LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 19/2019
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
The Bulletin's Link on the
lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.march19.19.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since
2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Bible Quotations For today
The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they
will call him Immanuel
Matthew 01/18-25/This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His
mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together,
she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband
was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace,
he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an
angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do
not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her
is from the Holy Spirit.She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him
the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” All this took
place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will
conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means
“God with us”). When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had
commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their
marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese
& Lebanese Related News published on March 18-19/2019
St. Joseph's Day/عيد ما يوسف البتول
Hariri-Bassil at Loggerheads over Lebanon’s Public Sector Appointments
Lebanese Army Presses to Release Man Close to Maher al-Assad
Aoun Says No Impunity for Corrupts
Kubis Hails Lebanon and Hariri's 'Very Strong Performance' at Brussels
Conference
Jumblat: Refugee Return Won't Happen as Long as Rejected by Regime
Army Chief on Official Visit to Cyprus
Report: No Escalation Intended Say Mustaqbal, FPM
Pompeo to Visit Lebanon, Kuwait and Israel this Week
Kataeb Party chief MP Sami Gemayel Asks Govt. about 'Hizbullah Border
Tunnels'Hariri's government faces its first serious test
Living with epilepsy: Hiba Khairallah's inspirational story of strength and
acceptance
Hezbollah's 1992 Attack in Argentina Is a Warning for Modern-Day Europe
Litles For The Latest
English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on March 18-19/2019
Dutch police hunting gunman who killed 3 in rush hour tram terror attack
Iran's Rouhani Calls on Judiciary to Sue US for Crimes Against Humanity
Iran Sentences US Navy Veteran to 10 Years in Jail
Iran recalls ambassador to Kenya over court case
Iran denies Turkish statement on a joint raid against PKK militants
Syrian Man Goes on Trial over Germany Stabbing
Syrian government vows to bring Kurdish-held areas back under control
Christchurch Dealer who Sold Arms to Mosque Attacker Rejects Responsibility
Second Israeli Dies after West Bank Attack
Hamas Arrests Dozens of Protesters in Gaza
Israel Strips Land of Minerals, Deprives Palestinians of Clean Water- UN
Israel’s top court disqualifies far-rightist, approves Arab party for ballot
Jordanian MPs call for expulsion of Israeli envoy over al-Aqsa dispute
NZ Cabinet Agrees Tougher Gun Laws in 'Principle'
Egypt’s Sisi Admits to Previous Crisis in Communicating with Youths
UN Envoy in Damascus for Talks on Political Settlement
Yemeni Government Renews Call for UN Offices Move to Aden
Turkey, Iran launch joint raid against Kurdish militants
Iraqi military: Two soldiers killed in clashes with Kurdish PKK
Iraq sentences Belgian man to death for being part of ISIS
13 Algerian Unions Refuse to Back PM’s Efforts to Form Govt.
Titles For The Latest
LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published
on March 18-19/2019
St. Joseph's Day/Elias Bejjani/March 19/19
Hariri's government faces its first serious test/Bassem Ajami/Annahar/March
18/19
Living with epilepsy: Hiba Khairallah's inspirational story of strength and
acceptance/Lili Gerges/Annahar/March 18/19Hezbollah's 1992 Attack in Argentina
Is a Warning for Modern-Day Europe/Matthew Levitt/The Atlantic/March 19/2013
Dutch police hunting gunman who killed 3 in rush hour tram terror
attack/A/P/March 18/19
Opinion/Neither Israel nor Iran Trust Russia. But Only Putin Can Prevent War
Between Them/Shimon Stein and Shlomo Brom/Haaretz/March 18/19
Education, Media, and Hate Mines/Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat/March 18/19
Fighting Climate Change Won’t Be Painless/Mark Buchanan/Bloomberg/March 18/19
Yemen: Slogans that Offer No Hope/Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al-Awsat/March 18/19
The New Face of Terrorism/Faisal bin Abdul Rahman bin Muammar//Asharq Al-Awsat/March
18/19
"Dangerous Nuclear Schemes"/Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/March 18/19
Iran and the future of the Afghanistan peace process/Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami/Arab
News/March 18/19
Syria’s Civil War Is Now 3 Civil Wars/Jonathan
Spyer/Forign Policy/March 18/19
The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese
Related News published
on March 18-19/2019
St. Joseph's Day/عيد
ما يوسف البتول
Elias Bejjani/March 19/19
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/73094/elias-bejjani-saint-annual-josephs-day/
The feast day of St. Joseph is celebrated annually on March 19.
Joseph, husband of the Virgin Mary and foster-father of Jesus, has been honored
as a saint since the earliest days of the Christian Church. But very little is
known about his life, or even the exact date of his death, which is believed to
have occurred when Jesus Christ was eighteen.
The basis of saint day remembrances-for St. Joseph as well as other saints-is
found in ancient Roman tradition. On the anniversary of a death, families would
share a ritual meal at the grave site of an ancestor. This practice was adopted
by Christians who began observing a ritual meal on the death anniversary of
ancestors in the faith, especially martyrs. As a result, most Christian saint
days are associated with the death of the saint. There are three important
exceptions. John the Baptist, the Virgin Mary, and Jesus are honored on their
nativities (birthdays). Many who suffered martyrdom are remembered on saint days
in the calendars of several Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant sects.
By the thirteenth century, the Roman Catholic Church had instituted
canonization, the process of making a person a saint. Before that, Christians
venerated people they considered saints. In 1870 Pope Pius IX formally
proclaimed Joseph the patron of the universal church.
It is worth mentioning that St. Joseph’s Day is a Maronite and Roman Catholic
feast day that commemorates the life of St. Joseph, the step-father of Jesus and
husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
People with very strong religious convictions among which are the Lebanese
Maronites celebrate St. Joseph’s Day on March 19 and believe that this day is
St. Joseph’s birthday too.
Back home, in Lebanon St. Joseph is considered the Family Saint and looked upon
as a family and hardworking father role model because of the great role that
Almighty God had assigned him to carry.
His duty was to raise Jesus Christ and take care of Virgin Mary. God has chose
him to look after His begotten son and Virgin Marry. He fulfilled his Godly
assignment with love, passion and devotion. May Al Mighty God bless all those
that carry this blessed name.
N.B: Our Bejjani family has proudly carried this name generation after
generation for centuries and still do. May God and His angles safeguard our
caring and loving son Youssef, and our grandson Joseph, who both carry this
blessed name.
Hariri-Bassil at Loggerheads over Lebanon’s
Public Sector Appointments
Beirut - Mohamed Choucair/Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 18 March, 2019/ Recent tension
between Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil
was caused by disagreements on the shares of Christians in public sector jobs, a
cabinet member told Asharq Al-Awsat.
The minister, who refused to be identified, said that unlike previously thought,
the differences between Hariri and Bassil were not caused by the Foreign
Minister’s rejection not to join the delegation headed by the premier to a donor
conference on Syria that was held in Brussels last week.
According to the source, Bassil has insisted that members of his Free Patriotic
Movement get the full share of Christians when the government makes a new round
of appointments for public posts. The source said that the dispute between them
rose during a meeting held prior to the PM’s trip to Brussels.
According to the minister, Bassil has claimed that tension with Hariri, who also
heads al-Mustaqbal movement, was caused by differences on ways to resolve the
Syrian refugee crisis. But in reality, the officials argued on the upcoming
public sector appointments. The source said Hariri rejects Bassil’s insistence
to allocate the entire share of Christians to his FPM, which only represents 32
percent of Christians. The PM does not want to put himself on a path of
confrontation with the rest of the Christian parties that have the right to
oppose Bassil’s unilateral request, the source said. The dispute mainly lies on
the appointment of four new Military Council members, in addition to four new
deputies to Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh. According to the source, Hariri
and Bassil also discussed the country’s electricity crisis during their
tension-filled meeting. The PM demanded the swift establishment of the
Electricity Regulatory Authority, in addition to a new board of directors for
Electricite du Liban state-run power company. But Energy Minister Nada Boustani,
who is one of FPM’s representatives in Hariri’s government, opposes such
demands, a position that the PM fears would pose a major threat to the pledges
made at the CEDRE conference in Paris last April. Donors want to see Lebanon
commit to long-stalled reforms before releasing the funds pledged at the
conference.
Lebanese Army Presses to Release Man Close to Maher
al-Assad
Beirut- Nazeer Rida/Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 18 March, 2019/The Lebanese Army
Intelligence Directorate released on Sunday a person close to the family of
Major General Maher al-Assad, the brother of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The man was kidnapped in the Bekaa region two weeks ago. He was taken to Beirut
in order to investigate the circumstances of his abduction, the group behind the
operation, and his place of detention. In a statement, the Lebanese Army’s
Guidance Directorate said that in wake of the kidnapping of Syrian citizen
Hussein al-Ali in the area of Bekaa, the Army Intelligence adopted a series of
measures to track down the kidnapped, who was freed and was now in the Army’s
safe custody. The statement added that the Directorate of Intelligence was
pursuing investigations to arrest those involved in the operation. Lebanese
security sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the reasons behind the kidnap were
still unknown, adding that al-Ali was close to the family of Maher al-Assad. The
sources pointed to some assumptions that he was the bodyguard of Assad’s wife.
The security sources explained that the man’s liberation was made through
pressure exerted by the Army on groups close to the kidnappers.
Aoun Says No Impunity for Corrupts
Naharnet/March 18/19/President Michel Aoun said Monday that he has vowed to
build th Lebanese economy, fight corruption and address the refugee crisis. In
remarks he made at the launching of the National Campaign to revive the Lebanese
economy, in the presidential palace, he said: “Lebanon is living accumulating
crises which can be tackled when identified correctly.”“I promised to build the
Lebanese economy, fight corruption and address the situation of the displaced,"
he stressed.“Everyone should know that there is no immunity for anyone, and I
was the first accused of an empty (corruption) file but I did not mediate anyone
to show my innocence, which was later proven by the judiciary,” said Aoun. On
the other hand, Aoun urged the Lebanese to strengthen their economy through
local tourism, and buying local which keeps the money circulating within the
local economy.
Kubis Hails Lebanon and Hariri's 'Very Strong Performance'
at Brussels Conference
Naharnet/March 18/19/U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Jan Kubis on Monday
held talks with Prime Minister Saad Hariri and hailed what he called the “very
strong performance” of Lebanon and the premier at the Brussels conference on
refugees. “I am very grateful that His Excellency the Prime Minister is giving
me his time frequently and regularly. This is very important as well due to my
forthcoming meeting with the Security Council of the United Nations next week in
New York,” Kubis said after the talks. “I wanted to check some messages and the
most important message that I received from His Excellency the Prime Minister
but also I confirm on my side is how to support the Government, how to support
His Excellency, other ministries and of course political forces in making sure
that the reform program of the Government proceeds forward, that there is no
disruption, no diversion from the objectives of reform,” Kubis added. Noting
that one of the most important steps is to make sure that the budget of the
country is adopted as soon as possible, the U.N. official urged a “reformed”
budget that would address “important issues” such as the “gradual reduction of
fiscal deficit.”“And here I pledged the support of the international community.
I will discuss before my departure with the critical international partners of
the country how to provide more support for the reform program,” he added.
Turning to the issue of the Brussels conference, on which there has been
controversy in Lebanon, Kubis said he “acknowledged the very strong performance
of the country and His Excellency at the Brussels III conference with messages
that confirm an urgent need to ensure safe, voluntary and dignified return of
Syrian refugees home, according to the international humanitarian norms but as
soon as possible under these norms and full respect of these norms, to treat
this as a humanitarian issue.”“And here again expectation that the U.N. and the
humanitarian community will continue in facilitating these returns as much as
possible. Another very important message was also to support the host
communities here in Lebanon. Presence of refugees is a heavy burden and there is
a need to support also communities that are temporarily still hosting them,” the
U.N. official acknowledged.
Kubis and Hariri also discussed “all the measures that are important to keep
calm” in south Lebanon.
Jumblat: Refugee Return Won't Happen as Long as Rejected by Regime
Naharnet/March 18/19/Progressive Socialist Party leader ex-MP Walid Jumblat
noted Monday that “the return of Syrian refugees will not happen as long as the
Syrian regime continues to reject it.”“These people have fears,” Jumblat pointed
out on the sidelines of a PSP seminar titled “Lebanon and the Syria Refugees:
Rights, Concerns and Return Diplomacy”. “Who will guarantee a safe return for
them so that they don't get tortured and killed when they return?” he asked. And
voicing support for the Russian initiative on the repatriation of refugees, the
PSP leader said Moscow should “offer guarantees.”
Army Chief on Official Visit to Cyprus
Naharnet/March 18/19/Lebanese Forces Armed Commander General Joseph Aoun left on
Monday to Cyprus on an official visit leading a military delegation the National
News Agency reported on Monday. NNA said Aoun is traveling at the invitation of
the National Guard Chief, Lieutenant General Elias Leontaris. During the visit,
General Aoun will meet with military officials to discuss means of activating
the relationship and enhancing cooperation between the armies of the two
countries
Report: No Escalation Intended Say Mustaqbal, FPM
Naharnet/March 18/19/In light of reported tension between Prime Minister Saad
Hariri and Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil, assurances surfaced on Monday that
both have no intention to “escalate the situation or start a political battle”
with the other, al-Joumhouria daily reported on Monday. Sources close to Hariri,
of al-Mustaqbal Movement, confirmed to the daily that the prime minister “has no
intention of escalation and that he was not an initiator. He is keen on the
success of the government he heads, but he will not be silent on the distortion
of facts and political manipulation,” they said. “The intimidating rhetoric of
Bassil is very surprising and far from realistic,” they added on condition of
anonymity. “It falls within the framework of populism and signals the overthrow
of the government unless his proposals were met.”A major dispute reportedly
arose between Bassil and Hariri over the electricity file and the administrative
appointments. Reports said that Bassil wants to monopolize the appointments
disregarding other Christian parties which Hariri categorically rejects. In a
speech commemorating the March 14 anniversary, Bassil hinted at “toppling” the
government when addressing controversial issues.
Sources of the Free Patriotic Movement of Bassil told al-Joumhouria that the FPM
has no intention to initiate a political battle with al-Mustaqbal, but at the
same time “will not give up on our convictions and constants.”On Bassil’s speech
that included indirect threats of toppling the government, the sources
downplayed it and said: “Making hints of the possibility of changing the
government is a stimulus package primarily to avoid failure.”
