from plotting terror attacks on the French mainland.
Turkey's deepening involvement in the Libyan conflict is, therefore, a development that needs to be viewed with deep concern. In the absence of any serious international initiative to end the fighting, the most likely outcome of Turkey's intervention could be the creation of another extremist Islamist regime on the shores of the Mediterranean.
*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.

The EU Needs to Take Tougher Stance Towards Iran's Mullahs
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone Institute/January 23/2020
It is worth noting that, the EU did announce a positive step. In light of the revelations concerning Iran's assassinations plots, minor sanctions were imposed on sectors of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence, as well as on Saeid Hashemi Moghadan, the deputy intelligence minister.
However, these do not go nearly far enough, particularly if the EU is inclined to continue its support for the JCPOA.
It is incumbent upon the EU to stop softening its tone toward the Islamic Republic, and instead join the Trump administration in imposing maximum pressure on the ruling mullahs of Iran. The more the EU appeases the Iranian government, the more it empowers it to pursue aggressive and terrorist activities.
It is incumbent upon the European Union to stop softening its tone toward the Islamic Republic, and instead join the Trump administration in imposing maximum pressure on the ruling mullahs of Iran. The more the EU appeases the Iranian government, the more it empowers it to pursue aggressive and terrorist activities. Pictured: The EU's then High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security, Federica Mogherini (left), laughs with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, during her August 2017 visit to Iran.
The European Union really needs to do two things as soon as possible: stop criticizing the Trump administration for its Iran policy, and halt its appeasement policies toward the ruling mullahs of Iran who have committed some of the worst crimes against humanity, not only in Iran but abroad.
On January 19, 2020, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron reiterated their commitment to keep Iran nuclear deal alive. Europe has been working to implement a special purpose vehicle that will allow countries to continue trading with Iran, despite US sanctions, known as INSTEX.
Most recently, many innocent citizens of Canada, Iran and the EU were killed when an Iranian missile downed a Ukrainian passenger plane. The Iranian leaders first attempted to mislead the international community, veil the truth, and deny any involvement in the strike. The Iranian government also rejected cooperating with international investigators. "We will not give the black box to the manufacturer [Boeing] or America," said Ali Abedzadeh, the head of Iran's Civil Aviation Authority.
The killing of 176 innocent people -- albeit accidental, and the attempted cover-up, not accidental -- reveals that Iran's theocratic establishment prioritizes military adventurism over human life. After the passenger plane was shot down and 176 people lost their lives, Iranian leaders praised their "successful" military operation. Former IRGC commander-in-chief Mohsen Rezaei appeared on Iran's Channel 3 and offered his congratulations to the IRGC's missile attack:
"I extend my congratulation (sic) for taking harsh revenge to the Leadership [Khamenei] and the novel nation who 'suffered' from Soleimani's [death]. This operation was, in fact, the bombardment of both the authority and prestige of the United States."
When the regime rushed to conceal evidence after shooting down the European plane, CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer tweeted:
"CBS crew just visited the #Ukrainian airlines crash site west of Tehran. Nine am local time. Virtually all pieces of the plane were removed yesterday - say locals. Scavengers now picking site clean. No security. Not cordoned off. No sign of any investigators."
After Tehran, however, was faced with overwhelming evidence, including credible intelligence reports from several governments as well as a video showing that the plane was hit over Tehran, the Islamic Republic was forced to admit that it had shot down the passenger plane.
The IRGC's shooting down of the passenger plane has sparked anger and fury inside Iran and abroad. Iranians took to the street protesting the regime and demanding that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei resign.
In the first demonstration against the ruling mullahs since the death of the Iranian General Qassem Soleiman, people can be heard chanting in front of Tehran's Amir Kabir University: "Commander-in-chief [Khamenei] resign, resign", "Death to the liars" and "Death to Khamenei!"
People have also been criticizing the regime for its belated admission and attempts to conceal the truth. Hesham Ghanbari, 27, a university student in Tehran told Reuters:
"Why should I vote for this regime. I don't trust them at all. They lied to us about the plane crash. Why should I trust them when they don't trust people enough to tell the truth?"
The regime, in turn, is resorting to its usual modus operandi of cracking down on the protesters with savage force.
Many of the Iranian people are familiar with the regime's careless or willful killing of innocent people. According to Amnesty International, hundreds of people were killed two months ago by the regime forces when people demonstrated against a hike in gas prices.
The Iranian government has also been implicated in a series of assassination and terrorist plots across Europe, some successful others not, but all have been traced back to Tehran. European officials also foiled a terrorist attack that targeted a large "Free Iran" convention in Paris, attended in June 2018 by many high-level speakers -- including former US House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird.
Iran's attacks were also evident in 2018 in Denmark, where officials accused Tehran of attempting to assassinate one of its citizens. Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen emphasized the seriousness of the plot:
"An Iranian intelligence agency has planned an assassination on Danish soil. This is completely unacceptable. In fact, the gravity of the matter is difficult to describe. That has been made crystal clear to the Iranian ambassador in Copenhagen today."
It is worth noting that, the EU did announce a positive step. In light of the revelations concerning Iran's assassinations plots, minor sanctions were imposed on sectors of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence, as well as on Saeid Hashemi Moghadan, the deputy intelligence minister.
