LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
May 13/2019
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.may13.19.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Bible Quotations For today
We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live
according to the flesh for if you live according to the flesh, you will die but
if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Letter to the Romans 08/12-18:”We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live
according to the flesh for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but
if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all
who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a
spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of
adoption. When we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’it is that very Spirit bearing witness
with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs
of God and joint heirs with Christ if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we
may also be glorified with him. I consider that the sufferings of this present
time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us.”
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese
& Lebanese Related News published on May 12-13/19
Happy & Blessed Mathers Day To All Mothers
Lebanon’s former Maronite Christian patriarch Sfeir dies
Ex-Maronite Patriarch Sfeir Dies Days before Turning 99
Thursday Declared National Vacation for Sfeir's Farewell
Maronite Patriarch: We Now Have a Patron in Heaven
Lebanese Leaders Mourn Death of ex-Patriarch Sfeir
Former President Amine Gemayel Hails Late Cardinal as 'First Resistance Fighter'
Kataeb leader Samy Gemayel Mourns Patriarch's Passing: We Have Lost a Man Who
Never Compromised
MP Geagea Says Sfeir 'Stood by LF in Darkest Circumstances'
Rest In Peace - Patriarch and Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir
Patriarch Sfeir stood for unity and reconciliation
Lebanese Cabinet Meets Sunday Evening and Monday in Bid to Finalize Budget
Retired Servicemen to Block Vital Facilities Monday Morning
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on May 12-13/19
French FM Urges Iran to Show 'Political Maturity' over U.S. Nuclear Deal
Iranian commander threatens to hit America ‘in the head’ if it makes military
move
Four commercial vessels targeted by ‘sabotage’ near UAE waters: Foreign ministry
Pompeo Heads to Russia as U.S. Diplomacy Turns Schizophrenic
Israel Reopens Gaza Crossings as Calm Restored
Netanyahu Says Needs More Time to Form New Govt.
Belgian Leaders Mull Suspension of Saudi Arms Sales
8 'Terrorist' Suspects Killed in Saudi Arabia
Yemen Government Blasts Rebel 'Deception' over Port Pullout
Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published
on May 12-13/19
Happy & Blessed Mathers Day To All Mothers/Elias Bejjani/May 12/2019
Rest In Peace - Patriarch and Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir/Eblan
Farris/Face Book/May 12/2019
Patriarch Sfeir stood for unity and reconciliation/Peter Welby/Arab News/May
12/2019
Pakistan PM Slams Hotel Attack as Bid to Damage Economy
Can Islam Be Rescued from Islamism/Mordechai Nisan/AMERICAN THINKER/May 12/2019
Egyptian-German Scholar Hamed Abdel-Samad: Islamic Extremism Stems From The Core
Of Islam; Tens Of Thousands Of ISIS Supporters Live Among Us/MEMRI/May 12/2019
Opinion/ America Must Not Back Down Against Iran/Emily B. Landau/Haaretz/May 12/
2019
Analysis/Iran and U.S. Perched on Warpath, but Israel May Bear Brunt of
Standoff/Amos Harel/Haaretz/May 12/2019
Jared Kushner’s Peace Plan Would Be a Disaster/Robert Satloff/American
Interest/The Washington Institute/May 12/2019
More proof of cooperation between Iran, Al-Qaeda/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab
News/May 12/ 2019
Why transition in Iran requires a global effort/Baria Alamuddin /Arab News/May
12/ 2019
The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese
Related News published
on May 12-13/19
Happy & Blessed Mathers Day To All
Mothers
Elias Bejjani/May 12/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/74768/elias-bejjani-happy-blessed-mathers-day-to-all-mothers/
Today while in Canada and USA we are happily and joyfully celebrating the
Mothers’ Day, let us all pray that Almighty God will keep granting all mothers
all over the world the needed graces of wisdom, meekness and faith to highly
remain under all circumstances honoring this holy role model and to stay as
Virgin Merry fully devoted to their families.
For all those of us whose mothers have passed away, let us mention them in our
daily prayers and ask Almighty God to endow their souls the eternal rest in His
heavenly dwellings.
In Christianity Virgin Merry is envisaged by many believers and numerous
cultures as the number one role model for the righteous, devoted, loving ,
caring, giving, and humble mothers.
The Spirit Of My mother who like every and each loving departed mother is
definitely watching from above and praying for all of us. May Almighty God Bless
her spirit and the Spirits of all departed mothers.
In all religions and cultures all over the world, honoring, respecting and
obeying parents is not a favor that people either chose to practice or not. No
not at all, honoring, respecting and obeying parents is a holy obligation that
each and every faithful individual who believes in God MUST fulfill, no matter
what.
Almighty God in His 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 ) made the honoring of both
parents (commandment number five) a holy obligation, and not a choice or a favor.
“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land
which the Lord your God is giving you”. (Exodus 20:12)
Reading the Bible, both the Old and New Testament shows with no doubt that
honoring parents is a cornerstone and a pillar in faith and righteousness for
all believers. All other religions and cultures share with Christians this holy
concept and obligation.
“Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, so that
your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD
your God is giving you.” (Deuteronomy 5:16)
“You shall each revere your mother and father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I
am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:3).
Back home in Lebanon we have two popular proverbs that say:“If you do not have
an elderly figure in your family to bless you, go and search for one”. “The
mother is the who either gathers or divides the family”
How true are these two proverbs, because there will be no value, or meaning for
our lives if not blessed and flavored by the wisdom, love and blessings of our
parents and of other elder members.
He who does not honor the elderly, sympathize and empathize with them,
especially his own parents is a person with a hardened heart, and a numbed
conscience, who does not know the meaning of gratitude.
History teaches us that the easiest route for destroying a nation is to destroy,
its cornerstone, the family. Once the family code of respect is belittled and
not honored, the family is divided and loses all its Godly blessings.
“Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against
itself falls” (Luke 11-17)
One very important concept and an extremely wise approach MUST apply and prevail
when reading the Holy Bible in a bid to understand its contents and observe the
Godly instructions and life guidelines that are enlisted. The concept needs to
be a faith one with an open frame of mind free from doubts, questions and
challenges.
Meanwhile the approach and interpretation MUST both be kept within the abstract
manner, thinking and mentality frame, and not in the concrete way of
interpretation.
We read in (Matthew 15/04: “For God said, Respect your father and your mother,
and If you curse your father or your mother, you are to be put to death).
This verse simply dwells on The Fifth Biblical Commandment: “Honor your Father
and Mother”. To grasp its meaning rightfully and put it in its right faith
content one should understand that death in the Bible is not the death of the
body as we experience and see on earth. DEATH in the Bible means the SIN that
leads to eternal anguish in Hell.
The Bible teaches us that through His crucifixion, death and resurrection, Jesus
defeated death in its ancient human, earthly concept. He broke the death thorn
and since than, the actual death became the sin. Those who commit the sin die
and on the judgment day are outcast to the eternal fire. Death for the believers
is a temporary sleep on the hope of resurrection.
Accordingly the verse “If you curse your father or your mother, you are to be
put to death”, means that those who do not honor their parents, help, support
and respect them commit a deadly sin and God on the Judgment Day will make them
accountable if they do not repent and honor their parents.
God is a Father, a loving, passionate and caring One, and in this context He
made the honoring of parents one of the Ten Commandments.
In conclusion: The abstract and faith interpretation of Matthew 15/04 verse must
not be related to children or teenagers who because of an age and maturity
factors might temporarily repel against their parents and disobey them.
Hopefully, each and every one of us, no matter what religion or denomination
he/she is affiliated to will never ever ignore his parents and commit the deadly
SIN of not honoring them through every way and mean especially when they are old
and unable to take care of themselves.
Happy Mothers’ Day to all mothers
Lebanon’s former Maronite Christian patriarch Sfeir dies
Associated Press/May 12/2019/The former patriarch passed away early Sunday at a
Beirut hospital. The church issued a statement saying “The Maronite church is
orphaned and Lebanon is in sadness.”
BEIRUT: Lebanon’s Maronite Christian church said its former patriarch, Cardinal
Nasrallah Butros Sfeir, has died after several days in hospital. He was
98.Sfeir, an outspoken and feisty personality, served as spiritual leader of
Lebanon’s largest Christian community through some of the worst days of the
1975-90 civil war.He then played a key role in shaping the country’s postwar
politics as one of the most prominent Christian leaders in the mostly Muslim
region. The former patriarch passed away early Sunday at a Beirut hospital. The
church issued a statement saying “The Maronite church is orphaned and Lebanon is
in sadness.”Cardinal Bechara Rai, who succeed Sfeir in 2011, called on churches
to ring their bells and hold prayers for the late leader.
Ex-Maronite Patriarch Sfeir Dies Days before Turning 99
Agence France Presse/Associated Press/Naharnet/May 12/2019/
Lebanon's former Maronite patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, who wielded
considerable political influence during the country's civil war and was an
ardent advocate of a Syrian troop withdrawal, died Sunday, the church said.
Sfeir, who was about to turn 99 on May 15, died at 3:00 am (0100 GMT) "after
days of intensive medical care," said a statement by the Maronite church in
Bkirki. "The Maronite church is orphaned and Lebanon is in sadness," the
statement added. Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi, who succeed Sfeir in 2011,
called on churches to ring their bells and hold prayers for the late leader.
The National News Agency said Sfeir's coffin will be moved from the
Hôtel-Dieu De France Hospital in Ashrafieh to Bkirki on Wednesday and that the
funeral service and burial will take place on Thursday at 5:00 pm.
Sfeir became the leader of the church in 1986 until he resigned in 2011 due to
his declining health, and held the title "76th Patriarch of Antioch and the
Whole Levant". He was a respected power broker during the 1975-1990 civil war,
which saw bitter infighting between rival militias including opposing Christian
factions. Sfeir, who spoke fluent Arabic and French, was made a cardinal by Pope
John Paul II in 1994. Born in 1920 in Rayfoun, a village in Lebanon's Keserwan
mountains, Sfeir studied theology and philosophy but was never shy to delve into
Lebanon's tumultuous politics. His backing of the 1989 Taef agreement that
brought the 15-year civil war to an end bolstered Christian support for the
accord. Sfeir also spearheaded the opposition to Syria's three decades of
military and political domination over Lebanon.
"His biggest struggle was to end the Syrian presence in Lebanon, which we all
thought was impossible because of the divisions in Lebanon," his biographer
Antoine Saad told AFP. "But he worked on it steadily, objectively, meticulously
and quietly," he said. Sfeir refused to visit Syria during his time as
patriarch, even when John Paul II made a trip to the country in 2001. His
outspokenness helped swell the anti-Syria movement in 2000. It eventually led to
the withdrawal of thousands of Syrian troops from the country five years later,
following the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri, whose murder
the opposition blamed on Damascus. Sfeir's opinion and advice continued to be
sought by politicians of all stripes, not only Christians, after he stepped
down.
"He was completely against war," Saad said of the cleric who enjoyed hiking in
nature until his late years. "His loss can't be compensated for."
Thursday Declared National Vacation for Sfeir's Farewell
Naharnet/May 12/2019/The Premiership has announced that Wednesday and Thursday
will be national mourning days over the death of former Maronite patriarch
Nasrallah Sfeir. According to the decree, flags will be flown at half-mast and
radio and TV programming will be adjusted to suit the situation.
All public administrations and municipalities and public and private
institutions will meanwhile close on the burial day on Thursday.
Maronite Patriarch: We Now Have a Patron in Heaven
Kataeb.org/ Sunday 12th May 2019/Maronite Patriarch Bechara al-Rahi on Sunday
mourned the death of his predecessor, Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, praising him as
an icon. "We now have a patron in heaven," Al-Rahi said during a mass he
officiated in Bkirki to pray for the late Patriarch. On another note, Al-Rahi
said it is the duty of all political officials to work responsibly on forming a
society that is based on diversity and unity, adding that no one must be
excluded or neglected. “If officials in the parliament and government had had
these principles in mind, they would have come out with a budget that promises
reform, economic growth, financial stability and a decent social life,” he said.