Pompeo to Visit Lebanon, Kuwait and Israel this Week
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/March 18/19/U.S. diplomatic chief Mike Pompeo
travels to the Middle East this week stopping first in Kuwait, Israel, then
Lebanon in order to bolster efforts to push back against Iran. In Lebanon, where
Pompeo travels after Israel, one of the principal topics will be Hizbullah,
which the United States considers a terrorist group that works at Iran's behest.
Hizbullah is nonetheless a member of Prime Minister Saad Hariri's government, a
Washington ally. In Israel, Pompeo will meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
a close ally of Donald Trump's administration in the midst of a heated
re-election campaign. The common thing in each of those places is helping those
countries bolster their efforts to push back against the Islamic Republic of
Iran," Pompeo told Fox News.
The Trump administration has repeatedly clashed with Tehran, also an arch foe of
the Jewish state. In Jerusalem, Pompeo "will reaffirm both privately and
publicly during that visit our unwavering commitment to Israel's security and
its right to self-defense," a senior State Department official said.
Kataeb Party chief MP Sami Gemayel Asks Govt. about 'Hizbullah Border Tunnels'
Naharnet/March 18/19/Kataeb Party chief MP Sami Gemayel on Monday addressed a
parliamentary question to the government regarding the so-called Hizbullah
border tunnels in southern Lebanon. Gemayel asked whether “the necessary
investigations have been conducted to identify the side that bypassed the
Lebanese authorities and legitimacy represented in the Lebanese army and
security forces.”“What is the government's stance and what are the measures that
it intends to take to close the tunnels and prevent their reuse?” he added,
requesting “a written answer to the question within a 15-day deadline as per
Parliament's bylaws.”Gemayel based his question on “the Constitution articles
that put the armed forces and the decisions of peace and war under the Council
of Ministers' authority and on the penal code, which penalizes actions not
authorized by the government, in addition to U.N. Security Council 1701, which
emphasizes the need to extend the Lebanese government's authority across
Lebanon, especially in the area south of the Blue Line.”In January, Israel said
it concluded an operation to unearth and destroy tunnels which it accused
Hizbullah of digging across the border from Lebanon. Hizbullah chief Sayyed
Hassan Nasrallah acknowledged "there are tunnels in southern Lebanon," refusing
to specify who built them and when, and mocking Israel for taking "many years"
to find them. A month-long war in 2006 between Israel and Hizbullah killed more
than 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and more than 160 Israelis, mostly
soldiers.
Hariri's government faces its first serious
test
Bassem Ajami/Annahar/March 18/19
Less than one month after its formation, Prime Minister Saad Hariri's government
is facing its first serious test.
The government is composed of a loose coalition of political groups with
conflicting agendas on almost all issues. The most pressing issue, however, is
policy toward the repatriation of 1.5 million Syrian nationals who took refuge
in Lebanon to escape the civil war in their country. The Syrian refugees make
almost half of Lebanon's population.
The issue assumed prominence early on. Its significance arises not only from the
huge number of refugees it involves but also from the fact that it is entangled
with other questions each of which is explosive on its own. These include the
influence of Hezbollah in the country, relations with Syria, relations with Iran
and Arab countries, as well as ties with Russia, the United States and with the
international community.
Add to this volatile mix, the deteriorating state of the Lebanese economy, and a
not very pleasant picture emerges. And while Syrian refugees are also present in
large numbers in Jordan and Turkey, as well as in Germany, it is only in Lebanon
that their repatriation raises such complex issues.
For Syrians, 8 years of war leaves stories of loss and hope
All parties in Lebanon have declared their support for the repatriation of the
Syrian refugees. The divide, however, is between the pro-Syrian regime group,
which demands their immediate return, while those opposed to the regime argue
that it is latter which is preventing their return.
Last year, a procedure for their repatriation has been worked out by the chief
of the Lebanese Directorate of General Security. It involves sending lists of
the names of those wishing to return for approval by the the Syrian government.
Only a small fraction of those wishing to return has been approved. But why the
lists? Why should Syrian refugees who fled the civil war in their country need
permission to return to their homes?
"Because not all those who carry Syrian citizenship are Syrians," commented one
Lebanese pundit who supports the Bashar Assad's regime. Such response only
supports the argument of those who call for their voluntary repatriation subject
to a political solution. It lends credibility to their case that the Assad
regime aims at creating a demographic change in the country in order to
consolidate its grip on power.
Moreover, laws that were recently passed in Syria to confiscate properties
belonging to the "enemies of the state," as well as the regime's deliberate
destruction of official records, endorse such view. Still, the Syrian government
never showed any interest in the affairs of millions of its countrymen spread in
other countries. It never sent an emissary to investigate their situation in
Lebanon, or in any other country.
And while there is a functioning Syrian embassy in Beirut, neither the
ambassador nor any member of his staff bothered to visit or offer aid, to a
single refugee camp, out of the tens of camps scattered all over the country.
The embassy even refuses to register new-born Syrian children. The Assad regime
wants Lebanon to start talks with it about the repatriation of the Syrian
refugees. But why the talks?
Unlike most Arab countries, Lebanon never broke diplomatic relations with Syria.
The Syrian regime, which is boycotted by most countries, aims from such talks at
receiving recognition and legitimacy, as well as to bring back Lebanon into its
orbit. While the issue carries all the ingredients needed to bring down the
Hariri government, this is unlikely to happen immediately but it remains a
ticking bomb that could go off at any time, and cause the collapse of the
government.
Living with epilepsy: Hiba Khairallah's inspirational story of strength and
acceptance
Lili Gerges/Annahar/March 18/19
The most important thing, she believes, is how one deals with the disease.
BEIRUT: Hiba Khairallah, 28, had her first seizures when she suddenly fainted at
the age of 14. She had no clue about the disease and was too young to deal with
it. At that time, she perceived her disease as a barrier that would deprive her
of doing the things she loved. As a result, she decided not to accept it and to
challenge it, until things got worse.
Khairallah shared with us her struggle with epilepsy and, most importantly, the
light she found at the end of the tunnel.
She now fully understands her disease and lives with it in order to achieve her
dreams. However, that wasn’t always the case. "I wasn’t aware what epilepsy is,
I had never heard of it, even my parents didn’t know much about it. I thought it
was just a temporary illness and that I’ll be cured after a treatment,” she
recalls.She hadn’t known how long the treatment was and the long-term effect it
would have on her lifestyle. After a while, Khairallah discovered that she had
to continue her life-long treatment, recalling: “They told me you must be
treated your entire life to maintain a stable condition."
Angered by this sudden change, she no longer took her medication, which in turn
took a negative toll on her and resulted in having seizures twice a week, or
even more at times. She then decided to commit to the treatment, but the
medication had bothersome side affects, like weight gain, increased quivering,
and mood swings. “I’d get very angry and then suddenly calm down, I just
couldn’t accept my condition,” she recalls.
At such a young age, Khairallah had to abide by changes that she must be
committed to for the rest of her life. She was given a list of prohibitions like
smoking, drinking alcohol, listening to loud music, driving, and feeling intense
emotions. "It took me five years to accept my illness," she admits. "Then I
realized that my condition was serious and I hurt myself by not cooperating with
it. I was ruining my own life.”
She had two options; either to try a new drug that was more suitable for her or
undergo surgery. In the course of six years, three drugs were changed, and the
third drug was the one that had fewer side effects. After accepting her
condition, she began to pursue her dreams and go on with her life.
She enrolled in university to study business administration, but soon enough she
changed her major. "I wanted to study something I loved, ”she said and then
majored in interior design. However, this academic path wasn’t easy.
“I didn’t want to give up, but it was exhausting and I faced many work
obstacles, it wasn’t easy at all. I had to work under pressure and sometimes
work overtimes, so I quit." She remained unemployed until she decided to start a
new and healthy life. She decided to exercise regularly and started taking Zumba
classes. Three months later, everything changed.
"I worked hard on myself, I had a hidden talent. I found myself in this place
full of joy, songs and movement and forgot that I had epilepsy. The more I was
into Zumba, the more I forgot about the smallest details and events that
occurred in the past,” she says.
The most important thing, she believes, is how one deals with the disease.
"I treated myself like I was imprisoned by the drugs, but now I have Zumba to
thank for getting rid of the pressure and negativity and becoming myself again:
a life-loving person," she expresses.
Today, Khairallah is more accepting and is living harmoniously with epilepsy.
She found the right medication for her body and a job she loved. She’s working
on an organic product in addition to being a Zumba trainer in order to inspire
and encourage others. "Nothing can stop me now, I no longer tolerate loss. I’m
someone that doesn’t give up. The illness will always be there, but you have to
learn how to deal with it, live happily and forget that you ever had it,” she
tells Annahar.
*This article was translated by Joy Geryes.
Hezbollah's 1992 Attack in Argentina Is a
Warning for Modern-Day Europe
Matthew Levitt/The Atlantic/March 19/2013
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/hezbollahs-1992-attack-in-argentina-is-a-warning-for-modern-day-europe/274160/
Twenty-one years ago, a van blew up the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aries, and few
saw it coming. Here's how the EU can prevent similar tragedies.
Around 2:45 p.m. on March 17, 1992, a Ford F-100 panel van drove down Arroyo
Street in tranquil neighborhood of Buenos Aries. It approached the front of the
Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires--then drove up onto the sidewalk and blew up.
The explosion wreaked havoc up and down the street, destroying the front of the
building, causing the entire consulate building and part of the attached embassy
building to collapse. The 220 pounds of high explosives and shrapnel,
concentrated in the back right section of the vehicle, left twenty-three people
dead and another 242 injured. Most of the people killed and injured were in the
embassy but some were pedestrians, including a priest from the Roman Catholic
Church across the street and children at a nearby school.
Hezbollah's most recent international terrorist plots targeted Bulgaria and
Cyprus, EU member states on the continent's eastern periphery, prompting debate
over designating Hezbollah as a terrorist group at the EU. For those European
leaders who remain undecided, this week provides a timely reminder of what
happens when the international community fails to respond to Hezbollah
terrorism.
This week marks the 21st anniversary of the 1992 Israeli embassy bombing.
Failure to respond to that attack emboldened Hezbollah, which incurred no cost
for the attack. Two years later Hezbollah struck again, this time escalating
from a diplomatic to civilian target and blowing up the AMIA Jewish community
center in Buenos Aires.
Yaacov Perry, former director of the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), visited
Argentina just a week before the embassy bombing for liaison meetings with his
intelligence counterparts. At a polo match and luncheon, the intelligence chiefs
discussed "the menace posed by terrorists," though neither had any idea how
close the menace was or how soon it would be realized. Within days, Israeli
counterterrorism teams would be back in Buenos Aires investigating the embassy
bombing alongside Argentinean and American law enforcement and intelligence
experts. An American International Response Team, including U.S. explosives
experts, deployed to the site of the bombing and determined the type of
explosive used by examining the charred remnants of the car bomb. Within hours
of the bombing, investigators found the front section of the vehicle's engine
block in a garden below the staircase of an apartment building down the street.
In time, investigators would determine that the Ford van had been parked at a
parking lot located just a couple of blocks from the Israeli embassy for the
hour and a half immediately preceding the bombing--to be precise, from 1:18 p.m.
to 2:42 p.m., according to the stamp on the ticket. Three minutes after the
van's departure, the vehicle bomb exploded outside the embassy.
In its claim of responsibility, delivered to a Western news agency in Beirut,
Hezbollah's Islamic Jihad Organization declared "with all pride that the
operation of the martyr infant Hussein is one of our continuing strikes against
the criminal Israeli enemy in an open-ended war, which will not cease until
Israel is wiped out of existence." Hussein was the five-year-old son of
Hezbollah leader Abbas Moussawi, both of whom were killed in an Israeli air
strike on his car on February 16, 1992. Speaking at Moussawi's funeral,
Hezbollah leader Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah warned that "Israel will not
escape vengeance. We have received the message that there is no need to respond
in an emotional fashion." Fadlallah assured his listeners in another statement
that "there would be much more violence and much more blood would flow."
The CIA noted in a July 1992 intelligence report that Hezbollah held the United
States and Israel equally responsible for Moussawi's death and threatened to
target American interests in retaliation. According to the CIA, this was no
empty threat: "Hezbollah elements began planning a retaliatory operation against
U.S. interests in Lebanon shortly after Moussawi's death." Hezbollah, the CIA
reminded policymakers in a July 1992 report, had executed two successful attacks
targeting U.S. interests in Lebanon the previous year--firing missiles at the
U.S. embassy on October 29, 1991, and destroying the administration building at
the American University of Beirut in a car bombing on November 8, 1991.
These plans never did materialize, perhaps because Hezbollah was supremely
focused on an attack it was planning well beyond Lebanon's borders. Just eight
days after the assassination, the vehicle used in the embassy bombing was
purchased in Buenos Aires by an individual with a Portuguese accent who signed
documents with a last name different from the one on his identification. Three
weeks later, the embassy was in ruins. The speed at which the operation was
executed is easier to understand, however, in light of evidence that Iran
decided to carry out an operation in Argentina well before Moussawi was killed.
Mohsen Rabbani--an Iranian operative based in Buenos Aires who would play a key
role in the bombing--spent ten months in Iran from January to December 1991.
According to Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman, Hezbollah used the Moussawi
assassination to justify the embassy bombing to its supporters, but the attack
was carried out at the behest of Tehran in response to Argentina's suspension of
nuclear cooperation with Iran.
Now, as then, the strategic relationship between Hezbollah and Iran is resulting
in a campaign of terrorism across the globe. Hezbollah seeks to murder Israeli
tourists, often targeting them in places frequented by American and other
tourists, while Iran has set its sights on Western diplomats, including
American, British, Israeli, Saudi and other officials. Thankfully, the only
successful attack to date was in Bulgaria, where a Hezbollah bus bombing killed
five Israelis and a Bulgarian. Two weeks earlier, a Swedish Hezbollah operative
was arrested in Cyprus, where he was surveilling Israeli tourists boarding buses
at the airport. Hezbollah is watching Europe closely, much as it watched
Argentina 21 years ago this week. Argentina failed to respond to Hezbollah's
challenge then, and suffered the repercussions two years later. Europe has an
opportunity now to avoid that same mistake and should designate Hezbollah--in
whole or in part--a terrorist group for executing terrorist plots in Europe.
History suggests that failure to do so could result in still more attacks by an
emboldened Hezbollah.
