LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 02/2019
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.november02.19.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
I will give boys to be their princes, and children shall rule over them
Isaiah 03/04/05/12
I will give boys to be their princes, and children shall rule over them. The people will be oppressed, everyone by another, and everyone by his neighbor. The child will behave himself proudly against the old man, and the base against the honorable. As for my people, children are their oppressors,
and women rule over them. My people, those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths.

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on November 01-02/2019
Nasrallah Urges Fast Formation of 'Sovereign Govt.', Says 'Strife, Political Coup' Foiled
Hezbollah leader Nasrallah: Lebanon’s next government must heed protesters
Geagea Urges 'Salvation Govt.', Slams Bassil and Bou Saab
Reports: Consultations to Pick New PM Will Likely be Held Monday
Protesters Rally near Baabda Palace, Several Hurt in Sidon Scuffle
Youssef Diab Sentenced to Death over 2013 Tripoli Mosque Bombings
UK Announces $25 Million in Security Aid to Lebanon
Lebanon Uber Driver Gets Death Sentence for Murder of British Woman
UK Embassy Lauds Lebanese Authorities 'Professionalism' after Diplomat Killer Convicted
Report: Parliamentary Consultations Next Step for Lebanon
Lebanese Banks Impose New Measures on Depositors
Protesters Storm ABL, Get Arrested by ISF
New Batch of Syrian Refugees Return from Lebanon
Banks Reopen after 2-Week Closure as Protests Ease
‘Strong Lebanon’ Bloc tackles government formation issue, warns against smuggling State-owed funds
Protesters in Lebanon and the World March for 'a Better Future'

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on on November 01-02/2019
ISIS Confirms Baghdadi Dead, Appoints Quraishi as Successor
Defying Authorities, Iraqis Hold Largest Protests Yet
Soleimani takes helm of Iraqi security from prime minister Abdul-Mahdi
Sistani Rejects Any Foreign Actor to Impose its View on Iraq’s People
Iran intervenes to prevent ousting of Iraqi prime minister
US Imposes New Sanctions on Iran’s Construction Sector
Turkey Hands Over 18 Syrian Soldiers Seized In Northeast Syria
Israel Rearrests Palestinian MP Khalida Jarrar
Jordanian Analyst Muhammad Faraj: The Only Way for Jordan to Solve Its Problems Is to Turn Its Back on Israel, America, Align Itself with Iran
Gantz Meets 'Joint List' Leaders to Discuss Government Formation
Amnesty: 'Skull-piercing' Tear Gas Grenades Used in Iraq
Foreign Actors Must Not 'Impose Will' on Protests, Sistani Says

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on November 01-02/2019
NPA: Interview With Dr. Walid Phares/North-Press Agency/November 01/2019
Opinion/Netanyahu vs. Nasrallah/Israel Harel/Haaretz/November 01/2019
Behind The Lines: Revolt Against Iran's System In Iraq And Lebanon/Jonathan Spyer/November 01/2019
In Middle East: Pull Down Facades/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Asat/November 01/2019
My Generation Wants To End Sectarianism/Ghida Tayara/Carnegie/November 01/2019
What the Lebanese Uprising is all About/Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Asat/November 01/2019
Iran’s Theory on Events in Iraq, Lebanon/Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al Asat/November 01/2019
Soleimani takes helm of Iraqi security from prime minister Abdul-Mahdi/DEBKA/November 01/2019
Jordanian Analyst Muhammad Faraj: The Only Way for Jordan to Solve Its Problems Is to Turn Its Back on Israel, America, Align Itself with Iran/MEMRI/November 01/2019
Iraqi Catholic Patriarch Louis Raphaël I Sako: Iraqi School Curricula Should Be Rewritten, Made More Tolerant Of Other Religions; Christians In Iraq Are Discriminated Against/MEMRI/November 01/2019
After Baghdadi, Iran Should Be Trump’s Next Priority/Con Coughlin/Gatestone Institute/November 01/2019
Trump Admin Again Gives Iran Green Light to Conduct Sensitive Nuclear Work/Adam Kredo/ FREE BEACON/November 01/2019
Ilhan Omar’s Anti-American, Pro-Islamic Polemic on the Armenian Genocide/Raymond Ibrahim/November 01/2019
Saudi Arabia still awaiting signs of ‘goodwill’ from Iran/Andrew Parasiliti/Al-Monitor/November 1, 20
U.S. Deterrence in the Middle East Is Collapsing/John Hannah/Senior Counselor/Foundation for Defense of Democracies/November 01/2019
Erdogan Continues to Reward Iran Sanctions Evaders/Aykan Erdemir/Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)//November 01/2019
 

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on November 01-02/2019
Nasrallah Urges Fast Formation of 'Sovereign Govt.', Says 'Strife, Political Coup' Foiled
Naharnet/November 01/2019
Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Friday urged the formation of a “sovereign government” within “days,” as he noted the Lebanese have managed to foil a “strife” scheme and a “political coup” attempt. “We call for dialogue and communication between all components and the protest movement's representatives,” Nasrallah said in a televised speech. “We must speak of the American role that is preventing Lebanon from overcoming its current situation,” Nasrallah said, calling for the formation of a “truly sovereign government in which all components would play their national role” and stressing that “none of its components should contact the U.S. embassy or another embassy before taking decisions.”Adding that the new government should be formed in the “coming days,” Nasrallah urged the Lebanese to “cooperate” in this regard. “Should the caretaking period protract, this means that there will be no government to address the economic situations and people’s demands will be lost,” Nasrallah warned. “We have the brains, experts and human capabilities” to form a “sovereign government” that can “improve our situations,” Hizbullah’s secretary general said.
He added: “The new cabinet must heed the demands of the people who took to the streets, devise a program to fulfill their demands, and regain their confidence.”Commenting on Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s resignation, Nasrallah said: “We did not support this resignation but the premier took this decision and he has his reasons but I don't want to discuss these reasons now.”“The positive shock that should have been offered to the people should have been ‘night and day emergency cabinet sessions’ in order to refer the draft law on recovering looted funds to parliament,” Nasrallah added, referring to Hariri’s argument that he sought to create a “positive shock” by heeding a key demand for the protesters.
Lamenting that the PM’s resignation “will force the suspension of the reform paper” adopted by the government in the wake of the eruption of protests, Nasrallah decried that “accordingly, there will be no amnesty law or a law for recovering the looted funds, nor a lifting of immunities nor serious draft laws for combating corruption.”As for the unprecedented popular revolt in the country, Nasrallah denied describing the anti-corruption protesters of being "agents of embassies" or accusing them of “receiving funds from embassies,” noting that he was only asking them to be cautious.
“Thanks to a lot of awareness and patience, the Lebanese have managed to avoid falling into the scheme that was being plotted by some parties and to frustrate the wishes of some parties who were wishing to go to chaos, street clashes and eventually strife,” Nasrallah said.
“It was clear that a political coup was being plotted in order to plunge the country into vacuum and this created a state of tension on the streets,” he added. He warned: “No one should push for a sectarian protest movement… The protest movement has proved that it is cross-sectarian.”
As for the attacks on protesters by Hizbullah supporters and others who back the allied AMAL Movement, Nasrallah said: “Violations and reactions to insults took place and some things went out of control, but they were limited incidents in the face of a major and very positive scene, which is the scene of discipline and awareness.”“With all due respect and appreciation for all the popular demands, our concern was to prevent the country from descending into vacuum and chaos,” he said. He added: “The Lebanese who want to continue with protest action have a natural right to do so, but they have to purify their protests and podiums, and we are before a very positive phenomenon that must be capitalized on in the coming period.”

Hezbollah leader Nasrallah: Lebanon’s next government must heed protesters
Arab News/November 01/2019
BEIRUT: The leader of Shiite group Hezbollah said on Friday a new Lebanese government must listen to the demands that fueled protests against the country’s rulers and led Saad Al-Hariri to quit as prime minister. Hariri’s resignation has left Lebanon without a government as it faces the worst economic crisis since the 1975-90 civil war. Hezbollah, a heavily armed group backed by Iran, had opposed the resignation of the coalition of which it was part. “A new government must be formed as soon as possible ... and the new government must listen to the demands of the people who took to the streets,” Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a televised address. “There must be serious work because time is tight and so is people’s patience,” he said, adding that the government’s goal must be to restore confidence. The unprecedented, nationwide protests that erupted on Oct. 17 tipped Lebanon into political turmoil at a time when it was already grappling with dire economic conditions and strains in its financial system.
Lebanese banks, which had been closed since Oct. 18, reopened on Friday, with queues building and customers encountering new curbs on transfers abroad and withdrawals from US dollar accounts. Though no formal controls were imposed, banks told customers they could only transfer funds abroad in particular circumstances such repaying loans, education, health, family support or commercial commitments. An hour after doors opened, dozens people of people were waiting at some banks in Beirut and other cities, Reuters witnesses said. At others, fewer were waiting. The Association of Banks in Lebanon praised the public for acting “responsibly.” The Lebanese pound strengthened against the dollar on the parallel market that has emerged in recent months, three dealers said. The central bank had promised not to impose capital controls when banks re-opened, measures that could hamper the currency inflows and investment that Lebanon badly needs. Asked about steps being taken by banks, banking association chief Salim Sfeir said: “I would not call it restrictions but rather efforts by the banks to accommodate all customers, given the pressure resulting from closing for two weeks.”“We stand ready to adjust any measure taken, once the situation in the country is back to normal,” he told Reuters.

Geagea Urges 'Salvation Govt.', Slams Bassil and Bou Saab
Naharnet/November 01/2019
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Friday called for the formation of a “salvation government,” as he hit out at caretaker Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil and caretaker Defense Minister Elias Bou Saab. “What’s needed is a salvation government and not any other government. The government should be formed of independent and expert figures who are upright and successful,” Geagea said after a meeting for the LF’s Strong Republic parliamentary bloc. The LF leader also noted that a technocratic government can comprise individuals “who have some political orientations and social relations,” but stressed that these figures “should not belong to any party or certain political figure.”He added: “They are wondering how ministries such as foreign affairs, defense and interior could be in the hands of experts and not political forces, and we in turn ask if there is a foreign ministry at the moment? What is happening at the foreign ministry today other than partisan affairs and arrangements? Can someone tell us what Lebanon’s foreign policy is? Is Lebanon’s foreign policy being studied and raised in Cabinet? What is the defense minister doing other than bickering with the Army Command?”

Reports: Consultations to Pick New PM Will Likely be Held Monday
Naharnet/November 01/2019
The binding parliamentary consultations to name a new premier will be held on Monday, or at the latest Tuesday, informed sources told LBCI television on Friday. “The consultations will only take one day, starting 9:00 am, and the premier will be named at the end of the day,” the sources added. MTV meanwhile reported that presidential palace officials have requested from Parliament's secretariat “a list of the parliamentary blocs' ‘protocol’ ahead of declaring the date and details of the parliamentary consultations that will be carried out by President (Michel) Aoun.”“The March 8 camp will pick its candidate for the premiership and will decide how its votes will be distributed within the next 48 hours,” MTV added. Protesters on the streets have criticized the ongoing delay in setting a date for the consultations.

Protesters Rally near Baabda Palace, Several Hurt in Sidon Scuffle
Naharnet/November 01/2019
Around 30 protesters on Friday staged a symbolic rally near the presidential palace in Baabda, demanding “the speeding up of the (binding) parliamentary consultations” necessary to form a new government. “Consultations Now!” read the banners that they carried. In a statement recited at the sit-in, the protesters said the new government should comprise competent figures from outside the political class, warning that the cabinet formation process should not take more than two weeks. Another group of protesters meanwhile rallied outside al-Helou barracks in Corniche al-Mazraa to demand the release of an activist who was held in the morning in connection with the storming of the building of the Association of Banks in Lebanon in downtown Beirut. All others activists held over the move had been released earlier in the day. The protesters later left the area after being told that the activist will be released later in the day. They had blocked the road outside the barracks in both directions. In the southern city of Sidon, five protesters and two soldiers were meanwhile injured as the army intervened to reopen the blocked Elia roundabout, MTV said. Lebanon’s banks reopened for the first time in two weeks Friday as the country began to return to normal following mass demonstrations for radical political change. The unprecedented popular push to remove a political class seen as corrupt, incompetent and sectarian, had kept the country on lockdown since October 17. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Saad Hariri submitted his government's resignation in response to pressure from the street, despite warnings from some of his senior coalition partners against such a move. Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Friday said that his party did not back the government's resignation. Instead, it would have preferred quick reforms combatting corruption, Nasrallah said in a televised speech. He called for a swift replacement, warning against the chaos caused by a void in government, and urged dialogue between parliament and representatives of the protest movement. President Michel Aoun on Thursday said ministers in the next government should be picked for their skills, not their political affiliation, appearing to endorse demonstrators' demands for a government of technocrats. Aoun has asked Hariri's government to stay on in a caretaker capacity until a new one can be formed, but Lebanon has entered a phase of acute political uncertainty, even by its own dysfunctional standards. With a power-sharing system organized along communal and sectarian lines, the allocation of ministerial posts can typically take months, a delay Lebanon's donors say the debt-saddled country can ill afford.

Youssef Diab Sentenced to Death over 2013 Tripoli Mosque Bombings
Associated Press/Naharnet/November 01/2019
A Lebanese court has sentenced a man to death for twin car bombings in 2013 that targeted two mosques in the northern city of Tripoli, killing 47 people, state-run National News Agency reported Friday. NNA said the Judicial Council sentenced Youssef Diab to death on Friday. NNA gave no further details regarding the sentence over the near-simultaneous bombings that targeted Sunni mosques in Lebanon's second largest city. Police said at the time that the bombings wounded some 300 others. The coordinated bombings in the predominantly Sunni city came amid sectarian violence in Lebanon at the time that spilled over from neighboring war-torn Syria. According to the indictment released years ago, Diab detonated one of the bombs remotely.

UK Announces $25 Million in Security Aid to Lebanon
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 1 November, 2019
The UK announced on Friday up to $25 million in support to the Lebanese army and security forces for 2019-2022. The move is “part of our ongoing support to the sole legitimate defender of Lebanon,” the British embassy in Beirut said on Twitter. “The security forces are entrusted with keeping Lebanon safe - including securing the borders, stopping terrorism and protecting peaceful protests,” it added. The announcement came the same day two US officials told Reuters that President Donald Trump's administration is withholding $105 million in security aid for Lebanon.. The State Department told Congress on Thursday that the White House budget office and National Security Council had decided to withhold the foreign military assistance, the officials said. Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri resigned on Tuesday following huge protests against the ruling elite.