Lebanese Leaders Mourn Death of ex-Patriarch Sfeir
Naharnet/May 12/2019/Lebanon's leaders and politicians on Sunday mourned the
death of former Maronite patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir, an influential figure in
Lebanon's modern history."The national arena will miss a man who was firm in his
defense of Lebanon's sovereignty and independence and its people's dignity,"
President Michel Aoun said. Prime Minister Saad Hariri meawhile remembered how
Sfeir cooperated with his slain father, ex-PM Rafik Hariri, over "the same
national cause," adding that they defended "independence, full sovereignty and
the freedom of decision."
Hariri also hoped "patriarch Sfeir's image will remain an icon for those working
loyally for their country." Free Patriotic Movement chief and Foreign Minister
Jebran Bassil described Sfeir as one of the Maronite church's most prominent
patriarchs. "We are very saddened and we are deeply determined to continue with
(Maronite) Patriarch (Beshara) al-Rahi the path of preserving freely diverse
existence and the final entity with its humanitarian message," Bassil tweeted.
Progressive Socialist Party leader ex-MP Walid Jumblat meanwhile said: "Farewell
to the patriarch of independence, reconciliation, love and peace."
Jumblat was referring to the historic reconciliation between Druze and
Christians in Mount Lebanon which was sponsored by Sfeir. Grand Mufti Sheikh
Abdul Latif Daryan meanwhile described Sfeir as "a role model for moderation,
openness, wisdom, dialogue, love and coexistence between Muslims and
Christians." Kataeb Party chief MP Sami Gemayel said Sfeir's "smile, wisdom and
firmness will remain carved in our heart and mind."Higher Islamic Shiite Council
chief Sheikh Abdul Amir Qabalan meawhile lauded Sfeir's "patriotic stances" and
said he was "a partner in immunizing national unity, deepening coexistence and
preserving Lebanon."
Former President Amine Gemayel Hails Late Cardinal as
'First Resistance Fighter'
Kataeb.org/ Sunday 12th May 2019/Former President Amine Gemayel on Sunday
mourned the death of Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, hailing him as the first
resistance fighter. “He was our guide to the second independence and the one who
sparked its start," he said. "He was an essential pillar in the Lebanese
resistance." "Amid the hardships that the country is currently facing, we are in
dire need of adhering to Sfeir's teachings and experience in order to save
Lebanon from the quagmire it is stuck into and from the blatant neglect of the
foundations of the Lebanese entity," Gemayel stressed. "Any settlement must not
be sealed at the expense of basic postulates and sanctities because we must hold
onto our constants in order to save Lebanon in the present and future," he
added.
Kataeb leader Samy Gemayel Mourns Patriarch's Passing: We Have Lost a Man Who
Never Compromised
Kataeb.org/ Sunday 12th May 2019/Kataeb leader Samy Gemayel on Sunday hailed the
late Patriarch Emeritus Nasrallah Sfeir as an exceptional man who will be
greatly missed, saying that the latter had not once compromised his constants
and values. “Patriarch Sfeir was our main resort as a student resistance
movement during the Syrian occupation era. He served as a catalyst for the
Lebanese people's opposition to the Syrian occupation,” Gemayel told MTV. “We
lost a symbol of a noble and honorable phase in the history of Lebanon,” he
said. “Sfeir will always be a role model to all of us." “The Patriarch was like
a father to me. He was an exceptional person who we are all going to miss,” he
said. “We hope we would rise up to the struggle fought by the late Cardinal in
the difficult times, and pledge to remain loyal to his teachings and the
political path he had paved during his mandate as patriarch," he affirmed.
MP Geagea Says Sfeir 'Stood by LF in Darkest Circumstances'
Naharnet/May 12/2019/MP Sethrida Geagea on Sunday described late Maronite
ex-patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir as a "saint" who "stood by the Lebanese Forces
party in the darkest circumstances, especially after the Taef Accord and between
the years 1990 and 2005.""He carved irreversible marks in our history," she said
in a statement mourning the late spiritual leader. "His role was essential as a
resistant patriarch who raised the voice against tyranny, especially when Samir
Geagea was arrested together with Lebanon as a country," the MP added. She also
hailed Sfeir's role in the Bkirki Declaration in the year 2000 and the Mt.
Lebanon reconciliation, saying he stood by "right and truth in the face of
hegemony and in support of the LF's cause."Geagea finally called on the Lebanese
state to declare Sfeir's burial day a national mourning day because "he worked
for the sake of entire Lebanon."
Rest In Peace - Patriarch and Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir
Eblan Farris/Face Book/May 12/2019
Rest In Peace - Patriarch and Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir. He was the
Patriarch of Antioch and all the East - a seat that was established and first
occupied by the Apostle St. Peter.
Patriarch Sfeir passed away this morning at 2:55am Beirut time.
I met with the Patriarch at his seat in Bkerke many times, he invited me to dine
with him and we talked a lot. He pulled out a list of those who have held the
seat of Patriarch of Antioch and all the East and showed me his name, then he
said look who the first one is that occupied this seat? It was the Apostle St.
Peter's name listed under number 1., at that point I choked up and had chills
running down my spine.
The history is amazing as it is a direct lineage all the way back to Jesus and
his Apostle St. Peter. This is the main reason I am so proud of being a Catholic
and will never ever entertain anything but this faith that has it's lineage
going all the way back to Jesus and the Apostle's.
When Jesus ascended into heaven, the Apostles felt that they were under risk, as
such St. Peter, St. Simon and St. Jude went to Beirut Lebanon - St. Simon and
St. Jude built a Church in Beirut and developed the Mass there, St. Peter
focused on developing the hierarchy of the Church by splitting it into 5 seats -
1st one Antioch and all the East, then Jerusalem, Alexandria Egypt,
Constantinople, and finally Rome. To 3 of the Seats, he would elevate to
Patriarch status, to 2 Bishop status.
Antioch
“...And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” ACTS 11:26
The First Seat was established as Patriarch of Antioch and all the East. The
history of this seat is one of continued persecution and survival of the faith.
The seat continued in Antioch till 682 when it came under attack, the Pope at
the time ordered John Maron to move the seat from Antioch to the protection of
the Mountains of Lebanon - St. John Maron established the Patriarch of Antioch
and All the East next door to my Mother and Father's home in Kfar Hey, Lebanon -
deep in the mountains. My Father and Msgr. Uncle went to school there. St. John
Maron was the first Maronite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, a
seat that was later occupied by Boutros Sfeir - who passed away this morning at
2:55am Beirut time. May God Rest His Soul in Heaven. Eblan
Patriarch Sfeir stood for unity and reconciliation
بيتر ولبي/عربنيوز: البطريرك صفير ساند ودافع عن الوحدة والمصالحة
Peter Welby/Arab News/May 12/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/74808/%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AA%D8%B1-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%B2-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%B7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%83-%D8%B5%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF-%D9%88/
The former Maronite patriarch of Antioch, the religious leader of Lebanon’s
Maronite Christians, died on Sunday, three days before his 99th birthday,
according to a statement by the Maronite Church. Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir had
played an instrumental role in the resolution to Lebanon’s civil war, and in
securing the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the country in 2005.
Born in 1920, the only boy among six children, Sfeir studied philosophy and
theology at St. Joseph’s University in Beirut, before being ordained to the
Maronite priesthood shortly before his 30th birthday.
He returned to his hometown of Rayfoun, north of Beirut, to serve as a priest
until 1955. He was also appointed secretary to the Diocese of Damascus, which
served the approximately 4,000 Maronite Christians in Syria, an experience that
would serve him well later in his career.
Sfeir was swiftly identified as suitable for promotion, and by 1961 he had been
consecrated bishop and appointed patriarchal vicar, a deputy to the patriarch.
This succession of roles gave him an insight into key parts of the Maronite
Church, and the politics of Lebanon and Syria, which would later serve him well.
His time as patriarchal vicar saw the rise in tensions in Lebanon that led to
the outbreak of civil war in 1975, and in 1976 he welcomed the intervention of
Syria, which prevented Maronite forces from being overwhelmed by Muslim
factions. But as it became apparent that Syria wished to do more in Lebanon than
simply keep the peace, Sfeir turned against its role.
In April 1986, he was elected patriarch of Antioch and all the East by the synod
of the Maronite Church, a position that would be crucial in gathering support
for the Taif Agreement that ended the civil war in 1989.
Following the announcement of Sfeir’s death, Aoun released a statement praising
him for his “defense of Lebanon’s sovereignty and its independence.”
His support for the agreement came at some cost to his support among Lebanese
Maronites, as it provided for Syria’s continued influence in Lebanon, and
downgraded the position of the latter’s Maronite community from the pre-war
status quo. It is thought that the Vatican leaned on the patriarch in order to
bring the civil war to an end (the Maronite Church is under the authority of the
Catholic pope).
Sfeir’s opposition to fighting between the different Christian factions had
already led to a rift with the prominent Maronite Gen. Michel Aoun (now
Lebanon’s president). Aoun went on to oppose the Taif Agreement.
Following the announcement of Sfeir’s death, Aoun released a statement praising
him for his “defense of Lebanon’s sovereignty and its independence.” Sfeir’s
opposition to intra-Christian rivalries remained a feature of his public profile
for the rest of his patriarchate.
Following the war, he devoted his energies to securing reconciliation in
Lebanon, particularly between the Maronites and the Druze. The Druze civil war
leader Walid Jumblatt, whose father was assassinated early in the war, tweeted
that Sfeir was a “patriarch of independence, reconciliation, peace and love.”
Sfeir continued to oppose the Syrian presence, most vocally in the early 2000s.
He is regarded as an instrumental figure in securing international support for
Syria’s withdrawal both before and after the Syrian-sponsored assassination of
Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005.
Sfeir’s opposition to Syrian interference in Lebanon continued after the 2005
withdrawal. His refusal to visit Syria has been contrasted to the current
patriarch’s visits, most recently in 2015, by the latter’s opponents.
Sfeir retired as patriarch in 2011 on the grounds of old age. He was replaced by
Bechara Boutros Rai. Sfeir was fluent in Arabic and French, and spoke a number
of other languages including English, Aramaic, Latin and Syriac. He wrote
several books on liturgical and theological issues, and within the Maronite
Church was behind a reform of the liturgy in 1992.
**Peter Welby is a consultant on religion and global affairs, specializing in
the Arab world. He is based in London, and has lived in Egypt and Yemen.
Twitter: @pdcwelby
Lebanese Cabinet Meets Sunday Evening and Monday in Bid to
Finalize Budget
Naharnet/May 12/2019/The Cabinet will hold a session at 9:30 pm Sunday and
another on Monday morning in a bid to finalize the 2019 draft state budget. "The
government will try to finalize the main points pertaining to essential files
such as the salaries of state employees and pensioners and other pending
topics," ministerial sources told An-Nahar newspaper in remarks published
Sunday. "The government and its Prime Minister Saad Hariri are clearly
determined to pass the budget as soon as possible although without rushing it,"
the sources added. Sunday evening's session is expected to be lengthy according
to An-Nahar. In recent days, large segments of public sector employees have been
protesting a decision to slash their benefits as part of an austerity package
being studied by Cabinet for this year's budget. Lebanon has vowed to slash
public spending to unlock $11 billion worth of aid pledged by international
donors during an April 2018 conference in Paris. Last month, Hariri vowed to
introduce "the most austere budget in Lebanon's history" to combat the country's
bulging fiscal deficit, sparking fears among public sector employees that their
salaries may be cut. Lebanon is one of the world's most indebted countries, with
public debt estimated at 141 percent of GDP in 2018, according to credit ratings
agency Moody's.
Retired Servicemen to Block Vital Facilities Monday Morning
Naharnet/May 12/2019/A grouping of retired servicemen on Sunday vowed to stage
protests and block vital facilities on Monday morning to warn the government
against "touching retirement salaries or social aid stipulated by the law."