**MATTHEW LEVITT is the Fromer-Wexler Fellow at the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy and the author of Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's
Party of God.
*Picture enclosed: Rescue workers scour the rubble of the Israeli embassy in
Buenos Aires on March 17, 1992. (Don Rypka/AP Images)
Latest LCCC English
Miscellaneous Reports & News published
on March 18-19/2019
Dutch police hunting gunman who killed 3 in rush
hour tram terror attack
A/P/March 18/19
UTRECHT, Netherlands -- Dutch police were hunting down a suspect after a
shooting Monday on a tram in the central Dutch city of Utrecht that left three
people dead and multiple others wounded. Authorities immediately raised the
terror alert for the area to the maximum level and said they were considering
the possibility of a "terrorist motive" in the attack. Dutch military police
went on extra alert at airports and at key buildings in the country as the
manhunt in Utrecht took place. Utrecht Mayor Jan van Zanen said that a "terror
motive" was the most plausible reason behind the deadly attack. A few hours
after the shooting, Utrecht police released a photo of a 37-year-old man born in
Turkey who they said was "associated with the incident." The photo showed a
bearded man on board a tram, dressed in a dark blue hooded top. Police warned
citizens not to approach the man, whom they identified as Gokman Tanis, but call
the authorities instead. Police, including heavily armed officers, flooded the
area after the shooting Monday morning on a tram at a busy traffic intersection
in a residential neighborhood. They later erected a white tent over an area
where a body appeared to be lying next to the tram. Authorities didn't say
exactly how many people were injured. Utrecht police said trauma helicopters
were sent to the scene and appealed to the public to stay away. Heavily armed
anti-terror officers gathered in front of an apartment block close to the scene.
"Our nation was hit by an attack in Utrecht," Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte
said. He said that "a terror motive is not excluded. Rutte said that, throughout
the country, "there is a mix of disbelief and disgust.""If it is a terror attack
then we have only one answer: our nation, democracy must be stronger that
fanaticism and violence," he added. Police spokesman Bernhard Jens said one
possibility "is that the person fled by car." He did not rule out the
possibility that more than one shooter was involved. The Netherlands'
anti-terror coordinator raised the threat alert to its highest level around
Utrecht, a city of nearly 350,000 people. Pieter-Jaap Aalbersberg said the
"threat level has gone to 5, exclusively for the Utrecht province." Dutch
political parties halted campaigning ahead of provincial elections scheduled for
Wednesday that will also determine the makeup of the Dutch parliament's upper
house. In neighboring Germany, police said they had stepped up surveillance of
the Dutch border. Heinrich Onstein, a spokesman for federal police in North
Rhine-Westphalia state, said additional officers had been detailed to watch not
only major highways, but also minor crossings and railway routes. German
authorities were initially told to look out for a red Renault Clio compact
sedan, but were later informed it had been found abandoned in Utrecht, Onstein
said.
Iran's Rouhani Calls on Judiciary to Sue US for Crimes
Against Humanity
Asharq Al Awsat/March 18/19/Iranian President Hassan Rouhani urged the judiciary
to sue US authorities and the “architects of sanctions for crimes against
humanity”, saying that the sanctions aimed to “divide” the Iranians.
The attack on US policies was the focus of two speeches Rouhani gave during his
visit to the southern port of Bushehr to inaugurate four new phases of South
Pars, the world’s largest gas field. Rouhani said his government intended to
file a legal suit against the United States, explaining it must first be filed
with Iranian judiciary, before heading to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Last October, ICJ ruled in favor of Iran and ordered the United States to
refrain from imposing sanctions on humanitarian goods, including food and
medicine. In another speech, Rouhani said that under ICJ decision, the United
States has no right to impose sanctions, accusing the administration of blocking
food, medicine and agricultural products from Iranians. The President tried to
blame Washington for his country’s economic crisis, saying Iran had seen a drop
in prices and unemployment rates with increased investment at the beginning of
his presidency. US must know it will not achieve its goal, because the “Iranian
people will not give in to pressure," asserted Rouhani. “We will stand strong in
these conditions until Americans understand that they have taken the wrong path,
and they have to know that they have to respect the great Iranian nation”. In
his first statement since his return from his visit to Iraq, Rouhani asserted
the relations with neighboring countries are in the interest of all the people
of the region, claiming at the same time that these relations “harm the United
States and its ally Israel.”
Rouhani praised the newly-established cooperation between the Iranian Oil
Ministry and Khatam Al-Anbiya Group (IRGC-KAA) and the economic arm of Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), describing it as a severe blow to the
country’s enemies. The President also tried to respond to critics of his
government's policies, with several officials calling for a vote of confidence
because of the deteriorating economic and living conditions. “The enemies of
Iran, especially the Americans, should know that even if we do not achieve
anything within five years, we will be able to increase the production of
gasoline from 52 million in 2013 to more than 101 million.”On Sunday, state TV
quoted the CEO of the South Pars gas field company, Mohammad Meshkinfam, as
saying the development will allow Iran to overtake Qatar in the production of
natural gas. Rouhani presided over the inauguration of four projects with a
total annual investment of $5 billion. Each will produce an additional 56
million cubic meters of natural gas and 75,000 barrels of condensate per day.
Iran currently produces more than 600 million cubic meters of gas and 200,000
barrels of condensate per day. Commander of IRGC-KAA Saeed Mohammed, disclosed
the investment of $12 billion in the South Pars field, according to
semi-official Tasnim agency. Mohammed noted that Iran was able to implement the
project at the time of “unfair sanctions.”
The IRGC top official asserted his forces support the government in the
comprehensive economic war. In another news, Foreign Minister Mohammad Jawad
Zarif arrived in Qom for a one-day visit during which he will hold talks with a
number of senior clerics and take part at an administrative council meeting in
the city. This comes days after his meeting with the Iraqi Supreme Shiite cleric
Ali al-Sistani. The Ministry did not reveal the reasons for Zarif's sudden visit
to the city, but its timing may be interpreted as a step to reassure the Iranian
religious authorities in light of the alleged disagreement over the position
regarding Wilayat al-Faqih. In another context, the EU needs to guarantee oil
purchase from Iran if it wants Iran to ratify the bills required by FATF, the
Financial Action Task Force, IRNA quoted Secretary of Iran's Expediency
Discernment Council, Mohsen Rezaei. Rezaei did not specify the guarantees Iran
wanted, but said that the Europeans pledged in the nuclear agreement to buy
Iran's oil and allow the establishment of bank branches and exchanges with Iran,
but so far they have not done so. The Secretary claimed European officials
insist on passing regulations to the Palermo and FATF agreements, but the
Expediency Council asserts that it is within the best interest of the regime to
receive ensured guarantees from European countries first.
Iran Sentences US Navy Veteran to 10 Years in Jail
London - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 18 March, 2019/A US Navy veteran has been
sentenced to 10 years in an Iranian prison, his family’s lawyer said, after he
was arrested last July while visiting an Iranian woman in the city of Mashhad.
Michael White, 46, was convicted of two charges, insulting the country’s top
leader and posting a private photograph publicly, in separate hearings on March
6 and March 9, according to the lawyer, Mark Zaid. The basis for the first
charge is not yet clear. The second charge appears to have been leveled after
White uploaded a picture of himself sitting with the woman, an Iranian national,
Zaid said, according to Reuters. Iranian authorities have not released details
of the charges. The US State Department said it was aware of White’s detention,
but added that it could not provide additional information because of “privacy
considerations.”“We are aware of the detention of a US citizen in Iran,” a State
Department official said. “We have no higher priority than the safety and
security of US citizens abroad.”The family learned of the sentence earlier this
week from the State Department, which in turn received the information from
Swiss diplomats. The Swiss represent US interests in Iran because the countries
do not maintain diplomatic ties. White, a California native, served 13 years in
the Navy. The family and the State Department are still trying to determine
whether the charges are politically motivated or the result of a criminal
prosecution, Zaid said. “It’s been very unclear,” he added. White’s arrest has
further strained the difficult relationship between the Trump administration and
Iran, which worsened after US President Donald Trump withdrew from an
international agreement curbing Iran’s nuclear program and re-imposed sanctions.
The Iranian regime has imprisoned several other American citizens in recent
years, including father-and-son Baquer and Siamak Namazi, and Xiyue Wang. All
three were accused of espionage-related activities and have denied the
allegations. The United Nations has condemned the prosecutions as unjust, and
Trump has demanded that Iran release all US citizens in custody. Also in an
Iranian prison is Nizar Zakka, a US permanent resident from Lebanon who
advocated for internet freedom and has done work for the US government. He was
sentenced to 10 years on espionage-related charges. Since January, when Iran
first confirmed White’s arrest, he has not been permitted to contact his family,
Zaid said. His court-appointed lawyer for the two hearings did not speak
English, Zaid said, adding that the family is working on hiring an Iranian
lawyer to handle White’s appeal.
Iran recalls ambassador to Kenya over court case
Reuters, Geneva/Sunday, 17 March 2019/Iran recalled its ambassador to Kenya
because of a court decision upholding sentences for two Iranians in jail,
foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi said Sunday, according to the Iranian
Students’ News Agency. Iran also lodged a formal complaint with the Kenyan
ambassador in Tehran on Saturday because of the Kenyan court decision in the
case of Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed and Sayed Mansour Mousavi. In 2016, a Kenyan
judge reduced the life sentences given to the two Iranians convicted of planning
bomb attacks to 15 years. The case raised concerns about possible Iranian plans
to strike targets in the east African nation. The two were arrested in June 2012
and convicted a year later of planning attacks and possessing 15 kg of
military-grade RDX explosives.The men may have had links to the Quds Force, the
elite extra-territorial special forces arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards,
Kenyan investigators have said. The men were scheduled to be freed before the
Kenyan court upheld their sentences on Friday, Qassemi said.
Iran denies Turkish statement on a joint
raid against PKK militants
Agencies/Monday, 18 March 2019/Iran has denied the Turkish Interior Minister’s
comments on Tehran and Ankara carrying out a joint operation against Kurdistan
Workers’ Party (PKK) militants. Earlier in the day, state-run Anadolu news
agency quoted Turkish Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu as saying that Turkey
staged a joint operation with Iran against the PKK on the country’s eastern
border. Turkey has recently talked about a possible joint operation with
neighbor Iran to counter outlawed militants from the PKK, but it appears that
this is the first time Turkish authorities have confirmed a raid. Soylu did not
specify precisely which PKK bases the planned operation targeted, but Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has in the past said it would be against militant
hideouts in Iraq. The Turkish military has often bombed PKK bases in Iraq’s
mountainous northern regions as part of its decades-long operations against the
group. Iranian security forces have also fought the PKK affiliate, the Party of
Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK). Both groups have rear bases in neighboring Iraq.
Syrian Man Goes on Trial over Germany Stabbing
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 18 March, 2019/A 22-year-old Syrian asylum-seeker has
gone on trial in Germany over the fatal stabbing in August of a German that
touched off far-right protests in the eastern city of Chemnitz. German news
agency dpa reported that the trial opened Monday at the state court in nearby
Dresden, where it is taking place because of security concerns. The defendant is
identified only as Alaa S. in line with German privacy rules. Prosecutors say
Alaa S. came to the aid of an Iraqi man who fell while fighting the victim
identified as Daniel H., 35. The public prosecutor accuses the Syrian of having
committed "manslaughter and grievous bodily harm" together with another person.
The indictment builds on evidence given by one witness, who claims to have seen
Alaa S. make stabbing motions. Yet the witness does not recall seeing an actual
knife. Alaa S. insists he is innocent and was not at the scene of the crime when
it happened. The Iraqi suspect is being sought on an international arrest
warrant. The incident sent a shock wave through Chemnitz where thousands of
neo-Nazis and others assembled to protest migration.
US denies report it is leaving up to 1,000 troops in Syria
AFP, Washington/Monday, 18 March 2019/The United States strongly denied Sunday a
report that it intended to leave almost 1,000 troops in Syria, adding plans for
a residual force of around 200 troops had not changed. The Wall Street Journal
had reported Sunday that as talks with Turkey, US-backed Kurdish forces and
European allies have failed to produce a deal on a “safe zone” in northeastern
Syria, the US now intended to keep working with Kurdish fighters in the country.
It quoted US officials as saying the plan could see up to 1,000 US forces spread
across the country. “A claim reported this evening by a major US newspaper that
the US military is developing plans to keep nearly 1,000 US troops in Syria is
factually incorrect,” General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, said in a statement. “There has been no change to the plan announced in
February and we continue to implement the President’s direction to draw down US
forces to a residual presence.”But he added the US was continuing to “conduct
detailed military planning with the Turkish General Staff to address Turkish
security concerns along the Turkey-Syria border.”“Planning to date has been
productive and we have an initial concept that will be refined in the coming
days,” he said. “We are also conducting planning with other members of the
Coalition who have indicated an intent to support the transition phase of
operations into Syria.”President Donald Trump had abruptly announced in December
the immediate and complete withdrawal of the 2,000 US troops deployed in
northeastern Syria, declaring victory against ISIS. The decision prompted his
defense secretary Jim Mattis to quit. Then, under pressure from Congress and the
Pentagon, he agreed to leave a residual force of some 200 US troops, which he
wants to be reinforced by allies in the anti-ISIS coalition. An objective of the
international force is to guarantee the security of its Syrian Kurd allies.
Turkey, a NATO member, views the Kurdish combatants as terrorists, and the
Europeans fear they would be vulnerable if Ankara launched an offensive.
Syrian government vows to bring
Kurdish-held areas back under control
Reuters, Beirut/Monday, 18 March 2019/The Syrian government said on Monday areas
held by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) would be brought back under
its control through military force or the kind of “reconciliation
agreements”.“The only card remaining in the hands of the Americans and their
allies is the SDF, and it will be dealt with through the two methods used by the
Syrian state: National reconciliation or the liberation of the areas that they
control through force,” Syrian Defense Minister General Ali Abdullah Ayoub said.
“The Americans must leave and will leave,” he added.
Large areas of Syria have been brought back under government control through
“reconciliation agreements” that have typically been concluded after the
military defeat of rebel forces.