Lebanon Uber Driver Gets Death Sentence for Murder of British Woman
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 1 November, 2019
A Lebanese court sentenced an Uber driver to death on Friday for the murder of British embassy worker Rebecca Dykes in December 2017, state news agency NNA said. The driver, Tariq Houshieh, confessed to raping and strangling 30-year-old Dykes, who worked at the embassy in Lebanon for Britain’s Department for International Development. The British embassy said it hoped the court’s decision would “provide a degree of closure” for those close to Dykes. “Becky was much loved and is deeply missed,” it said in a statement. Lebanese judges routinely call for death sentences in cases of murder. But the country has an unofficial moratorium and has not carried out an execution since 2004, according to the monitoring group Human Rights Watch. “While we welcome the guilty verdict, the UK government continues to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances,” the embassy statement said. The verdict was handed down by the Mount Lebanon criminal court, the district north of Beirut where the crime occurred, NNA reported. A lawyer appointed to represent Houshieh said they would submit an appeal.

UK Embassy Lauds Lebanese Authorities 'Professionalism' after Diplomat Killer Convicted
Naharnet/November 01/2019
Rebecca (“Becky”) Dykes was “a talented, devoted humanitarian, whose skill, expertise, and passion improved the lives of many people,” the British embassy in Beirut said on Friday, a few hours after the British diplomat’s murderer was convicted of murder and rape. “She was an impassioned advocate for those who most need support, a true friend of Lebanon, and an outstanding representative for the UK. She had an exciting, bright future ahead of her,” the embassy said in a statement. “Becky was also a hugely popular member of the British Embassy in Beirut. Her energy, smile, determination, kindness, and positivity are fondly remembered by all,” it added. “The British Embassy hopes that for those close to Becky, the Court’s decision will provide a degree of closure. While we welcome the guilty verdict, the UK government continues to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances,” the embassy went on to say. It also thanked “the many Lebanese authorities and officials who have responded to Becky’s murder with the utmost professionalism and compassion.”“The Embassy is also grateful to the individuals, foundations, and organizations that have kept Becky’s memory alive and continue her good work,” it added. “Becky was much loved and is deeply missed. The Embassy would like to take this moment to express its deep and continued sympathy with Becky’s colleagues, friends, and above all, her family,” it said.

Report: Parliamentary Consultations Next Step for Lebanon
Naharnet/November 01/2019
Deliberations to set a date early next week for Lebanon’s parliamentary consultations with President Michel Aoun intensified amid reports that Aoun did not “veto” appointing the now-caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri, the Saudi Asharq al-Awsat reported on Friday. Well-informed sources spoke to the daily and denied any delay in setting the date for deliberations, noting that “parliamentary blocs must have an opportunity to hold consultations among themselves to present the name of their candidate for the premiership.”The sources pointed out saying: “Lebanon is passing through unusual circumstances and several roads were still blocked, therefore we can say that the timing of consultations is linked to the security status.”They said President Michel Aoun considers a government in caretaker capacity as a form of vacuum that should not last for a very long time. “Therefore, he will not initiate parliamentary consultations if he is not certain that it will result in the nomination of a figure who garners the majority in Parliament,” they said. Meanwhile, ministerial sources told Asharq al-Awsat that “meetings were held between AMAL Movement and Hizbullah to assess the situation and exchange views for a unified decision.”
Hariri stepped down as PM on Tuesday amid nationwide protests against the political class, whom people blame for Lebanon’s deteriorating economic conditions.Aoun has asked the cabinet to continue in a caretaker capacity. He then has to hold binding consultations with the heads of parliamentary blocs to ask them for their choice of a new prime minister.

Lebanese Banks Impose New Measures on Depositors
Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 1 November, 2019
Lebanese banks reopened on Friday after remaining shut for 12 consecutive working days amid a series of new procedures imposed on clients in an effort by the authorities to protect the banking sector. Long queues formed outside banks in the capital, Beirut, as doors opened. Sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the new measures would prevent transfers from local banks to outside the country in the coming period. “Currently, there is a cap for outward financial transfers, despite some exceptions allowing transfers for Lebanese students studying abroad,” the sources said. They explained that the banks would raise the ceiling of payments in credit cards abroad. “This given margin on cash withdrawals is exceptional for a limited time. It aims to control a drawdown and to prevent the withdrawal of large sums of money,” the source said. Also, Lebanese lira deposits in banks could be exchanged to a foreign currency, the sources said, adding that such decision aims to confirm the solvency of the Lebanese monetary markets and to boost confidence in the financial situation. Following a meeting held on Thursday, Lebanon's banking association said banks across the country would open their doors on Friday morning to meet "urgent" needs such as salary payments. Banks in Lebanon were closed for safety reasons following protests that started on Oct. 17 demanding the resignation of the government. Meanwhile, Lebanon’s dollar bonds rose for the first time in ten working days on Thursday. The 2021 issue rose 0.8 cents, its most in six weeks, to 68.5 cents in the dollar, while the 2037 bond added 0.6 cents to 54.9 cents in the dollar, Tradeweb data showed. The bonds have been under huge selling pressure in recent days after two weeks of anti-government protests that have led to the closure of banks and simmering concerns about the government’s ability to meet its debt obligations.

Protesters Storm ABL, Get Arrested by ISF
Naharnet/November 01/2019
The Internal Security Forces arrested a handful of activists on Friday who stormed the headquarters of the Association of Banks in Lebanon in the Gemmayze area. The activists stormed ABL demanding that the “monetary dealings in Lebanon become strictly in Lebanese pounds.”
LBCI later said that three of the detained protesters were released. Lebanon banks reopened for the first time in two weeks on Friday as the country began to return to normal following mass demonstrations for radical political change. There has been widespread concern that the reopening of the banks will be accompanied by a devaluation of the Lebanese pound but the central bank said the currency was still pegged to the greenback at 1,507 pounds to the dollar.

New Batch of Syrian Refugees Return from Lebanon
Naharnet/November 01/2019
Eighty five Syrian refugees have returned on Friday back to Syria in the latest wave of returns to their war-torn country, the National News Agency reported on Friday. Lebanon's General Security Directorate organized the return of refugees who arrived at the Masnaa border crossing early on Friday coming from the Central Beqaa area. Out of 91 refugees who had their names listed to return home, only 85 returned, said NNA. Many have returned from several areas around Lebanon in the past months.

Banks Reopen after 2-Week Closure as Protests Ease
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 01/2019
Lebanon banks reopened for the first time in two weeks Friday as the country began to return to normal following mass demonstrations for radical political change. The unprecedented popular push to remove a political class seen as corrupt, incompetent and sectarian, had kept the country on lockdown since October 17. Large queues starting forming outside banks from early morning and people rushed in as soon as doors opened to cash in their salaries and make transfers. Tellers struggled to handle the flood of customers trying to cram inside bank branches, as queues spilt onto the streets.
In the capital Beirut, a handful of activists briefly stormed the headquarters of the Association of Banks, before they were forced out by riot police. There has been widespread concern that the reopening of the banks will be accompanied by a devaluation of the Lebanese pound but the central bank said the currency was still pegged to the greenback at 1,507 pounds to the dollar. In the parallel market however, the exchange rate is expected to be higher. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Saad Hariri submitted his government's resignation in response to pressure from the street, despite warnings from some of his senior coalition partners against such a move.  President Michel Aoun on Thursday said ministers in the next government should be picked for their skills, not their political affiliation, appearing to endorse demonstrators' demands for a government of technocrats. Aoun has asked Hariri's government to stay on in a caretaker capacity until a new one can be formed, but Lebanon has entered a phase of acute political uncertainty, even by its own dysfunctional standards. With a power-sharing system organised along communal and sectarian lines, the allocation of ministerial posts can typically take months, a delay Lebanon's donors say the debt-saddled country can ill afford. Growth in Lebanon has stalled in the face of the political deadlock of recent years, compounded by the 2011 breakout of civil war in neighbouring Syria. It stood at around 0.2 percent in 2018, compared with more than 10 percent in 2009. It is expected to remain stagnant this year, according to the International Monetary Fund. Economists are also deeply concerned by the country's crippling debt of $86 billion. This equates to roughly 150 percent of gross domestic product, one of the highest rates in the world. Eighty percent of that debt is owed to Lebanese commercial banks or the central bank.

‘Strong Lebanon’ Bloc tackles government formation issue, warns against smuggling State-owed funds
NNA/Fri 01 Nov 2019
The “Strong Lebanon” Parliamentary Bloc convened on Friday under Caretaker Foreign Affairs and Emigrants Minister Gebran Bassil at the Free Patriotic Movement’s headquarters in Mirna Shallouhi, with discussions focusing on the prevailing political issues and the general situation in the country, most prominently the new government formation. Developments following President Michel Aoun's speech yesterday also featured high during the meeting, with Bloc members voicing commitment to its content. On a different note, the Bloc warned against "the process of extracting or smuggling funds owed to the State," stressing on pursuing the matter through legislations or possible legal means. It is to note that Deputy Speaker Elie Ferzli, Lebanese Democratic Party Chief, MP Talal Arslan, and Tashnaq Party Secretary-General, MP Hagop Paqradounian, attended the meeting.

Protesters in Lebanon and the World March for 'a Better Future'
Naharnet/November 01/2019
Protests have flared in Lebanon and around the world, with citizens rallying for the last few weeks demanding change in their countries.
Here are the reasons seven of them from Lebanon to Chile are taking to the streets.
Lebanon
The face of the Joker has become a symbol of protest movements around the world, and a picture by AFP photographer Patrick Baz of a demonstrator in Beirut on October 19 looking like the comic book villain quickly went viral.
Underneath the make-up was Cynthia Albert Aboujaoude, 28, who works in graphic design.
"We're protesting for a better future. We're all here for many problems, the roads, the trash, the economy ... the water.” If she could change one thing about the country it would be education, she says.
"I would take public schooling a little bit more seriously and make it 100 percent free.
"I found out about the protests by accident. I was leaving a friend's place when I came across a blocked road with burning tires. That's when I checked the news and couldn't help but join the revolt."
She says she has long felt a connection with the Joker. "So I wore his make-up comfortably and peacefully using the colors of our Lebanese flag with no intentions to start riots or wreak havoc, it was purely to make a statement.”
She says it feels "surreal and overwhelming" to know that so many people have seen her face. "It almost feels insane that a picture in a certain place, time or situation can have such a huge impact."
Hong Kong
“Why do Hong Kongers have to suffer so much white terror? It’s because the government refuses to face our demands and reach a compromise with us. It should back down and listen to the people’s demands,” said "Mr. A", a man in his thirties who wanted to remain anonymous.
Hong Kong has been upended by nearly five months of huge, often violent, pro-democracy protests in which participants routinely wear masks to hide their identities and protect themselves from teargas and pepper spray.
The protests were initially sparked by a now-abandoned plan to allow extraditions to the authoritarian mainland, but snowballed into a wider democracy and police accountability movement.
“We must have our five demands,” said Mr. A.
He was referring to the demands of the Hong Kong protest movement including an independent inquiry into police action, amnesty for those arrested and universal suffrage.
Algeria
Wearing trainers, a polo shirt and a Che Guevara hat, Abdenour Ait Said whips up the crowd every Tuesday during student protests in Algiers.
The 22-year-old biology student -- known by his friends as Abdou -- has emerged as one of the leaders of the eight-month-old rallies.
Always at the front of the march, he keeps up a stream of slogans against the regime, repeated in chorus by the crowd.
In February he was among the first demonstrators to take to the streets to demand the fall of the "system".
"I protest so my country is freed from this power in place for more than 50 years, who plundered its riches, and I oppose the elections planned for December 12 which we know in advance will be rigged," he says.
"I denounce the arbitrary arrests of protesters, and the siege of the capital every Friday and Tuesday to prevent demonstrators from other cities joining us."
He dreams of "a new Algeria where the rule of law reigns".
Iraq
His face partly covered by a surgical mask, Haydar Sabri holds a picture of his brother as tear gas canisters and stun grenades rain down on Baghdad's emblematic Tahrir Square.
Underneath he has written: "I am here to find justice for my brother".
"My brother was protesting peacefully and he was killed by a sniper on October 4" in the same square, says Sabri, who is in his 20s and earns a living from odd jobs.
At the time Iraq was gripped by a first wave of protests, the deadliest since the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003.
Five days of anti-government rallies brought chaos to Baghdad and southern Iraq despite the authorities' attempts to quell them with internet blackouts and curfews.
More than 150 people were killed, mostly protesters in the capital, according to official figures, in a country flush with oil wealth but where one-fifth of the population lives in poverty.
Now that the rallies -- and deaths -- have resumed after a nearly three-week lull, Sabri has joined the demonstrators after keeping up to date with calls to mobilize on Facebook.
He wants "the fall of the government because it's the only way to find justice for my brother.
"I want to be able to visit his grave and tell him that he died for a good cause," Sabri tells AFP.
"I want a better country and that will never happen unless the government falls."
Barcelona
"I protest because the circumstances in recent years have incarcerated Catalonia's political leaders we elected. They were allowed to propose an electoral program (for independence in Catalonia) and when they wanted to put their plan into action they were detained and sent to prison," said Gisela Navales Morera, a 39-year-old teacher.
"It seems very unjust," the Catalan separatist added.
44 percent of people in the region are in favor of forming an independent state in northeast Spain.
"I protest for them to be released and for those 'exiled' to return to their country," she said, referring to former Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont and other politicians in the region, who have fled abroad to avoid prosecution.
Navales Morera said she wants "a country where everyone can express what they think, where they feel they can demonstrate."
She keeps up to date on events on Instagram and uses the social media network Telegram.
She said on social media "we have the chance to see thing the media does not show us".
Santiago, Chile
"This is the first time that Chileans are united and we must not miss this opportunity," said 21-year-old student Carlos Morales.
"It is a way of putting pressure on the government to listen to us and that all Chileans can live in peace, and not in poverty."
The protests were triggered by a hike in the price of underground train tickets.
"I hope that (President Sebastian Pinera) will resign, as well as all those damn thieves. I hope that these damn parliamentarians will lower their salary.
"There are people who earn nine million pesos (11,200 euros over $12,000) per month while the minimum wage is 300,000 pesos (373 euros or $415).
"It causes a lot of anger among people. With the 9.2 percent increase of electricity and the increase in the price of metro tickets, Pinera keeps us in poverty and controls us," he said.
- La Paz, Bolivia -
With a national flag tied to her t-shirt imprinted with the word 'No', 15-year-old schoolgirl Natalia Vasquez marches with her friends, covered in the national colors of red, yellow, green.
"There has been electoral fraud, and that has been proven, it's been 14 years since President Morales was here, now we want to fight to develop the country," she said following Evo Morales's re-election on Sunday.
"We are the young people who are looking for a better future, to have a better Bolivia, if we do not fight, who will guarantee that it will be better after?"
While her family encourage her, they also warn her to be careful when she takes to the streets.
But the teenager, who lives in the upmarket neighborhood of Cota Cota, said she was ready to go to prison "if necessary".
With her teachers on strike and her school closed, Vasquez and her friends communicate with protest groups via messaging service WhatsApp. She says the messaging groups are at full capacity with 250 people.
"There are also Facebook groups with thousands of members," she says. Instagram has also been a tool to send videos of speeches made by the president, fights and how to organize protests.