However, these do not go nearly far enough, particularly if the EU is inclined to continue its support for the JCPOA.
It is incumbent upon the EU to stop softening its tone toward the Islamic Republic, and instead join the Trump administration in imposing maximum pressure on the ruling mullahs of Iran. The more the EU appeases the Iranian government, the more it empowers it to pursue aggressive and terrorist activities.
*Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu
© 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.

The US Must Facilitate Regime Change in Iran
Dr. Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/January 23/2020
Aiding the Iranian people to oust the regime does not, however, require the US to launch a full-fledged war with the Islamic Republic.
On the contrary, a four-pronged strategy of maximum pressure -- involving continued financial pressure on the mullahs; helping local forces expel Iranian proxy groups from Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen; supporting the Iranian protesters through a robust social-media campaign promising a future without repression and terror, and using appropriate military force to deter and protect our interests -- would get the job done without troops on the ground.
The goal of US policy on Iran, really to exert "maximum pressure," should be the change of the mullah-led regime in Tehran before it is armed with nuclear weapons, becomes the hegemon of the Persian Gulf and commands much of the world's oil and gas. Pictured: Iran's "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (left), and President Hassan Rouhani.
The goal of US policy on Iran, really to exert "maximum pressure," should be the change of the mullah-led regime in Tehran before it is armed with nuclear weapons, becomes the hegemon of the Persian Gulf and commands much of the world's oil and gas. Iran is already seeking to take over Iraq, OPEC's second-largest crude oil producer, with the fifth-largest oil reserves, in the world.
But helping to spur the end of the Iranian empire -- or, at least, keeping its power in check -- cannot be accomplished without a clear knowledge and understanding of the nature of the regime.
As much of the mainstream the media and members of the political class revealed in their comments about the January 3 targeted killing of the mass murderer, Qasem Soleimani -- commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) -- there is a grave misunderstanding, particularly among Democrats, about the ideology and terrorist threat that the regime poses to the United States and the rest of the world.
Take Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Or), for example. The 22-year veteran of the US Congress recently seemed to justify Iranian aggression against the US. In a newsletter on his website on January 7 -- in which he criticized the killing of Soleimani, Blumenauer wrote, in part:
"...Most Iranians have an affinity for the United States, dating back to the constitutional revolution of 1905. America was respected, revered, and appreciated. But it was the United States that chose to side with the British in overthrowing a popularly elected government in Iran in 1953 in order to restore British control over Iranian oil. We were partners in restoring the Shah to the throne, replacing their democracy and ushering in an era of repression. The United States helped foster the Iranian revolution where we were perceived as being their enemy. There was a reason Iranian crowds chanted 'death to America."
To set the record straight: The so-called "coup" in Iran in 1953 was more complicated than is reported. The Iranian Constitution at the time -- prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution that ousted Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and replaced him with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini -- gave the Shah the power, which he exercised, to dismiss then-Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. The reason the Shah dismissed his prime minister was that Mosaddegh was turning over Iran's British-managed oil fields to the Soviet Union and negotiating with the Kremlin to establish a military base in the Persian Gulf -- both of which the Shah's British and American allies viewed with alarm.
The real root of Iran's current global terror campaign, which it carries out through the IRGC, is religious, ideological and hegemonic.
According to the section of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran titled "An Ideological Army":
"In establishing and equipping the defense forces of the country, the focus shall be on maintaining ideology and faith as the foundation and the measure. Consequently, the Army of the Islamic Republic and the Islamic Pasdaran Revolutionary Corps are formed in accordance with the aforementioned objective. They will undertake the responsibility of not only guarding and protecting the borders, but also the weight of ideological mission, i.e. striving (jehād) on the path of God and struggle on the path of expanding the sovereignty of the law of God in the world; in accordance with the Qur'anic verse: 'Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies' (8: 60)."
In other words, Tehran seeks to "expand sovereignty of the law of God in the world" in accordance with the Quran. To achieve this, the ayatollahs need to take control of the Persian Gulf -- and the trillions of dollars of oil wealth that it contains -- as well as nuclear weapons.
Killing Soleimani, a key figure in accomplishing the above goal, triggered a debate about US foreign policy in relation to Iran that makes no sense. To argue that an enemy combatant with the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands should not have been targeted, critics of the Trump administration would have to claim that Soleimani had no role in terrorist attacks against America, or that whatever role he played was justified in some way.
Even though a number of critics of the Trump administration acknowledge that Soleimani was key to Iran's hydra-headed terror state, in a new twist, some are claiming that the New Year's attack on the US Embassy compound in Baghdad and the January 7 attack on American troops were acts of retribution over Trump's 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal reached between Iran and world powers in 2015, which incidentally the Iranians never signed.
Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor to President Barack Obama, seems to think that those missile attacks, and other terrorist activities perpetrated by Iran or its proxies, would not have taken place had the US administration upheld the JCPOA – which, by the way, Obama had effectively bribed Tehran into accepting by awarding it $150 billion. In an interview with MSNBC on January 8, Rice said:
"In the years since the signing of the deal in 2015, up until President Trump's unilateral withdrawal abandoning our allies against the advice of his advisers, there were no proxy attacks by Iranian proxies on US personnel in Iraq. There were no efforts by Iran to attack our drones in the Persian Gulf or attack shipping... President Trump decided recklessly to withdraw unilaterally from the nuclear deal and to impose so-called 'maximum pressure' — crippling sanctions — and it was in the wake of that that we found ourselves in this escalatory cycle that's led to where we are today."
Rice failed to mention something that Obama, Trump, Israel and other observers has known all along: Iran never actually upheld its side of the JCPOA – which in any event was a bad deal: it did not prevent the development of long-range ballistic missiles, and merely postponed the time at which Tehran could continue enriching uranium for building an unlimited number of nuclear bombs.
Aiding the Iranian people to oust the regime does not, however, require the US to launch a full-fledged war with the Islamic Republic. On the contrary, a four-pronged strategy of maximum pressure-- involving continued financial pressure on the mullahs; helping local forces expel Iranian proxy groups from Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen; supporting the Iranian protesters through a robust social-media campaign promising a future without repression and terror, and using appropriate military force to deter and protect our interests -- would get the job done without troops on the ground.
Meanwhile, Washington should work on building European consensus on negotiating a new nuclear agreement that ends Iran's uranium enrichment and dismantles its nuclear and ballistic-missile programs.
*Dr. Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense consulting firm he founded in 1981. He also is a guest lecturer on nuclear deterrent studies at the US Naval Academy. He was also for 22 years, the senior defense consultant at the National Defense University Foundation.
© 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.

Muslim Deceit and the Burden of Proof
Raymond Ibrahim/January 23/2020
In his recent defense of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya (dismantled here), Usama Hasan, of the UK think tank Quilliam, made the following admission:
It is true that hardened islamist terrorists, such as the Al-Qaeda & ISIS supporter Usman Khan who murdered two people at Fishmongers’ Hall [after pretending to have been “rehabilitated”], do misuse the principle of taqiyyah in order to further their cause. However, the charge that all Muslims are generally religiously obligated to lie, and do so routinely, is both dangerous and untrue.
While this may be true, it is also inevitable. After all, how is the infidel to know which Muslim is and isn’t “misusing the principle of taqiyyah”? Moreover, why should the burden of proof be on the non-Muslim—who stands to (and often does) suffer and even gets killed from ignoring the role of deceit in Islam—and not on the Muslim, whose religion allows deception in the first place? This is particularly so since more than a few “hardened islamist terrorists” are convinced that their creed allows them to dissimulate to their heart’s content—so long as doing so can be seen as helping further the cause of Islam.
In this, as in virtually all things Islamic, Muslims have their prophet’s example—two that are especially poignant—to turn to.
First is the assassination of Ka‘b ibn Ashraf (d. 624), an elderly Jew. Because he dared mock Muhammad, the latter exclaimed, “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his messenger?” A young Muslim named Ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that to get close enough to Ka‘b to murder him, he needed permission to lie to the Jew.
Allah’s messenger agreed. So Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka‘b and began to complain about Muhammad until his disaffection became so convincing that Ka‘b eventually dropped his guard and befriended him.
After behaving as his friend for some time, Ibn Maslama eventually appeared with another Muslim, also pretending to have apostatized. Then, while a trusting Ka‘b’s guard was done, they attacked and slaughtered him, bringing his head to Muhammad to the usual triumphant cries of “Allahu Akbar!”
In another account, after Muhammad and his followers had attacked, plundered, and massacred a number of non-Muslim Arabs and Jews, the latter assembled and were poised to defeat the Muslims (at the Battle of the Trench, 627). But then Naim bin Mas‘ud, one of the leaders of these non-Muslim “confederates,” as they came to be known in history, secretly went to Muhammad and converted to Islam. The prophet asked him to return to his tribesmen and allies—without revealing that he had joined the Muslim camp—and to try to get them to abandon the siege. “For,” Muhammad assured him, “war is deceit.”
Mas‘ud returned, pretending to be loyal to his former kinsmen and allies, all while giving them bad advice. He also subtly instigated quarrels between the various tribes until, no longer trusting each other, they disbanded—thereby making Mas‘ud a celebrated hero in Islamic tradition.
In the two well-known examples above, Muslims deceived non-Muslims not because they were being persecuted for being Muslim but as a tactic to empower Islam. (Even the Battle of the Trench was precipitated precisely because Muhammad and his followers had first attacked the confederates at the Battle of Badr and massacred hundreds of them on other occasions.)
Despite these stories being part of the Sunna to which Sunnis adhere, UCLA’s Abou El Fadl—the primary expert the Washington Post once quoted to show that Islam does not promote deceit—claims that “there is no concept that would encourage a Muslim to lie to pursue a goal. That is a complete invention.”
Tell that to Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, whose head was cut off for believing Muslim lies. The prophet of Islam allowed his followers to deceive the Jew to slaughter him—even though Ka‘b posed no threat to any Muslim’s life.
Especially revealing is that, in Dr. Sami Makerem’s seminal book on the topic, Al-Taqiyya fi’l Islam (Taqiyya in Islam), he cites the two aforementioned examples from the prophet’s biography as prime examples of taqiyya.