Christchurch Dealer who Sold Arms to Mosque Attacker
Rejects Responsibility
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 18 March, 2019/The New Zealand arms dealer who sold
weapons to the 28-year-old mosque attacker said Monday he felt no responsibility
for the deaths of 50 worshipers who were gunned down. David Tipple, the managing
director of Gun City, confirmed he sold gunman Brenton Tarrant four firearms and
ammunition through a "police-verified online mail order process.""We detected
nothing extraordinary about this licence holder," Tipple told a press conference
in Christchurch. Tipple refused to answer direct questions about the use of
firearms sold from his shop, indicating this was not the time for a debate about
guns. Asked if he held any sense of responsibility, Tipple said: "No, I do
not."He added he would continue to sell weapons to anyone with the same
credentials as the gunman. It was the responsibility of the police to vet
firearms license applications, he said. Latest available statistics show police
approved 99.6 percent of nearly 45,000 applications in 2017 when Tarrant
received his license. Tipple said the military-style semi-automatic (MSSA) the
gunman was seen using did not come from his store. "We didn't sell him a rifle
used in the incident. I watched the video, I saw the rifle, and I know for sure
where it came from -- if it has the serial number that I expect -- and it was
not from any Gun City affiliated store," he said. Tarrant obtained his standard
"A-category" firearms license in November 2017 and bought four weapons over four
months using an online service, Tipple said, adding Gun City had records of the
purchases and had provided full details to the police. Separately, New Zealand's
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said gun law reforms would be announced within 10
days and an inquiry conducted into intelligence and security services who failed
to detect the risk from the attacker or his plans. The police commissioner Mike
Bush said police are certain Tarrant was the only gunman but aren't ruling out
that he had support. "I would like to state that we believe absolutely there was
only one attacker responsible for this," he told a news conference. "That
doesn't mean there weren't possibly other people in support and that continues
to form a very, very important part of our investigation."Thousands of people
struggling to make sense of the tragedy have paid tribute to the victims at
makeshift memorials in Christchurch.
Second Israeli Dies after West Bank Attack
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 18 March, 2019/A second Israeli died on Monday from
wounds he sustained during a Palestinian attack a day earlier in the occupied
West Bank. Rabbi Achiad Ettinger, 47, was a father of 12 and a resident of a
Jewish settlement in the West Bank. He was shot on Sunday shortly after a
soldier was stabbed to death at an intersection on a busy highway in the
territory. The Palestinian assailant used the 19-year-old conscript’s rifle to
fire at the rabbi and wound a second soldier before fleeing in a hijacked car,
Israeli officials said. A spokeswoman at Beilinson hospital near Tel Aviv
announced Ettinger’s death. He was the head of a religious seminary in Tel Aviv.
“The people of Israel are mourning the murder of Rabbi Achiad Ettinger,” Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote on Twitter. Israeli troops went house to house
overnight in search of the assailant, identified as a 19-year-old Palestinian
with no known affiliation with a militant organization. The military said it had
surveyed his home for future demolition. Israel often demolishes homes of
alleged Palestinian assailants or their families as a policy it says deters
future attacks. On Sunday, Culture Minister Miri Regev, one of Netanyahu’s most
outspoken supporters in his right-wing Likud, seized on the incident to attack
his strongest challenger in the April 9 election, former armed forces chief
Benny Gantz. Regev said Gantz, who heads the centrist Blue and White party,
would seek the support of an Arab legislator whom she accused of inciting
Palestinian violence. Gantz accused Regev of using Israeli deaths for “political
propaganda”. Sunday's attack came after two Palestinians were killed by Israeli
fire last week in separate West Bank incidents that followed a period of
relative calm, even as the Israeli military has been warning of the potential of
a new escalation of violence. Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Middle
East war. Palestinians seek to establish a state there and in the Gaza Strip,
with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israeli-Palestinian peace talks collapsed in
2014. Tensions have also been high along the Israel-Gaza border where
Palestinians have been holding weekly protests in support of a right of return
to lands in Israel from which they fled or were forced to leave in the war over
Israel’s creation in 1948. On Thursday, Palestinians in Hamas-ruled Gaza fired
two rockets at Tel Aviv, causing no damage or injuries. Israel responded with
air strikes against Hamas targets. The incidents have highlighted security as an
election issue, with both Netanyahu and Gantz promoting themselves as the best
qualified to defend Israel.
Hamas Arrests Dozens of Protesters in Gaza
Ramallah - Kifah Zboun/Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 18 March, 2019/Fierce clashes
have erupted between Hamas movement forces and hundreds of demonstrators
protesting the high cost of living in the Gaza Strip and taxes on basic
products. Since Thursday, hundreds of Palestinians have taken to the streets in
multiple locations throughout the enclave. But the movement has cracked down on
protesters, using force to disperse them and arresting dozens, including
journalists and human rights activists. Fatah movement accused Hamas of
targeting and storming the houses of its members and threatening their families.
Hamas forces have also stormed al-Azhar University in the Strip and arrested a
number of students. In a statement, the university stressed that faculties are
for studying and education, demanding respect for the sanctity of educational
institutions. Among those arrested was director of the Palestinian Broadcasting
Corporation (PBC) in Gaza Rafat al-Qudra. In a statement, the Corporation said
Hamas had kidnapped the station’s director and “crossed all red lines,” calling
for the immediate release of Qudra and all detainees, especially journalists.
The Journalists Syndicate said it had documented 36 violations by Hamas members
against journalists in the Palestinian enclave in the past two days. The
syndicate said in a statement on Sunday that since the start of the protests, 17
demonstrators were arrested and only 10 were released. Four required
hospitalization. It said it had documented instances where security forces had
beaten journalists and had confiscated their cellphones and equipment. The union
registered six summonses, four cases of intimidation, and two house arrests for
four days. It condemned the Hamas crackdown, especially the arrest of Osama al-Kahlout
who was beaten by the security forces and held for four days. The Palestinian
Authority also made a condemnation, saying it backed all Palestinian factions,
except for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, in their demands as part of the “We Want to
Live” movement launched by activists. The UN Mideast envoy, Nickolay Mladenov,
denounced the arrests and use of violence “against protesters, including women
and children, in Gaza over the past three days.”He warned he was “particularly
alarmed by the brutal beating” of journalists and staff from the Independent
Commission for Human Rights (ICHR) and the raiding of homes. “The long-suffering
people of Gaza were protesting the dire economic situation and demanded an
improvement in the quality of life in the Gaza Strip”, said the Special
Coordinator, adding that it was their right to protest without fear of reprisal.
“The United Nations will continue its efforts to avoid escalation, relieve the
suffering of people in Gaza, lift the closures, and support reconciliation.”
Israel Strips Land of Minerals, Deprives Palestinians of Clean Water- UN
Geneva- Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 18 March, 2019 /Israel is depriving millions of
Palestinians of access to a regular supply of clean water while stripping their
land of minerals “in an apparent act of pillage”, a United Nations human rights
investigator said on Monday. Michael Lynk, UN special rapporteur on human rights
in the Palestinian territories, said that Israel “continues full-steam with
settlement expansion” in the West Bank, which the United Nations and many
countries deem illegal. There are some 20-25,000 new settlers a year, he said.
He was addressing the UN Human Rights Council, whose debate Israel’s delegation
boycotted due to what it considers a deep bias against it. “In his latest
farcical report, Mr. Lynk stoops to a new low and (accuses) the Jewish State of
stealing,” Israel’s mission in Geneva said in a statement to Reuters. It accused
Lynk of being a “known Palestinian advocate”. Israel’s main ally, the United
States, quit the 47-member forum last year, also accusing it of an anti-Israel
slant. “In Gaza, the collapse of the coastal aquifer, the only natural source of
drinking water in the Strip and now almost entirely unfit for human consumption,
is contributing to a significant health crisis among the two million
Palestinians living there,” Lynk said. Despite the withdrawal of Israeli
settlers and troops from Gaza in 2005, it has maintained a “hermetic seal of
air, sea and land blockade” around the coastal enclave, he said. An
internationally-sponsored $567 million plan has been agreed to address Gaza’s
acute shortage of clean water by constructing desalination plants, but analysts
say its realization is years away. “For nearly five million Palestinians living
under occupation, the degradation of their water supply, the exploitation of
their natural resources and the defacing of their environment are symptomatic of
the lack of any meaningful control they have over their daily lives,” Lynk said.
In the West Bank, Israeli quarry companies extract some 17 million tonnes of
stone each year, “notwithstanding strict prohibitions in international law
against a military power economically exploiting an occupied territory”, Lynk
said. “The Dead Sea and its plentiful natural resources, part of which lies
within the occupied Palestinian territory, is off-limits to any Palestinian
development while Israeli companies are permitted to harvest the minerals in an
apparent act of pillage,” he added. Israeli authorities have said in the past
that Palestinian quarries were ordered shut because they posed safety and
environmental risks. Palestinian Ambassador Ibrahim Khraishi called for Israel
to halt what he said was theft of Palestinian property. “Israel must stop this
pillaging, what Israel is doing in the occupied territories is very far from its
obligations under international law and treaties,” he said. “This is more even
than apartheid.”
Israel’s top court disqualifies
far-rightist, approves Arab party for ballot
Reuters, Jerusalem/Monday, 18 March 2019/Israel’s top court disqualified on
Sunday a far-right Jewish politician from next month’s national election and
approved the candidacy of a disputed Arab party, overturning March 6 decisions
by the election board, a court statement said.
The Supreme Court rulings were widely expected and unlikely to shake Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to craft a rightist alliance that might
secure him a record fifth term. But they deepened the vitriol of a campaign in
which his camp has cast itself as the victim of judicial over-reach and media
bias, and has in turn been accused by center-left rivals of race-baiting and
fear-mongering. The court found in favor of appellants who argued that Michael
Ben-Ari of the Jewish Power party had displayed anti-Arab racism. That view was
backed by Israel’s attorney-general. Other members of Jewish Power, a small
faction that is part of an ultra-nationalist list which last month forged an
election alliance with Netanyahu’s Likud party, remain eligible to run. The
Central Elections Committee, a monitoring body made up of delegates of parties
in the current parliament, last month approved Ben-Ari’s candidacy while
disqualifying Raam-Balad, a joint party list representing some of Israel’s 20
percent Arab minority. Israel has in the past prosecuted two Balad figures for
contacts with Palestinian militants and accused a former party leader of helping
Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon war. The court voided the ban on Raam-Balad, a
mix of Islamists and Arab nationalists which describes itself as a democratic
movement.
Newcomer
Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, a fellow rightist in Netanyahu’s outgoing
coalition, said in a statement that the court’s blocking of Ben-Ari “while
declaring terror-backing parties kosher is a crass and misguided interference in
the heart of Israeli democracy.” Netanyahu’s bid for reelection has been
challenged by a centrist newcomer, former armed forces chief Benny Gantz. Their
escalating exchanges of allegations have included corruption, bigotry, forsaking
national security and abetting Israel’s foes. The premier’s partnership with
Jewish Power also drew rare censure from the US pro-Israel lobby and normally
staunch Netanyahu backer AIPAC, which branded the party “racist and
reprehensible.”A poll aired by public broadcaster Kan on Sunday put Likud
narrowly in the lead to form the next coalition government with a projected 31
of parliament’s 120 seats against 30 for Gantz’s Blue and White party. If
re-elected, Netanyahu will become Israel’s longest-serving premier in July. That
bid was dealt an unprecedented blow last month when Attorney-General Avichai
Mandelblit announced a plan to indict Netanyahu for bribery and breach of trust.
Netanyahu denies wrongdoing and could forestall formal charges in a review
hearing after the election. Raam-Balad, which held eight seats in the last
parliament, said the Supreme Court had upheld its “fundamental right to
represent our electorate while Netanyahu and Gantz compete to see who can incite
more powerfully against the Arab public.”
Jordanian MPs call for expulsion of Israeli envoy over al-Aqsa dispute
AFP, Amman/Monday, 18 March 2019/Jordanian lawmakers on Monday sought to expel
the Israeli ambassador from the kingdom in response to “ongoing Israeli
aggression” at holy sites in Jerusalem. Amman is the official custodian of
Jerusalem’s holy Muslim sites. The parliamentary session followed an Israeli
court ruling on the al-Aqsa mosque compound. “The parliament recommended the
government recall the Jordanian ambassador from Israel and expel the Israeli
ambassador from Amman to confront the ongoing Israeli aggression at holy sites
in occupied Jerusalem,” reported the official Petra news agency. Lawmakers also
called on the government to address the UN Security Council about “stopping
Israeli violations and protecting the Palestinian people.”Jordan is the only
Arab country apart from Egypt to have a peace deal with Israel. But the treaty
is overwhelmingly opposed by Jordanians, more than half of whom are of
Palestinian origin. On Sunday, an Israeli court ordered the temporary closure of
a side building known as the Golden Gate at the al-Aqsa mosque compound, known
to Jews as the Temple Mount. Jordan condemned the court ruling, with its foreign
ministry saying that Israel would bear “full responsibility for the dangerous
consequences” of the decision. There have in recent weeks been scuffles between
Palestinian worshippers and Israeli police at the site over the use of the side
building. Palestinian worshippers have been entering the site and praying there
despite an Israeli order that it should stay closed. Israel shut access to the
site known as Bab al-Rahma (Gate of Mercy or Golden Gate) at the al-Aqsa mosque
compound in 2003 during the second Palestinian intifada over alleged militant
activity there. Palestinian officials argue that the organization that prompted
the ban no longer exists and there is no reason for it to remain closed. Al-Aqsa
is located in east Jerusalem, occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and
later annexed in a move never recognized by the international community. Israel
sees the entire city as its capital, while the Palestinians view the eastern
sector - where key holy sites for Christians, Muslims and Jews are located - as
the capital of their future state.
NZ Cabinet Agrees Tougher Gun Laws in 'Principle'
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/March 18/19/New Zealand's cabinet agreed measures
to tighten gun control laws "in principle" Monday, just days after a deadly mass
shooting killed more than 50 people. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said details
of the measures would be rolled out before a cabinet meeting next Monday, saying
"the time to act is now". Ardern also announced an inquiry into Friday's twin
mosque attack in Christchurch, which raised questions about how the suspected
gunman -- a white supremacist -- was not picked up by intelligence agencies.
Although details have yet to be hashed out, the speed of New Zealand's move has
resonated around the world -- particularly in the United States, where reforms
have spluttered for decades, and similar debates are re-run after each new mass
shooting. It took us 72 hours, Ardern said. "We have made a decision as a
cabinet, we are unified," she added, flanked by her coalition partner and deputy
prime minister, Winston Peters. Peters, whose New Zealand First party has
previously opposed changes, said he backed the prime minister fully. "The
reality is that after one pm on Friday our world changed forever and so will our
laws," he said.