NPA: Interview With Dr. Walid Phares
North-Press Agency/November 01/2019
U.S. forces redeploying in oil fields, support to continue for SDF” - Former Northern Syria
A former adviser to the United States President Donald Trump said that the decision to withdraw from areas in northern Syria came after Turkish President Erdogan's determination to enter his forces in the region, which necessitated the American troops to withdraw about 32 km away from the Syrian-Turkish borders.
Walid Phares, a former adviser to the U.S. President Donald Trump and a foreign policy expert said that, the U.S. withdrawal decision was based on the president's assessment that, the positioning of the American forces in northern Syria doesn't allow any confrontation, and that the Turkish leadership won't accept any negotiations on this issue and insist on its operation. Therefore, the President's decision was that, the U.S. forces would withdraw to Hasakah, the Syrian-Iraqi borders and thus to the oil fields areas.
According to the political expert, the first plan, which was to deploy with the
Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) throughout northeastern Syria "is no longer practicable without a massive deployment of the U.S. army and this wasn't possible at that stage, due to strong opposition against the president in Washington, and therefore they resorted to the Plan B, i.e. the withdrawal, but the Turkish government decided to invade, the matter that led Trump to send his deputy to Ankara for negotiations.
The United States and Turkey accepted the principle of "security zone" along the borders and they required the European countries to deploy their troops to protect the entire components of the region.
During his talk, the former advisor to the U.S. President, mentioned the Plan D, which includes reorganizing, rehabilitating, arming and equipping the SDF and reorganizing its positioning, where it includes redeploying in the south of the 30 km line with the remaining U.S. forces, which will deploy in the oil fields and help to reinforce these forces strategically to transform them from a militia into a regular army.
Regarding the oil fields, Walid Phares pointed out that, this decision is made by President Trump directly, who made it clear in his press conference after al-Baghdadi operation that, the U.S. forces will be there as a strategic force which will defend those areas with all their power, which means that, this is a warning to the east and north, and a warning to Turkey that no one will approach these areas and will be large areas, and therefore a warning to Iran that no one approached its forces and militias to those areas, which means that, there will be a military base, areas and supplements where the U.S. forces will be in the middle and the SDF around them.
The political expert stressed that, there is considerable pressure within the U.S. on the administration, pressure from the Congress and from the majority of President Trump's popular base not to give up allies in all components of the SDF, and therefore the Plan B has been converted to the Plan D.
The scenario of the Plan D, as Trump said includes strengthening a base in Iraqi Kurdistan in Erbil, so that the cooperation and coordination between Iraqi Kurdistan and Syrian Kurdistan is necessary without any merge or unity, just strategic cooperation and coordination.
Phares explained that, on this basis the next stage will be repositioning, and "The belief here is that, the SDF lost that region on the borders with Turkey at this stage in order to solve the issues, isn't right because the SDF hasn't lost its people".
Walid Phares told North-Press that, "House of Representative's vote against Turkey and the sanctions means that, the Congress and the administration are determined to continue the partnership with the SDF and the minorities in northeastern Syria and northern Iraq, and to adopt them as strategic partners."
He concluded that, "What is happening on the Syrian-Turkish borders has therapies later. All eyes are now focused on the remnants of ISIS, and on preventing Iranian forces from penetrating into northeastern Syria or approaching northern Iraq once again, where the Kurds are.”

Opinion/Netanyahu vs. Nasrallah
Israel Harel/Haaretz/November 01/2019
After the next display of courage by Hezbollah, or Hamas in the south, the IDF must 'lethally' liquidate both these organizations’ offensive capabilities
In late August Israeli planes attacked a canister, or canisters, of navigation devices intended to upgrade Hezbollah’s “stupid” missiles into precision missiles.
Hassan Nasrallah, the organization’s leader, promised to take revenge. Since this leader, unlike Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, doesn’t make empty threats, the IDF began to prepare for the bombardment. As usual, it did so with the intention of containing the offensive. Indeed, on September 1 his men fired Kornet missiles at Israel.
This week it was reported that two officers, a battalion commander and a deputy battalion commander, were reprimanded over this incident. For fear of missile fire the forces in the area had been ordered to stop all vehicular movement on roads that could be targeted directly from Lebanon. The order wasn’t passed on, or didn’t flow, to one of the forces, and a missile almost hit an ambulance.
Although no one was hurt, somebody had disobeyed – or ignored – an order. The reprimand was in place, because the moment it had been decided to respond by a policy of containment, it was right to take precautions and stop the traffic. But whoever had made the decision to avoid a preemptive strike put many more people at risk. Hezbollah’s revenge scope wasn’t known, after all. Therefore the willingness to allow Nasrallah to strike the first blow, which could have hurt numerous civilians and soldiers, is the outcome of an erroneous strategic decision, both militarily and morally.
Implementation of a policy of containment was a strategic mistake on the part of the government, and also on the army’s part for failing to object to it. A preemptive strike, or even a harsh retaliation after-the-fact, would have made it clear to Nasrallah that Israel is determined to continue to take action, even over Lebanese skies, to prevent the missile upgrade project.
Also, that the new “lethal” IDF will no longer stand idly by if Nasrallah strikes again. Upon entering office the chief of staff said that IDF moves must be “lethal.” To prove that the IDF shot about 100 “lethal” shells at Lebanon in response to the anti-tank missiles. Like in many cases in the south, the shells were fired at open areas and caused no damage. Except, of course, for intelligence damage. The futile strike signaled to Nasrallah that from now on Israel will treat him the same way it deals with Hamas.
After the event Netanyahu declared “we won…not a single Israeli was scratched.” This is good. But on the strategic level Nasrallah has confirmed anew an absurd strategic balance via which the leader of a terrorist organization has been dictating the rules of the game to a regional power for the past two decades. Even micro-tactical activity, firing a few missiles, deters Israel on the strategic level.
About a week before the reprimand the chief of staff warned of two acute fronts, in the north and south, that pose an immediate threat to our national security. Given what Tehran has been doing lately in the region, like shooting cruise missiles at Saudi oil fields, Israel must urgently neutralize the missile capabilities of Hezbollah, Iran’s front-line proxy. After the next display of courage by Nasrallah, or Hamas in the south, the IDF must “lethally” liquidate both these organizations’ offensive capabilities.
Only thusly can Iran, not only Hezbollah and Hamas, be deterred; only thusly will the ayatollahs understand that Israel has shed its policy of containment. Had we acted in a micro-lethal way in September, it may have been possible to prevent the next big, inevitably macro-lethal, round for a long time to come; perhaps even until after the fall of Tehran’s evil regime.

Behind The Lines: Revolt Against Iran's System In Iraq And Lebanon
Jonathan Spyer/November 01/2019
Will the people succeed in undermining the Iranian plan to spread power across the region?
The Middle East is currently witnessing the first examples of popular rebellion in countries dominated by Iran. In the very different contexts of Iraq and Lebanon, the protests now under way have a similar focus on political and economic corruption, mismanagement, and limited popular access to power and resources. In both cases, despite this focus, the demonstrators are being confronted with the fact of the domination of their country by an outside-imposed structure.
In Iraq, demonstrations began on October 1. The protests took place in Baghdad, and rapidly spread to a number of cities in the southern part of the country, including Nasiriya, Diwaniya, Babil, Wasit, Muthanna, and Dhi Qar governorates. The immediate cause was the firing by Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi of a popular general, Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi, from his post as deputy commander of the Counter-Terrorism Service.
Saadi’s firing, however, was from the outset redolent of broader issues. A Baghdad Shia himself, Saadi is known for his anti-sectarian positions and professionalism. The CTS, in which he served, is a force established and trained by the Americans. His removal from his position was thus widely interpreted as an effort by the Iran-linked Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) to rid itself of a potential rival.
So while the focus of the demonstrations rapidly shifted to economic and social issues – in particular lack of access to affordable housing for young people – from the outset the issue of the unelected and unaccountable Iranian power that lies at the heart of governance in Iraq was implicitly present.
One demonstrator, 28-year-old Moussa Rahmatallah of Baghdad, described this process in an interview published by the Middle East Center for Reporting and Analysis. “The problem was community and economic issues, but it got bigger now. Now, the main demand and call from the demonstrations is that they want the regime to fall.”
This, of course, is the old slogan that echoed through the public squares of Arab states during the short-lived “Arab Spring” of 2010-11. But there is a significant difference. In Ben Ali’s Tunisia, Mubarak’s Egypt, Assad’s Syria and so on, it was clear what the regime was. Iraq, however, has a formal system of democracy, a parliament, regular elections. So what is the “regime” that Rahmatallah and his fellow demonstrators were referring to?
One demonstrator expressed it in the following terms in a Facebook post: “Democracy alone while the country is being looted is not enough! What is the use of being able to participate in an election, while seeing militias intimidate the actual winners ’cause of threat of a civil war or whatever, and then allow them to have much greater control over the government?!”
Iran and its allies appear similarly in no doubt that the “regime” in question (the Arabic word “nizam” also translates, perhaps more appropriately here, as “system”) is the one whereby within the structures of formal democracy, Tehran maintains its own independent political and military power structure, against whose decisions there is no appeal.
That the Iranians are convinced in this regard may be gauged not by statements but, rather, by deeds. From the beginning, the armed power of the Shia militias has been mobilized alongside, and in cooperation with, the official security forces of the state, with the intention of brutally suppressing the demonstrations. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani flew into Iraq on October 2, to coordinate the operation, according to a report by The Associated Press.
The result is that in just four weeks of demonstrations, over 250 demonstrators have lost their lives. An October 17 Reuters report detailed the process in which snipers belonging to Iran-backed militias were deployed on rooftops in areas where protests were taking place, with orders to shoot to kill. The operation, according to Reuters, was directed by one Abu Zeinab al-Lami, a senior official of the PMU closely linked to Iran. Iraqi security sources quoted by Reuters claimed that the snipers were “reporting directly to their commander [presumably Lami, or Soleimani] instead of to the commander in chief of the armed forces.”
The precise chain of command, and the extent of collusion remain disputed. But the role of the IRGC-linked forces as the cutting edge of the attempt to crush the protests is clear.
The situation is continuing to escalate and no end is in sight. On Wednesday, live fire was used against protesters in the iconic Shia city of Kerbala. Eighteen people were killed. Iraqi sources say that the Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Ktaeb Hezbollah militias were active in the city. The largest demonstrations are taking place in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square.
IN THE different conditions of Lebanon, an essentially similar dynamic is under way. A protest initially concerned with opposing new taxes on tobacco, petrol and Internet phone services rapidly escalated into a generalized challenged to the entrenched and deeply corrupt political order of the country.
The grievances of the protesters are socioeconomic. They are not directed specifically against Hezbollah and its Iranian masters. The protesters want the current coalition of corrupt, entrenched sectarian interests replaced by a government of technocrats. They are motivated by Lebanon’s dire economic state, its massive unemployment and its soaring national debt.
But as it turns out, this current order is to the liking of the Iranian structure, which is the true ruler in Lebanon. It affords the convenient administrative cover beneath which Hezbollah is able to preserve its own power undisturbed. Consequently, since October 20, when Hassan Nasrallah first spoke against the protests, and with increasing force after October 25, Hezbollah and Amal thugs have been harassing the demonstrations and seeking to provoke violence.
As of now, Prime Minister Saad Hariri has tendered his resignation. The demonstrators have vowed to stay in the streets. They are demanding a government of “experts” and the abolition of the Lebanese sectarian political system, which enables the entrenched elites, whom they hold responsible for the current economic malaise. As the true decision-maker, it is now Hezbollah’s move, with regard to the new government to be assembled.
THE ESSENTIAL point, in both the Iraqi and Lebanese cases, is that any protest or public manifestation must eventually pose the question of power – namely, who decides? and is there a right of appeal? In both the Lebanese and Iraqi situations, once the decorations, fictions and formalities are stripped away, the protesters are faced with an unelected, armed, utterly ruthless political-military structure which is the final decider and wielder of power in the country. This structure, in turn, is controlled from Iran, via the mechanism of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
Iran, in its rhetoric, likes to call its regional bloc the “Resistance Axis.” The notion is that it is bringing together oppressed and authentic regional forces against the machinations of the US, Israel and their puppets. In reality, as current events in Iraq and Lebanon are showing, the Iranian system most resembles a colonial one, in which the ability of local populations to decide for themselves disappears, and an Iran-controlled structure places itself in rule over them. This rule is then conducted in a manner intended to benefit Tehran, with indifference to the economic and other interests of the subject population.
The subjects in Iraq and Lebanon are now in revolt against this system. It is not at all clear, however, whether they have the means available to issue it a serious challenge.
*The writer is director of the Middle East Center for Reporting and Analysis and a research fellow at the Middle East Forum and at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security. He is the author of Days of the Fall: A Reporter’s Journey in the Syria and Iraq Wars.