"This major protest is the beginning of other steps that will paralyze all
Lebanese regions," the grouping added. It also called on civilian retirees to
take part in the prorests, warning them that they are "on the same boat."The
grouping also apologized to citizens for the inconvenience that will be caused
by the protests and urged them to "stand by those who were yesterday the
guardians of the country."
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on May 12-13/19
French FM Urges Iran to Show 'Political
Maturity' over U.S. Nuclear Deal
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 12/2019/French Foreign Minister
Jean-Yves Le Drian has described Tehran's threat to resume nuclear work -- in
what would be a contravention of its commitments under the 2015 Iran nuclear
deal -- as a "bad reaction", calling on Tehran to show "political maturity."
"Iran has had a bad reaction, faced with a bad U.S. decision to withdraw from
the Vienna agreements and impose sanctions," Le Drian said in an interview
published online by Le Parisien, referring to the 2015 deal signed in Vienna.
"It is a pity that the United States is not honouring its commitments, Iran must
show its political maturity," Le Drian added. Iran announced earlier this month
that it will stop respecting some limits on its nuclear activities imposed under
the landmark 2015 deal. The announcement came exactly a year after the U.S.
withdrew from the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),
with further measures threatened if the agreement's other signatories fail to
mitigate the impact of renewed American sanctions within 60 days. Le Drian also
warned against a "bellicose spiral", stressing the "responsibility" of the
Americans and the importance of dialogue with Tehran.
Iranian commander threatens to hit America ‘in the head’ if
it makes military move
Arab News/May 12/2019//LONDON: A commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard
threatened Sunday to hit America “in the head” if it made a military move, the
Iranian Students' News Agency (ISNA) reported.
Amirali Hajizadeh, the head of the Guard's aerospace division, also said that
America’s military presence in the Gulf used to be a serious threat but now it’s
an opportunity. "An aircraft carrier that has at least 40 to 50 planes on it and
6000 forces gathered within it was a serious threat for us in the past but
now...the threats have switched to opportunities," Hajizadeh said. The US
military has sent forces, including an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers, to the
Middle East to counter what the Trump administration says are “clear
indications” of threats from Iran to US forces there.
The USS Abraham Lincoln is replacing another carrier rotated out of the Gulf
last month. Earlier on Sunday, an Israeli cabinet minister warned of possible
direct or proxy Iranian attacks on Israel should the stand-off between Tehran
and Washington escalate. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government,
which supports Trump’s hard tack against its arch-foe, has largely been reticent
about the spiralling tensions.Parting with the silence, Israeli Energy Minister
Yuval Steinitz said that, in the Gulf, “things are heating up.” “If there’s some
sort of conflagration between Iran and the United States, between Iran and its
neighbors, I’m not ruling out that they will activate Hezbollah and Islamic
Jihad from Gaza, or even that they will try to fire missiles from Iran at the
State of Israel,” Steinitz, a member of Netanyahu’s security cabinet, told
Israel’s Ynet TV. Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are Iranian-sponsored guerrilla
groups on Israel’s borders, the former active in Syria as well as Lebanon and
the latter in the Palestinian territories. The Israeli military declined to
comment when asked if it was making any preparations for possible threats linked
to the Iran-US standoff. Israel has traded blows with Iranian forces in Syria,
as well as with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian militants. But it has not
fought an open war with Iran, a country on the other side of the Middle East.
(With Reuters)
Four commercial vessels targeted by ‘sabotage’ near UAE
waters: Foreign ministry
Arab News/May 12/2019/DUBAI: Four commercial vessels were targeted by "acts of
sabotage" near the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates on Sunday
morning, the UAE foreign ministry said in a statement amid rising tensions
between neighboring Iran and the US. The statement added the vessels, that were
targeted near Fujairah and at a distance of 115 kilometers from Iran, were
“civilian trading vessels of various nationalities”, and that the UAE was
investigating the incident with local and international bodies. Rumors about
ships inside the port being sabotaged were unfounded, the ministry added. The
port of Fujairah continues to operate as normal and there were no victims of the
sabotage incident. The ministry added that targeting merchant ships and
threatening the lives of crew members is a “dangerous development,” and that the
government considers the acts of sabotage to be a threat to the safety and
security of the UAE. The country called on the international community to
prevent any party from compromising maritime safety and security. The ministry
statement was tweeted by the official news agency WAM.
Lebanon’s pro-Iran satellite channel Al-Mayadeen falsely reported that a series
of explosions had struck Fujairah’s port, and the reports were repeated by state
media in Iran. Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, head of the Iranian Parliament’s
national security committee, said the “explosions” showed that the security of
Gulf states was “like glass.”The sabotage incident follows a US Maritime
Administration warning last week that Iran could target commercial sea traffic.
“Since early May, there is an increased possibility that Iran and/or its
regional proxies could take action against US and partner interests, including
oil production infrastructure, after recently threatening to close the Strait of
Hormuz,” the organization said. “Iran or its proxies could respond by targeting
commercial vessels, including oil tankers, or US military vessels in the Red
Sea, Bab El Mandeb or the Arabian Gulf.”Bahrain condemned the acts of sabotage,
saying it was a "criminal act" that threatened maritime traffic in the region.
The kingdom said it stood with the UAE. The US deployed the Abraham Lincoln
aircraft carrier strike group and B-52 bombers to the region on May 4 in
response to what it said was an “escalated threat” from Iran.
A senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander issued a veiled threat on
Sunday to the US military presence in the Gulf. “An aircraft carrier that has at
least 40 to 50 planes on it and 6,000 forces gathered within it was a serious
threat for us in the past but now it is a target and the threats have switched
to opportunities,” said Amirali Hajjizadeh, head of the Guards’ aerospace
division. “If they make a move we will hit them in the head.”Earlier on Sunday,
the UAE emirate of Fujairah denied media reports that claimed a series of
explosions had rocked its port on Sunday. Claims from a number of news outlets,
which were then shared on social media, said there had been explosions on Sunday
morning and that fires had broken out on some of the docked oil tankers in the
port. Fujairah government’s media office tweeted a statement on Sunday denying
there had been any explosions and that operations were continuing as normal. It
also called on media organizations to be “accurate” in their reporting and to
only publish information once it was “confirmed by official sources.”The harbor
master of Fujairah port, who had been on shift at the time, also confirmed that
there was no truth to the reports.
Pompeo Heads to Russia as U.S. Diplomacy Turns Schizophrenic
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 12/2019/U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is
heading to Russia with an unusual and thankless task -- standing firm against
the rival power even as his boss, President Donald Trump, reaches out to
reconcile. Pompeo will meet Tuesday with Putin in the Black Sea resort of Sochi,
in the highest-level U.S engagement with the Russian leader since a July summit
in Helsinki after which Trump faced wide scorn at home for his trustful embrace
of the Russian leader. The top U.S diplomat's trip comes less than two months
after Special Counsel Robert Mueller wound up an investigation that found that
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election -- but that the Trump
campaign did not collude with Moscow. After spending the first two years of his
presidency under the cloud of Mueller's probe, Trump chatted for more than an
hour by telephone with Putin on May 3, in what he hailed as a "very positive"
conversation. Trump said that Putin had assured him that Russia was not involved
in Venezuela -- directly contradicting Pompeo and other top officials who for
weeks have demanded that Moscow stop backing leftist leader Nicolas Maduro, whom
Washington is trying to topple. Venezuela is only one of a slew of issues where
the United States and Russia have clashed. Others include the Syrian war, arms
control commitments and the conflict in Ukraine, where Western powers have been
attempting for five years to little avail to end Moscow's support for armed
separatists. Jonathan Katz, a former U.S. official focused on Central and
Eastern Europe, believed that Russia was looking to see if the end of Mueller's
probe would allow a new beginning with Trump, whom Putin supported over Hillary
Clinton in 2016. "I think this is Moscow testing whether there is a new modus
operandi in Washington, (after) the release of the Mueller report," said Katz,
now a senior fellow at The German Marshall Fund of the United States. Despite
heading the U.S. government, Trump is a major outlier in Washington, with
virtually all senior administration officials including Pompeo and lawmakers
across party lines advocating a harder stance on Russia, including sanctions
over election interference and its 2014 takeover of Crimea from Ukraine. For
Pompeo, "it's incredibly difficult because the interlocutors on the other side
don't know who speaks for the United States," Katz said.
Progress sought on arms control
A State Department official said Pompeo, who will also meet with Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov for the second time in as many weeks, would push for
progress in particular in one area -- arms control. The New START treaty, which
caps the number of nuclear warheads well below Cold War limits, is set to expire
in 2021 and Trump has called for a broader successor that will include a rising
China. Even Pompeo has acknowledged that those goals may be too optimistic.
Another key accord, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, just
collapsed, with the United States pulling out over charges that a new Russian
missile system violated it. Despite deep rifts on many hotspots, the State
Department official said that Russia and the United States, if not seeing
eye-to-eye, had developed "constructive" relationships on Afghanistan and North
Korea. "It is in our interest to have a better relationship with Russia," the
official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "Where we have concerns,
we're going to raise them directly, narrow those differences and find areas
where we can cooperate to protect and advance our interests." But Victoria
Nuland, who championed a tough line on Russia as an assistant secretary of state
during Barack Obama's administration, voiced doubt on whether hopes for a better
relationship could be realized under Putin's increasingly autocratic rule. She
said that a "lack of leadership, unity and consistency" in the United States was
the greatest challenge to countering a resurgent Russia. "What we don't know,
and what we have to continue to test, is whether Russian President Putin truly
wants to improve relations," she recently testified before the House Foreign
Affairs Committee. "It may well be that his psychology and leadership model are
too dependent on an enemy abroad to change course -- and we have to steel
ourselves for what may be a very long game that outlasts Putin."
Israel Reopens Gaza Crossings as Calm Restored
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 12/2019/Israel reopened Sunday its crossings
with the blockaded Gaza Strip after closing them during a deadly escalation
earlier this month, an official said, as a fragile truce held. Both the Erez
crossing for people and Kerem Shalom crossing for goods were open and operating,
a spokeswoman for COGAT, the defence ministry unit that oversees the crossings,
said in a statement. Both had been closed on May 4, when Gaza rulers Hamas and
its ally Islamic Jihad fired hundreds of rockets at Israel, with the army
striking dozens of targets in Gaza in response. Four Israeli civilians and 25
Palestinians, including at least nine militants, were killed in the two-day
flare-up, which ended on Monday in a tentative truce. Palestinian officials said
Israel had agreed to ease its crippling decade-long blockade of the impoverished
enclave in exchange for calm.
Israel did not publicly confirm the deal, but on Friday lifted the ban it had
imposed on Palestinian fishing boats operating off Gaza. Israel says its
blockade is necessary to isolate Gaza's Islamist rulers Hamas, with whom it has
fought three wars since 2008. But critics say it amounts to collective
punishment of Gaza's two million residents.
Netanyahu Says Needs More Time to Form New Govt.
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 12/2019/Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu said Sunday he would ask President Reuven Rivlin for more time to form
a new coalition government, citing recent holidays and the Gaza flare-up.
Netanyahu's Likud won 35 seats in the April 9 general election, with most party
chiefs represented in the 120-seat parliament recommending that he forms the
next governing coalition. On April 17 Rivlin formally tasked him with the
mission, which by law needs to be completed within 28 days -- although a 14-day
extension is automatically granted upon request. "As in past instances of
forming a government, I intend on asking an extension from the president,"
Netanyahu said in the opening remarks of the weekly cabinet meeting. "Such an
extension is not only acceptable but also required due to scheduling problems,"
he said citing a busy holiday season, including Passover and Israeli
Independence Day, as well as the Gaza flare-up. On May 4, militants in the
Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip fired hundreds of rockets at Israel, prompting the army
to striked dozens of targets inside the blockaded coastal enclave in response.
Four Israeli civilians and 25 Palestinians, including at least nine militants,
were killed in the two-day flare-up, which ended on Monday in a tentative truce.
Netanyahu has been conducting low-intensity meetings with heads of the parties
expected to join his coalition. It is expected to include the 16 members of the
ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties, the far-right national religious union, Avigdor
Lieberman's nationalistic Israel Beitenu and the center-right Kulanu.