Egypt’s Sisi Admits to Previous Crisis in Communicating
with Youths
Aswan - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 18 March, 2019/President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi
admitted on Sunday to a past problem in communicating with youths in Egypt,
where they represent a third of the population of the Arab world’s most populous
country. Youth forums are great opportunities for the state and the youths to
raise topics and discussions that concern them, he said during a speech at the
Arab and African Youth Platform in Aswan. He revealed that since coming to
office in 2014, he had mulled the possibility of holding weekly televised
meetings with youths, but he deemed them “insufficient”.
Then one day, a youth floated the idea of holding a platform, which led to the
organization of the inaugural national youth conference in 2016. On Saturday,
Sisi inaugurated the Arab and African Youth Platform in Aswan, the capital for
African youth, with the participation of 1,500 youths from 25 countries. The
event is part of a series of platforms held by the World Youth Forum, which was
launched in Egypt two years ago. Minister of Youth and Sports Ashraf Sobhi told
Asharq Al-Awsat that these conferences have become a means for national and even
international dialogue to discuss challenges and opportunities.
Sobhi said that with each conference come new recommendations and ideas that are
built up and “herein lies the importance of the platform.”Since its launch in
2017, the World Youth Forum now boasts a network of up to 500,000 members from
193 countries, revealed forum Public Coordinator Aya Ateya.
The platform is set to unveil a series of cultural and youth events that will be
hosted by Aswan throughout Egypt’s chairing of the African Union for 2019.
UN Envoy in Damascus for Talks on Political Settlement
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 18 March, 2019/UN special envoy to Syria Geir Pedersen
arrived in Damascus Sunday on a three-day visit to meet with regime officials to
discuss efforts to form a Constitutional Committee. Speaking to reporters from
the Syrian Foreign Ministry, he vowed to continue to exert efforts to see the
implementation of UN Security Council resolution 2254 that calls for a ceasefire
and political settlement to Syria’s crisis. He met with Foreign Minister Walid
al-Muallem, who expressed Syria's readiness to cooperate with Pedersen to
facilitate a political solution, the state news agency SANA said. But he said
that the political process, including talks over a new constitution, should be
"Syrian-led and -owned". Last month the envoy said in Geneva that he saw a
constitutional committee as "the potential door-opener for the political
process". The committee would be tasked with drawing up a post-war constitution.
Pedersen faces the same difficulties as his predecessor, Staffan de Mistura, in
reviving negotiations to resolve the crisis. Before departing his post last
year, de Mistura focused his efforts on forming the Constitutional Committee
that was proposed by Damascus’ allies, Russia and Iran, and opposition-backer
Turkey. The 150-member committee is intended to represent the regime, the
opposition and civil society and is seen by the UN as key to holding free
elections and ending the war in Syria, which entered its ninth year this week.
Objections over the potential candidates submitted by concerned powers have,
however, stalled its formation. Damascus has been particularly vocal over the
latest list of candidates presented by the UN.
Yemeni Government Renews Call for UN Offices Move to Aden
Aden - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 18 March, 2019/Yemen's deputy foreign minister,
Mohammad al-Hadrami, stressed the need to relocate all United Nations offices
from Houthi-held areas to Yemen’s temporary capital of Aden, where the
legitimate government is established, in order to avoid coming under pressure by
the militias. Hadrami made his remarks during a meeting with UN official, Marwan
Ali, and in line with the government's unwavering policy to support peacemaking
efforts exerted by the international body. He also stressed the need for the
United Nations to play its role in implementing international resolutions, and
exposing all parties working to impede the progress of the UN-brokered Stockholm
Agreement signed between Yemen’s warring sides last December. According to the
state news agency Saba, Hadrami discussed with Ali procedures designed to
facilitate the work of the Office of the UN Special Envoy to Yemen in Aden and
ongoing developments in the Yemeni peace process, including the implementation
of the Stockholm Agreement. Hadrami said that the presence of UN bureaus in Aden
is important, adding that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is willing to ease
transition and field work conduct, stressing the long-vowed government efforts
to cooperate with peacemaking efforts and facilitate the work of UN offices. He
explained that the insurgents failing to cooperate on the prisoners’ swap, a
condition listed within the Stockholm Agreement, calls for serious pressure to
be exerted by the international community to solicit compliance from Houthis.
The Iran-backed militias, according to Hadrami, dodged, violated and
renegotiated the UN-sponsored agreement every chance they got. In light of such
intransigence, Hadrami, along with many Yemeni officials, believe that Houthis
are not serious about establishing peace.
As for moving UN offices to government-controlled areas, the Yemeni official
cited a statement by the body’s World Food Program (WFP) acknowledging that most
humanitarian assistance deployed in Houthi-dominated areas fails to make its way
to the poor and needy due to unconstrained and bureaucratic corruption plaguing
the insurgents.
Turkey, Iran launch joint raid against
Kurdish militants
AFP, Istanbul /Monday, 18 March 2019/Turkey and Iran on Monday started a joint
military operation against Kurdish militants on Turkey’s eastern border,
state-run Anadolu news agency quoted the interior minister as saying. Turkey has
recently talked about a possible joint operation with neighbor Iran to counter
outlawed militants from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), but this is the
first time Turkish authorities have confirmed a raid. “We started staging a
joint operation with Iran against the PKK on our eastern border as of 0800 (0500
GMT) this morning,” Suleyman Soylu said of the operation against the PKK, listed
as a terror group by Ankara and its Western allies. “We will announce the result
later,” he said. Soylu did not specify precisely which PKK bases the planned
operation targeted but Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has in the past
said it would be against militant hideouts in Iraq.
The Turkish military has often bombed PKK bases in Iraq’s mountainous northern
regions as part of its decades-long operations against the group. Iranian
security forces have also fought the PKK affiliate, the Party of Free Life of
Kurdistan (PJAK). Both groups have rear bases in neighboring Iraq.
For more than three decades, the PKK has waged an insurgency against the Turkish
state, initially seeking independence and more recently autonomy for Turkey’s
Kurdish minority. Fighting has left tens of thousands dead.
Iraqi military: Two soldiers killed in
clashes with Kurdish PKK
Reuters, Baghdad/Monday, 18 March 2019/Clashes between the Iraqi army and
Kurdish PKK militia killed two Iraqi soldiers and wounded five of the militants
on Sunday, the Iraqi military said in a statement. The clashes took place in
Sinjar in northwestern Iraq after the PKK fighters were denied passage through
an army checkpoint, the statement said, adding that the militants drove a
vehicle into one soldier and attacked the checkpoint. The PKK did not
immediately comment. Security incidents pitting the Iraqi military against armed
groups other than ISIS are rare. Sinjar, near the border with Syria, was one of
the first areas to be recaptured from ISIS in 2015 during a US-backed campaign
to drive the jihadist group out of vast areas they once controlled in Syria and
Iraq. The security situation in the remote mountainous region remains fragile,
however, with the presence of a number of different armed groups.
The PKK has fought a decades-long insurgency in southern Turkey but has bases in
northern Iraq, including near Sinjar. Iraqi Shiite Muslim paramilitaries who
helped defeat Islamic State are also stationed around Sinjar, as are Iraqi
Kurdish Peshmerga forces - PKK rivals who serve the authorities that run
northern Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish region.
Iraq sentences Belgian man to death for being part of ISIS
Reuters, BaghdadMonday, 18 March 2019/Iraq sentenced a Belgian man to death by
hanging on Monday for being part of ISIS extremist group, one of dozens of
foreign nationals facing the death penalty in Iraq. Bilal al-Marchohi, 23, was
given the death penalty for conducting operations on behalf of the group. During
an hour of proceedings at Iraq’s Central Criminal Court, the judge read out
portions of Marchohi’s signed confession and showed a video and photographs that
he said proved his membership in the group. The images from a phone found in his
possession at the time of arrest showed Marchohi carrying a gun and making a
hand gesture affiliated with the militants. Several pictures showed him cradling
his infant son. Marchohi repeatedly denied all allegations against him in open
court, including that he was a member of ISIS in Iraq at any time. “I shouldn’t
be prosecuted in Iraq,” Marchohi said. “I should be prosecuted in Belgium, I am
a Belgian citizen.” During the proceedings, Judge Jumaa Saidi told the court
that the photographs were clear evidence that Marchohi was a member of ISIS. A
translator was appointed by the judge for Marchohi, who spoke in English
throughout the trial. He was also given a court appointed lawyer with whom he
had no contact at all throughout the trial. Belgian consular representatives
attended the proceedings on Monday. The Belgian foreign ministry in Brussels
said it was not immediately able to comment. Marchohi is the second of two
Belgians held in Iraq known to have been sentenced to death for a role in ISIS.
Tarek Jadaoun, 30, also known as Abu Hamza al-Beljiki, was sentenced to death in
May 2018. A senior member of ISIS, Jadaoun featured prominently in the group’s
propaganda videos which threatened attacks on European soil. ISIS captured a
third of Iraq in 2014 but was largely defeated both there and in neighboring
Syria last year. A battle is ongoing to dislodge the militants from their final
populated enclave in Syria near the Iraqi border.
13 Algerian Unions Refuse to Back PM’s Efforts to Form
Govt.
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 18 March, 2019 /Thirteen independent Algerian unions
announced that they will not support the efforts of newly-appointed Prime
Minister Noureddine Bedoui to form a new government. “We will not hold
discussions with this system, we belong to the people and the people said ‘No’
to the system,” Boualem Amora, one of the leaders of the education sector
unions, told reporters. Bedoui has promised to create an inclusive government of
technocrats, taking in the military and business representatives, in an effort
to placate protesters, who for weeks have been calling for President Abdelaziz
Bouteflika and his inner circle to step down. Union leaders said they refused to
enter a dialogue when he reached out to them. “The new government will fall in
24 hours as long as it lacks legitimacy and popular support,” said Fodil Boumala,
one of the people protesters have chosen to spearhead popular pressure against
what they see as an authoritarian system. Many Algerians have rejected overtures
by Bouteflika, 82, who has reversed a decision to stand for another term after
20 years in power. Protesters have grown tired of the same ruling elite,
veterans of the 1954-1962 war of independence against France, the military,
intelligence agencies and big businessmen. Algerians have made it clear they
will only settle for new leaders who can improve living standards, deliver
greater freedoms and dismantle a Soviet-style bureaucracy that has discouraged
investors. Bouteflika has rarely been seen in public since suffering a stroke in
2013. Protesters say he is no longer fit for office. The president has been
losing allies in recent days since returning from medical treatment in
Switzerland, including senior members of the ruling National Liberation Front
party, known by its French acronym FLN.
On Sunday some workers at Algeria’s biggest natural gas field staged a protest
against extending the president’s fourth term, an energy official said,
referring to a proposal by Bouteflika to stay in office until a new constitution
is adopted. Output at the Hassi Rmel field was not affected, said an official
from state oil and gas company Sonatrach. Algeria is an important gas supplier
to Europe, mainly Italy, Spain and France. Several foreign firms operate in the
country including BP, Total and Repsol. Meanwhile, newly-appointed Deputy Prime
Minister Ramtane Lamamra is expected to visit several countries including
Russia, China and some EU nations to explain the crisis in Algeria, a foreign
ministry official said, according to Reuters.
Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published
on March 18-19/2019
Opinion/Neither Israel nor Iran Trust Russia. But Only Putin Can Prevent War
Between Them
شمعون شتاين وشلومو بروم/هآرتس: لا إسرائيل ولا إيران تثقان بروسيا. لكن بوتين فقط
يمكنه منع الحرب بينهم
Shimon Stein and Shlomo Brom/Haaretz/March 18/19
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/73101/shimon-stein-and-shlomo-brom-haaretz-neither-israel-nor-iran-trust-russia-but-only-putin-can-prevent-war-between-them%d8%b4%d9%85%d8%b9%d9%88%d9%86-%d8%b4%d8%aa%d8%a7%d9%8a%d9%86-%d9%88%d8%b4%d9%84/
Iran and Israel would never volunteer to place crucial national security
interests in the Kremlin's hands. But they need a third party to umpire their
conflict in Syria – and there’s no other option.
The 1979 revolution that transformed Iran into an Islamic republic wasalso a
turning point in Iran’s foreign policy - and in particular, its approach to the
State of Israel.
Its hostility towards Israel has manifested itself over the years in repeated
declarations by Iranian leaders that Israel should be destroyed, as well as
anti-Semitic assertions and Holocaust denial, leading to an escalatory cycle of
Israeli reactions and Iranian counter-reactions.
Iran has avoided direct military confrontation with Israel, but at the same time
provided substantial military, financial and political support to Hezbollah and
Palestinian terror groups for their operations against Israel and Jews, on the
basis that they serve Iran’s interests.
Iran’s nuclear program, perceived by many in Israel as an existential threat,
raised for the first time the possibility of a direct military confrontation
between the two states. That would likely be the consequence of an Israeli
military strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure to prevent Tehran
achieving a military nuclear capability.
That Israeli strike scenario is still off the table thanks to the Iran nuclear
deal. Even though President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal, a move
the Israeli government celebrated, Iran continues to abide by the terms it
agreed with the U.S., Russia, China, France, the UK and Germany and as long as
it lasts, and the limitations on Iran's nuclear program hold, Israel has no
interest in initiating a strike.
The more likely trigger for an armed conflict between the two states at this
stage is the deployment of a strategic Iranian presence in Syria, near Israel's
northern border. The fade-out of the Syrian civil war with the Assad regime's
victory, means this is not a question of Iranian forces or proxies bolstering
the regime's survival – this is about a long-term entrenchment.
Its continued presence in Syria serves Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions and
its ability to threaten Israel on two fronts - from Syria as well as from
Lebanon. Israel has made it unequivocally clear that it will not allow Iran to
establish a long-term presence in Syria.
There is already low-level direct military confrontation between Israel and Iran
on Syrian soil.
Israel has used its military superiority to hit at the different elements of
Iran’s military presence in Syria, including its proxies. There have been
several unsuccessful and feeble Iranian attempts to reciprocate in kind. Had
they been more successful, we would already have witnessed a serious escalation.
The prospects of bridging the contradictory Iranian and Israeli interests in
Syria seem slim. Iran is not likely to remove all its military presence from
Syria; it is an important part of its first line of defense against Israel.
Israel will do its utmost to prevent Iran from building up a long-term strategic
infrastructure which, together with the threat emanating from Hezbollah in
Lebanon, will pose a serious threat to Israel.