In Middle East: Pull Down Facades
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Asat/November 01/2019
For the past two weeks or so, the state-controlled media in Tehran have been wondering how to cope with news of popular uprisings in Lebanon and Iraq.
In the first phase, the official line was that the protests reflected anger at poor economic performance and defective public services. The narrative echoed media coverage of last year’s popular protests in Iran itself. It was inconceivable that “the people”, always an abstraction, might not appreciate the blessings of the system let alone revolt against it. In the second phase, the protests were portrayed as indicative of the failure of the authorities to respond to popular grievances. In the third and current phase, the uprising was depicted as the result of sinister plots by “enemies of Islam”, including the usual “Zionist” suspects and “agents of the American Great Satan.”
Thus, Tehran media are advising the “authorities” in Beirut and Baghdad to crush the popular uprisings “by all means necessary”. One of Tehran’s Iraqi propagandists even advised Prime Minister Adel AbdulMahdi “to kill leaders of sedition (fitna)” who had gathered in a restaurant in Baghdad. The daily Kayhan, believed to reflect “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei’s views, started calling for “strong action” against protesters in Lebanon days before units of streetfighters from Hezbollah and Amal attacked the protestors’ base in Beirut.
Anyone following the state-owned media’s coverage would detect as sense of panic in Tehran. What if we were witnessing a version of peripheral revolts that shook the Soviet Empire in its satellite territories in Eastern and Central Europe?
For years, Tehran has been trying to sell its expansionist strategist in the Middle East as a great success not only for the Islamic Revolution but also for Iranian nationalism. In an interview, published posthumously, Revolutionary Guard general Hussein Hamadani boasted about having “saved” Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad from defeat and death at the moment he and his cronies had packed suitcases to run away. However, he also noted that this was the first time since the 7th century AD when Iranian armies had reached the Mediterranean under their pre-Islamic King of Kings Khosrow Parviz.
That narrative also found echoes in Tehran accounts of Yemen. Iranians were told that, under Khosrow Anushiravan, the Sassanid Emperor, a Persian army led by Wahraz had gone to Yemen to expel Abyssinian invaders and that, today, Iran was doing the same thing but sending “arms and advisers” to the Houthis to expel Arab “invaders.” As for Iraq, the Islamic Republic did not only have a right to intervene but a duty to protect the Iraqi Shiites and Kurds as members of “our great family.”
As for Lebanon, the Islamic Republic’s leading role there was the natural continuation of a relationship that started with the importing of large numbers of Lebanese Shiite clerics to Iran in the 16th century, helping convert Iran to Shiism under the Safavids.
There is no doubt that this Khomeinist grand strategy met with some initial successes as Tehran expanded its influence in the Middle East with a minimum of blood sacrifice. Even the treasure spent on acquiring a pseudo-empire was not very big. Best estimates put Iran’s expenditure for gaining a dominant position in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen at around $40 billion over the past four decades. The daily Kayhan compared that figure with “the eight trillion dollars that Trump says the US spent in the Middle East, ending up with nothing.”
In building their empire, the mullahs made a big mistake: they prevented the emergence of genuine local authorities, including national armies that could hold things together in a semi-autonomous way. The British did that with some success in India where they fostered a large number of maharajas, nabobs and sardars enjoying a measure of local legitimacy while the sub-continents security depended on a regular army consisting largely of native, often ethnic and/or confessional minority, elements. As a result the formal organs of state in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen were reduced to mere facades hiding the reality of power exercised by militia groups such as Hezbollah, the Popular Mobilization Forces, Zayanbiyoun and the Houthis.
In the recent attack on Saudi oil installations, the Houthis heard about their own imaginary role in the operation from foreign media quoting Iranian sources. Tehran did not even have the courtesy to tell the Houthis that they would be mentioned as authors of the attack before releasing the claim to world media.
In 2017 Gen. Ismail Qa’ani, number-two of the Quds Crops under Gen. Qassem Soleimani told a Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) seminar that real power in all the countries involved rested in the hands of “resistance forces linked to our revolution.” Soleimani put that claim even more starkly in his first ever interview, making it clear that he did not acknowledge the existence of anything resembling a state in Lebanon.
That, of course, is a repeat of the experiment in Iran itself where formal state structures, including a President, a Cabinet, various ministries and even a regular army exist but only as facades for parallel, the notorious “deep state” structures, that wield real power.
The Soviet Empire established a similar scheme in satellite countries where even Communist parties were little more than a façade. That scheme began to unravel when the puppets, including leaders of some local Communist parties, started to resign or even join the opposition.
The current crisis in the countries concerned may well take the same turn. Like the scared Soviet Union, the Khomeinist regime may try to stop the march of history by force. If so, it will fail just as the USSR did in its satellites. However, positive change may well become more possible if those who form the facade of power in the countries concerned find the courage to step down and let Tehran’s surrogates to assume responsibility commensurate with the real power they have behind the scenes.
The Houthis, the Assad clan, Hezbollah, PMF and kindred groups are puppets in a surrealistic show scripted by faceless puppet-masters in Tehran. That they, in turn, hide behind secondary puppets, playing president and/or prime minister, makes for an even more absurd flight into fantasyland. Just over 1000 years ago, Nizam al-Mulk noted that what appears legal is not necessarily legitimate and that being in office but not in power produces the worst kind of tyranny.

My Generation Wants To End Sectarianism
Ghida Tayara/Carnegie/November 01/2019
Lebanon’s youths are fed up with the traditional reflexes of sect that keep the population divided.
The spontaneous protests that began on October 17 proved that the Lebanese are capable of uniting. They showed that socioeconomic difficulties were shared across the country’s different sects and were enough to make well over 1 million citizens take to the streets calling for the abolition of the sectarian system.
For almost two weeks, public spaces across Lebanon were filled with people waving red, white, and green flags, expressing their dissatisfaction with the country’s sectarian political leadership and their corrupt behavior. As beautiful as such scenes were, and as utopian as the demands of the protestors appeared, the realities that also came to the surface were very different.
During the first days of the protests, minor clashes erupted between protestors and groups of young men backed by Hezbollah and the Amal Movement. But then things took a turn for the worse late last week as these groups attacked the protestors more violently. The most disturbing thing was that these men were shouting “Shi‘a, Shi‘a” as they beat up protestors, tore up their tents, and burned their banners. They displayed no sympathy for the protesting crowds, were not involved in their calls to change the Lebanese system, and did not feel any impulse to share the protestors’ pain or concerns. Instead, they went on a rampage, showing a viciousness that was fueled by the sectarian rhetoric of their political parties.
Later that day, Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri resigned, which seemed to divide the protestors. Social media was flooded with pictures of Hariri, with some people portraying him as a hero. What was shocking, however, was that many of those who were praising the prime minister for stepping down were the very same ones who had been in the streets protesting against his government. Suddenly, the protestors’ slogan, Kellon, Ya‘ni Kellon (All of Them Means All of Them), became meaningless as people reverted to supporting their sectarian leaders.
Indeed, when the protests began there were no partisans of Hariri’s Future Movement defending the prime minister and his government. This only occurred after he had stepped down. This revealed a sectarian reflex, since his resignation appeared to signal that the Sunni prime minister was the principal victim of public discontent, not the Maronite president or the Shi‘a speaker of parliament.
Sectarian rhetoric is a tool that political parties have long used in Lebanon, where most parties are based on sect. It only takes one political party using the sectarian card to make people from other communities feel the urge to slide back into the protective shell of their own sects or sectarian political parties.
An outrageous example of someone using the sectarian card is the head of the Free Patriotic Movement, Gebran Bassil, who has backed a discriminatory citizenship law. He supports allowing Lebanese women married to foreigners to pass their nationality on to their children, with the exception of those with Syrian and Palestinian husbands. By doing so, Bassil has sought to guarantee that Christians are not more outnumbered by Muslims than they are today.
Sectarian rhetoric is embedded so deeply in the Lebanese political system, its parties, and society that it may take ten revolutions to get rid of it. The younger generation is showing a greater willingness to embrace a secular national identity, which gives us hope. And with talk of the protests perhaps winding down and protestors losing their battle, we can at least affirm that this generation of Lebanese is striving to effect change.The flame of change is not going to burn out.

What the Lebanese Uprising is all About
Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Asat/November 01/2019
The Lebanese Uprising has entered its second week, with salient truths that deserve attention:
The First is that the Uprising still has not brought forward any clear leadership, although its demands are; and by the way has its advantages and disadvantages.
The Second is that it has made necessary a second speech from Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s Secretary General; who effectively is the political and military governor of Lebanon, in which he moved from directly threatening his opponents to openly accusing them of treason and intimidating them by using his black-shirted ‘partisans’.
The Third is that this Uprising does not seem to enjoy any international sympathy; which is ironic, since Nasrallah is accusing the organizers and protesters of being funded by foreign embassies. The same accusation was levelled by Hezbollah’s media against the Iraqi protests too.
The Fourth is that President Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), which is now the Christian subordinate henchman of Hezbollah, has been its master’s voice. From the moment of receiving the Shiite militia’s message, it began its own actions against the protesters in the Christian areas, under the pretext of defending Aoun and FPM leader Jebran Bassil, who was the ‘cabinet’s strongman’.
The Fifth is that, for different reasons, the protesters are still not making the direct connection between the rampant corruption and the ‘security services’ deep state’ which has been running the show in Lebanon for more than 30 years. Those 30 years that are frequently being mentioned both by innocent and ‘not very innocent’ protesters in the streets.
Well, let us expand on the above.
Despite the accusations of Hezbollah’s Secretary General, the mere fact that the current Uprising is still leaderless proves that it has been a result of accumulated suffering of ordinary people. The authorities – not only the cabinet – has treated this suffering by drugging, distraction and deception. This is obvious knowing Lebanon’s political system, its fragile structure, the lack of consensus, and the subservience of almost all political players to a de facto ‘occupation’ that follows its own local and regional agenda.
A couple of days ago, when black-shirted thugs ‘revisited’ the squares and streets, they simply reconfirmed a fact that the Lebanese have always wanted to deny. Indeed, at present, the ‘security services’ establishment is in action not only in order to re-open blocked streets by force, or saving protesters from the wrath of those thugs; it has been busy for some time ‘creating’ a public opinion that is concentrating attention on corruption alone, and alluding to one group in particular.
However, the reality is that ‘security state,’ which has been ruling Lebanon behind the scenes since the mid 1970s, under the auspices of Syrian military and security presence, has been the main sponsor and beneficiary of corruption. This, was gradually and simultaneously, taking place since 1979 along with the regional project of the Iranian Khomeinist Revolution.
Thus, Lebanon’s politicians had only few options before them; either accept to be part of the corruption-based set-up, being physically liquidated, or go into exile. Thanks to the establishment’s ‘capabilities’, even the government’s resources became available; legal files against foes were prepared, pseudo-leaderships were created, the media were ‘domesticated’, and everything that would suit the wishes and ambitions of the ruling elite and their associates in securing Lebanon as a satellite became a priority.
Even those, who were willing to bite the bullet and sacrifice for the sake of Lebanon, were eventually destined to pay with their blood the price of leaving ‘The Big Prison’. The Lebanese, may remember well from that period the scandals of money laundering by some banks, deals kickbacks, monopolies, as well as financial blackmails, and across the border protection-money mafias.
So, when today’s protestors innocently parrot ‘lists’ of names of politicians accused of corruption, and huge fortunes they have allegedly amassed, they do not question the reliability of these ‘lists’, their authenticity and those behind them, although the existence of corruption has never been in doubt.
Furthermore, as far as the ready-made accusations of treason, Hezbollah is levelling at its enemies “in defense of the Resistance (against Israel)”; this looks bizarre even to the most naïve. For how is it possible for someone who openly admits receiving money, arms, and support, and takes pride in being a religious and political follower of Iran, to accuse others?!
Since 1979, the “Resistance against Israel” - for those who may have forgotten - has helped destroy three leading Arab countries; which are now partitioned and confiscated by Iran.
Since 1979, Israel has grown stronger, richer and more advanced, while Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon have gone backward, as a result of the collapse of institutions and services, emigration of the talented and educated, destruction of social fabric, and spiraling of religious and sectarian exclusionist extremism.
Since 1979, in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, education has deteriorated, judiciary was compromised, liberties were stifled, security was shaken, and human development markers plummeted, while regional powers fight for influence and territory at their expense!
Today, when Israel ranks among the world’s top research nations in fields like artificial intelligence, nano-technology, advanced biochemistry, genetics and cell biology, desert agriculture, and competes on a par with the best in West in scientific publications; Tehran-dominated Arab countries suffer terrible living standards, environmental crises – such as desertification and pollution -, epidemics, social, religious and sectarian close-mindedness.
One example is Lebanon, a country, where an American and a French university were founded in 1866 and 1872, respectively, along with many leading private schools; hosted also the Miss Europe pageant in the 1950s, was the financial and service Middle Eastern hub for global companies, and the leading international engineering and maintenance base for major world airlines. However, this country now suffers from frequent shortages in electricity supplies, is unable to handle seasonal bush fires, solve a long-standing garbage treatment, manage to adequately export its agricultural products, protect its citizens of fake medicines and carcinogenic materials, deal properly with rising unemployment, and prove a safety net for its old, disabled and under privileged.
To sum up, Lebanon’s problem is far greater than a vague connotation of ‘corruption’; hence, solving it requires more than new cabinet and early elections.
It is a problem of a country that is prevented from being a sovereign, free and independent nation; only to be used as a bargaining chip for this or that regional player, or as a ‘letterbox’ for global and regional powers. A problem of a lost identity, a deeply entrenched political culture, and a selective popular memory.