It comes to this: even if one were to accept the limited definition of taqiyya as permitting deception only under life threatening circumstances (as Usama Hasan and any number of apologists insist), the fact remains: Islam also permits lies and deception in order to empower itself. Accordingly, and considering that Islam considers itself in a constant state of war with non-Islam (typified by the classical formulation of Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb) any Muslim who feels this or that piece of deception over the infidel is somehow benefiting Islam will believe that he has a blank check to lie.
That’s the inconvenient fact—passingly admitted to by Usama Hasan—that needs addressing; and that’s why the burden of proof concerning sincerity belongs on Muslims, not non-Muslims.
https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2020/01/23/muslim-deceit-and-the-burden-of-proof/

Syria May Be the Test Case For Russia's Influence
Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy/Asharq Al Awsat/January 23/2020
In the past few years, the Russian Federation has successfully managed to position itself as the major power broker in the Middle East. By doing so it has also been able to regain much of the prestige and influence it gradually lost since the departure of Soviet military advisors from Egypt in 1972. Achieving such a status is one thing, transforming it into a strategic gain is another. Recent history is a good guide on how to squander such an opportunity.
Recently Moscow has been able to convene a meeting between the main Libyan antagonists Hafter and Sarraj. To organize such an event, it secured the cooperation of Turkish president Erdogan. Most likely Moscow was able to convince the Turkish president that it was saving him from another misadventure but in exchange for better cooperation on the Syrian province of Idlib. Announcing the Moscow meeting between the heads of intelligence in Syria and Turkey may be an indication in this regard and, further cements Russia’s position as the main mediator insofar as Syria is concerned.
To better appreciate the challenge Russia faces, it is useful to put matters in a historical perspective. Russia’s interests in the Middle East are historic with a combination of geopolitical and religious roots. First, as far back as Czarist Russia, Moscow pursued the strategic objective of establishing a warm water seaport on the Mediterranean. The Soviet Union continued to pursue this objective but was not fully successful. Only in the 21 century can Russia claim it has been able to establish full-fledged military and naval bases in Hmeimin and Tartus respectively, both in Syria. Second, Russia has always projected itself as the protector of the eastern orthodox Christians. Towards this, it established a presence in the Holy Land since the mid-nineteenth century when it established the Russian Palestine Society in the Holy Land. Also as a confirmation of its long-standing interests, Russia, even during the communist era, was the first country to establish relations with KSA (then the Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd) in 1926 and was amongst the first to recognize Israel. Third, having a large Muslim population of its own, Russia could not afford to be a casual observer of developments in the Middle East. This has become all the more important since political Islam has become increasingly aggressive in its outreach.
In spite of these obvious strategic interests, Moscow was only able to build its influence in the Middle East after the Second World War, largely due to errors committed by the UK and, subsequently the US in the 1950s and 1960s.
Although Moscow was the main political and military supporter of the Arab cause in regaining lost territories to Israel in 1967 and for Palestinians self-determination. Doubts, however, persisted that ultimately Moscow wanted to avoid full- scale war between Arabs and Israelis. In other words, like the US, Russian interests were served by the status quo. Such a state of affairs was not acceptable in Egypt, but particularly to Sadat who wanted to consolidate his rule by erasing the military defeat suffered in the 1967 war.
Most likely herein lies Russia’s failure. It was unable to align its interests with those of its main allies, the Arabs. At the time Israel, Turkey, and Iran were squarely in the western camp, thus requiring little attention from Moscow.
It took Russia more than a decade to resurrect its lost influence in the region, which reached its nadir in the Yeltsin era. It was only under President Putin that it was able to capitalize on the US invasion of Iraq, the antagonism of the West towards Iran, the disarray emanating from the Arab Spring and inconsistent policies pursued by the US, EU, and Turkey, particularly on Syria. But more importantly, Moscow has played a deft diplomatic hand, maintaining an equidistant position between regional antagonists but also trying to work with the US, the EU, and the UN to resolve the conflicts raging in the region.
Witness Moscow’s insistence on the necessity to fully implement UNSC resolution 2254 on Syria and its presentation of the Moscow meeting between Hafter and Sarraj as complementary to the Berlin conference on Libya. The Syrian conflict and the Iranian nuclear dispute, no doubt, have been instrumental in propelling Russia to the position of being the main power broker between Iran, Turkey, Israel, the US, EU, and the Arabs.
Nowhere is this renewed influence and stature apparent than in Syria. While Russia is the main supporter of the Syrian government, it also works very closely with the latter’s chief adversaries Turkey through the Astana process, but also with Israel. It has managed to maintain a close relationship with Iran, while at the same time succeeded in building what appears to be the best relations ever between Moscow and Tel Aviv.
Moreover, it has been successful in managing the very complex triangular relationship between Damascus, Ankara and the Kurds, again positioning itself as the main mediator in this complex issue.