But neither side is interested in a wider direct confrontation. That can be
concluded from Israel’s adoption of low profile media policy, most of the time,
and Iran’s limited responses to Israeli attacks. That gives space to the
possibility that this low-level military conflict will be managed in a way that
will prevent a major escalation.
Neither side will get all that it wants, but the new status quo that results
will be bearable to both.
However, escalation – thanks to miscalculations, misunderstandings, and domestic
political pressures – is always possible, even when the two sides are interested
in avoiding it.
An effective way of dealing with this would be to create a crisis prevention
mechanism enabling an exchange of messages between the two sides, making it
possible to transfer clarifications, present credible red lines etc. Such a
mechanism has proved to be effective in global and regional conflicts (including
the latest crisis between India and Pakistan).
Since neither Israel nor Iran are politically able to establish such a mechanism
by themselves and engage in a direct dialogue, there is a critical need for a
third party trusted by the two parties. Preferably it should be a party that
doesn’t have its own agenda, and at the same time is not interested in an
escalation between Israel and Iran. Such a party, acceptable to both sides, has
not yet been found.
In its absence, the next-best option can only be Russia. Russia is already
involved in Syria, and is certainly keen to present itself as the only player
that can play this mediator role despite its shortcomings. Israel and Iran are
aware that Russia has its own agenda in Syria, and its own power aspirations in
the region; that hurts both Iran’s and Israel’s trust in Russia and its
integrity in playing this role.
Neither Iran nor Israel would enthusiastically welcome Russia playing umpire,
nor would they feel secure with, in effect, placing crucial national security
interests in the Kremlin's hands. But neither will they agree on a more reliable
third party.
The Putin option is far from perfect – but it's still better than nothing. A
flawed de-escalation mechanism that has even diminished chances of success is
still preferable to the absence of any obstacles to deliberate or miscalculated
escalation - with repercussions for both Iran and Israel and the entire region.
*Shimon Stein Ambassador (ret.) is senior fellow at the Institute for National
Security Studies at Tel Aviv University
*Brig. Gen. (ret.) Shlomo Brom is a senior research fellow at the Institute for
National Security Studies and was previously a deputy head of Israel’s National
Security Council
Education, Media, and Hate Mines
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat/March 18/19
It is not surprising that the world gets shocked, angry and panicked. The images
outweigh any tolerance ability, despite the amount of cruelty and crimes the
world has witnessed in recent years. Millions of viewers watched pouring
torrents of hatred. One terrorist released a "tsunami" of horror.
It was more dangerous than an insane man storming a funeral or wedding ceremony
and massacring the attendees. The carnage seemed programmed and horrendous. A
professional assassin acting in cold blood. The fall of innocent worshipers
increases his thirst for more. He charges his weapon as if he were training in a
shooting club. He does not mind the screams of the injured, nor the sanctity of
the place. He then moves to another mosque to double the number of the dead. A
disgusting live broadcast, preceded by a long political statement trying in vain
to justify the unjustifiable. An awful aggression against the lives of the
innocent worshipers and against the sanctity of the mosque that embraced them.
The world is not usually preoccupied with New Zealand. The country has a stable
security and economy. It is neither a field for a “clash of civilizations” nor a
scene of inflamed lines between religions or races.
It is a small, modest and safe state. A group of islands in the southwestern
Pacific Ocean that dream of better days for their inhabitants. Its democracy is
controllable and corrected, and corruption does not jeopardize its economy. The
country is developing its ability to attract tourists with its traditional
preoccupation with meat prices and its dairy wealth.
Suddenly, it invaded the screens. It was pushed into the limelight by a foolish
Australian terrorist, who chose it to be the theater of his reprisals emerging
from the caves of history.
In a statement in which he sought to justify his crime, Brenton Tarrant
considered that the flow of migrants to Western countries posed the most serious
threat to their societies and existence because it amounted to “the genocide of
whites.” He described immigrants as “invaders”, who must be convinced that “our
land will never be theirs.” He said he had acted in retaliation for the
“millions of Europeans killed by foreign invaders throughout history and the
thousands of Europeans who have died in terrorist attacks on European
territory.”
Tarrant stressed that he did not feel remorse and “only wishes to be able to
kill as many of the invaders and traitors as possible.” He emphasized that
“there are no innocents among the targets, because anyone who invades the land
of others bears the consequences of his doing.”
He pointed to the decline of fertility rates among whites and the wide change in
the identity of countries that receive migrants. He did not hide the fact that
he was inspired by another terrorist known as Norway's far-right terrorist,
Anders Behring, who killed 77 people in 2011 and is known to be hostile to
Islam.
It is no secret that the vast waves of migrations that the world has witnessed
in recent years, which have been associated with terrorist attacks by Al-Qaeda
and later ISIS, have aroused widespread concern among the extreme right in a
number of countries.
It is not surprising that a visitor of several Western capitals hears that Paris
is no longer Paris, and that the current Netherlands is not like the previous
Netherlands, and that Germany will not be the same ten years later.
These concerns have been translated into the rise of the extreme right and
racist tendencies in more than one place and a decline in the popularity of
parties that “have opened the doors to asylum.”
Despite the assertion of European leaders, mainly the German chancellor, that
receiving immigrants is a humanitarian duty, but at the same time an economic
need, the extreme right went far in raising concerns about identity and
traditions.
You can hear a Frenchman say that his neighbor who comes from another culture
refuses to adapt to French culture or to the “values of the republic,” and
insists not only to live outside these norms, but also to impose his way of
living on the country that bears the burden of hosting him.
Media outlets have repeatedly highlighted the rise in crime rates following the
influx of refugees, pointing to their different perceptions of the state, the
rule of law, and attitude towards women.
Many parties are responsible for escalating fears of Islam in some Western
societies. The day after the fall of the Soviet Union, talks emerged on “the
need for a new enemy” and that Islam was “the next danger.” There have been many
analyzes predicting a terrible clash of civilizations and inter-religious wars.
Some ruptures have fed the theory of bloody identity wars, including images of
bodies coming from the blatant divorce between the components of what was known
as Yugoslavia.
Waves of migration towards the West were pushed by economic failure, repression
or civil wars that sometimes took the form of genocides. At the same time, blind
forces in the Muslim world have played a major role in supporting the arguments
of blind forces elsewhere.
At the turn of the century, Al-Qaeda transferred the war to the US territory
through the September 11 attacks. Images of devastation and victims swept the
world’s screens. The response to those attacks in Afghanistan and the Iraq war
contributed to sharp climates that fueled emotions and helped the militants get
more polarized.
The emergence of ISIS was an ugly development in this context. The world saw
people beheaded only because of their different affiliations. It also saw ISIS
terrifying cities and states through its dormant cells or individual wolves.
The day after the “massacre of the two mosques”, the world united in condemning
the terrorist murderer, his ideas and justifications. The world has realized the
danger of resorting to practices aimed at inflaming the lines of contact between
races, civilizations, and religions.
But condemnations and punitive measures against the perpetrators are not enough.
A daily battle is needed to save the values of coexistence and tolerance.
There is no way out of the swamps of racism and intolerance except in a daily
battle within schools and universities, in addition to religious, social, and
political platforms to prevent fanatics from taking over them and unleashing
waves of extremism and hatred. The media must follow the path of responsibility
and prevent its platforms from becoming a source of resentment.
The race to attract followers with rude images and provocative phrases is
bringing the media into the hands of extremists who dream of blowing up all
bridges in order to build a world of high walls and blood-stained identities.
It is necessary to stand against the sources of hatred at home, at work, in
books, on Twitter and Facebook, and everywhere. Without an honest acceptance of
the right to be different, we will see more waves of hatred submerging our
world.
Fighting Climate Change Won’t Be Painless
Mark Buchanan/Bloomberg/March 18/19
In 2015, the United Nations set 17 sustainable development goals, laudable aims
to help humanity to pursue a better future that included reducing inequality,
eliminating extreme poverty and addressing climate change. The UN hoped to
achieve all of them by 2030. In some areas, we've made impressive progress: Now
only 1 in 25 children globally dies by the age of 5, a fivefold reduction since
1960. The news is equally encouraging elsewhere; for instance, every year, more
people gain access to electricity and clean water.
Even so, the idea that we might actually realize all the goals by 2030 is
clearly fanciful, not least because we've made virtually no progress in
addressing climate change, as carbon dioxide emissions continue to soar. There's
a deeper problem, too — progress on one goal may hamper action or even cause
regress on others. Fortunately, as a new study shows, pursuit of some goals
appears to stir up far fewer conflicts than pursuing others, so our choice of
priorities could make a big difference.
It's not surprising that some of these goals conflict with others. We can reduce
hunger by farming more intensively, but doing so almost certainly leads to
increased pressure on the environment. Action to combat malaria by providing
mosquito nets can lead to increased fish capture, at least in the short run, as
locals find other uses for the nets. Synergies aren't always obvious, either;
reducing inequality, for example, seems to have a beneficial effect on overall
public health.
The difficult task is using real data to make such connections more evident.
Biologists David Lusseau and Francesca Mancini of the University of Aberdeen
have found a way to do so, by using data gathered by the UN and the World Bank
over 25 years. Lusseau and Mancini used the data, which chart progress toward
each of the 17 goals, to estimate an empirical association, positive or
negative, between goals when compared to each other. The researchers refer to
the results of this analysis as the sustainome — a data-based picture of how all
the goals interact with one another.
The sustainome reveals some fairly obvious things, but also some surprises.
There are three important conclusions.
First, there are big differences between rich and poor nations, and the various
goals interact very differently in the two settings. In low-income nations, the
clearly most beneficial goal — one that has a positive influence on all others —
turns out to be reducing poverty. In contrast, in high-income nations, the
broadly most beneficial goal is reducing inequality. In both cases, there's
likely a similar mechanism at work, Lusseau suggested to me in an email.
Even small reductions in inequality in high-income nations give millions of
people more flexibility to lead different lives and reach their potential as
they see it. In low-income nations, the same is true of reducing poverty: People
who were struggling even to survive now have the chance to make real choices in
deciding how to live. In both cases, people with more resources find it easier
to pursue education, find better work and live in other ways that promote
sustainability.
The second important finding is that the situation in low-income nations shows
no conflicts at all. Efforts to make progress on any of the 17 sustainable
development goals contributes to progress on all of them. That's encouraging, as
it implies that there's still room for easy progress in poorer nations, and
continued efforts should help build sustainability in many ways. The data
suggest that the apparent conflicts that do exist — say, between fighting
malaria and preserving fish supplies — are outweighed by the many other positive
synergies among different goals.
That's the good news. Unfortunately, there's bad news, too. The third conclusion
is that efforts in high-income nations to combat climate change, the data show,
tend to have some negative consequences for all the other sustainable
development goals. This is the case, it seems, because our system of energy
production and use is so central to all our human activities that almost any
step toward changing it brings important short-term costs, inhibiting our
ability to achieve other goals. Twenty-five years of data, sadly, shows no
conflict-free path forward on climate.
As developing nations become more wealthy, they too will face the same
challenge. In the long run, failure to address climate change will bring
disaster. Yet in the short run, any action will push us backward on the other
goals. It's a true dilemma.
Yemen: Slogans that Offer No Hope
Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al-Awsat/March 18/19
The most dangerous political slogans are the ones that claim to hold the
absolute truth. Perhaps this could be understandable in some cases, because the
first law of politics is based on interests, not morals or ideals.
The US Congress used to adopt this approach when it acted as primary supporter
of American assistance in the war against the Houthis in Yemen. This suddenly
changed when it became the primary advocate in ceasing this support. Those who
stood against the Iranian expansion in the region are the same people who voted
for a decision that applauds the Iranian regime. There can be no better present
offered to it by the American legislators.
There are no logical justifications for this stance, but it is part of ongoing
antagonism by those legislators against Saudi Arabia in wake of the murder of
Jamal Khashoggi.
The greatest question is what does that crisis have to do with a war that
erupted after the Iran-backed Houthis rose up against the legitimate Yemeni
government?! The answer can be found in interests and in the political tensions
between the Congress and US administration.
Away from the administration’s intention to resort to a veto against Congress,
given that its decision harms bilateral relations in the region and Washington’s
ability to combat extremism, everyone wants to see an end to the Yemen conflict.
Everyone supports the coalition that is leading an important mission to support
the efforts of the legitimacy in protecting Yemen from transforming into a
barbaric Iranian republic.
If there are concerns over human rights, then it must not be overlooked that
Saudi lives are also at risk because Iranian missiles are being launched by the
Houthis towards the Kingdom. Human rights are an integral part of the equation.
Defending human rights cannot be possible without supporting international
efforts to curb Iranian regional expansion. Perhaps the greatest of these
efforts lies in protecting the Stockholm agreement for a ceasefire in Hodeidah.
Ever since it was signed on December 13, the Houthis, with Iran’s backing, have
been committing dozens of daily violations against the deal.
Isn’t it better to protect and defend this agreement than going ahead and making
stances based on speculation and unfounded accusations?
We are aware that interests in the world of politics contradict with morals. But
choosing interests and shifting stances cannot contribute in ending the war as
they claim. It will only give further support to the coupists and encourage Iran
to increase its expansion in Yemen – a presence Saudi Arabia cannot tolerate on
its southern borders.
No matter what it takes, protecting its borders and the lives of its citizens is
one of its most important duties and responsibilities. This issue is not up for
debate.
Of course, those sides neglect the fact that Saudi Arabia offered over $500
million to Yemen between 2018 and 2019. These funds have financed 127 different
projects that covered relief, humanitarian, housing and water aid. Iran, on the
other hand, has not offered a single dollar or a single project.
Saudi Arabia has taken in 600,000 Yemeni refugees and their families. It allowed
them to take up jobs in the Kingdom and 285,000 students were enrolled in public
schools. Iran, for its part, has not hosted a single Yemeni on its territory.
The only thing it has offered is more rockets that are aimed at the Saudi
capital by the Houthis and more weapons that are used by the Yemenis to kill
each other.
Of course, political slogans do not help the Yemenis or give them any security.
They do not protect them from a coupist group that controls their livelihood.
They only deepen their crisis. There is such a huge difference between those who
seek the interests of the Yemeni people, not just in words, but in action, and
those who lecture on human rights from thousands of miles away.