Netanyahu's lawyers were meanwhile negotiating with the justice ministry when
the premier's pre-trial hearings would take place. The attorney general
announced in February his intention to indict Netanyahu for bribery, fraud and
breach of trust -- pending a hearing. Netanyahu is not required to resign if
indicted, only if convicted with all appeals exhausted.
Belgian Leaders Mull Suspension of Saudi Arms Sales
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 12/2019/Belgian leaders are mulling the
suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, national broadcaster RTBF said
Saturday after it was reported they had been used in Yemen. Foreign Minister
Didier Reynders told RTBF: "I think it would be good to suspend arms deliveries
to Saudi Arabia" if it were shown they had been used "in an ongoing conflict,
such as in Yemen," in which case he said the regional Walloonian government
"must" take that decision. Belgium's constitution places responsibility for such
decisions on the producer region, in this case Wallonia, which owns the arms
manufacturer FN Herstal. Regional president Willy Borsus told RTBF it "could go
as far as suspending existing arms export licenses" if conditions under which
they were granted had been violated. Belgian newspaper Le Soir said Wednesday an
investigation showed Ryad had used Belgian arms and technology in operations
against Huthi rebels in Yemen, where more than four years of fighting has killed
tens of thousands of people, relief agencies say. The fighting has triggered
what the United Nations describes as the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with
3.3 million people still displaced and 24.1 million -- more than two-thirds of
the population -- in need of aid. The issue of Saudi arms sales divides European
governments, with French President Emmanuel Macron defending such sales Thursday
as part of "the fight against terrorism."Germany however suspended arms sales to
Riyad after the killing last year of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi in
Istanbul, posing a problem for European partners because it can affect weapons
produced jointly. A diplomatic source said the issue would be discussed Monday
by EU foreign ministers in Brussels, because Saudi Arabia is also backing Libyan
rebel leader Khalifa Haftar in his bid to overthrow a government in Tripoli that
has EU backing. The EU has committed to enforcing a U.N. arms embargo in Libya.
8 'Terrorist' Suspects Killed in Saudi Arabia
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 12/2019/Eight members of a "terrorist" cell
were killed on Saturday in a police raid in Saudi Arabia's eastern Qatif region,
a Shiite minority stronghold, state media reported. The recently-formed cell was
preparing to carry out "terrorist" activities against the security of the
country, the official Saudi Press Agency reported citing a state security
spokesman. He said the men were killed after they fired shots at security
forces, who had surrounded a residential apartment in the Sanabis neighborhood.
"They were called on to surrender, but they did not respond and opened fire at
the security forces... which resulted in their killing," said the spokesman. No
civilians or security forces were injured in the operation, he added. Saudi
Arabia's Eastern Province -- which includes Qatif -- has seen bouts of unrest
since 2011 when protesters emboldened by the Arab Spring uprisings took to the
streets. The demonstrators have demanded an end to what they say is
discrimination by the Sunni-dominated government, a charge Riyadh denies. One of
the leaders of the protest movement, prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, was
executed in 2016 for "terrorism". Nimr's execution exacerbated sectarian tension
both across the Gulf and with Saudi Arabia's main regional rival, Shiite Iran.
The Shiite community is estimated to make up between 10 and 15 percent of the
kingdom's population of 32 million, but the government has released no official
statistics.
Yemen Government Blasts Rebel 'Deception' over Port Pullout
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 12/2019/Yemen's government on Sunday accused
rebels of a "policy of deception" after they announced a pullout from a string
of Red Sea ports in a long-delayed move agreed under a ceasefire deal last year.
The docks serve as a lifeline for millions in the impoverished Arabian Peninsula
country, which has been pushed to the brink of famine by more than four years of
devastating war. According to the United Nations, the Huthi insurgents began to
withdraw from the ports of Hodeida, Saleef and Ras Issa on Saturday. The
pullback is considered a first step in implementing a hard-won truce agreement
for Hodeida struck in Sweden in December between Yemen's Saudi-backed government
and the Iran-aligned Huthi rebels. The flashpoint city is the main entry point
for Yemen's imports and humanitarian aid. But government officials cast doubts
over the handover process, saying it was unclear who was taking control of the
ports, and experts said it was too soon to say if the move represented genuine
progress. "The (Sweden) agreement is very difficult to execute because the lines
are blurry and each side interprets it the way it wants to," said Yemen expert
Farea al-Muslimi, a visiting fellow at the London-based Chatham House think
tank. "Overall, the next two weeks will show if this is a handover or a yet
another hangover," he told AFP.
'Theatrical play'
Yemen's information minister accused the rebels of faking the pullout. "What the
Huthi militia did is a repeated theatrical play of handing over control of the
port to its own forces (in different uniforms)," Moammer al-Eryani tweeted on
Sunday. "This shows its continued manipulation and evasion to implement the
Sweden agreement... by adopting a policy of deception."The governor of Hodeida,
Al-Hasan Taher, said Saturday the insurgents were merely reshuffling personnel.
"The Huthis are staging a new ploy by handing over the ports of Hodeida, Saleef
and Ras Issa to themselves without any monitoring by the United Nations and the
government side," said the official, appointed by the internationally recognised
government. "This is totally rejected by us, and the agreement must be
implemented in full, especially with regards to the identity of the troops that
will take over from the Huthis," he added. Sources close to the Huthis said the
ports were handed over to coastguard personnel who were in charge before the
rebels took over Hodeida almost five years ago.
'Potential breakthrough'
According to Adam Baron, a Yemen expert at the European Council on Foreign
Relations think tank, the Huthi withdrawal represents a "potential
breakthrough". "That being said, it remains to be seen how significant it can
truly be," he told AFP. "Trust between both parties borders on non-existent,
something that continues to hamper any efforts toward deconfliction. "Even an
implementation of the deal only signals progress on one part of the deal and one
aspect of the conflict. It's key to remember that Yemen is not Hodeida and even
amidst the relative calming there, the conflict continues to burn." The U.N.
Security Council is due to hear a briefing on Hodeida on Wednesday -- a day
after the rebel withdrawal is expected to be completed. Last year's deal was
hailed as a breakthrough that offered the best chance so far of ending the war
in Yemen, where a coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is
fighting on the government's side. But although the violence has largely stopped
in Hodeida, there have been intermittent clashes and the promised redeployment
of the warring parties away from the front lines has failed to materialise.
A peace deal for the rest of the country also remains elusive. "The agreement in
Sweden only stopped the fighting in Hodeida, the challenge is to turn it into an
all-inclusive national agreement," said Muslimi. The military coalition led by
Riyadh intervened in March 2015 when President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi fled into
exile in Saudi Arabia after the rebels captured swathes of the country. Yemen's
conflict has killed tens of thousands of people, many of them civilians, relief
agencies say. The fighting has triggered what the U.N. describes as the world's
worst humanitarian crisis, with 24.1 million -- more than two-thirds of the
population -- in need of aid.
Pakistan PM Slams Hotel Attack as Bid to Damage Economy
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 12/2019/An attack on a luxury hotel in the
southwestern city of Gwadar was a bid to "sabotage prosperity", Pakistani prime
minister Imran Khan said Sunday, as police confirmed all the attackers had been
killed. At least one person was shot dead Saturday after gunmen stormed a luxury
hotel in the southwestern Pakistani city of Gwadar, the centrepiece of a
multi-billion dollar Chinese infrastructure project. A Baloch separatist group,
the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), claimed responsibility for the attack via
Twitter. "Such attempts especially in Balochistan are an effort to sabotage our
economic projects and prosperity. We shall not allow these agendas to succeed,"
Khan said in a statement issued by his office. The Chinese embassy in Islamabad
also strongly condemned the incident. Local police said four gunmen who had
stormed the hotel, shooting dead a security guard, had been killed overnight by
security forces."All four terrorists were killed and security forces had taken
complete control of the hotel building," a local police official in Gwadar told
AFP via telephone. His account was confirmed by a security source in Islamabad.
The military had said on Saturday that there were three gunmen. Mohammad Aslam,
a police official in Gwadar, told AFP Saturday that only staff were present in
the building at the time of the attack. The BLA is one of a myriad of insurgent
groups fighting in tightly-guarded Balochistan province, which has been rocked
by separatist, Islamist and sectarian violence for years.
'The next Dubai'
The Pearl Continental, part of Pakistan's largest five-star hotel chain, is the
only luxury hotel in Gwadar, frequented by foreign and Pakistani business
delegations as well as diplomats. It sits isolated on a ridge overlooking the
Arabian Sea port city that was formerly a small fishing village, but now touted
by officials as "the next Dubai" thanks to the multi-billion dollar
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Part of China's Belt and Road
initiative, CPEC seeks to connect the western Chinese province of Xinjiang with
Gwadar, with the development of the port as the plan's flagship project. Gwadar
will provide China with safer and more direct access to the oil-rich Middle East
than the waterway trade route it currently uses through the narrow Malacca
Straits. But it has also drawn its share of attacks -- particularly from
separatists who have long complained that residents of Pakistan's poorest and
largest province do not receive a fair share of profits from its resources. The
BLA has targeted Chinese workers in Pakistan multiple times, including during a
brazen daylight attack on the Chinese consulate in Karachi which killed four
people in November last year. At the time, the BLA branded Beijing "an
oppressor". Balochistan is tightly guarded by the Pakistani military, who have
been targeting insurgents there since 2004. The army has been repeatedly accused
by international rights groups of abuses there, but denies all allegations. The
attack was the second deadly attack in a prominent Pakistan city this week,
after a suicide blast claimed by the Pakistani Taliban at one of the country's
oldest and most popular Sufi shrines killed at least 12 people in the eastern
city of Lahore.
Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published
on May 12-13/19
Can Islam Be Rescued from Islamism?
Mordechai Nisan/AMERICAN THINKER/May 12/2019
Islamic terrorism in its violent expressions coexists with Islamic terrorism in
thought. The blatant and barbarous aspect of Islamism, its murderous activities
in New York and Jerusalem, Bali and London, Paris and Nairobi, Argentina and the
Philippines, Madrid and Mumbai, Syria and Sri Lanka, mesmerizes world attention.
Yet the terror of thought is no less, and perhaps more, menacing and paralytic:
it constricts freedom of consciousness, intimidates free speech, and submits and
smothers society under conformist Islamist religious forces. Islam from its
beginning promoted both jihad warfare “in the path of Allah” and dawa
missionizing to advance the new religion and make it supreme, if not exclusive,
in the world.
Salim Mansur, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of
Western Ontario, is a believing but dissident Muslim. Among Muslim reformers and
free thinkers in the West, like his fellow-Canadian Irshad Manji, also Nonie
Darwish and Boualem Sansal, are those who categorically denounced Islam,
pointing to the obscenity of compulsory female genital mutilation and “honor
killings,” beheadings, and brutal massacres. Some left the fold; among these
apostates are Ibn Warraq, Mohamed Sifaoui, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Some dissidents
in Muslim lands fled into exile and required police protection. A noteworthy and
particular case was that of Nobel Literature laureate Naguib Mahfouz, a Muslim
secularist, who was assaulted by fanatics in Cairo, survived the attack, and
remained in his country.
In The Qur’an Problem and Islamism, published by Mantua Books in Canada, Salim
Mansur offers an exceptionally courageous and principled Muslim narrative of his
personal beliefs and philosophy of life in a world where Khomeinism, Al-Qaeda,
Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood, and ISIS, dominate and suffocate the Islamic
conversation. Islamism is a “monstrosity,” affirms Mansur, reflecting the rot in
the Muslim world. Its savagery in murdering thousands of innocent human beings
in Nigeria and Pakistan, France and Spain, Egypt and Iraq, has brought shame
upon many good Muslims globally.
Which Islam?