Russia has also been active in almost every conflict and dispute in the Middle East. It was instrumental in forging the Iranian nuclear deal JCPOA and continues to participate in efforts to prevent its total collapse. It has been trying to mediate between the Arab Gulf states and Iran, presenting numerous proposals for an Arab security formula. It has maintained exceptionally good relations with both Arab countries and Israel, positioning itself to be a trusted mediator in preventing hostilities whether in Lebanon or more recently in Syrian Golan. It has remained equidistant between the warring factions in Yemen, positioning itself to mediate at the right time among the Yemeni parties, but more importantly between the Arabs and Iran. It has also successfully managed to remain neutral in the intra-Arab disputes.
The challenge facing Russia now is: can it maintain this short term gain in stature and influence and transform it into a strategic one. Will it be able to balance its strategic interests with the divergent and sometimes conflicting interests of Arabs, Israel, Turkey, and Iran. The task is simpler on the economic side where there are converging interests, but far more complicated on the political one.
Arabs expect Russia will continue supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state, actively support an end to foreign military occupation particularly in Syria, reduce Iranian influence in the region, prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and last but not least and probably more important for the majority of the Arab people: that it be perceived as helping orderly and tangible political reform to which most Arabs aspire rather than preventing it. Syria may be the test case.
Turkey’s interests with Russia, besides deriving economic benefits, is to help it secure its southern border with Syria. Here the Russians appear to have a formula that both Ankara and Damascus may ultimately have to accept. A reworked Adana agreement: an Adana plus, which would take into account in a balanced manner the recent security concerns of both Syria and Turkey.
Iran, on the other hand, needs Russia as a counterweight to western antagonism. Energy and Central Asia are other areas of primary common interest. As to Israel, Russia has become an unconventional partner to safeguard its national security. More importantly, the Russian diaspora in Israel is considered by both countries as an asset for developing future relations.
In short, Iran, Turkey, and Israel have now many more interests in common with Russia. A fact Russia must factor in when formulating its future strategy in the Middle East.
Ultimately, a comprehensive regional security arrangement will be the best means to secure Russian strategic interests. Until that is established, it will certainly be difficult for Russia to balance all these interests and align them with her own. It may be possible, however, to continue its present course as long as: the US reduces its interest in the region and confusion continues in its policies, Europe remains tentative and unable to decouple its regional policies from the US, and China remains not fully engaged. But more importantly, if divisions persist amongst Arabs.

A Liberal Manifesto in a Time of Inequality, Climate Change
Andreas Kluth/Bloomberg/Asharq Al Awsat/January 23/2020
It’s hard being a liberal these days. The world seems to want to go in the opposite direction. Authoritarianism is on the rise in China, mercantilism in the US, populism everywhere from Brazil to the Philippines, and an oxymoronic “illiberal democracy” in Hungary and Poland.
Liberals seem particularly irrelevant in the two biggest debates of our time: about inequality and global warming. The first has left-wing demagogues baying once again to soak the rich in a new round of class warfare. The second has spooked the loony right into denying the problem (and indeed science) and the loony left into flight-shaming, SUV-shaming and just shaming generally, reminiscent of France’s Jacobins in 1793 or China’s Red Guards in 1966.
What’s become almost inaudible in these two controversies is an older and more dignified voice: liberalism. By this I don’t mean its risible (and opposite) caricatures in the US and Europe. In American usage, a liberal is a big-government lefty who sees society through the lens of identity politics. In left-wing European parlance, a liberal (or, worse, “neoliberal”) is a free-market fundamentalist.
Liberalism is neither. It’s a broad and flexible philosophy that values individual freedom. (Liber is Latin for free). That’s why liberals distrust concentrations of power that migmight oppress us. Often such power is found in the state, which is why liberals prefer limited government; other times, it’s found in companies, mafias or mobs, in which case liberals oppose those, with regulation and laws. But liberals are a pragmatic bunch too, rising to the new challenges of each era.
It’s in fact liberals who’ve grappled at the highest intellectual level with inequality. If you want to think deeply about “justice as fairness,” you could do worse than open the book of that title by John Rawls. If you want the best answer to Rawls, read Robert Nozick, his former colleague and sparring partner down the hallway at Harvard University.
What liberals since John Locke, the patriarch of the tradition, have agreed on is that you need property to be free. Invariably, some people will end up with more than others. Rawls would say that’s fine as long as everybody benefits, including the worst off. Nozick would respond that it’s fine even if they don’t, as long as those who get more have earned it legitimately.
It’s a mistake, moreover, to look at the distribution of wealth or income only at one point in time. Yesterday’s haves could turn into tomorrow’s have-nots and vice versa, all as a result of life choices, luck, skill or effort. Inequality becomes problematic only when the same people, or the same families across generations, keep ending up at the top or bottom no matter what they do. In a free and fair society, social mobility is therefore more important than the distribution of wealth; and equality of opportunity trumps equality of outcomes. That’s why some liberals can live with inheritance taxes, which are assessed a single time on an estate to prevent the accumulation of vast riches across generations. By contrast, they frown on wealth taxes, which now seem to be back in fashion. Not only are those intrusive and hard to assess year after year, they also miss the point, which is, as Jeremy Bentham put it in 1795, to make the poor richer, not the rich poorer.
In ensuring equal opportunity, however, there really is a lot of work to be done, at least outside of Scandinavia. That includes assuring equal access to education and health care. In both areas, the US in particular has a problem, which is why it’s losing its reputation as a land of opportunity.