Iran’s Theory on Events in Iraq, Lebanon
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al Asat/November 01/2019
It is not difficult to realize to what extent the Iranian regime has become unpopular in Iraq and Lebanon. This has nothing to do with Al Arabiya TV or the hashtags of an electronic army, as claimed by Iranian regime officials. In Iraq, there is neither internet nor social media. Iraq’s government has blacked out the internet to please the Iranians, who think that waves of incitement are coming from cyberspace. Yet the uprising is alive and continuing.
Tehran claims that the millions of protesters who have flooded the streets in Iraqi and Lebanese cities in the past two weeks have been stirred by Saudi Arabia and Israel. Iran wants to close its ears to the protesters as it has caused their poverty, militia dominance in their countries and the failure of their governments. The truth is that the accusations match reality.
All armed militias in Iraq are affiliated with Iran or its allies. Hezbollah in Lebanon is stronger than the national army and is affiliated with Iran. Most of the world’s governments have been forced to refrain from dealing with Iraq and Lebanon because of Iran’s influence there.
Saudi Arabia supported Lebanon’s currency by depositing funds in its central bank, while Iran caused depreciation due to Hezbollah’s domination of state institutions. These are well-known facts, and people do not need TV channels or hashtags to point them to the source of their misery.
In Iraq, the Iranian project relied on the seizure of state institutions: Parliament, political parties and the armed forces, which were forced to incorporate Iran’s militias. So the situation worsened and people rose up in Iraq, not as Sunnis against Shiites, nor as one party against another.
The uprising was not led by the remnants of the Baath Party, it did not raise the black flag of Daesh, and the Americans show no interest in supporting it. The Iraqi uprising is purely peaceful and patriotic, despite attempts by Iranian media to describe it as foreign-driven. Its spectrum is broad and its demands refute their accusations.
Peaceful protests have taken place in Baghdad, Basra, Karbala, Najaf, and other parts of Iraq. Most of these governorates have a Shiite majority raising demands that everyone supports. They demand an end to corruption, an improvement in the government’s performance, and the elimination of armed militias and Iran’s influence.
They call for the independence of Iraq and its identity. Iran threatens to demolish everything over the heads of 30 million Iraqis if they stand in the way of its project to govern and control the country.
In Lebanon, the movement has similar features. The protests are against corruption, the political mafia and the government’s sectarianism. The massive protests have not only taken place in Beirut, but also Sunni Tripoli and Shiite Nabatieh and Baalbek.
Christian protesters have demanded the removal of corrupt Christian ministers, Sunnis were the first to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Saad Hariri, and many Shiite clerics expressed their rejection of Hezbollah.
The poor economic situation has taxed people’s patience and made them break their silence. We know that, in terms of weapons, the balance of power is not on the protesters’ side, but their resolve, determination, and massive public support will bring about change — or at least their message has been received.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on November 01-02/2019
ISIS Confirms Baghdadi Dead, Appoints Quraishi as Successor
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 31 October, 2019
ISIS confirmed on Thursday that its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a raid by US forces in northwestern Syria and it vowed revenge against the United States. Baghdadi died during the swoop by US special forces, President Donald Trump said on Sunday. ISIS confirmed Baghdadi's demise in an audio tape posted online and said a successor it identified only as Abu Ibrahim al-Hashemi al-Quraishi had been appointed. The speaker in the audio also confirmed the death of Abu Hassan al-Muhajir, a close aide of al-Baghdadi and a spokesman for the group since 2016. Al-Muhajir was killed in a joint US operation with Kurdish forces in Jarablus in northern Syria on Sunday, hours after Baghdadi blew himself up during a US raid in Syria's northwestern Idlib province. The killings were a double blow to the extremist group, nearly seven months after its territorial defeat in Syria. The new spokesman, al-Quraishi, addressed the Americans, saying: "Don't rejoice." "Don't you know America that the state (ISIS) today is at the doorstep of Europe and is in Central Africa? It is also expanding and remaining from east to west." The speaker was referencing the slogan ISIS used at the height of its successes: "Remaining and expanding."

Defying Authorities, Iraqis Hold Largest Protests Yet
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 1 November, 2019
Tens of thousands of Iraqis massed in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square on Friday in the biggest demonstrations since anti-government protests erupted a month ago, defying security forces that have killed scores of people and harshly criticizing Iran’s involvement in the country’s affairs. The square and the wide boulevards leading into it were packed with flag-waving protesters, as security forces reinforced barricades on two bridges leading to the heavily-fortified Green Zone, the seat of government. The protesters want sweeping change to the political system established after the 2003 US-led invasion, which they blame for widespread corruption, high unemployment and poor public services. The Iraqi government should listen to the protesters and relax recently imposed restrictions on the media and free expression, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement on Friday.
Pompeo also said all sides should reject violence, adding that the Iraqi government’s probe of violence that occurred in early October “lacked sufficient credibility.” At least 255 people have been killed in two major waves of protests in the past month, including five who died Friday of wounds sustained earlier, according to security and medical officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to brief reporters. At least 350 people were wounded Friday as security forces fired tear gas grenades and rubber bullets to drive people back from the bridges. Many protesters directed their rage at Iran. Videos circulated online of a group of protesters holding a poster showing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the head of its Quds force, Gen. Qassim Soleimani, with their faces crossed out. The video, which showed protesters beating the poster with their shoes, appeared to have been filmed Thursday in Tahrir Square. On Friday, protesters marched over an Iranian flag painted on the pavement with a swastika added to it.
This month’s protests in Iraq and similar demonstrations in Lebanon are fueled by local grievances and mainly directed at the political elite, but they also pose a challenge to Iran, which closely backs both governments. An increasingly violent crackdown in Iraq has raised fears of a backlash by Iran and its heavily armed local allies. On Friday, a group of about 50 militia supporters showed up at the protest, prompting other demonstrators to chant: “Iran take your hands off, the people don’t want you!” The militias, known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, said in a statement that they stood with the protesters and were committed to protecting them. But the statement warned of “foreign interests” that it said wanted to sow division in order to cause “internal fighting, chaos and destruction.”The remarks echoed those made by Khamenei and the Iran-backed Hezbollah group in Lebanon, which has accused unidentified foreign powers of manipulating the protests.
Iraq’s influential Shiite clerical establishment, which is seen as politically independent, condemned “attacks on peaceful protesters and all forms of unjustified violence,” saying those responsible should be held accountable.
Amnesty International says security forces in Baghdad have fired military-grade tear gas grenades directly into the crowds, causing horrific wounds and occasionally lodging the projectiles in people’s skulls. During an earlier wave of demonstrations, snipers shot protesters in the head and chest, with nearly 150 killed in less than a week.One protester, Ahmad Fadel, showed up dressed head to toe in sniper camouflage that resembled threshed hay. “All of Iraq is out today against the regime and the corrupt government and parties,” he said. “I’m wearing this as a form of support to the protesters and a message to the sniper who targets protesters: You will not scare us.”The protesters have called for the resignation of the government and sweeping changes to the political system established after the US invasion, which apportions power among the Shiite majority and Sunnis and Kurds. Iraq has held regular elections since then, but they have been dominated by sectarian political parties, many of which are close to Iran. The protests have occurred in Baghdad and mostly Shiite southern Iraq, and have been directed against the Shiite-led government. In southern Iraq, demonstrators have attacked and set fire to political party offices. The protesters accuse their rulers of squandering the country’s oil wealth, pointing to its poor infrastructure and frequent power outages more than 15 years after the overthrow of Saddam and the lifting of international sanctions.“I was born to be respected, among people who should be respected,” said a protester who identified himself as Abu Sajad. “But as far as we are concerned, we have the worst passport in the world and the worst nationality. We are the No. 1 country when it comes to corruption. We have the second or fourth largest oil reserves but we are a poor nation.”
President Barham Salih said Thursday he would approve early elections once a new electoral law is drafted, expressing support for the protesters but saying reforms would have to be enacted through constitutional means. He said Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi is willing to resign once political leaders agree on a replacement. But the process of forming a new government could take weeks or even months, and a Cabinet reshuffle seems unlikely to satisfy the protesters.

Soleimani takes helm of Iraqi security from prime minister Abdul-Mahdi
DEBKA/November 01/2019
Desperate to quell the bloody protests spreading through Iraq, Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani flew into Baghdad and seized control of its army and security services. On Wednesday, Oct. 30, a special helicopter carried the Revolutionary Guards Al Qods chief from Baghdad international airport to the capital’s fortified Green Zone. In the prime minister’s office, he found a meeting in progress of military and security chiefs on ways to hold back the resurgent protest that from Oct. 25 had already claimed hundreds of dead and thousands of injured as it raged through Baghdad and the Shiite towns of the south.
Soleimani who swept into the meeting with a party of aides took the chair from Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi. He then told the commanders gathered there, “We in Iran know how to deal with protests. This happened in Iran and we got it under control.”
It was obvious to the Iraqi officials present that the Iranian general was taking charge, DEBKAfile’s sources report. This was effectively an Iranian coup for the takeover of Iraq’s political and security leadership. This extreme step was intended to hold back the free fall of Tehran’s influence in Baghdad as well as Beirut – under the mounting weight of popular disaffection in Iraq and Lebanon.
In Lebanon, Iran failed to stop Saad Hariri from stepping down as prime minister and bringing down the government. Hariri was useful to Tehran because he was amenable to handing its proxy, Hizballah, a leading role in government and cooperating with Iranian interests in the country. His exit heightened the prospects of the national unity protest movement, demonstrating for more than two weeks, attaining their goal of a non-secular government led by technocrats and free of Iranian/Hizballah mastery. For the Islamic revolutionary regime in Tehran, this would be a crushing loss.
In Iraq, too, Abdul-Mahdi is ready to step down – against Tehran’s wishes. He is only waiting to find a suitable candidate to take over the premiership in an orderly transition.
Iran’s position is therefore reeling in its two key spheres of influence. The emergency brought Soleimani over for hands-on remedies. He appears to have left it too late.

Sistani Rejects Any Foreign Actor to Impose its View on Iraq’s People
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 1 November, 2019
Iraq's top Shiite cleric Ali al-Sistani warned foreign actors on Friday against interfering in the country's anti-government protests as they entered their second month. The demonstrations have evolved since October 1 from rage over corruption and unemployment to demands for a total government overhaul. In his weekly sermon, Sistani said Iraq must not be dragged into the "abyss of infighting". "No person or group, no side with a particular view, no regional or international actor may seize the will of the Iraqi people and impose its will on them," said Sistani's sermon, read by a representative. Sistani's comments seemed to be directed at Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei. "I seize this opportunity to tell those who care about Iraq and Lebanon to remedy insecurity as their priority," Khamenei said Thursday. Ahmed al-Safi, delivering Sistani’s sermon Friday, said that Iraq’s Shiite religious establishment condemns "attacks on peaceful protesters and all forms of unjustified violence," and that those responsible should be held accountable. More than 250 people have died and 10,000 have been wounded in the past month as protests evolved into calls for the "downfall of the regime". On Thursday night, President Barham Saleh vowed to hold early elections once a new voting law and electoral commission has been agreed. He also said Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi was ready to step down once political leaders agree on a replacement.
Abdel Mahdi came to power a year ago .

Exclusive: Iran intervenes to prevent ousting of Iraqi prime minister
REUTERS/November 01/2019
BAGHDAD – Iran has stepped in to prevent the ouster of Iraqi Prime Minister Abdel Abdul Mahdi by two of Iraq’s most influential figures amid weeks of anti-government demonstrations, sources close to both men told Reuters. Populist Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr demanded this week that Abdul Mahdi call an early election to quell the biggest mass protests in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003. The demonstrations are fueled by anger at corruption and widespread economic hardship.
Sadr had urged his main political rival Hadi al-Amiri, whose alliance of Iran-backed militias is the second-biggest political force in parliament, to help push out Abdul Mahdi.
But in a secret meeting in Baghdad on Wednesday, Qassem Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ elite Quds Force, intervened. Soleimani asked Amiri and his militia leaders to keep supporting Abdul Mahdi, according to five sources with knowledge of the meeting.
Spokesmen for Amiri and Sadr could not be reached for comment. An Iranian security official confirmed Soleimani was at Wednesday’s meeting, saying he was there to “give advice”.
“(Iraq’s) security is important for us and we have helped them in the past. The head of our Quds Force travels to Iraq and other regional countries regularly, particularly when our allies ask for our help,” the Iranian official said, asking not to be named.
Soleimani, whose Quds force coordinates Tehran-backed militias in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, is a frequent visitor to Iraq. However, his direct intervention is the latest sign of Iran’s increasing influence in Iraq and across the region.
Iraqi security officials told Reuters earlier this month that Iran-backed militias deployed snipers on Baghdad rooftops to try to help put down the protests.
If Iraq falls further into crisis, Iran risks losing the influence it has steadily been amassing in the country since the U.S.-led invasion and which it sees as a counter to American influence in the region.
FATE UNCLEAR
Despite the maneuvering behind closed doors, Abdul Mahdi’s fate remains unclear. He took office a year ago as a compromise candidate between Amiri and Sadr but faces a wave of protests that has swelled in recent days.
In the 16 years since the fall of Saddam, a Sunni Muslim, Shi’ite Iran has emerged as a key power broker in Iraqi politics, with greater influence than the United States in the Shi’ite majority country.
But that proxy power battle has rankled ordinary Iraqis who criticize a political elite they say is subservient to one or the other of Baghdad’s two allies and pays more attention to those alliances than to Iraqis’ basic economic needs.
Despite their country’s vast oil wealth, many Iraqis live in poverty or have limited access to clean water, electricity, basic health care and education. Most of the protesters are young people who above all want jobs.
The protests have broken nearly two years of relative stability in Iraq. They have spread from Baghdad across the mainly Shi’ite south and met with a security crackdown that killed over 250 people.
Until earlier this week, it appeared that Amiri – who is one of Tehran’s key allies in Iraq and the leader of the Badr Organization of militia – was willing to support Abdul Mahdi’s departure.
Late on Tuesday night, Amiri issued a public statement agreeing to “work together” with Sadr after the cleric called on him to help oust the prime minister.
Wednesday’s meeting seemingly changed the course of events.
A Shi’ite militia commander loyal to Amiri – one of the five sources Reuters spoke to about the meeting – said there was agreement that Abdul Mahdi needed to be given time to enact reforms to calm the streets.
Many of the militia leaders raised fears at the meeting that ousting Abdul Mahdi could weaken the Popular Mobilization Forces, according to another source familiar with the meeting.
The PMF is an umbrella of mostly Shi’ite paramilitary groups backed by Iran who are influential in Iraq’s parliament and have allies in government. They formally report to the prime minister but have their own command structure outside the military.
Following the meeting with Soleimani, Amiri changed tune with Sadr. He told Sadr that getting rid of Abdul Mahdi would cause more chaos and threaten stability, a politician close to Sadr said.
In response, Sadr said publicly that without a resignation there would be more bloodshed and that he would not work with Amiri again.