The New Face of Terrorism
Faisal bin Abdul Rahman bin Muammar//Asharq Al-Awsat/March 18/19
With the recent brutal killing of Muslim worshippers in two mosques in New
Zealand on Friday the 15th of March 2019, the world has come to realize that it
faces extremism and terrorism of a different kind. One that is different from
what the world has been tackling during the past three years, one which
extremists and terrorists alike tried to associate it with religion, Islam in
particular.
We, at KAICIID, affirmed since the launch of the initiative of interreligious
and intercultural dialogue the importance of religion as being part of the
solution and not the cause of the problem. This appeal has encountered great
challenges in convincing international organizations and policymakers in
official institutions in the West to approach religion from such a perspective.
Over the past four years, especially after the rise of ISIS, numerous western
official institutions and international organizations sought to address
extremism through religious interventions in cooperation with individuals,
leaders and religious institutions to find urgent and successful solutions to
the afflictions of extremism and terrorism.
Western policymakers, in an attempt to combat extremism and terrorism, have been
floundering with desperate attempts in the hope of finding solutions that fit
with the principle of the separation of church and state, and with the notion of
mistrusting religion as being part of the solution. Consequently, this has led
to failing results no less dangerous than those of military attempts to counter
terrorism.
In the course of such approaches and initiatives coinciding with extremist media
and political escalation against Islam and Muslims and other religious and
ethnic minorities, western societies witnessed a surge of popular movements and
of extreme right-wing parties’ popularity, which found in Islamophobia and
xenophobia and fear of immigrants fertile ground for popular support and
assuming political positions.
Racist rhetoric and political, cultural, and social hatred programs now receive
assistance and support enabling some extremists to assume public
responsibilities, and direct social and community orientations to institute
unprecedented extremism and terrorism. It is such a type of terrorism that feeds
heavily on an extreme racist nationalistic ideology, employs social media and is
directed against certain religious groups, in particular Muslims and Jews.
Therefore, the terrorist crimes against Muslims in several locations, most
recently in New Zealand, or against Jews as was the case in the American city of
Pittsburgh, only confirms that we are experiencing the most dangerous types of
extremism and terrorism fueled by numerous elected political figures, directed
and controlled by right-wing political parties and extremist leaders, who
support extremism and terrorism, and promote both in their official capacities
and through official channels exploiting and benefiting from the various
freedoms that govern western democracies.
Therefore, we must be prepared for confrontation with the most dangerous stages
of extremism and terrorism. If such elements are successful and continue to hold
positions of public responsibility in various parts of the world, we will likely
soon witness mass genocide of people because of their religion or color. The
ultimate danger would be when nuclear decisions are under the umbrella of
extreme right-wing parties and leaders. We are witnessing such an imminent
scenario taking place with a rapid and dangerous pattern in some countries
around the world.
At KAICIID and through its founding countries, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the
Republic of Austria, the Kingdom of Spain and the Holy See, in its political
capacity, and through the Board of Directors comprised of Muslim, Christian,
Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu individuals and an Advisory Forum formed of forty-one
members from fifteen religions and faiths, we are steadfast in our continuous
efforts to warn against the danger of extremism and terrorism.
The cold blooded murder of Muslim worshipers in New Zealand is only an
indication of the emergence of a larger phenomenon we at KAICIID have always
been aware of and have continuously warned of. Such a phenomenon will only cease
to exit through the concerted efforts of individuals and organizations to
promote the values of dialogue and tolerance and, most importantly, the
political will to enact laws that criminalize hostility against Muslims and
other followers of other religions, as is the case with Anti-Semitism.
**Secretary-General of KAICIID
"Dangerous Nuclear Schemes"
Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/March 18/19
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13909/dangerous-nuclear-schemes
The proposed policies, if adopted by the new leadership in the House, would
certainly fracture whatever consensus exists today to modernize America's
strategic nuclear deterrent -- and at a time when both Russia and China are
charging ahead militarily, and Iran and North Korea are racing toward a
deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
If the United States chooses to eliminate its land-based missiles, as arms
control advocates have proposed, it would dramatically and dangerously simplify
an adversary's targeting calculus. The US would be reducing more than 500
distinct American-based nuclear-related targets -- including 450 Minuteman silos
and 48 launch control centers spread across five American states -- down to only
five continental US targets -- three USAF bomber bases, and two submarines bases
-- and only roughly 10 targets if US submarines at sea were included.
China's "declared" policy of no first use policy is, in fact, suspect,
considering the country's deployed weapons and nuclear threats to the US that
involve America's protection of Taiwan. China, needless to say, is being
currently exposed for its massive track record of lying, cheating and stealing
everything, from their military land-fill bases in the South China Sea to the
virtual theft from the United States of China's entire telecom industry.
There is no reason whatever to discontinue implementing the traditional
three-part nuclear deterrent posture (land, sea and air) endorsed not only by
the 2018 nuclear posture review (NPR) but also by the past three nuclear posture
reviews (1994, 2001 and 2010). If the proposals above are adopted, two nuclear
dangers in particular will be heightened. First, America's allies, no longer
credibly protected by the US nuclear umbrella, may seek to build their own
nuclear weapons to compensate for the omission. Second, in a crisis, America's
adversaries might seek to disarm the US, or coerce it to stand down, especially
as US nuclear forces would have been so diminished as to invite aggression,
rather than deter it.
In the real world, it is important to remember what President John F. Kennedy
said about America's newly built Minuteman missiles: that they were his "ace in
the hole" and prevented the Cuban missile crisis from ending in Armageddon.
Pictured: An unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches
during an operational test on August 2, 2017, at Vandenberg Air Force Base,
California (Image source: U.S. Air Force)
Modernization of the US strategic nuclear deterrent, often referred to by those
who oppose it as "dangerous nuclear schemes," will require multiple decades to
complete. To sustain such an effort, a bipartisan consensus needs to continue
annually, regardless of who controls Congress or the presidency.
To succeed at its best, a nuclear modernization effort should be combined with a
measurable, but verifiable arms control agenda; either the continuation of
existing arms control treaties, expanded arms control efforts, or both.
Russia's violations of the INF treaty, including Russia's deployment of upwards
of 100 illegal missiles, led to the INF treaty (unfortunately) becoming defunct.
Such violations by Russia obviously make pursuing further or other arms control
initiatives extremely difficult.
There are, therefore, growing concerns that with the anticipated demise of the
INF treaty, the continuation and extension of the 2010 New START treaty may be
adversely affected as well.
Should the 2010 New START treaty not be extended, there will cease to be any
arms control limits on the deployment of US and Russian nuclear weapons after
February 5, 2021, when New START expires.
Since 1972, beginning with the SALT 1 nuclear arms agreement, the US and Russia
have had limits on the deployment of long-range or strategic nuclear weapons.
These limits have been deemed important, especially by the American military, to
gain a measure of confidence in the nature of any future strategic environment.
Instead of collaborating with US allies to counter new Russian missile
deployments, and possibly secure better arms limits, however, opponents of full
nuclear modernization are putting forward five highly dubious proposals:
Adopting a statutory requirement on the no first-use of nuclear weapons by the
United States.
De-alerting or unplugging all "vulnerable" American missiles armed with nuclear
warheads. This means the missiles will not launch even if a command is sent to
their computer systems to do so.
Eliminating America's Minuteman land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles
(ICBMs ) -- which are what carry nuclear warheads -- and not fielding any
replacement system.
Adopting a nuclear deterrent posture, characterized as "minimal deterrence",
that would have no more than 200 to 300 deployed warheads in the US arsenal.
Eliminating efforts to field low-yield warheads on the American Ohio class
submarine-based D-5 sea-launched ballistic missile.
All five of these initiatives would be unilateral, taken by the United States
only, and would reverse the bipartisan consensus secured nearly a decade ago to
go forward with the much-needed modernization of America's nuclear deterrent.
In 2010, for instance, the Obama administration and Congress agreed on a joint
effort first to approve the New START nuclear arms treaty between the United
States and Russia, then second, to support on a bipartisan basis a robust
nuclear deterrent modernization program of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.
The modernization effort included all elements of the nuclear triad (land, sea
and air), nuclear laboratories, warhead production, sustainment infrastructure,
and nuclear command and control systems.
The proposed alternative and unilateral policies, if adopted by the new
leadership in the House, would certainly fracture whatever consensus exists
today to modernize America's strategic nuclear deterrent -- and at a time when
both Russia and China are charging ahead militarily, and Iran and North Korea
are racing toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
Just as problematic, such unilateral reduction policies, if adopted by even one
chamber of Congress, might very well undermine the sense that the United States
could continue to provide the protection of a credible extended nuclear
"umbrella" to its allies. The US would no longer be considered a serious
guarantor against nuclear aggression, a point already made among senior American
nuclear professionals a decade ago, at a 2009 conference in Washington, D.C.
What about No First Use?
The United States, for the record, has never pledged to refrain from using
nuclear weapons first in response to a major biological, electromagnetic,
chemical or cyber-attack on the US or its allies. US policy has instead
reflected a certain ambiguity -- a key factor in any adversary's calculus -- but
the deterrent to nuclear war has worked perfectly for more than 70 years.
Why fix it if it is not broken?
What is odd is that some advocates of a global no first use policy (pledging not
to use nuclear weapons first) point to the Chinese government's endorsement of
it as a good reason to adopt this idea. China, however, is hardly to be trusted
as the country to which the United States looks in forming its own nuclear
policy.
China's "declared" policy of no first use is, in fact, suspect, considering the
country's deployed weapons and nuclear threats to the US that involve America's
protection of Taiwan. China, needless to say, is being currently exposed for its
massive track record of lying, cheating and stealing everything, from their
military land-fill bases in the South China Sea to the virtual theft from the
United States of China's entire telecom industry.
As for Russia, military and political officials there have repeatedly and
explicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons first against the United States.
This threat has become especially irrefutable since then Russian President
Vladimir Putin in April 2000 officially announced just such a policy of using
nuclear weapons first against the United States in a crisis or conflict.
Are American Missiles on Hair-Trigger Alert?
What about the charge that US land-based Minuteman III missiles are on a "hair
trigger alert" and therefore geopolitically unstable?
As the former Commander of the United States Strategic Command, General Kevin
Chilton, wrote in the Strategic Studies Quarterly, ("Defending the Record on US
Nuclear Deterrence"):
"People who described our ICBMs as being on 'hair-trigger' alert either do not
know what they are talking about or are intentionally attempting to frighten the
uninformed into calling for the de-alerting of the ICBM leg."
Chilton then further explained how best to appreciate the value of the ICBMs:
"Here is a more accurate analogy that better captures reality: There is a gun,
and it has a really big round in the chamber. But the gun is in a holster and
that holster has two locks on it. Now the person wearing the holster does not
know the combination to either lock — only the president of the United States
has the combinations. If the president tells this person to shoot he will, but
he cannot do it alone. So nuclear forces are not on hair-trigger alert. They
certainly are on alert and at the ready, and this is necessary to provide the
strategic stability described above."
In the real world, it is important to remember what President John F. Kennedy
said about America's newly built Minuteman missiles: that they were his "ace in
the hole" and prevented the Cuban missile crisis from ending in Armageddon.
Since 1962, US Minuteman missiles have been on alert for 32 million minutes, but
never ordered launched by an American President.
Should the US Keep Its ICBMs or Not?
What, though, if the US goes along with the idea not to keep these land-based
missiles?
Here is what happens: If the United States chooses to eliminate its land-based
missiles, as arms control advocates have proposed, it would dramatically and
dangerously simplify an adversary's targeting calculus. The US would be reducing
more than 500 distinct American-based nuclear-related targets -- including 450
Minuteman silos and 48 launch control centers spread across five American states
-- down to only five continental US targets -- three USAF bomber bases, and two
submarines bases -- and only roughly 10 targets if US submarines at sea were
included.
As the former Vice Chief of Staff of the USAF, General Larry O. Spencer told
this author, "Why would we make it easy for an adversary to attack us?"
Especially if at some point in the future the oceans become transparent and US
submarines at sea can be found and destroyed by the force of 100 Chinese and
Russian attack submarines.
Should America Take Its Missiles off Alert?
Another idea, unfortunately not the best, is to take American land-based
missiles "off alert" (like unplugging an appliance), to lengthen the time
between a crisis occurring and when the US commanders can actually launch
American ballistic missiles.
The idea behind that suggestion is that, in a crisis, if the American President
cannot quickly launch US land-based missiles because they were "unplugged" or
de-alerted, the extra time it would take to put US missiles back on alert would
supposedly be exactly the time needed for the crisis to be defused. (As it takes
only seconds to put a missile back on alert to be ready to fire, such an
assumption is, on its face, silly.)
Ideas such as de-alerting has been proposed before -- and have always been
determined to be highly risky and dangerous.
First, the "de-alerting," or unplugging of America's missiles, is not
verifiable. Even if all nuclear powers de-alerted their missiles, both the US
and its adversaries could place their own missiles back on alert in a matter of
seconds and no one would be the wiser.
The US would presumably not want American leaders to assume that Russian
missiles were unlaunched -- or Russia to assume that America's missiles were
unlaunched -- because either side had been "de-alerted". The quiet could easily
lead to a misunderstanding. America's guard might be down, and any inaction
assumed to reflect US passivity.
Second, in a crisis, the lack of any effective verification for such
"de-alerting action" would likely heighten uncertainty. Russia might assume that
the United States would rush to put America's missiles back on alert to be able
to launch them at Russia. But Russia could not verify whether America's missiles
were on alert and ready to launch or not.
Such an uncertainty might easily pressure the Russian national leadership to
decide it would be better to launch its missiles at the United States as soon as
possible in order to "get the first punch in."
In other words, given that there is no way to verify whether a US missile was on
alert or not, or whether it could be launched or not, uncertainty could easily
lead a Russian leader to panic and, during a crisis, make a rash decision to
launch Russian missiles at America first. The Russians, say, might be hoping to
destroy as many American fixed, silo-based land missiles as possible. Their
assumption could be that even if the US radars and early warning satellites saw
Russian missiles coming at US silos, the Americans would not have time to put
their missiles back in launch status because the United States had "de-alerted"
its own missiles; therefore American missiles might well be regarded by an
adversary as "sitting ducks".
A US "race to re-alert" would hardly be reassuring.
Should the US Cut Its Nuclear Forces to 300 Warheads?
Another idea that seems wanting is for the United States to reduce its strategic
nuclear warheads from the 1,550 allowed under the 2010 New START treaty between
Russia and the United States to as few as 300 warheads.