A fascinating twist is a new iteration of an old idea called the Universal Basic Income. The state could pay everybody, irrespective of achievement or need, a stipend. On the face of it, you’d expect liberals to be against that (and many are). Doesn’t it sound like big government? And wouldn’t people simply stop working?
But consider the full idea. A basic income wouldn’t complement but completely replace the existing welfare state, as it exists in its full bureaucratic insanity. No more fraud or endless administration, since everybody gets the benefit automatically. A basic income would thus radically simplify, and possibly shrink, the Leviathan.
A well designed basic income, moreover, would be too meager to allow recipients to live luxuriously. So you’d still need to earn your livelihood if it’s to be a good one. But the state-provided cash could get you through periods of sickness or education, including adult retraining as the economy becomes digital and seeks new skills. It could, to use the key word, free you to fulfill your individual potential.
Yet we need empirical data. How would people respond, and would they stop working? How much would it cost? Unfortunately, the few places that have conducted experiments have done it wrong. You can’t, for instance, just pay a few unemployed people, as Finland did, because that’s not a “universal” income. For now, the jury’s out.
Liberals have also thought deeply about climate change, long before it even became a threat. It’s just that they’ve used different names for that type of problem, such as “market failure” and “the tragedy of the commons.” If individuals use a resource they believe to be infinite because it doesn’t seem to have a price, they will overuse it until it’s ruined. This explains why people overfish the oceans, or why a public bathroom stinks whereas your one at home doesn’t.
Our atmosphere is in danger of becoming the most tragic commons ever. We keep consuming stuff without heed to the greenhouse gases we and our products emit along the way, because we cannot see the cost of the emissions we cause. The liberal answer is therefore to make that hidden cost of carbon visible and force all of us to pay it.
There are two ways of doing that, and in principle it doesn’t matter which you choose. You could set the price of carbon with a tax on it and observe how much that reduces the quantity of emissions. Or you could fix the quantity of emissions by selling allowances, then observe what that does to the price of carbon. This takes the form of an emissions trading system.
Several places already have such a system, including the European Union. But until now these markets haven’t covered enough sectors of the economy or restricted the allowances enough to make the carbon price really hurt. The biggest promise of the EU’s Green Deal now in the works is that it plans to expand its emissions trading and make carbon quite expensive.
The signal of a much higher carbon price would quickly percolate through the whole economy, influencing all our decisions. Companies would invest in technology to make their factories cleaner. Homeowners may find they can save money by retrofitting their heating systems. Businesspeople may take the train instead of the plane, or may Skype instead of traveling at all. I might even stop skiing, once I factor in the costs of my journey and of the (regrettably necessary) snow machines.
The advantage of this approach is that all these decisions would still be decentralized — that is, taken by free individuals. Other approaches out there, by contrast, involve different forms of central planning. And those are the bad ideas in Europe’s Green Deal.
These include subsidies to homeowners and companies, favoring particular technologies, and rationing, shaming or even banning specific behaviors, such as flying. Government isn’t good at deciding, say, whether future cars should run on fuel cells, batteries or something else, or whether electricity is best generated from wind, sun or something else. And central bankers certainly have no business steering money to greener uses. All such steps would distort the allocation of capital and deprive people of freedom.
Whether the topic is inequality, the climate, trade, migration, data privacy or almost anything else, it’s a pity that liberals and liberal parties don’t have a bigger voice in policy today. As others turn toward collectivism and the politics of resentment, whether it’s nationalism or socialism or green authoritarianism, liberals should be more confident in presenting our philosophy of freedom as the better alternative. It would be a liberalism adapted to the needs of our planet. For want of a better label, let’s call it planetism.

Libya and the Egyptian-Turkish Confrontation
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al Awsat/January 23/2020
Two weeks ago, the Libyan National Army (LNA) launched its most assertive battle yet, resulting in the taking of Sirte and the siege of Tripoli. Turkey thus found itself on the verge of losing the war, so it decided to go to Berlin, where the final battle was to be fought. There, the victors and losers negotiated, hoping that realism would push everyone to an agreement that would end the years of violence. A UN-sponsored agreement was signed by the parties concerned, but it is more than likely that they will return to fight for the last few miles.
The war in Libya has passed through some painful stages. In 2015, hopes of reconciliation were wiped out, with embassies closing their doors in Tripoli, the UN withdrawing its forces, and chaos taking over the capital. Rivalries of regional and major powers have caused the war to continue, with Turkey among them, fighting on Libyan territory through militias whose members are mostly foreigners. The Turks justify their involvement in the war by claiming that Libya owes them huge amounts of money after they financed projects during the late Qaddafi era. Turkey is also claiming that millions of citizens of Turkish origin are living in Libya, which of course is not true.
Why is Turkey insisting on fighting in Libya? If it is out of a desire to build an empire, this is not possible because it does not have the resources, even with Qatar’s unlimited support. The truth is that Turkey has been left with just Libya when talking about the gains of the so-called “Arab Spring.” Libya is a dangerous corridor with the potential to destabilize Egypt’s security, and it could even be used to threaten Europe.