US Imposes New Sanctions on Iran’s Construction Sector
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 1 November, 2019
The United States said on Thursday it had imposed sanctions on the Iranian construction sector and trade in four materials used in its military or nuclear programs, even as it kept alive one of the last remaining components of the 2015 nuclear deal by extending sanctions waivers to let foreign firms continue non-proliferation work in Iran. President Donald Trump's administration last year pulled out of the 2015 deal in which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in return for the lifting of sanctions that crippled its economy. The administration has since restored and tightened US sanctions to try to force Iran to negotiate a broader deal that would also limit its ballistic missile program and regional activities. The State Department said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had determined Iran's construction sector was controlled directly or indirectly by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which Washington regards as a foreign terrorist organization. As a result, the sale of raw and semi-finished metals, graphite, coal, and software for integrating industrial purposes will be sanctionable if the materials are to be used in Iran's construction sector, the department said in a fact sheet. In a second determination, Pompeo identified four "strategic materials" as being used in connection with nuclear, military, or ballistic missile programs, making trade in them subject to sanctions. The fact sheet identified the materials as: "stainless steel 304L tubes; MN40 manganese brazing foil; MN70 manganese brazing foil; and stainless steel CrNi60WTi ESR + VAR (chromium, nickel, 60 percent tungsten, titanium, electro-slag remelting, vacuum arc remelting)." In a separate statement, State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said the determinations gave Washington the ability "to prevent Iran from acquiring strategic materials for the IRGC, its construction sector, and its proliferation programs." Reuters reported on Wednesday that the United States planned to allow Russian, Chinese and European companies to continue work at Iranian nuclear facilities to make it harder for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.
The Trump administration would let the work go forward by issuing waivers to sanctions that bar non-US firms from dealing with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The waivers had been due to expire Tuesday but were extended by Pompeo for another 90 days. The extensions were not announced until Thursday. Nuclear deal critics, including Trump allies like Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, have long argued that the waivers should be revoked because they give Iran access to technology that could be used for weapons. "This is disappointing and another lost opportunity to tear up the catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal once and for all," Cruz and Sen. Lindsey Graham said in a statement. "President Trump should immediately order his administration to stop issuing civil nuclear waivers." They said they would soon advance legislation "to reverse this misguided decision."

Turkey Hands Over 18 Syrian Soldiers Seized In Northeast Syria
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 1 November, 2019
Turkey has handed over 18 men believed to be Syrian government soldiers who were seized in northeast Syria near the Turkish border earlier this week, the Turkish Defence Ministry said. The ministry did not say who they were handed over to, but said the move came about after coordination with Russia. It took place ahead of the scheduled start on Friday of joint Turkish-Russian military patrols in northeastern Syria near the border. The 18 men were seized during operations southeast of the Syrian border town of Ras al Ain on Tuesday, the ministry said, Reuters reported. Ankara and Moscow agreed last week to remove YPG fighters to a depth of 30 km (19 miles) south of the border inside Syria. Russia told Turkey that the YPG had left the strip within the 150-hour deadline. On Wednesday, President Tayyip Erdogan said Turkey had information that the YPG, which Ankara sees as a terrorist group. He said Turkey’s joint patrols with Russia were starting on Friday at a depth of 7 km (4 miles) within Syria. Initially the patrols were planned to be at a depth of 10 km. Meanwhile, Erdogan said on Thursday night that Turkey planned to establish a “refugee town or towns” in a “safe zone” between Tel Abyad and Ras al Ain, part of a project which state media have said would cost 151 billion lira ($26 billion). He was meeting UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Friday morning and said he would ask him to call for a donors’ meeting to help finance Ankara’s plans for the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the region. “I will say: ‘You make a call for an international donors’ meeting. If you don’t, I will make this call’,” Erdogan said in a conference speech. “If it doesn’t happen, we will establish a refugee town or towns between Tel Abyad and Ras al Ain,” he noted. According to Reuters, Ankara has said it plans to resettle in Syria up to 2 million of the 3.6 million Syrian war refugees that it hosts. “I will never enter into alliances with you after today,” he said in a statement.

Israel Rearrests Palestinian MP Khalida Jarrar
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 31 October, 2019
Israeli forces on Thursday rearrested Palestinian lawmaker Khalida Jarrar, who was freed in February after being held without trial for 20 months over links to an outlawed group, her daughter said. "My mother … was arrested from our house in Ramallah" at about 3:00 am, Jarrar's daughter Yafa posted on Facebook. Jarrar, 56, was previously arrested on July 2, 2017, for being a senior member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The Ramallah-based Palestinian Prisoners Club told AFP that Palestinian writer Ali Jaradat, a known PFLP member, was also arrested overnight, as well as 10 other people whose identities the club did not disclose. Senior Palestinian official Hanan Ashrawi condemned the arrests. "We strongly condemn the overnight raids of Ramallah, Bethlehem and other Palestinian cities by Israeli occupation forces and their targeted detention of several activists, including elected representative and political leader Khalida Jarrar," she said. "This is the third time Israeli occupation forces detain representative Khalida Jarrar, who is also a prominent human rights defender."Shortly after last year's arrest, she was given a six-month administrative detention order, which was then extended several times. Israeli administrative detention orders allow suspects to be held without charge for renewable six-month periods. Israel says administrative detention is intended to allow authorities to hold suspects while continuing to gather evidence, with the aim of preventing crimes in the meantime.
But the system has been criticized by Palestinians, human rights groups and members of the international community, who say Israel abuses it. The Israeli army said that after one such extension of Jarrar's custody, "security personnel found she still poses a substantial threat". She had also been jailed in the past. In December 2015, an Israeli military court convicted Jarrar on charges including encouraging attacks against Israel and violating a travel ban. It sentenced her to 15 months in prison, but she was freed a month early due to overcrowding in Israeli jails.

Jordanian Analyst Muhammad Faraj: The Only Way for Jordan to Solve Its Problems Is to Turn Its Back on Israel, America, Align Itself with Iran
MEMRI/November 01/2019
Jordanian analyst Muhammad Faraj said in an October 3, 2019 interview on Mayadeen TV (Lebanon) that the only way for Jordan to solve its economic, social, and political problems is to turn its back on its historical alliances with the U.S. and Israel and turn to Iran, which he said is the country most seriously confronting schemes to eliminate the Palestinian cause and diminish Jordan’s geopolitical role. He said that Jordan’s role as a “buffer state” is no longer necessary because many Gulf countries are openly normalizing relations with Israel, making it necessary for Jordan to form an alliance with Iran, which he said is a model for independent national development in the Middle East and which he praised for supporting the Islamic resistance and the Palestinians.
Following are excerpts:
Muhammad Faraj: Jordan carries a heavy historical legacy with regard to its political alliances. I believe that shifting towards Iran would not be an easy thing for the Jordanian regime given the history of its political relations. It would have to completely turn its back on its political alliances, especially with the U.S., and on the peace agreement it signed with the Zionist entity. This might be difficult for the Jordanian political regime, but it is the only possible way to get Jordan out of its crises. There is no solution to the economic, social, and political problems facing Jordan today other than turning its back on these historical political alliances and opening up to other options, especially the Iranian option. I say the Iranian option because it is the most serious international option in confronting all the schemes to eliminate the Palestinian cause. These schemes that strive to eliminate the Palestinian cause also strive to remove, change, limit, and diminish Jordan’s geopolitical role. Historically, Jordan has played the role of a buffer state zone. As my colleague from Tehran said, the developing relations between the Zionist entity and the Gulf – and Saudi Arabia in particular – have become clear. Normalization [of ties with Israel] has become clear and out in the open, and as a result, this buffer entity [Jordan] is no longer needed.
Iran is a model for independent development in this region. Despite all the economic sanctions imposed on Iran, its economy remains steadfast. Despite all the economic sanctions imposed on Iran, it still plays a role in the global economy.
This [Iranian] model worries the United States. The other factor is that this independent sovereign model is capable of supporting the resistance axis and of providing the Palestinian factions with all forms of support. We always see that the American policy follows two parallel lines: It always tries to weaken Iran while trying to eliminate the Palestinian cause.

Gantz Meets 'Joint List' Leaders to Discuss Government Formation
Tel Aviv - Nazir Magally/Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 1 November, 2019
Prime Minister-designate Benny Gantz held negotiations on Thursday regarding forming the government. The first meeting was with Likud, but it ended with deep frustration. The second meeting was held with representatives from the Joint List and it ended with positive approaches towards the Arab citizens in Israel. However, none of the meetings succeeded in resolving the issue towards the next government's form. Gantz stated that he is holding important talks with parties’ heads and that the ambiance of these meetings contradicts with what is being published in the media. He expressed optimism that all parties’ leaders are aware of the dangers of third elections. They also show responsibility in preventing moving towards elections since it will damage the strategic and economic conditions. Gantz said he wants "a broad, liberal unity government – or any other way to form a government…I will make every effort to make progress…I am determined to have a government and not an election.” Ministers Yariv Levin and Zeev Elkin of Likud considered that Gantz is pretending that he wants a unity government but they got the impressions that these negotiations are a lie and only a play by the Blue and White in front of the media.
The real negotiations are held by Gantz with President of Joint List MP Ayman Awda for the sake of forming an extremist oligarchy with the Arab. Further, Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman knocked off the option of the formation of a minority government that would be supported from outside the coalition by the Joint List. In such a scenario, the Joint List would vote in favor of government legislation but not join the governing coalition.

Amnesty: 'Skull-piercing' Tear Gas Grenades Used in Iraq
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 1 November, 2019
Iraqi security forces are using "skull-piercing" tear gas canisters against protesters, killing at least five in an unprecedented use of the weapon, Amnesty International said on Thursday. Amnesty said an investigation it carried out showed that security forces in Baghdad had deployed military-grade tear gas canisters "to kill rather than disperse protesters". "All the evidence points to Iraqi security forces deploying these military-grade grenades against protesters in Baghdad, apparently aiming for their heads or bodies at point-blank range," said Amnesty's Lynn Maalouf. "This has had devastating results, in multiple cases piercing the victims' skulls, resulting in gruesome wounds and death after the grenades embed inside their heads," said Maalouf, Middle East research director. The rights watchdog said the tear gas grenades being used are "up to 10 times heavier than regular tear gas canisters".When fired directly at protesters they cause "horrific injuries and deaths", it added. Demonstrators have told AFP that tear gas canisters deployed during the last week of protests were reaching further, causing more severe asphyxiation and trauma wounds than those used in earlier rallies. A doctor in Baghdad said it was "the first time" he had seen puncture wounds from tear gas grenades, even after treating casualties from rallies in previous years. "We can tell they have been hit by the grenades from the smell. If they're still alive, we search for the wound and try to pull out the grenade," the doctor told AFP. "It's clear that it's a direct hit," he added.  Horrifying footage also circulated on social media showing young men with their eyes, mouths or other body parts smoking after apparently being hit with tear gas canisters. Amnesty said it had verified several of those videos as well as CAT-scan imagery from medical workers in Baghdad showing entire grenades embedded in the skulls of victims. It confirmed five deaths due to the grenades in as many days, with military experts, medics and forensic pathologists saying the "horrific nature" of the casualties was "unprecedented".

Foreign Actors Must Not 'Impose Will' on Protests, Sistani Says
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 01/2019
Iraq's top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani warned foreign actors on Friday against interfering in anti-government protests that erupted early last month and urged political factions to avoid "infighting". "No person or group, no side with a particular view, no regional or international actor may seize the will of the Iraqi people and impose its will on them," Sistani said in his weekly sermon read by a representative in the Shiite holy city of Karbala. It comes after comments by Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday in which he urged protesters in both Iraq and Lebanon to pursue their demands through "legal frameworks". Iraq has close but complicated ties with neighbouring Iran but also with Tehran's sworn foe Washington. Since rallies against corruption and unemployment broke out on October 1, demonstrators and their detractors have accused each other of being backed by outside actors.
More than 250 people have been killed and 10,000 wounded in the last month as the protests intensified into calls for the "downfall of the regime." Sistani on Friday condemned the violence and said Iraq must not be dragged into the "abyss of infighting.""I urge the the relevant parties not to push armed forces in how they deal with the strikes and peaceful protests," he said.Paramilitary factions have widespread influence in Iraq but their clout has been opposed by protesters over the past month. Rival groups have taken to the streets in recent days to flex their muscles.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on November 01-02/2019
Iraqi Catholic Patriarch Louis Raphaël I Sako: Iraqi School Curricula Should Be Rewritten, Made More Tolerant Of Other Religions; Christians In Iraq Are Discriminated Against
MEMRI/November 01/2019
Louis Raphaël I Sako, the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch of Babylon, said in an interview on Sharqiya News TV (Iraq) that Iraqi school curricula that speak ill of Jews and Christians should be rewritten entirely to discuss comradery, citizenship, and respect towards other religions. When asked about Christian militias that fought against Islamic State (ISIS), Sako said that there are no militias fighting on behalf of Christianity and that he had asked leaders in the PMU to prevent Christian parts of the PMU from identifying themselves as Christian. He expressed opposition to Christians taking up arms and fighting in the name of Christianity. In addition, Sako said that Christians in Iraq and Nineveh have been very hurt by Islamic terrorism in the region and that they are broken, unhappy, and discriminated against by the state and employers.
To view the clip of Iraqi Catholic Patriarch Louis Raphaël I Sako on MEMRI
"The New [Textbook] For The Fifth Or Sixth Grade Speaks Ill Of The Jews And The Christians"
Louis Raphaël I Sako: "School curricula [in Iraq] are old fashioned. The Ministry of Education should torch them all and write new ones instead that will talk about comradery and citizenship, and that will talk respectfully about religions.
"The new [textbook] for the fifth or sixth grade speaks ill of the Jews and the Christians.
"The Jews are not the same as the Zionists. Christians are not hypocrites or polytheists as written there."
"We Do Not Have A Christian Faction [Fighting] On Behalf Of Christianity... We Do Not Usually Take Up Arms, And If We Want To Defend Our Country, We Join The Military Or The Federal Police"
Interviewer: "There is an armed [Christian] faction that participated in the war against ISIS. Now it is said that it will participate in protecting the Nineveh plains."
Louis Raphaël I Sako: "We do not have a Christian faction [fighting] on behalf of Christianity. I met with Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis three times, as well as with Hadi Al-Ameri, and told them to let this faction stay in the PMU but without any Christian characteristics. Just like there are Sunnis, Turkmen, and so forth in the PMU that are not referred to as Turkmen and Yazidi factions... We Christians categorically oppose having factions [fighting] in the name of Christianity. There are [Christian] warriors and mujahideen within the PMU. The PMU has done a good job fighting ISIS and we respect and salute them. But if some [faction] says it is Christian and that it [fights] in the name of Christians, Chaldeans, or Syriac Christians, we reject this. This is not in keeping with our moral values. We do not usually take up arms, and if we want to defend our country, we join the military or the Federal Police."
"The Christians In Iraq Are Marginalized, Broken, And Unhappy... There Are Many Cases Of Christian Houses, Property, And Even Jobs Being Taken Over"
Interviewer: "How are the Christians in Iraq doing, especially in the freed areas of Nineveh?"
Louis Raphaël I Sako: "The Christians in Iraq are marginalized, broken, and unhappy. The state does not care about them and Islamic fundamentalism hurt them bad. [They were hurt by] the Islamic extremism that evolved into terrorism – ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and other out-of-control militias that plunder, kill, and kidnap in the name of religion. There are many cases of Christian houses, property, and even jobs being taken over."
"Several Thousands Of People Were Recently Hired By The Ministry Of Education, Ask How Many Of Them Were Christian Men And Women"
Interviewer: "Is it difficult for Christians to get jobs?"
Louis Raphaël I Sako: "Very difficult."
Interviewer: "You mean that there's no..."
Louis Raphaël I Sako: "Several thousands of people were recently hired by the Ministry of Education. Ask how many of them were Christian men and women. This is despite the fact that we have [capable people]."
Interviewer: "Is this because of discrimination on the part of the state? Is this discrimination on the part of political parties, or is it just a coincidence?"
Louis Raphaël I Sako: "No, this is all planned. It is no coincidence."
Interviewer: "Planned?"
Louis Raphaël I Sako: "Absolutely!"