As a classic liberal and modern-day political conservative, Mansur is an
intellectual savant whose worldview includes rationalism, individualism, and
enlightenment, buoyed by loyalty to Canada and her roots in liberty and law. In
his quest to sustain Islam as a religion embodying morality and humanism, Salim
Mansur reads, with an open and critical eye, the Qur’an and the life of
Muhammad, who spread “the Word of God.” Manifestly explicit passages in the
Islamic holy book call upon believers to practice righteousness, to give alms to
the poor, to treat orphans with fairness, and honor and show kindness to
parents; faith demands belief in Allah and the final Day of Judgment. Muslims
are to attend to their prayers and reject idolatry. They are obligated to
refrain from imposing their faith on non-Muslims.
With support from the Qur’an, Mansur reaches out to “one human family” with a
universalism to encompass all people and believers – not only Muslims — in the
One God. The Qur’an that “makes things clear” is part of the prophetic legacy in
monotheism. Islam is one path and not the only one toward this truth. In his
writings and interviews, Salim conveys his love for humanity whatever people’s
background or faith. This is for him the message of Islam writ large in daily
life.
So where is the problem? It is in the totalitarian ideology of Islamism, this
“crippling of Islamic culture and civilization,” which abandoned philosophy and
reason, and formulated a “fascistic” and perverted version of Islam. Great
Muslim thinkers like Al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd (Averros), and Jalaluddin al-Rumi,
have been ignored or rejected. The infamous preachers advocated jihad,
militancy, and martyrdom. Among the radical fundamentalists were Ibn Taimiyya,
Hasan al-Banna, and Sayyid Qutb. Islam, now reduced to warfare and blood,
metastasized into Islamism. This is Mansur’s central claim and he is therefore
at one with non-Muslim authors like Bat Ye’or, Robert Spencer, and Andrew Bostom,
who have elucidated the warlike and expansionist ambitions of a conquering Islam
pursuing the vision of a world caliphate.
One chapter in the book deals with Muslim anti-Semitism that, for Mansur, is a
diabolical strand that has no inherent foundation in the Qur’an and Islam.
Anti-Jewish bigotry is foreign to the holy text and Jews indeed survived and
even sometimes flourished in Muslim lands. There are ways to interpret the
Qur’an through the method of abrogation (naskh) and contexualizing to invalidate
the contemporary relevance of harsh Qu’ranic verses. The text then becomes
subject to the meaning the reader gives to it. Yet, radical Muslim preachers
today are rife with blistering Qur’anic-based attacks against Jews as cursed,
vile people, murdering prophets and breaching agreements, to the crescendo of
likening them to apes and monkeys. For Mansur, the Qur’anic demand that Jews be
reduced to “humiliation and misery” (Ch.9, 29) is limited to an earlier period
of history alone.
When Muslims promote hatred for Jews and Christians, this is in the view of
Mansur a deviation and distortion of Islam’s basic tolerance for other
monotheistic religions.
Is There a Non-Political Islam?
Salim Mansur and other Muslims who share his frustration and rage confront the
Islamist domination of Islam’s agenda and activity that possess vast financial
and educational networks with a radical program to Islamize the world, America
and Europe included. Over a thousand years ago, the fanatical Hanbali Muslims in
Baghdad raided houses if they found wine and poured it away; if they found a
singing girl they beat her; if they saw a man going with a woman, they charged
them with immorality and dragged them to the police. These scenes of oppression
sound familiar in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan of today.
However, other Muslims a millennium ago evoked a very different sensibility.
Avicenna, born in Bukhara (Uzbekistan), was educated in the Qur’an and
jurisprudence, also in mathematics and logic, Aristotelian philosophy,
astronomy, geometry, and medicine. He was a man of learning and open to
acquiring knowledge from whoever could teach him. In Baghdad Islamists hounded
the people in the name of Islam, in Bukhara and beyond Avicenna sought the
horizons of scholarship in tandem with Islam. The debate regarding the true
version of Islam continues until today.
Salim Mansur is a modern man, valuing reason while not discarding revelation,
though choosing the former over the latter. He seeks coherence and
comprehensiveness in knowledge, without sacrificing his deep faith in Islam.
Perhaps he is trying to square the circle, hold the rope from both ends. He
confidently recognizes the cultural continuity in evolving revelations,
Muhammad’s included, throughout history. As a Muslim believer, he seems drawn to
the softness and individuality embedded within the Sufi track, as in the thought
of Ibn ‘Arabi who identified the “Oneness of Being” for the mystical climb to be
at one with God. This is an invitation for all human beings regardless of their
particular religious affiliation. God transcends all, and distinctions among men
dissolve with the common quest for a god-like experience and life. Mansur’s is a
personal religion rather than a political religion; the classic characterization
of Islam as din wa-dawla (religion and state) is alien to Salim’s sensibility.
His nobility of character in an age of extremism is exceptionally admirable. He
feels engaged in the vortex of a historical moment that imperils both Islam and
the West. In Ontario, where he lives, he had to change the mosque he attends. He
was threatened for his ‘unorthodox’ ideas. No less, he is a spiritual brother to
the Jews and a vigorous supporter of Israel. These convictions fly in the face
of the ideological rigors of Islamism.
Overall, Mansur wants an Islam of “many faces.” He chooses the West for its
modernity and openness, individual liberty and the rule of law. This he found in
Canada, the country he adopted and embraces. He hopes to enter Canadian
politics; as a Member of Parliament he could be a commanding voice for
moderation and common sense to challenge the vagaries of multi-culturalism,
religious fanaticism, and anti-Semitism.
As of today, the chicanery of Islamophobia and Political Correctness control
much of the language and discussion. The West has been artfully and partly
disarmed of its heritage – including Christianity, and values of equality and
liberty, progress for all — choosing to privilege Islam by accommodating its
parallel society separatism, sharia courts, and execrable youth marriages (as in
parts of Europe today). In the East, Islam has persecuted and terrorized the
Christians; but in the West, Islamist Muslims have been free to advance an
Islamist agenda – in schools, in mosques, in public and political fora, in the
media – successfully intimidating the weak-willed while glorifying the supremacy
of Islam over all other cultures and religions.
* Dr. Mordechai Nisan is a retired lecturer in Middle East Studies at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem. His most recent book is The Crack-Up of the Israeli
Left, published by Mantua Books in Canada.
Egyptian-German Scholar Hamed Abdel-Samad: Islamic
Extremism Stems From The Core Of Islam; Tens Of Thousands Of ISIS Supporters
Live Among Us
MEMRI/May 12/2019
Egyptian-German scholar Hamed Abdel-Samad said that Islamic extremism and
terrorism stems from the "core of Islam" – from its texts, its history of
conquests, its founder, and its ideology – and that the problem does not lie
only with the returning ISIS members, but with the "multiple layers of
radicalization," with which the governmental and Islamic structures are not
equipped to deal. "There are thousands, tens of thousands, of them living among
us," he warned, calling to try ISIS fighters in international tribunals and to
impose harsher punishments. Abdel-Samad, who was participating on a talk show on
the Austrian Servus TV channel on February 21, talked about the dangers to the
child’s worldview posed by the victim’s mentality, by violence in the family, by
mixed messages on sexuality, and by the clash of cultures. He discussed the
violence and lack of freedom suffered by Muslim women, saying: "How often has
this imaginary god ruined people!"
To view the clip of Egyptian-German scholar Hamed Abdel-Samad on MEMRI TV, click
here or below.
"Many Muslims From Every Muslim Country Joined ISIS, The First Group Came From
Saudi Arabia, I Don't Think Islamophobia Exists There, The Second Group Came
From The Middle Class Of Tunisia. There Is Not Much Islamophobia There Either"
Hamed Abdel-Samad: "Many Muslims from every Muslim country joined ISIS. The
first group came from Saudi Arabia. I don't think Islamophobia exists there. The
second group came from the middle class of Tunisia. There is not much
Islamophobia there either. There is not a single Islamic country that is devoid
of terrorism and of increasing radicalization. Saying that the main and only
reason [for terrorism], in your view, is that these young people face
Islamophobia is not the way to solve the problem. First, we can start with what
Muslims are doing wrong – what is being preached [in mosques] here, the
worldview that mosques are teaching these young people. [They teach them] to
have a victim's mentality – and unfortunately, you are part of this. What kind
of victim's mentality? This mentality encourages these people in their
inferiority complex and their victim's mentality, and then it creates an
illusion so that they will join jihad – so they can save the Muslims, as well as
themselves, and ultimately, reach Paradise. This ideology stems from the core of
Islam and is the primary source [of terrorism]. Without this, there would be no
Islamism or terrorism in any Muslim country or community anywhere in the world.
There are no longer any countries on Earth that are free of Islamism and
terrorism."
Host: "But what you are saying is that the original reason for this movement is
not a separate, extremist, Islamist part of Islam, but that it basically stems
from the core of the religion itself. That's what you are saying."
Hamed Abdel-Samad: "These are the texts of Islam, the history of Islam, and the
role model and founder of Islam. ISIS is doing nothing different than Muhammad
and his successors, at the time. They brought an ideology into the world, using
weapons and the subjugation of peoples. As an Egyptian, I would never have been
born a Muslim, if Muhammad's successors had not behaved like ISIS does. The same
holds true for Morocco, Iran, and, in fact, anywhere Islam spread. The entire
history of Islam is a history of conquest.
"[Muslims say:] We are victims – if I cannot subjugate you now, I am your
victim."
"There Are ISIS Fighters, And There Are People Who Approve Of This Ideology, But
Did Not Go To Syria – There Are Thousands, Tens Of Thousands, Of Them Living
Among Us"
"The problem is not that a few hundred [ISIS fighters] are returning, but that
the governmental and Islamic structures here are not at all able to absorb these
people. Radicalization is increasing on a daily basis. The state cannot monitor
potential terrorists 24 hours a day. It's not possible. And then we wake up and
learn that one of them drove a truck into a crowd. We wake up and discover that
someone has committed a terrorist attack in a Christmas market. And we have to
live with this.
"I suggest that we put these people before an international tribunal, and
inflict harsh punishment on them. But they have realized that our judiciary is
very lax in dealing with them. They know that there are various [legal]
loopholes. They hate democracy, they fight against democracy, yet they take
advantage of our democracy against us, in order to expand their infrastructures,
and even in order to kill us.
"I find it extremely dangerous that we are always talking about these 'popular'
300 or 400 people, and the rest of the Muslims and Islam, in general, are okay.
There are multiple layers of radicalization. There are ISIS fighters, and there
are people who approve of this ideology, but did not go to Syria. There are
thousands, tens of thousands, of them living among us. There is also a
conservative Islamic theology, which does not directly say: 'Go there and
fight,' but it shares the same worldview. It shares the same sentiment towards
Christians, disbelievers, and so on, and it feeds this victim's mentality as
well.
"Of course, there is also the violence these people experience within their
families – when a child grows up and sees that the first strategy of
communication between his father and mother is violence. In other words, the
first solution to a problem is violence. The child grows up with this trauma,
but also with this nature – violence is the first option in such a situation.
When a child wants to deal with problems involving sexuality in a healthy way,
this requires outlets. This is well known in psychology. When a child receives
mixed messages from school, the family, and the mosque, that is extremely
dangerous for their personal worldview. You need an established worldview.
"When the Quran or Islam sometimes says that tolerance is okay, altruism is
okay, but in the next sentence there is another war, and [non-Muslims] are
'sinners,' 'hypocrites,' and 'disbelievers,' when the world is divided into
believers and disbelievers – that is intrinsic to Islamic theology – then we
actually do have a role model. The Prophet himself must not be questioned in
Islam, although he was a warlord and treated women in a strange way. When this
man is considered a role model by young Muslims, who study Kant, Spinoza, and
Voltaire – they go crazy."
"He Was Married To 13 Women, He Waged 80 Wars In The Last Eight Years Of His
Life, He Took Women As Prisoners Of War – Why Should An Enlightened Person In
The 21st Century Not Criticize This Man? Why Does He Deserve Immunity From
Criticism?"
Muslim Panel Member: "You have now insulted Muslims on many, many levels in a
single sentence. First of all, if you want to criticize the Prophet Muhammad,
you have the right to do so. I will not forbid you. But please do so objectively
and honorably. You offend Islam on many levels, and you don't have to wonder why
Muslims take this personally and reject your activity."