Turkey has bet on the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, Egypt, Sudan and Libya, but these groups lost power, and with them Turkey lost all of these countries, except for Libya. Even in Libya, the Turkey-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) controls only 15 percent of Libyan territory, mainly in Tripoli and Misrata. It had previously lost the oil-producing areas to the LNA.
Amid this bad situation, Ankara is threatening to send more troops to defend Tripoli. It must be noted that the Turkish experts and forces are foreign fighters who were involved in the war in Syria. After coming to an agreement with the Russians in Idlib, Turkey wants to get rid of one legacy of the Syrian war, which includes having to deal with thousands of foreign fighters on its territory.
In case the Berlin deal fails, these fighters will fight alongside the GNA’s forces; and if they lose and the LNA takes Tripoli, they will sow chaos. Thus, they will be Erdogan’s bargaining tool to put pressure on European countries. This perception has been created by the threats of the Turkish president himself, who clearly said that Europe will not be safe if his allies in Libya fall.
Egypt is the other target for the Turks in Libya. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi recently said Egypt is concerned about Libya’s stability, and regards Turkey’s intervention as a major threat to it. He added that Egypt may be the next target, which is why we see Cairo raising the tone of its speeches, declaring that it will not remain a spectator if the Turks go to war.
Turkey can prolong and widen the chaos in Libya, but it will not be able to rule the country. Thus, everyone is now trying to push Ankara to be realistic and cooperate with any joint government that is formed in accordance with the Berlin agreement, until this absurd tragedy is over. Let us not forget that the current war is the result of the failure of an earlier opportunity to share power, when the extremists backed by Turkey coveted sole rule.
The Turks, who want to use Libya to strengthen their status and make up for their failure in Syria, must know that Libya will become, for them, an additional burden, as well as a failure if they insist on supporting the war.

Iran exploiting Iraq to achieve its regional goals
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/January 23/2020
Iran’s power in Iraq is growing, allowing the Iranian regime to increasingly use the Arab state as a proxy battleground in order to achieve its revolutionary ideals and hegemonic ambitions. Most recently, the leaders in Tehran this month violated the sovereignty of the Iraqi government by launching missiles at Iraqi airbases hosting US troops.
One of Iran’s revolutionary principles is to undermine its rivals’ influence in the Middle East through the deployment of its proxies. Iran has mastered this skill of asymmetric warfare not only in Iraq, but also in other countries including Lebanon, Yemen and Syria. For example, Tehran has repeatedly employedthe Houthis to attack Saudi Arabia.
In Iraq, the Iran-backed Shiite militia Kata’ib Hezbollah, which is designated a terrorist organization by the US, appears to advance the interests of the Iranian regime. Late last month, it launched four Katyusha rockets, hittinga US base close to Baghdad, the Iraqi capital. And many of the protesters who attacked the US Embassy in Baghdad over the New Year were also reportedly members of the militia.
Kata’ib Hezbollah was founded by Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, an Iranian-Iraqi citizen who was a close adviser to Iran’s Quds Force, an elite branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that carries out operations beyond Iran’s borders. The Quds Force and its proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, have reportedly been behind the training of Iraqi militia groups such as Kata’ib Hezbollah. The Quds Force has also givenbirth to several other Iraqi terror groups, such as Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haq and Kata’ib Al-Imam Ali.
The Islamic Republic has used such militia groups to fightin Syria in support of the mullahs’ staunchest ally, Bashar Assad. Tehran has also reportedly utilizedIraqi territory, particularly with the assistance of its militias, to ship arms to Syria.
The Iranian-backed Iraqi militias have been able to survive due to the fact they have a powerful ally that is the top state sponsor of terrorism in the world. After helping found militias in Iraq, the Iranian regime sponsoredthe Popular Mobilization Forces — a conglomerate of militias, of which Kata’ib Hezbollah is a part. One of the reasons for Iran’s decision to make the Iraqi militias work under one banner was to push the Iraqi government into recognizing all these militias as one legitimate group, incorporating them into state apparatuses and allocating wages and ammunition for them. Through this approach, the Islamic Republic is putting the financial burden on Iraqi taxpayers.
By following in the footsteps of the Iranian regime, Tehran’s Iraqi militias are also skilled at exploiting religion, using sectarianism as a tool to gain power and further Iran’s parochial, religious and political ambitions. The militias are also known for ratcheting up the conflict by engagingin various crimes against civilians, including summary executions, disappearances, torture, indiscriminate attacks and unlawful restrictions on the movement of people fleeing the fighting.
Iranian influence in Baghdad extends beyond the military, as it also includes security and political infiltrations. Iran’s considerable influence over Iraq also derives from social, economic and religious connections between the two states. For example, from an economic perspective, Tehran is reapingsignificant profits from its exports to Iraq, as nearly 25 percent of all Baghdad’s imports come from Iran.
From a religious perspective, the ruling mullahs also sendthousands of Iranian religious figures, scholars and students to Iraqi cities like Najaf and Karbala every year, which gives them a considerable amount of influence in shaping public opinion in favor of the Islamic Republic. It goes without saying that several Shiite leaders and political parties in Iraq are knownto have been previously based or trained in the Islamic Republic.