After Baghdadi, Iran Should Be Trump’s Next Priority
Con Coughlin/Gatestone Institute/November 01/2019
Pictured: President Donald Trump hosts Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House on March 14, 2017.
President Donald Trump’s constant refrain about withdrawing US forces from the Middle East is… an enormous source of concern for Gulf leaders, who historically have relied heavily on the US to protect their interests. It is a measure of their disquiet that Russian President Vladimir Putin received a warm reception during his recent visits to Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, as Arab governments sought to weigh up their options in the event that they can no longer rely on Washington to safeguard their security requirements.
Allowing Mr Putin a foothold in Syria is one thing; enabling the Kremlin open access to the oil-rich Gulf states is quite another, and is not a prospect that Mr Trump should entertain.
From Washington’s perspective, the Gulf states are vital allies in the Trump administration’s confrontation with Tehran. So, rather than constantly sending signals that he is no longer interested in supported America’s allies in the Middle East, the president should seek to reassure them that, while the nature of America’s military dispositions in the region may be changing, Washington’s support for its allies remains as strong as ever.
Mr Trump might do well to understand that having the Gulf states on his side is vital if he is to succeed in his campaign to force Tehran to renegotiate the flawed nuclear deal. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is, after all, just as important for the Trump administration as destroying the terrorist masterminds that run ISIS.
From Washington’s perspective, the Gulf states are vital allies in the Trump administration’s confrontation with Tehran. President Trump should seek to reassure them that, while the nature of America’s military dispositions in the region may be changing, Washington’s support for its allies remains as strong as ever.
After all the recent speculation that US President Donald Trump is seeking to end America’s long-standing involvement in the Middle East, the violent demise of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has demonstrated that the White House remains resolute in pursuing its enemies.
As Mr Trump said in the immediate aftermath of Baghdadi’s death in northwestern Syria at the weekend, killing or capturing the ISIS terrorist, the man responsible for overseeing the barbaric reign of cruelty that manifested itself under his so-called caliphate, had been his administration’s number one priority.
It was to this end that Mr Trump personally authorised US special forces to undertake their daring mission against Baghdadi’s hideout in Idlib province, close to the Turkish border, even though, in public, Mr Trump was insistent that he was intent on reducing America’s involvement in what he has described as the “bloodstained sand” of the Middle East.
Mr Trump’s desire to reduce Washington’s military commitments, which he is keen to achieve ahead of next year’s presidential election contest, does not seem to apply — for the moment, at least — to ISIS. Following last weekend’s successful mission against Baghdadi, the president has revitalised his interest in fighting Islamist terrorists.
There have been more targeted attacks against ISIS targets since the Baghdadi mission, and the White House is organising a conference on tackling ISIS, to be held in Washington in mid-November.
Mr Trump undoubtedly deserves enormous credit for the role he played in the success of the Baghdadi mission, both in terms of maintaining the focus on hunting down the ISIS terrorist, as well has having the political courage to authorise a mission that, had it failed, could have inflicted serious damage on his presidency.
At the same time, Mr Trump’s continual assertions that he wants to scale down America’s involvement in the Middle East is causing serious consternation among Washington’s long-standing Arab allies in the region, not least those directly involved in another of Mr Trump’s foreign policy priorities — namely preventing Iran’s ayatollahs from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Concerns about Mr Trump’s future intentions are particularly acute in Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, which, thanks to Mr Trump’s decision last year to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran, find themselves on the front line of Washington’s latest confrontation with the ayatollahs.
It is, after all, not the fault of the Gulf states that they find themselves in a situation where they are under direct threat from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as demonstrated by the recent attack on Saudi Arabia’s Aramco oil processing facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais, an attack that everyone in the region has blamed on Iran.
The main reason there has been an upsurge in hostile activity by Iran in the Gulf is that Tehran is looking for ways to retaliate for the devastating impact the Trump administration’s economic sanctions are having on the Iranian economy, and the Gulf states, which are seen as close allies of Washington, are seen as an easy target.
Mr Trump’s constant refrain about withdrawing US forces from the Middle East is therefore an enormous source of concern for Gulf leaders, who historically have relied heavily on the US to protect their interests. It is a measure of their disquiet that Russian President Vladimir Putin received a warm reception during his recent visits to Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, as Arab governments sought to weigh up their options in the event that they can no longer rely on Washington to safeguard their security requirements.
Allowing Mr Putin a foothold in Syria is one thing; enabling the Kremlin open access to the oil-rich Gulf states is quite another, and is not a prospect that Mr Trump should entertain.
From Washington’s perspective, the Gulf states are vital allies in the Trump administration’s confrontation with Tehran. So, rather than constantly sending signals that he is no longer interested in supported America’s allies in the Middle East, the president should seek to reassure them that, while the nature of America’s military dispositions in the region may be changing, Washington’s support for its allies remains as strong as ever.
Mr Trump might do well to understand that having the Gulf states on his side is vital if he is to succeed in his campaign to force Tehran to renegotiate the flawed nuclear deal. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is, after all, just as important for the Trump administration as destroying the terrorist masterminds that run ISIS.
*Con Coughlin is the Telegraph‘s Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Trump Admin Again Gives Iran Green Light to Conduct Sensitive Nuclear Work
Adam Kredo/ FREE BEACON/November 01/2019
The Trump administration has again approved a series of sanctions waivers on Iran that permit the Islamic Republic to engage in sensitive nuclear work, including at a clandestine military location that has housed the country’s weapons program, according to multiple sources involved in the issue.
The sanctions waivers have already been approved by the State Department, according to multiple U.S. officials and congressional sources who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon. The Trump administration faced backlash earlier this year when it bucked congressional pressure to approve the waivers, a move that led Iran hawks on Capitol Hill to accuse the administration of approving a pathway for Tehran to continue some of its most contested nuclear research.
The waivers permit countries such as China and Russia to continue performing work at Iranian nuclear facilities, some of which have drawn concerns from the international community for potentially helping Iran gain the know-how to build a functional nuclear weapon. European companies involved in Iran’s nuclear program also will be given a pass. The nuclear waivers were initially waived for a period of several months earlier this year, and have now come up again for a required extension, which the administration will grant.
Leading GOP members of Congress have criticized the administration’s decision, telling the Free Beacon that President Donald Trump is undermining his own maximum pressure campaign on Tehran by allowing his State Department to keep signing off on the controversial waivers.
“Yes, we issued the waiver and understand the differing views and sensitivities involved,” one U.S. official familiar with the matter told the Free Beacon. “The secretary takes his responsibility on this matter very seriously and will be happy to discuss his views with any congressman or senator who calls.”
While the administration took a hit from its GOP allies in Congress for issuing waivers earlier this year, the decision this week to renew them has hinted at a full-scale rebellion on the issue, with leading lawmakers accusing the administration of abandoning its hardline approach to Iran.
The Free Beacon has reported multiple times in the past months on a tense inter-agency battle over the waivers, with more hardline elements pushing for them to be discarded. Other elements of the administration have argued in their favor, viewing them as a pathway to salvage diplomacy with Iran and negotiate a new agreement.
“This is disappointing and another lost opportunity to tear up the catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal once and for all,” Senators Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said in a joint statement on the matter. “President Trump should immediately order his administration to stop issuing civil nuclear waivers.”
“These waivers allow Iran to build up its nuclear program, including at their Fordow nuclear bunker, which they dug out of the side of a mountain to build nuclear weapons,” the senators said. “Iran is now openly violating the nuclear deal and stockpiling dangerous nuclear material. There is no justification for letting them continue to build up their program. We intend to work with our congressional colleagues to advance legislation to reverse this misguided decision.”
Cruz and Graham are working on legislation that would prohibit any further waivers related to the Iran deal, sources said.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), another hardline voice in Congress, tweeted his opposition to the waivers being renewed.
“The Iranian regime must not be rewarded for its continued nuclear provocations. The administration should decline to extend Iran’s nuclear waivers this week,” Cotton tweeted earlier this week. “Eliminate these vestiges of Obama’s JCPOA.”
Multiple veteran congressional aides who work on the Iran issue told the Free Beacon that the Trump administration’s own statements on these waivers are reminiscent of the rhetoric issued by the Obama administration when it was negotiating the landmark deal and making concessions to the Islamic Republic.
They maintain the administration is not only undermining its own public position on the matter, but laying the groundwork for the U.S. to potentially reenter the nuclear agreement.
The sanctions waivers on nuclear matters and Iran’s production of crude oil were initially designed as part of the Obama administration’s efforts to provide Iran with sanctions relief and jumpstart its ailing economy. Multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon described an effort by “Obama holdovers, Never Trumpers, and the Deep State at the State Department” to undermine the administration’s hardline approach and keep core elements of the nuclear agreement on life support.
The State Department did not respond to multiple requests for comments on the state of the waiver and the nuclear permissions they will include.

Ilhan Omar’s Anti-American, Pro-Islamic Polemic on the Armenian Genocide
Raymond Ibrahim/November 01/2019
Earlier this week the House voted overwhelmingly (405-11) in favor of formally recognizing the Armenian Genocide, which was perpetrated by Ottoman Turks. Among those miniscule few to vote “present,” thereby abstaining from voting, was Minnesotan Democrat, Ilhan Omar. Her logic was expressed in a tweet: A true acknowledgement of historical crimes against humanity must include both the heinous genocides of the 20th century, along with earlier mass slaughters like the transatlantic slave trade and Native American genocide, which took the lives of hundreds of millions of indigenous people in this country.
Such a statement is disingenuous on several levels. For starters, since when did resolutions that deal with specific events—in this case, the Armenian Genocide—need to chronicle “earlier mass slaughters” throughout history?
One also wonders if the resolution was about, say, condemning the transatlantic slave trade or treatment of Natives—or anything else that depicts Americans negatively—would Omar have then abstained, arguing that a “true acknowledgement of historical crimes against humanity must include” the Armenian Genocide? (This is a rhetorical question.)
Incidentally, whatever America did to African slaves and Natives in the past, it has at least since tried to make reparations to both—not to mention was part of the Western drive to abolish slavery altogether. This is much more than can be said about the Muslim world: it still persecutes its natives (Christians)—those exposed in Omar’s Somalia are instantly slaughtered—and was forced by Western powers to (formally) abolish slavery.
But the main point is this: if, as Omar contends, “earlier mass slaughters” should be mentioned, surely it should be those that are connected to the one highlighted in the resolution—in this case, ones that may possibly show patterns and precedents concerning the events surrounding the Armenian Genocide. What’s to be learned from a resolution that includes a myriad of unrelated atrocities throughout the millennia other than that “all people are equally guilty”? (Which, of course, is one of Omar’s objectives, to relativize Islamic atrocities.)
As it happens, one need look no further than to the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide—Ottoman Turks—for an endless litany of atrocities that do indeed offer more context and meaning for the topic of the recent resolution. After all, of all Islamic states throughout history, none were as devoted to the concept of jihad as the Ottoman Turks. As historian Roger Crowley puts it, the “spirit of militant Islam suited the Turkish fighting spirit perfectly; the desire for plunder was legitimized by pious service to Allah.”
During the Ottoman conquests of Christian Anatolia (now Turkey), the Balkans, and elsewhere, the dictates of Islamic law and jihad were closely followed. “They live by the bow, the sword, and debauchery, finding pleasure in taking slaves, devoting themselves to murder, pillage, spoil,” wrote Gregory Palamas, an Orthodox metropolitan captured by the Ottomans: “and not only do they commit these crimes, but even—what an aberration—they believe that God approves them!”
While there are several aspects to the atrocities committed by the Ottomans over their 600 year history, since Omar brought slavery up, let’s focus on just that institution:
The Ottomans enslaved and brutally treated 10 million Europeans. According to the eyewitness testimony of Bartolomeo de Giano, hundreds of thousands of Christians from Hungary were “carried off in just a few days” sometime in 1438, to “serve their [masters’] wicked and filthy pleasures,” and/or to be forced into becoming “Saracens [Muslims] who will later be enemies of the Christians.” Young and old everywhere were seen being “led away in iron fetters tied to the backs of horses,” and “women and children were herded by dogs without any mercy or piety. If one of them slowed down, unable to walk further because of thirst or pain, O Good Jesus! she immediately ended her life there in torment, cut in half.”
This sort of thing continued for centuries—right up to (and therefore giving context to) the Armenian Genocide, which similarly saw “women and children … herded by dogs without any mercy,” not to mention raped and mutilated, during their death marches.
Moreover, whereas the transatlantic slave trade was conducted as a matter of cold business, slavery under Islam was further imbued with hate and cruelty. This comes out regularly in the sources: When French priest Jerome Maurand, who as part of the then Franco-Ottoman alliance, witnessed the Turks’ conquest of the tiny Mediterranean island of Lipari in 1544, he failed to comprehend why the Muslims so wantonly tortured the now enslaved population—including by slowly gutting the old and weak with knives “out of spite.” Unable to hold his tongue, he “asked these Turks why they treated the poor Christians with such cruelty, [and] they replied that such behavior had very great virtue; that was the only answer we ever got.” (The dumbfounded clergyman apparently failed to realize that “the honor of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs [non-Muslims],” as prominent Indian cleric Sheikh Ahmed al-Sirhindi (d. 1624) once said.)
Such sadism was less an Ottoman phenomenon and more a Muslim one. In his Book of Martyrs, John Foxe (d. 1587) wrote, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, perfidy and cruelty, as at Algiers”; there more than one million Europeans were enslaved, so that “it became a common saying that a Christian slave was scarce a fair barter for an onion.” Centuries later, Robert Playfair (d. 1899) agreed: “In almost every case they [European slaves in Algiers] were hated on account of their religion.”
There; now we have some meaningful context—in a word, Hate—for the new resolution dealing with the Armenian Genocide. Instead of considering a number of unrelated atrocities throughout world history, or simply bashing America, both of which the disingenuous Omar would have us do, we can home in on the phenomenon of Islamic hate for non-Muslims. In so doing, we not only understand why the Armenian Genocide occurred, but why the world’s most recent genocide from just a few years ago was also by Muslims in the guise of the Islamic State. In short, we connect the dots.
Historical quotes in this article were excerpted from the author’s Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West — a book that Omar’s ally CAIR did everything it could to prevent the U.S. Army War College from learning about.