Hamed Abdel-Samad: "I am criticizing a man who has been dead for 1,400 years. He
was married to 13 women. He waged 80 wars in the last eight years of his life.
He took women as prisoners of war. Why should an enlightened person in the 21st
century not criticize this man? Why does he deserve immunity from criticism?"
"Go To Any Women's Shelter In Austria Or Germany, And See Who The Majority
Are... Read Studies About Women Committing Suicide, And Ask Yourselves Why
Muslim Women Commit Suicide Twice As Much" As Non-Muslim Women
"When we talk about violence against women in Islam, we have empirical data. Go
to any women's shelter in Austria or Germany, and see who the majority are. You
will be surprised! Read studies about women committing suicide, and ask
yourselves why Muslim women commit suicide twice as much [as non-Muslim women].
There are empirical studies.
"It is always due to lack of freedom. The daughter wants to study somewhere and
is not allowed, and she kills herself. She wants to marry a non-Muslim, but good
old Islam, the imaginary god of Islam, has whispered that this is impossible. So
love must die, and a young woman dies. How often has this imaginary god ruined
people!"
Opinion/ America Must Not Back Down Against Iran
إميلي لانداو/هآرتس: لا يجب أن تتراجع أميركا في مواجهتها مع إيران
Emily B. Landau/Haaretz/May 12/ 2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/74788/%d8%af-%d8%a5%d9%85%d9%8a%d9%84%d9%8a-%d9%84%d8%a7%d9%86%d8%af%d8%a7%d9%88-%d9%87%d8%a2%d8%b1%d8%aa%d8%b3-%d9%84%d8%a7-%d9%8a%d8%ac%d8%a8-%d8%a3%d9%86-%d8%aa%d8%aa%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%ac%d8%b9-%d8%a3/
The U.S. is not initiating hostilities. It is not bullying Iran. It is
responding to Tehran’s recent threats – and to years of lying and cheating about
its nuclear capabilities. The aim of Trump's maximum pressure on Iran is
negotiations, not war.
Recent developments surrounding the Iran nuclear crisis – including the Trump
administration's designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terror
organization, further U.S. sanctions placed on Iran and Europe’s inability so
far to significantly circumvent them - have led to rising tensions between Iran
and the United States. The effects of the maximum pressure campaign are being
felt acutely in Iran, and it is desperately trying to find a way to push back.
Iran has threatened to end some of its commitments according to the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and to exit the nuclear deal within 60
days if the U.S. and Europe do not cave to its demands to moderate sanctions. In
addition, Iran is issuing military threats against U.S.interests, and
threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz.
In response, the Trump administration has sent the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier
strike group and a U.S. bomber task force to the Gulf. A new deployment of
Patriot missiles to the Middle East has also been approved.
This is not the first time Iran has issued threats - whether to increase its
uranium enrichment capabilities or to close the Strait of Hormuz - against both
Europe and the U.S. since the JCPOA was concluded in 2015. It is the language
Iran always uses to try to pressure and intimidate the other side - a sign of
desperate posturing.
But the United States’ show of force is indication that it is taking an Iranian
attack scenario seriously.
There has been a tendency of late in the media and among staunch Iran deal
supporters to relate only to these most recent events, and to portray Iran as
the victim of U.S. bullying. They claim that due to the latest sanctions, the
Trump administration has left Iran no choice but to begin stockpiling enriched
uranium and heavy water.
This ignores the entire history of how we got where we are today. Indeed, these
events are just the latest episode in the ongoing saga of confronting Iran’s
illicit nuclear weapons aspirations, confirmed beyond doubt by the nuclear
archives extracted from Tehran in January 2018. Iran blatantly violated the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by working on a nuclear weapons program, and
deceived the IAEA for years.
The U.S. is not initiating hostilities. It is responding to Iran’s threats, and
aggressive regional and bad faith behavior. Despite the JCPOA having created the
illusion that a give and take was necessary with Iran, the international
community owes Iran nothing on the nuclear front - the burden of proof is on
Iran alone, to demonstrate that it is worthy of trust after lying and cheating
for years.
It has not done so. In fact, Iran has remained uncooperative as far as
inspections at military facilities, any further discussions regarding its
missile program and regional profile, and has become more aggressive in its
activities across the region. That includes entrenching its forces in Syria, and
stepping its weaponizing of Hezbollah as its strike arm through attempts to
transfer precision-guided technologies.
The issues being faced now also underscore the problematic nature of the JCPOA
itself. They are a direct result of the blatant flaws in the nuclear deal - in
this case the fact that the deal dangerously and ill-advisedly legitimized
Iran’s enrichment program after having sanctioned Iran for years for this very
program.
So now Iran is insisting on its right to enrich and transfer the excess amounts
of enriched uranium abroad (in order to remain underthe 300kg limit) – a
transfer that has been made impossible by the newly-imposed U.S. sanctions. This
is the sad result of having granted Iran’s enrichment program special status.
The stated aim of the Trump administration is to get Iran back to the
negotiating table through a campaign of maximum pressure. Now that the strategy
is beginning to bear fruit, it is not the time to back down or relent. The U.S.
and Europe should be firm in their response, and not allow Iran to hold them
hostage to its ultimatum, or to dictate terms to the international community.
The initial European reaction to Iran’s intended nuclear steps is correct - Iran
cannot be allowed to deepen the wedge between the U.S. and Europe, the familiar
"divide and conquer" tactic that Iran has employed since 2003. And firm Trump
administration counter threats, including a demonstration of force by bringing
military force to the Gulf, are necessary in order to deter Iran from any
thoughts of initiating military action.
Iranian worshippers burn a representation of a U.S. flag during a rally after
Friday prayer in Tehran, Iran. May 10, 2019
Iranian worshippers burn a representation of a U.S. flag during a rally after
Friday prayer in Tehran, Iran. May 10, 2019Ebrahim Noroozi,AP
The scenario of a possible military confrontation, while currently moving to the
forefront, is nevertheless a sideshow to the central dynamic which focuses on
Iran’s nuclear, missile and regional activities.
Neither Iran nor the U.S. has an interest in war. If there is escalation to
military attacks due to miscalculations, it might overtake all other issues, but
until then, fanning the flames of imminent war - in the media and among analysts
- is a strongly ill-advised message.
At the end of the day, Iran’s threats are a desperate attempt to push back
against the U.S. and Europe, and U.S. threats and military preparations are
meant to deter Iran from any thoughts of initiating war, and not to provoke
conflict.
Israel is currently not part of this dynamic, although if miscalculations lead
to military exchange there could be serious implications. Placing the threats in
their proper context is important. That means underscoring that negotiations are
the goal - and war is in no one’s interest.
*Dr. Emily B. Landau is a Senior Research Fellow at Israel's Institute for
National Security Studies (INSS) and head of its Arms Control and Regional
Security Program. She is the author of "Decade of Diplomacy: Negotiations with
Iran and North Korea and the Future of Nuclear Nonproliferation" (2012).
Twitter: @EmilyBLandau
Analysis/Iran and U.S. Perched on Warpath, but Israel May
Bear Brunt of Standoff
عاموس هاريل/هآرتس: إيران وأميركا يطفوان على مسار الحرب، ولكن إسرائيل هي من
ستتحمل عبء المواجهة
Amos Harel/Haaretz/May 12/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/74792/%d8%b9%d8%a7%d9%85%d9%88%d8%b3-%d9%87%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%84-%d9%87%d8%a2%d8%b1%d8%aa%d8%b3-%d8%a5%d9%8a%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86-%d9%88%d8%a3%d9%85%d9%8a%d8%b1%d9%83%d8%a7-%d9%8a%d8%b9%d9%88%d9%85%d8%a7/
Whether Tehran is driven by fear of sanctions or concern over Trump's reelection,
it seems to be changing policy ■ Unclear if White House heads toward
negotiations or confrontation
As far as is known, neither side wants a war, but a series of misunderstandings
and miscalculations could still lead to a confrontation. This analysis, which
has an all-too-familiar ring from recent rounds of fighting between Israel and
Hamas, as well as the balance of deterrence that has existed for years between
Israel and Hezbollah, refers this time to a different front: the one between the
United States and Iran. That’s the conclusion reached by David Ignatius, a
foreign affairs columnist for The Washington Post, in a piece Thursday.
This assessment followed the dramatic rise in tensions in the Persian Gulf in
the past several days: the claims of Iran’s plans to attack targets of the
United States or its allies in the Middle East, the U.S. warnings to Iran, the
deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier to the region, and
Tehran’s announcement that it would withdraw from parts of the nuclear
agreement.
According to Ignatius, who has excellent relations with U.S. defense officials,
the intelligence community in Washington changed its assessment regarding Iran’s
intentions some two weeks ago. Until then, the Americans believed the Iranians
would try to ride out the economic and political pressure from Washington to
remain within the nuclear deal (which the Trump administration pulled out of a
year ago), and to wait out the next 20 months in the hope that President Donald
Trump would lose his reelection bid.
As Ignatius sees it, “the United States concluded that the Iranians had decided
to reset their strategy,” either because the U.S. sanctions are biting too hard
or because the Iranians “concluded that Trump might be reelected.” In addition
to Iran’s doubts about the continued implementation of the nuclear agreement,
the Americans receive intelligence about plans for imminent attacks on U.S.
targets in the region, either by Iranian forces or their proxies (such as
Shi’ite militias in Iraq or Houthi rebel forces in Yemen).
Ignatius mentioned the possibility of attacks on the more than 5,000 U.S. troops
in Iraq. Other assessments, reported by Israel’s Channel 13 News, hold that
Israel passed along intelligence warnings of Iranian plans to attack
installations linked to Saudi Arabia’s petroleum trade, in an indirect act of
revenge for the U.S. cancellation of exemptions for eight countries that
continued to buy oil from Iran. The Houthis, for their part, fired missiles at a
tanker carrying crude oil from Saudi Arabia to Egypt through the Bab El-Mandeb
Strait last July.
Late last week, the U.S. Maritime Administration warned that Iran could target
U.S. commercial ships, including oil tankers, as well as “U.S. military vessels
in the Red Sea, Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, or the Persian Gulf.”
In addition to deploying the aircraft carrier, which according to some reports
had been planned in advance, the U.S. announced a new deployment of Patriot
anti-aircraft missiles in the region and sent a few B-52 bombers to a U.S. base
in Qatar. These moves are not that dramatic because the deployments are limited,
but the way the administration announced them and the extensive media coverage
they received made them seem like saber-rattling.
That raises the questions of whether the Americans are following a written
script, and what they hope to accomplish. Does Trump, who is not keen to launch
new wars in the Middle East, seek to return the Iranians to the bargaining
table, in a bid to reach a new nuclear agreement more favorable to the United
States than the one signed by the Obama administration in Vienna in 2015? Trump
and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterized that one as a “disaster.”
(CNN reported Saturday that the White House gave Trump’s private phone number to
Iran, via Switzerland.)
Or do the hawks in the administration, who include John Bolton, the national
security adviser, want to go to war against Iran in order to achieve regime
change there?
There are plenty of historical examples of governments and intelligence agencies
manipulating raw intelligence. The most traumatic of these for Americans in the
past few decades came in 2002 when the administration of President George W.
Bush claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, shortly before invading
the country and bringing down the regime of Saddam Hussein.
For now, Israel is not at the center of the front between the United States and
Iran. If such a military confrontation does happen, which currently seems
unlikely, it will have indirect implications for Israel. That is presumably the
reason that nearly every conversation with a high-ranking military official in
recent weeks began with the situation in the Gaza Strip but quickly jumped to
the events in the Gulf. Iran could go on to use other arenas closer to Israel –
Gaza, Lebanon, Syria – as diversions or to damage the interests of Washington
and its allies in the region. That may have figured into the calculus behind
last week’s decision to end the round of fighting with Hamas and Islamic Jihad
quickly, despite the deaths of four Israelis and the firing of 700 rockets into
southern Israel.