Iranian influence in Baghdad extends beyond the military, as it also includes security and political infiltrations.
Furthermore, Iranian leaders are cognizant of the fact that, as long as they keep Iraq divided and roiled by internal conflicts, and as long as Shiite political parties dominate the Iraqi government, Tehran is likely to remain the most influential foreign force in Iraq. That is why the Iranian regime will make every effort to ensure its militias do not run out of weapons or ammunition. The Islamic Republic has repeatedly smuggledillicit weapons and technology into Iraq.
More broadly, the violence carried out by Iran-backed militias in Iraq ought to give an insight into the tactics and long-term strategies of Iranian-trained and armed proxies across the Middle East, which are built on the regime’s core pillars of destabilization, conflict, assassination, and the rejection of any solution that has Sunni or Western origins.
In conclusion, Iran continues to be the most influential foreign force in Iraq. It acts like an occupying force, exploiting this Arab nation by using it as a proxy battleground to advance its parochial ambitions.
*Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is an Iranian-American political scientist. He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman and president of the International American Council. Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh

Saudi support of Cyprus key as tempers flare in Mediterranean
Dr. Theodore Karasik/Arab News/January 23/2020
Saudi Arabia’s decision to support Cyprus in the ongoing battle over the Eastern Mediterranean is designed to protect the country from Turkish intrusion. Cyprus is angered by Turkey’s bid to drill for natural gas amid heightened tensions over energy reserves in the region. With Cyprus accusing Turkey of flouting international law in sending ships to drill inside an exploration area that is already licensed to the energy companies Eni of Italy and Total of France, Riyadh is stepping up diplomatic activity.
After the visit of Cypriot Foreign Minister Nikos Christodoulides to Riyadh this week and his meeting with King Salman, the Kingdom announced that it stands on the side of Cyprus and supports its sovereignty. Moreover, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan expressed full support for Cyprus.
It is noteworthy that Saudi Arabia’s position on the Cyprus issue is similar to that of the EU, which announced its support for the sovereignty of Cyprus and threatened Turkey and its President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that it would withhold some financial aid. But a more important aspect of the Saudi move toward Cyprus is how it relates to Turkey’s struggle for influence in the Mediterranean region, as it is attempting to seize maritime areas using an illegal agreement signed with the Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli.
It seems that Saudi Arabia is going to use soft power. From Riyadh’s point of view, Turkey cannot keep up with Saudi Arabian investment in countries that are geographically close to Ankara — but are against Erdogan — as it attempts to corral Turkey.
The territory of the Republic of Cyprus extends over the southern part of the island of Cyprus, while Turkey occupies the northern part. Bringing up this issue is certainly going to make Cyprus a central issue, on top of many others in the increasingly volatile Eastern Mediterranean.
After the Erdogan government signed an agreement with the Libyan GNA, in which it extracted significant economic rights in the waters of the Mediterranean, Ankara announced that it had sent ships to explore for oil and gas off Cyprus, including in the region in which the Cypriot government authorized European companies to conduct exploratory drilling. Like Greece, the Republic of Cyprus has expressed strong opposition to the agreement. To be sure, tempers are flaring. Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades called for collective regional action against the Turkish move, which was a violation of international laws relating to countries’ maritime borders.
The Cypriot Parliament’s Speaker also announced support for the Libyan House of Representatives in its efforts to persuade the EU and international organizations to withdraw recognition of the GNA and instead support the Libyan National Army.
The Turkish move was a violation of international laws relating to countries’ maritime borders.
Saudi Arabia is working in cooperation with several countries, from both within the region and outside, to block and force back both Turkish and Iranian expansion. The creation of the Red Sea Security Council — with the involvement of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia, Eritrea, Egypt, Yemen and Jordan — is part of an effort to create regional security organizations that can protect waterways from hostile powers. Moreover, the opening of Egypt’s Berenice (Barnis) Military Base on the Red Sea coast helps to project power to secure Egypt’s southern coasts, economic interests in the Red Sea, and international maritime traffic moving through to and from the Suez Canal.
This new structure, combined with the ongoing disputes surrounding Cyprus and other states regarding Turkey’s maritime rights, is filling a vacuum in a part of the region devoid of regional security structures in spite of its high strategic value, which is bringing competitors from outside the region. For Saudi Arabia, Turkey’s moves against Cyprus are another example of Ankara’s aggression. Thus, the expansion of such a security concept backed by regional neighbors may be within Riyadh’s vision in the near future.
There is another relevant angle: The Levant. The Jordanian king sees that Cyprus “plays a significant role in finding a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.” All of Cyprus’ partners defend its rights to explore and exploit the natural resources discovered in its exclusive economic zone. Other actions revealing Cyprus’ enhanced role in the region include Nicosia’s support for Lebanon’s many crises (Anastasiades’ previous visits to Saudi Arabia were based on discussions about how best to address the issues there). Given Lebanon’s current predicament, the move by Saudi Arabia to help Cyprus is part of a broader view of security issues in the Mediterranean, which are giving rise to more contested spaces and boundaries.
*Dr. Theodore Karasik is a senior adviser to Gulf State Analytics in Washington, DC. Twitter: @tkarasik