That new American posture would mimic the supposed Chinese minimal deterrent
posture of having roughly only 300 warheads. Part of the concept of having a
"minimal" number of warheads is that if the United States were attacked, it
would only retaliate against the aggressor's cities, not its possibly numerous
military assets. If the United States limited its targets just to cities, the
thinking seems to go, the United States simply would not need many warheads: the
threat of wiping out a few dozen Chinese cities would presumably sufficient for
deterrence. If the Chinese leaders supposedly believe that having only 300
Chinese warheads is sufficient to deter the United States (or anyone else) from
attacking China, then doesn't it make sense that it would only take 300 American
warheads striking Chinese cities to deter China from attacking the United
States?
The problem is that if the United States had only 300 warheads, that number
would amount to roughly 10% of Russia's current deployed nuclear arsenal. This
imbalance might cause many of America's allies in Europe and Asia worry that the
extended deterrence, or "umbrella," the US provides to its allies was reality
just a mere bluff.
What ally could really believe such a US nuclear deterrent was serious if not
only described as "minimal" but in reality was vastly out-numbered -- nearly
10-to-1 -- by Russia's nuclear forces? In conversations over the many decades of
the nuclear age, America's European and Pacific allies have repeated that the
United States had to keep a balance with Russia in nuclear capability. A 10-to-1
ratio simply is not a "balance."
Most importantly, such a small US nuclear arsenal would be totally unable
credibly or effectively to hold at risk whole swaths of Chinese or Russian
military assets. They would remain free to be used to attack the United States.
US deterrent policy has, for seven decades, meant being able to prevent, or take
away, the military ability of an adversary to continue a fight. This capability
means that America's long-standing retaliatory policy needs to be to destroy the
remaining military weapons and tools an American adversary possesses.
Deliberately deciding to leave an adversary's military capability intact makes
no sense, and would effectively jettison America's long and successful deterrent
strategy.
What about Low-Yield Missile Warheads?
What about deciding not to build a relatively low-yield nuclear warhead for the
D-5 missiles to place on American submarines? The problem with this plan would
be that without such a weapon, the United States and NATO would be stuck relying
upon a low-yield nuclear weapon delivered by American aircraft. Any aircraft,
however, would have to take into account Russia's air defenses: it would
consequently take multiple hours to arrive at a conflict area. An aerial
response, therefore, could be "too slow."
An asset such as an American submarine-launched D-5 missile can get to a
conflict zone more quickly and assuredly than an aircraft. Not to have such a
credible low-yield warhead capability undermines America's ability to counter
Russia's new nuclear doctrine that threatens to use to use low-yield nuclear
weapons early in a crisis or a conflict.
Given that, for example, Russian nuclear forces are in close proximity to a
potential conflict area such as the Baltics, the United States needs to be able
to counter-threaten possible Russian aggression there. As US sea-based missiles
would be launched from great distances -- the US has no land-based missiles
deployed at this time in that area -- striking back at those forces would have
to be done quickly and assuredly.
An American submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead, unlike an American
tactical airplane, gives the United States exactly the capability required to
match Russian low-yield nuclear threats.
Summary
There is no reason whatever to discontinue implementing the traditional
three-part nuclear deterrent posture (land, sea and air) endorsed not only by
the 2018 nuclear posture review (NPR) but also by the past three nuclear posture
reviews (1994, 2001 and 2010): a robust Triad of nuclear forces that keeps the
land-based ICBMs, a built-in nuclear-readiness hedge against an uncertain future
that requires a number of warheads that balance Russia's forces, and a
forward-looking, realistic and tightly verifiable arms control framework, that
would refuse destabilizing strategies such as de-alerting.
The alternative proposals reviewed above are largely based on attractive bumper
sticker-types of slogans. If they are adopted, two nuclear dangers in particular
will be heightened.
First, America's allies, no longer credibly protected by the US nuclear
umbrella, may seek to build their own nuclear weapons to compensate for the
omission. Second, in a crisis, America's adversaries might seek to disarm the
US, or coerce it to stand down, especially as US nuclear forces would have been
so diminished as to invite aggression, rather than deter it.
*Dr. Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense consulting
firm he founded in 1981, as well as Director of Strategic Deterrent Studies at
the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. He was also for 20 years, the
senior defense consultant at the National Defense University Foundation.
© 2019 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.
Iran and the future of the Afghanistan peace process
Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami/Arab News/March 18/19
US officials are currently engaged in peace talks aimed at reaching a political
settlement with the Taliban, driven by a desire for peace and security in
Afghanistan, with the support of regional neighbors. This article focuses on
Iran’s role in promoting peace in Afghanistan due to its proximity and its
interests in the country. It tries to answer questions about the extent of
Iran’s presence in Afghanistan, the scope of its interests and their
prioritization. In addition, it focuses on the Iranian regime’s position toward
the Taliban and the Afghan government.
The situation in Afghanistan is one of the most important political and security
challenges facing Iran today. Whilst it poses a threat to Tehran, given the
presence of US forces, drug trafficking and refugees, the situation also
provides opportunities to the Iranian leadership.
For Iran, Afghanistan provides an opportunity to extend its influence, enabling
the regime to put pressure on US forces stationed there and to coordinate with
Afghan extremist groups. Tehran is also pursuing with the Afghan government an
agreement on a joint project to transfer Turkmen gas and to extend the route for
transporting Iranian gas to India through Afghanistan. This will include
implementing China’s One Belt One Road initiative to deliver Chinese trade to
Europe through Afghan territories, which Iran hopes will ultimately boost
Afghanistan’s development and resolve the crisis posed by a large number of
Afghan refugees living in Iran.
Iran’s primary objective is to ensure that the Hazara Shiites have a distinctive
political and social status that will enable Tehran to replicate the Lebanese
Hezbollah model in Afghanistan, both to ensure permanent Iranian influence there
and to reduce or even eradicate the US presence in the country. For this reason,
Iran does not oppose the peace process in Afghanistan but rather seeks to direct
it in a way that serves its interests and to participate in it in a way that
boosts its influence. While both Russia and China agree with the Iranian
regime’s broader objectives in Afghanistan, they are not supportive of a
Hezbollah model there, although they may have no problem if this happens as long
as their other goals are achieved, such as the implementation of their economic
projects in the region and the removal of US forces and Western forces generally
from Afghanistan and Central Asia.
For Iran, the Taliban provides a useful means for achieving its goals. Tehran
has, therefore, strengthened the Taliban and provided it with weapons to weaken
the US in the country. Despite the regime’s declarations of hostility to the
Taliban, realpolitik now overrides any other factors, meaning Tehran is now a
key supporter of the movement. Iran’s support for the Taliban has become more
evident in recent years, with the Chief of Staff of the Afghan army, Gen. Sharif
Yaftali, stating in 2017 that he had evidence of Iran supplying the Taliban with
weapons and military equipment.
Iran does not oppose the peace process in Afghanistan but rather seeks to direct
it in a way that serves its interests.
The US Department of Defense last year submitted a report to the US Congress
entitled “Improving Security and Stability in Afghanistan,” in which it was
stated that Russia and Iran provide military and logistical support to both the
Taliban and its Haqqani affiliates. Through this support, Iran has been able to
reduce the threat posed by US forces — and it was boosted by the US announcing
its intention to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. At the same time, Iranian
support for the Taliban has resulted in a new alliance that has enabled Iran to
carry out terrorist operations via the Taliban.
Another key factor for Iran in the medium-term is to empower Afghan Shiites to
lead the political process. Given the nature of the political system in
Afghanistan, this objective cannot be achieved in the short term, with the
presidential system preventing minorities from attaining the majority of power
in the country. Afghan society is made up of several ethnic groups, led by the
Pashtuns, followed by the Farsi-speaking Tajiks, who are also Sunnis. The number
of Uzbeks, also predominantly Sunni, is almost equal to that of the Shiite
Hazara. Although statistics vary, none have the Hazaras as more than 12 percent
of the population. Despite this small number, Iran seeks to reach its goal by
maximizing the sect’s political role and by bringing back the Iranian-trained
Afghan Fatemiyoun Division from Syria, where it has been fighting for Assad and
Iran, to act as the Hazaras’ military wing in Afghanistan.
Iran began its moves to strengthen the Hazaras in Afghanistan from the earliest
days after the 1979 revolution, with the then-parliamentary head the late
Hashemi Rafsanjani receiving a delegation of Afghan Shiite clerics in 1983. Iran
has declared its support for them since 1998, when a statement was issued by the
Clerics Union of Qom in support of the Hazaras. Controversially, it accused
Pakistan of assisting in the massacre of Afghan Shiites in the cities of
Mazar-i-Sharif and Bamyan.
Another factor influencing Iranian policy in Afghanistan is the position of
regional states, particularly Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, whose objectives are at
odds with those of Tehran. If Iran succeeds in achieving its goals in
Afghanistan, the country will become another base for Iranian influence,
upsetting the delicate balance of power in South and Central Asia, as well as
furthering its incursions into the Arab world and making the prospect of any
real peace a distant dream.
• Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami is Head of the International Institute for Iranian
Studies (Rasanah). Twitter: @mohalsulami
Syria’s Civil War Is Now 3 Civil Wars
The fight to depose Assad is over. The battle over his regime’s boundaries has
no end in sight.
Jonathan Spyer/Forign Policy/March 18/19
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/18/syrias-civil-war-is-now-3-civil-wars/?fbclid=IwAR0ILo089IQlpqBAhsdwTS-CIPqQGdO9rJ5vGLrS0covU_wWUzmlbm-bQ4E
The war that has ravaged Syria over the last half-decade is coming to an end.
The caliphate declared by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State organization
on June 29, 2014, at the al-Nuri mosque in Mosul now consists of a few ravaged
square meters in Baghouz, in Syria’s Lower Euphrates River Valley, that are on
the verge of falling to Kurdish forces. The mainly Sunni Arab rebellion against
the Bashar al-Assad regime, meanwhile, is already over. What remains of it is
now the military component of a Turkish project to turn a corner of northwest
Syria into a Turkish client entity.
In place of the old wars, however, three new ones have started. They are taking
place in the three de facto independent areas whose boundaries are becoming
apparent as the smoke from the previous battle clears: the regime-controlled
area, guaranteed by Russia; the area east of the Euphrates River controlled by
the Syrian Democratic Forces, which are primarily composed of Kurdish fighters
protected by the United States and Western air power; and finally the area
controlled by the Turks and their Sunni Islamist allies in Idlib province. The
regime area consists of about 60 percent of the territory of the country, the
SDF has around 30 percent, and the Turkish-Sunni Islamist area is around 10
percent. Each of these areas is now hosting a civil war of its own, supported by
neighboring enclaves.
The most fragile of the three entities, both in terms of internal arrangements
and relationships to external powers, is the Turkish-Sunni Islamist area. The
southern part of this area is today ruled in its entirety by Hayat Tahrir
al-Sham, an outgrowth of the Syrian al Qaeda franchise. The area is protected
from a ground incursion by the Assad regime by the precarious Sochi agreement,
reached between Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and Recep Tayyip Erdogan of
Turkey in September 2018. But while a ground incursion does not appear imminent,
Idlib and Hama provinces are subjected to regime artillery bombardment daily.
Further north, in the former Kurdish canton of Afrin, the Turks and their allies
are facing an emergent, though underreported, insurgency supported by the
Kurdish People’s Protection Units, known as the YPG. A recent report by
Bellingcat, quoted in an article by Amberin Zaman in al-Monitor, noted 220
attacks carried out in the Afrin area against Turkish and allied forces between
late March 2018 and the end of January, in the form of roadside ambushes,
improvised explosive devices, and executions of so-called collaborators. Around
100 people have been killed over the last month, according to the Bellingcat
report.
The attacks began in January 2018, immediately after Turkey’s arrival in the
region as part of Operation Olive Branch, which destroyed the Syrian Kurds’
westernmost autonomous canton. A campaign of expulsion of Kurds followed. The
Kurdish YPG does not take responsibility for the present attacks. The YPG’s
sister movement in Turkey, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party or PKK, has a practice,
however, of using the names of front groups when engaging in some of its less
photo-friendly activities; it is probable that the YPG is doing the same.
The U.S. and SDF-controlled area east of the Euphrates is also witnessing the
stirrings of internal insurgency directed from outside. According to the Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights, “236 fighters [of the SDF), civilians, oil
workers, and officials” have been killed since August 2018 in incidents
unrelated to the frontline conflict against the Islamic State. The killings have
taken place across the four provinces of Raqqa, Aleppo, Hasakah, and Deir Ezzor,
which are controlled in full or in part by U.S.-allied Kurds. The most recent
actions, according to the observatory, were the assassination earlier this month
of an SDF fighter in the Swidan Jazira area in the eastern countryside of Deir
Ezzor, and the explosion of an IED in the Jammah area of the same province.
The SDF blames Turkey for these actions, and for earlier killings such as that
of prominent local Kurdish official, Omar Alloush, in March 2018, and of Sheikh
Bashir Faisal al-Huwaidi, a leader of the SDF-aligned Shammar tribe, in Raqqa in
November 2018. There are other plausible suspects within Syria, however,
including the Assad regime (or its Iranian allies) or the Islamic State, all of
which are enemies of the U.S.-supported Kurds.
The area controlled by the regime is by far the most secure of Syria’s three
separate regions. President Bashar al-Assad has embarked on a slow road to
regaining legitimacy in the eyes of most Syrians and faces no major threat to
his continued rule over most of Syria’s land. But in the regime-controlled
areas, too, there are rumblings of discontent. A chaotic array of forces hold
power and influence in this zone. These include Iran-aligned local and foreign
militias, Russian military police, Lebanese Hezbollah, and, of course, various
competing security structures of the Syrian state. These forces have cooperated
on behalf of keeping Assad in power, but their interests are not otherwise
entirely aligned.
This has predictably led to tensions over their relative power, and to violent
backlashes. In the restive Daraa province in the southwest, this has resulted a
renewed small-scale insurgency against the Assad regime. Since November 2018, a
group calling itself Popular Resistance—which appears to consist of former non-jihadi
rebel fighters—has carried out a series of bombings of regime facilities and
attacks on checkpoints. The latest of these was the bombing of a military
checkpoint on Feb. 6, a video of which was posted online.
As the Islamic State’s caliphate disappears from Syria’s map, the country is
settling into a twilight reality of de facto division, in which a variety of
low-burning insurgencies continue to claim lives. Open warfare in Syria is
largely over. Peace, however, will remain a distant hope.