Jared Kushner’s Peace Plan Would Be a Disaster
Robert Satloff/American Interest/The Washington Institute/May 12/2019
The only way to protect the long-term viability of the plan's best aspects is to
kill it. Last week, I interviewed White House adviser Jared Kushner on the
Middle East peace process at The Washington Institute’s annual conference, an
event broadcast live on C-SPAN. Given that I had recently written an article
calling his forthcoming peace plan a “lose-lose-lose proposition” that President
Trump should shelve in order to avoid facing embarrassing failure, Kushner was a
good sport for agreeing to the interview. For 45 minutes, we jousted—I thrust,
he parried—and throughout the discussion, he was poised, personable, and
disciplined. While he clarified key aspects of his thinking about Middle East
diplomacy, he kept major revelations to a minimum.
Still, we learned a lot. Specifically:
The U.S. plan will provide detailed proposals to answer all core issues on the
Israeli-Palestinian agenda, including suggestions for the final borders of
Israel, the disposition of the disputed city of Jerusalem, the future of
Palestinian refugees, the security arrangements that will protect the peace
agreement, and the ultimate political relationship between Israelis and
Palestinians. This will not be a plan about how to create a new negotiating
process; rather, he boldly declared that its goal is to offer “solutions.”
The U.S. plan will highlight the equation of security for Israelis and enhanced
quality of life for Palestinians, with less emphasis on the “political
aspirations” of the Palestinians. When he was given the opportunity of endorsing
the idea of demilitarized statehood—“state-minus”—that Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu himself once proposed, Kushner said he was eschewing the term
“state” altogether: “If you say ‘two-states’ it means one thing to the Israelis,
it means one thing to the Palestinians, and we said, let’s just not say it,” he
explained—although why he would propose answers to all peace process issues but
punt on providing a U.S. definition of “statehood” was left unclear. Indeed, it
was like pulling teeth to extract from Kushner much empathy for Palestinian
political aspirations, however defined. (At one point, he did use the word
“countries” when referring to Israel and the Palestinian entity-to-be, but it
seemed more of a slip of the tongue than a politically laden reference.)
The U.S. plan will focus heavily on making the Palestinian area a magnet for
investment as a way to improve Palestinian lives. But sequencing here is
critical: Kushner noted that achieving that goal will require delineation of
borders followed by fundamental political reform of the Palestinian Authority, a
thorough anti-corruption effort, and the establishment of effective rule of law,
including property rights. In other words, in addition to money—“other people’s
money,” he noted, implying only a modest American contribution—it will take a
lot of time before Palestinians see living standards improve.
If those three points constituted the lyrics of the Kushner plan, the melody was
in line with his father-in-law’s trademark brashness and bluster, though with
more charm and affability than the family patriarch normally musters. Speaking
to a room full of Middle East experts, Kushner was boldly dismissive of the
concept of expertise. Asked about his definition of success and the potential
implications of failure, he brushed it off as a “Washington question”—though he
then went on to concede that failure was the most likely option, calling it the
“smart money bet”—while offering various definitions of diplomatic success:
“Success can look like a lot of different things. It can look like an agreement,
it can look like a discussion, it could lead to closer cooperation, maybe
resolve a couple of issues,” he said. He even seemed impatient with the idea
that history—historical memory, historical legacy, historical grievance—might
play a role in a conflict most observers believe is laden with history.
Rather, he made the case for himself as a cross between truth-teller and
practical problem-solver by citing his unexpected achievements—trade deals with
Mexico and Canada, a legislative breakthrough on criminal justice reform—and he
extolled the business pedigree of the trio of real estate and bankruptcy
attorneys responsible for the “peace process” portfolio in the Trump
Administration: himself, his top aide Jason Greenblatt, and U.S. Ambassador to
Israel David Friedman. And, in a bit of news, Kushner admitted that the
President himself had not yet read the draft peace plan, which he said is still
going through revisions. “When you work for a President, you try hard not to
disappoint, but you can disappoint.” He continued, “When you work for your
father-in-law, you can’t disappoint.”
Add it all up and Kushner presented a novel, though not wholly unprecedented,
approach to Middle East peacemaking. The Kushner Plan—if it is endorsed and
proposed by Trump—would be the first since the abortive Reagan Plan of 1982 in
which the United States issued its own ideas for the permanent resolution of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, unconnected to ongoing peace talks. In so doing,
it would run against the longstanding U.S. policy of favoring direct
negotiations between the parties as the best way to reach a mutually
satisfactory agreement. Moreover, the exclusion of statehood from the U.S.
formula would itself be a major step away from the bipartisan consensus that
emerged following President George W. Bush’s endorsement of the goal of
Palestinian statehood in 2002.
Ironically, in terms of form, Kushner’s emphasis on defining a final outcome and
then working with the parties on the best way to implement it mirrors the
traditional Arab approach to peacemaking. This is best reflected in the Arab
Peace Initiative, an idea put forward by Saudi Arabia in 2002 that called for
full Israeli withdrawal from all territory occupied in 1967 in exchange for full
recognition by all Arab states. The API was criticized by Israel—and rightly
so—because it offered no room for negotiation, just discussion on
implementation. On substance, however, Kushner’s proposal seems designed to
avoid political minefields that could complicate Netanyahu’s life, such as the
legitimacy of Israeli settlements deep in the heart of the West Bank, to
sidestep longstanding Palestinian demands such as statehood, and to incorporate
Israeli-centric ideas on security arrangements. The result is a case of
diplomatic cognitive dissonance—a proposal that the current Israeli government
should reject on form but is likely to welcome on substance.
But any attempt to view the Kushner plan through the prism of past diplomacy
misses its real innovation. In my view, it is far more instructive to view
Kushner and his colleagues as developers applying to the Middle East lessons
from the New York real estate market than as diplomats trying to solve a thorny,
longstanding international dispute. Reading between the lines, it seems as
though they view the peace process as the functional equivalent of turning a
rent-controlled apartment building in midtown Manhattan into luxury
condominiums. For the Kushner team, a key element of the strategy is to lower
Palestinian expectations about what they will receive in the American plan,
especially after rejecting so many previous proposals from Israel. While there
are sound reasons for Trump to have repaired ties with Israel after the strains
of the Obama years, one cannot fault Palestinians for seeing the
Administration’s approach to them—from cutting aid to shuttering the
representational office in Washington—as punitive; it seems to have been lifted
from the playbook of a bankruptcy lawyer reacting to an adversary’s
recalcitrance by offering 30 cents on the dollar today and only 20 cents on the
dollar tomorrow.
Anyone who knows the Middle East knows that the analogy between the peace
process and a New York real estate transaction quickly breaks down. If past is
prologue, most Palestinians—and certainly their leaders—would prefer to wait out
the developers rather than accept a lowball offer; after all, they rejected far
more attractive offers before, which is what Abba Eban’s quip about “never
missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity” was all about. Ultimately,
Palestinians know they have an extremely valuable asset to offer
Israel—psychological and political acceptance—and are confident that the
Israelis will eventually come around to offering a lot more for a final
resolution to their century-old conflict than the Kushner Plan apparently
envisions.
Moreover, unlike a real estate transaction in which one party gets the property
and the other party gets the cash, a Middle East peace deal starts and ends with
the two parties as neighbors, stuck with each other sharing a duplex for
eternity. And whereas New York presents boundless possibilities, a place where
there is always another plot to develop, another building to buy, another
apartment complex to go condo, there is only one piece of land at stake in the
Israeli-Palestinian arena, and Palestinians have nowhere else to go. This
doesn’t mean Israel has to accede to 100 percent of Palestinian demands, but it
does mean the conflict will never truly end unless each side believes the other
has made good-faith effort to reconcile its needs to the desires of the other
side—a situation which certainly does not obtain in the current circumstances.
A key fact that seems missing from the Kushner formula is that Israelis and
Palestinians are not starting from zero. They are currently 25 years into their
own contractual relationship, the Oslo process, and, despite periods of conflict
and tension, neither side has found the status quo so objectionable that it has
decided to blow it up. Indeed, for all its faults, the Palestinian Authority has
evolved over this time into something akin to a normal Arab state—less corrupt,
dysfunctional, violent, and authoritarian than some; more corrupt,
dysfunctional, violent, and authoritarian than others. And since Israel’s
suppression of the second intifada 15 years ago and the loss of Gaza to the
extremists of Hamas three years later, the post-Arafat Palestinian Authority,
led by Mahmoud Abbas, has more-or-less kept the peace with Israel, maintained
security cooperation with the Israeli army, and ensured that the West Bank did
not fall into the hands of Islamist radicals.
Any intelligent U.S. peace proposal should begin with how to build upon the
existing edifice, taking pains to ensure that nothing is done to risk the
fragile status quo. But Kushner’s remarks lacked any appreciation for this gray
reality. At one point during our conversation, Kushner used a medical metaphor
to boldly assert his plan will “cure the disease” fueling Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, but his real challenge will be to ensure his proposal doesn’t violate
the Hippocratic Oath—do no harm.
This indifference to the potential implications of failure is why I not only
believe that his plan poses a danger to U.S. interests but that it is reckless
for the Administration to even give it a try. While the United States should
certainly be prepared to offer its own ideas to help the parties close the final
gap in negotiations—as Jimmy Carter did at Camp David in 1979, after Menachem
Begin, Anwar Sadat, and their teams had already spent 17 months in intensive
bargaining—the chasm between Israelis and Palestinians today is so wide that no
conceivable bridging formula exists. Viewed this way, the specific details of
what Kushner and Co. are preparing to put on the table don’t really matter
because, in the current political environment, there is no possible overlap
between the most Israel will offer and the least the Palestinians will accept
(and vice versa). Giving it the ol’ college try—which is essentially what Trump
has empowered Kushner to do—is not admirable; it is irresponsible.
If failure is the “smart money bet,” there is still another reason why friends
of Israel—including friends of the current Israeli government—should think twice
before urging President Trump to formally pursue his son-in-law’s peace plan:
the risk that failure will delegitimize Kushner’s best ideas. Indeed, Kushner
may think that his plan will survive as the new reference point for future
negotiations even if it fails to achieve a peace breakthrough, but it is at
least as likely that those ideas—even if they are solid, worthy, valuable
ideas—get tossed in the diplomatic dung-heap by Trump’s successors. Given
America’s deeply tribal political partisanship, it is not difficult to imagine a
future administration—especially a Democratic one—refusing to reconsider
proposals on such issues as security arrangements, refugee resettlement,
Palestinian political reform, and regional economic development if they bore the
Trumpian stamp. And because the Kushner team approaches these issues with a deep
affinity for Israel, this is likely to harm ideas that seem especially friendly
to the Jewish state. This is why I hope that Netanyahu comes to his senses and
does what he can to scuttle the “deal of the century” before it becomes formal
U.S. policy.
Of all the characters in this emerging tragicomedy, the most puzzling is not
Kushner, who seems genuine in wanting to craft a plan that would satisfy his
father-in-law’s desire to be a Middle East peacemaker. Nor is it Abbas, who
seems to be playing to script, preferring to tread the tired path of seeking
meaningless UN resolutions and applause in European capitals. (If only Abbas had
Sadat’s imagination and backbone, he would realize that the best way to torpedo
a U.S. plan that threatens his interests is by boldly proposing direct talks
with Israel.) Rather, the most confounding character is Netanyahu.
Soon to become Israel’s longest serving Prime Minister, Netanyahu’s longevity
owes to a combination of ruthless political skill and innate aversion to risk.
No democratic leader today matches his natural talent for figuring out how to
win elections, even if victory involves skating perilously close to the
political, legal, and moral edge. And no leader on the world stage today has
registered his success in combining bold, creative diplomacy with restrained,
judicious use of military power to improve his country’s strategic position.
Under normal circumstances, the last thing Netanyahu would want is for the
President of the United States to propose a detailed plan for the permanent
resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a champion of
incrementalism, step-by-step diplomacy that tests both the other side’s true
intentions and the political flexibility of his own core supporters—and he has
been right to shy away from big, “Made in America” ideas about what’s best for
Israel.
Why, then, does Netanyahu appear sanguine about the coming peace plan? Why does
he seem willing to legitimize a dangerous strain of know-it-all American
solutionism and welcome, even encourage, Trump to propose precisely what he has
long opposed?
There are many possible explanations. After Trump’s decisions to move the U.S.
Embassy to Jerusalem, to scuttle the detested Iran nuclear deal, and to
recognize Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights, perhaps Netanyahu views the
Trump presidency as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enshrine the
Administration’s pro-Israel inclination as official U.S. government policy.
Perhaps Netanyahu is confident that Abbas will flub the leadership test and that
Palestinian miscues will open the door for Israel to annex key parcels of West
Bank territory without triggering either outrage in Washington or much
opposition in the wider Arab world. Perhaps Netanyahu is so deeply burdened by
his own legal woes that he views the “deal of the century” as a political life
preserver.
Whatever the rationale, I hope that “Bibi the strategic thinker” wins out over
“Bibi the political tactician,” and that he uses whatever tools at his disposal
to abort the Kushner plan in the few weeks left before Trump releases it as his
own. This may demand a direct appeal to the President. Alternatively, it may
require enlisting the support of someone the President respects—prominent
Republican donor Sheldon Adelson or Trump-whisperer Lindsey Graham come to
mind—to make an appeal on his behalf. For Israel and its friends, the key point
remains: The only way to protect the long-term viability of the best aspects of
the Kushner plan is to kill the plan.
*Robert Satloff is executive director of The Washington Institute.
More proof of cooperation between Iran, Al-Qaeda
د.ماجد رافيزاد/عرب نيوز: المزيد الدلائل والإثباتات تؤكد على تعاون إيران مع منظمة
القاعدة
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/May 12/ 2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/74815/%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%AF-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%B2-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF/
It is a common misconception that since Iran’s theocratic establishment is
Shiite, it will not cooperate with non-Shiite terrorist groups and militias. For
example, some policy analysts, scholars and politicians continue to promote the
argument that Tehran and Al-Qaeda are not natural allies due to their religious
differences. Analyses that view the Iranian regime solely through the prism of
religion are extremely simplistic.
Tehran pursues a sectarian agenda in the region, pitting Shiite against Sunni in
order to divide and conquer. But the sectarian division between Sunni terrorist
groups and the Iranian regime was never an issue for the latter as long as these
groups shared common strategic and geopolitical interests with it.
Tehran has always been willing to shake hands with terrorist groups as long as
they can help accomplish its revolutionary principles (such as anti-Americanism,
anti-Semitism and opposition to Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia),
destabilize the region and achieve its hegemonic ambitions.
Recently, a former spokesman for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC),
Said Qasemi, surprisingly disclosed that Tehran sent agents to Bosnia and
Herzegovina to train Al-Qaeda members. He added that Tehran’s operatives were
hiding their identity by acting as humanitarian workers for Iran’s Red Crescent.
Last month, the IRGC was hit with sanctions as the US designated it a foreign
terrorist organization. “The IRGC actively participates in, finances, and
promotes terrorism as a tool of statecraft,” said US President Donald Trump.
“The IRGC is the Iranian government’s primary means of directing and
implementing its global terrorist campaign.”
Intriguingly, Iranian official Hossein Allahkaram, who is believed to be one of
the operatives sent to Bosnia and Herzegovina, confirmed the accuracy of
Qasemi’s statement, saying: “There used to be an Al-Qaeda branch in Bosnia and
Herzegovina … They were connected to us in a number of ways. Even though they
were training within their own base, when they engaged in weapons training they
joined us in various activities.”
Tehran most likely continues to support Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other countries,
with the goal of pushing out forces that are rivals to Iran.
In late 2017, a trove of 470,000 documents released by the CIA revealed close
ties between Tehran and Al-Qaeda. The late Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden
advised his followers to revere Tehran, and wrote that Iran was the “main artery
for funds, personnel and communication” for the group.
For more sophisticated training, Al-Qaeda members traveled to Lebanon. According
to the documents, Iran offered Al-Qaeda fighters “money and arms and everything
they need, and offered them training in Hezbollah camps in Lebanon, in return
for striking American interests in Saudi Arabia.” Most likely, three Iranian
institutions have been instrumental in helping Al-Qaeda: The IRGC, its elite
Quds Force and the Intelligence Ministry.
Iran was also implicated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Before the attacks,
Tehran allowed Al-Qaeda operatives to cross through Iran without visas or
passports. Robust evidence, including a US federal court ruling, found that
“Iran furnished material and direct support for the 9/11 terrorists.”
Eight of the hijackers passed through Iran before coming to the US. Tehran
provided funds, logistical support and ammunition to Al-Qaeda leaders, and
sheltered several of them, in exchange for attacks on US interests.
Tehran most likely continues to support Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other countries,
with the goal of pushing out forces that are rivals to Iran. This alliance
clearly explains why Al-Qaeda has never attacked Iran.
As the Trump administration continues to impose maximum pressure on Iran, the
latter may seek help from Al-Qaeda members in order to attack American bases,
damage US national security interests, and scuttle the regional policy
objectives of Washington and its allies.
Whenever the Iranian regime is under pressure, it reacts with the only modus
operandi that it has been familiar with since 1979: Further defying
international norms and laws, and pursuing more aggressive and confrontational
policies. The international community must take appropriate and proactive
measures to counter Tehran’s threats.
**Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political
scientist. He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman,
and president of the International American Council. Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh
Why transition in Iran requires a global effort
بارعة علم الدي/عرب نيوز: لماذا التغيير في عقلية ونمط عمل النظام الإيراني هو
بحاجة لجهود دويلة
Baria Alamuddin /Arab News/May 12/ 2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/74812/%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%B2-%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B0%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%BA%D9%8A%D9%8A%D8%B1/
Tensions between Tehran and Washington have blundered into a new phase,
including the terrorism designation of the Islamic Republican Guard Corps;
cancelation of oil sanctions waivers; President Hassan Rouhani threatening
partial withdrawal from the nuclear deal; reported missile deployments and
threats against US troops in Gulf waters; and US national security adviser John
Bolton announcing the dispatch of military planes and warships. Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo’s unscheduled trip to Iraq is a further indication of tension,
with him threatening a “swift and decisive US response” to any attacks on
American interests.
Given Bolton’s ultra-hawkish reputation, observers speculate that he and
like-minded hardliners could trigger momentum toward a confrontation, even if
Donald Trump apparently wants to avoid this. The US president’s ambivalent
attitude is evidenced by off-the-cuff comments last week indicating a readiness
to drop sanctions in exchange for talks focused narrowly on the nuclear issue,
although the ayatollahs repeatedly rebuffed his previous pleas to talk to him.
The anti-Trump liberal media reacts excitably against anything associated with
this administration, making it difficult to have a sensible discussion about
Iran policy. Yet now is the time to question what the consequences of conflict
would be. We used to ridicule the Bush administration for its primitive
understanding of the region and ham-fisted approach to the 2003 Iraq war. The
current administration inspires a hundred times less confidence that it could
successfully implement regime change.
No regime on the planet is more deserving of being deposed than the terrorist,
malevolent, expansionist regime in Tehran — but even its most partisan opponents
don’t want Iran to explode into anarchy, with unpredictable long-term regional
ramifications. Fifteen years after the disastrous Iraq war, we aren’t even close
to the horrific consequences of this debacle fully playing out, including
allowing Tehran to become an untrammeled regional force. The ayatollahs would be
no more capable than Saddam of standing up to invasion, but once again it is the
aftermath we should fear.
Even if Trump is stampeded by his generals into some hare-brained invasion, this
is a man who couldn’t stomach the presence of a measly 2,000 US troops in
eastern Syria for a few extra months. This is not an administration with the
vision or tenacity to embark on a decade-long stabilization and nation-building
enterprise. This is the man who suggested that America should compensate itself
for the $2.4 trillion price-tag of the war by stealing all Iraq’s oil; his
leading a major Middle Eastern military adventure is the stuff of nightmares.
There is also the prospect of a more limited military conflagration.
Confrontation between Israel, Hezbollah and other proxies could draw in the US.
When Iraqi militants fired mortars at a US diplomatic compound last year, Bolton
requested options for a possible strike on Iran. Rouhani’s announcement of a
return to prohibited activities, including producing highly enriched uranium
(which has no peaceful purpose), makes future strikes against Iranian nuclear
sites far more likely.
The ideal regime-change scenario would be effected by Iranians themselves. Given
continuing high levels of civil unrest, such an aspiration is in the air,
particularly if intensified sanctions go further toward making everyday life
unlivable. Recent political transitions in Algeria and Sudan are a reminder that
the domestically hated Tehran regime is long past its expiry date. However,
removing the ayatollahs could pave the way for a Republican Guard takeover, led
by megalomaniacal Persian supremacists such as Qassim Soleimani and Hossein
Salami. Successful transition would thus require root-and-branch removal of this
terrorist infrastructure.
Rogue regimes such as the Islamic Republic really do understand only the
language of military force; when Obama took that option off the table, the
ayatollahs viewed it as an opportunity to get away with murder.
If other global powers are disconcerted by Pompeo and Bolton’s belligerence,
they must articulate an alternative vision for producing an Iran that isn’t a
dynamo for regional militancy and global terrorism. European states should
abandon unworkable efforts toward a sanctions-evasion mechanism, and contribute
to pressure on the regime to change course. Just as European leaders in the
1930s paved the way for war by appeasing and condoning Hitler’s encroachments
across Central Europe, the same states today consider they can live with Iranian
expansionism, and perhaps the ayatollahs will be satisfied after devouring four
Arab states. They are wrong.
Beijing and Moscow enjoy using Iran as a bogeyman to scare the West, yet they
are the primary powers inconvenienced by Iranian expansionism in Central Asia
and the Levant. Iranian efforts to destabilize Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan,
Syria, Yemen and Bahrain must be blocked. The unambiguous message must be that
the regime must cease its meddling or cease to exist.
Rogue regimes such as the Islamic Republic really do understand only the
language of military force; when Obama took that option off the table, the
ayatollahs viewed it as an opportunity to get away with murder. The 2015 nuclear
deal coincided with a massive upscaling of Iran-backed paramilitary activity in
these afore-mentioned states. along with narcotics operations, money laundering
and assassination attempts provocatively staged in the US itself. Nobody wants
to resort to force, but no deterrent means no deterrent.
We nowadays scarcely even notice Trump’s ceaseless Twitter rants against
Venezuela, Iran, Cuba and NATO. Instead, Tehran must hear the international
community speaking responsibly with one voice, setting out red lines and
credible consequences for malevolent overseas actions. The objective is to
prevent Tehran and Washington embarking on a mutually-escalatory death-roll of
provocations, paving the way for war.
Just days before his death in 2010, the Saudi intellectual and diplomat Ghazi
Al-Gosaibi told me that Iran was a “cowardly nation” that sought to avoid direct
military threats by arming proxies across Arab states to act as cannon fodder in
defense of the Islamic Republic. Yet Iran’s warmongering rhetoric and actions
will ultimately bring down war upon itself. Rational Iranians realize this and
fear suffering the same cataclysms as Iraq as the price of their leaders’
recklessness. We don’t want Iranians to endure war. However, we should not be
squeamish about setting out international commitments to supporting Iranians in
implementing a successful democratic transition.
We used to talk about the now-departed restraining influences within Trump’s
administration as the “adults in the room.” The world today needs adults in the
diplomatic field to articulate a realistic policy for containment and
transformation in Iran as the only means of heading off the unseemly desire of
Trump’s hawks for fireworks over Tehran.
If we want to avoid Iran and the Middle East being at the center of the oncoming
storm, let’s not wait passively for that storm to hit us. Change is coming to
Iran. It is up to responsible global actors to proactively influence whether
this change is for better or worse.
**Baria Alamuddin is an award-winning journalist and broadcaster in the Middle
East and the UK. She is editor of the Media Services Syndicate and has
interviewed numerous heads of state.