Saudi Arabia still awaiting signs of ‘goodwill’ from Iran
Andrew Parasiliti/Al-Monitor/November 1, 2019
ARTICLE SUMMARY
In an exclusive interview with Al-Monitor, Prince Turki bin Faisal bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud talks about the "dramatic effect" of the September attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil fields, and says there will be no official Saudi contacts with Israel until the Palestinian issue is resolved.
REUTERS/Hamad I MohammedPrince Turki bin Faisal bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud attends the International Institute for Strategic Studies Regional Security Summit – The Manama Dialogue in Manama, Bahrain, Dec. 8, 2013.
The drone and missile attacks on Aramco had a "dramatic effect" on the kingdom, says Prince Turki bin Faisal bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, who served as director general of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency and ambassador to both the United States and the United Kingdom.
The strikes on Aramco’s Abqaiq and Kurais facilities, which have been attributed to Iran, “raised the level of awareness of the potential Iranian threat,” he said in an exclusive interview with Al-Monitor. “And it has also gotten the kingdom moving on improving the defensive capabilities in those areas, and anywhere else that may be liable to, or a target of, Iranian attacks.”
Prince Turki, who is chairman of the King Faisal Foundation's Center for Research and Islamic Studies, has not yet seen any signs of change in Iranian behavior signaling an interest in diplomacy, on Yemen or any other issue, despite the mediation efforts of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.
“If there is going to be any regional peace, if you like, we have to see goodwill signs from Iran,” said Prince Turki. “Crown Prince Mohammed said in an interview with an American news outlet, if Iran would stop its support for the Houthis, then there may be a chance for a diplomatic settlement to the war in Yemen. But we haven't seen yet any such signs of goodwill.”
Prince Turki, who presently has no formal position in the Saudi government, made clear that there is no change in the kingdom’s policy toward the Palestinian issue.
“My meeting with the Israelis is to convey the message to the Israeli public that … they have to deal with the Arab Peace Initiative and not try to go around it by claiming that there are secret engagements between Saudis because of Iran and so on,” he said.
“Without a resolution to the Palestinian problem, there is not going to be any Saudi engagement with Israel.”
Prince Turki warned of more "lone wolf" terrorist attacks in the region and around the world, following the defeat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and the killing of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, by US forces.
“With the removal of the caliphate,” he explained, “there is going to be even more of a breakdown of structures that used to hold these operatives together. So my view is that we're going to see more and more of the already existing lone wolf operations as we see during the last three years, particularly a growing number of those lone wolf operators, whether in Europe or in Saudi Arabia or in other parts of Africa and so on.”
Prince Turki, who was a classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University before Clinton became president, lamented the current difficulties in the US-Saudi relationship.
“Obviously, issues like Sept. 11 and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi have had a stigmatizing effect on the kingdom, and we were the first to suffer from it,” he said. “We were not the perpetrators, although Saudis committed these crimes, but the government and the leadership in the kingdom was against these matters. And the Khashoggi family themselves, the heirs to Jamal, have accepted the king's assurance that they would get to the bottom of this crime and deal with the perpetrators, who have already been arrested and are being tried in the kingdom.”
“But the stigma is there,” he added,” and the fact that he [Khashoggi] was killed by Saudis, official Saudis in an official Saudi building, the consulate in Istanbul, does stigmatize us, and we will have to live with that.”
Saudi Arabia, he said, is “not a punching bag for politicians in the United States, and if the US wants to have a continued strategic relationship with us, we are willing to work with both sides of the aisle in the United States. We have no preference. Rather, we seek a friendship from all sides and also from the media particularly. They tend to, as I mentioned, use a blinkered view of the kingdom concentrating on Khashoggi and other issues of difference of opinion between us and the United States rather than on what brings us together and what Saudi Arabia truly is, which is a dynamic and a developing and an improving situation for human beings in the kingdom.”
Prince Turki was enthusiastic about the changes under Crown Prince Mohammed and his Vision 2030.
“I think the most remarkable achievement so far in the kingdom is to lay a plan for the future that takes into consideration our shortcomings and tries to overcome those shortcomings by concerted and transparent and accountable action,” he said, “and my favorite words that I use about Vision 2030 are these two words: ‘accountability’ and ‘transparency.’”
“And for me, the highlight of Vision 2030 is how it is dealing with the issue of the rights of women, which had been talked about much before that, but it took the Vision and the leadership, King Salman and the crown prince, to implement what had been talked about before.”
This interview was conducted by Andrew Parasiliti. A lightly edited transcript of the full interview follows:
Al-Monitor: Let's start with Iran. The Sept. 14 attack on the Aramco facility was described to Al-Monitor by a senior GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] official recently as, quote, "like our Pearl Harbor." Has this attack forced a rethink in the kingdom's approach to Iran with regard to its drone and missile capabilities in particular and its intent in terms of its behavior in the region?
Prince Turki: It was a dramatic effect in the sense that Iran had not actually launched attacks against the kingdom since the Iran-Iraq War. If you remember in those days, the conflict between Iran and Iraq [1980-1988], two Iranian aircraft were spotted on radar heading towards the kingdom's oil facilities in the Eastern Province [in 1984]. They were intercepted by the Saudi air force and shot down. And since that time, no direct Iranian military assault on the kingdom was either recorded or observed anywhere.
But this attack that came on the Aramco facilities in Abqaiq and Khurais is definitely Iranian origin, and because of its unexpectedness, it took everybody by surprise.
I am not in the government loop to know exactly what the details were of the defensive installations that inevitably were placed in that area since that initial, if you like, attempt by Iran during the Iran-Iraq War to attack them.
But I can tell you that it has raised the level of awareness of the potential Iranian threat. And it has also gotten the kingdom moving on improving the defensive capabilities in those areas, and anywhere else, that may be liable to, or a target of, Iranian attacks.
Al-Monitor: We've detected a possible increase in regional diplomacy, including the recent mediation effort by Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said war with Iran could lead to "a total collapse of the global economy." And the crown prince seems supportive of US President Donald Trump's efforts to try to talk to Iran President Hassan Rouhani. Rouhani has said if an agreement can be reached on Yemen, that would help resolve tensions in Iran-Saudi ties. How do you see regional diplomacy evolving with Iran and with regard to Yemen?
Prince Turki: If there is going to be any regional peace, if you like, we have to see goodwill signs from Iran. It is Iran who is instigating the unrest through its interventions in Iraq and Syria and Lebanon and Palestine. There are continued attempts to disrupt security in Bahrain and, of course, in Yemen, their support for the Houthis, etc.
Also, Crown Prince Mohammed said in an interview with an American news outlet, if Iran would stop its support for the Houthis, then there may be a chance for a diplomatic settlement to the war in Yemen. But we haven't seen yet any such signs of goodwill. They talk nice words and sweet words, but they act differently. They act in a very aggressive and provocative manner, as they showed in the attack on the Aramco installations.
Al-Monitor: And what about the effort by Prime Minister Khan? Because he's very close to the kingdom. The understanding of his work is that he was supported by the crown prince in his —
Prince Turki: I don't know. I'm not privy to the goings-on of Mr. Khan's attempts.
Al-Monitor: Let me ask further about Yemen. Yemen has 28 million people. Saudi has 33 million or so. Yemen was a fragile, if not failing state before the civil war as well as a locus of terrorist groups including al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as well as ISIS [Islamic State] and its offshoots. This is all getting dramatically worse as a result of the war. It will be a generational challenge for the region and the kingdom. How do you see Yemen, and how Saudi Arabia will need to think about Yemen, even after the conflict is resolved?
Prince Turki: Well, let me start by putting some facts on the ground. The kingdom has been the main supporter of the Yemeni people since the 1960s, basically, when after the revolution started — and there was then a civil war that reached conclusion by a peaceful settlement between the then royalists and the republicans, and the kingdom recognized the republican regime in Yemen — and without any hesitation, the kingdom presented financial, economic and diplomatic support to the successive governments in Yemen, culminating in, after 2011, when there was a popular uprising in Yemen against the then President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
The kingdom with her GCC partners managed to put that uprising down through a road map that was called the "GCC Road Map for Peace in Yemen." That road map allowed for the establishment of a successor regime to Ali Abdullah Saleh, who then actually resigned from office. A national dialogue meeting between all parties in Yemen, including the Houthis, produced a plan to move Yemen to a federal composition. And the Houthis actually signed on to that plan.
Within a year after signing up on that plan, they [the Houthis] reneged on it and began a military campaign to take over the Yemen in general, and that's when the legitimate government asked for help from the world community. The kingdom responded with the coalition partners that are now operating with the kingdom and Yemen, but the United Nations Security Council also produced Resolution 2216, which specified a rejection of the Houthi military attempt to take over Yemen, and also called for an embargo on weapon supplies to the Houthis and support to the legitimate Yemeni government under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, which allows for the use of military force. So this is just background of what has happened in Yemen.
So we're committed to working with Yemen for future development and support. I think already during this conflict, the kingdom is the largest contributor of humanitarian aid to the Yemeni people, including those living under Houthi rule, through the United Nations Food Program and UN medical services, etc., etc.
So there is no issue for us of discontinuing or disrupting the long-held Saudi program of support for the Yemeni people — that longstanding support will continue.
Al-Monitor: You mentioned the GCC. Do you see any prospects for resolution with regard that concerns some of the states with Qatar?
Prince Turki: No, I don't because Qatar continues to disregard the main reasons why there was the boycott of them by the four countries —Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.
Al-Monitor: What do you see that they're doing, or not doing, at this stage?
Prince Turki: Well, they're continuing with their inflammatory and incendiary attacks, media-wise and supporting opposition groups to the four countries until now.
Al-Monitor: Help us understand the evolution in the Saudi position towards the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and where do we go from here? There's, of course, the 2002 Arab Peace Plan initiated by then Crown Prince Abdullah, but there seems to be more regular contacts between Saudis and Israelis about Iran and other issues. You yourself met with [Israeli Maj.] Gen. Yaakov Amidror, the former national security adviser, and others, and have given interviews to Israeli papers. Has this position enhanced Saudi Arabia's role as an intermediary, and has the position toward the Palestinians and Palestinian statehood remained constant in this shift in policy?
Prince Turki: There has not been a shift in Saudi policy on Palestine, as many times affirmed by King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
If you remember, two years ago, there was an Arab Summit meeting held in Saudi Arabia. King Salman in his opening statement of that summit said that this is the "Jerusalem Summit." This was following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Subsequently, in every Cabinet meeting statement that has come out from the kingdom, the kingdom has re-expressed and reinvigorated its support for the Palestinian Authority's positions vis-a-vis the peace in Palestine. Our commitment to the Arab Peace Initiative is as it was when then Crown Prince Abdullah presented it to the Beirut Summit in 2002 and got all the Arab states to agree to it.
My meeting with the Israelis is to convey the message to the Israeli public that this is the case, that they have to deal with the Arab Peace Initiative and not try to go around it by claiming that there are secret engagements between Saudis because of Iran and so on.
Without a resolution to the Palestinian problem, there is not going to be any Saudi engagement with Israel, and unfortunately, in the media, particularly in the West, the Israeli effort to claim that there are contacts between Saudis and Israelis is given credibility, whereas they don't look at the statements coming out of King Salman and the crown prince and our foreign minister over the years as being the true position of Saudi Arabia.
Al-Monitor: As former director-general of Intelligence, you've had firsthand knowledge and experience of the players and networks of al-Qaeda and these terrorist groups and how they've evolved over the years. How do you see the terrorist threat now compared to when we were dealing with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, through ISIS and now, of course, the killing recently of the former head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? And what do you expect next of the threat from these groups?
Prince Turki: The threat, I believe is going to be mainly in what they call "lone wolf operations." Al-Qaeda's structure broke down as a result of very concerted international effort, including from Saudi Arabia, to break it down. The leadership that is there now, whether it is based in Iran or in Pakistan or Afghanistan, it's sort of quite mobile in its movements. … They really don't have the same kind of structure and make[up] that they used to have prior to these efforts by the international community to break them down.
The Syrian situation obviously led to an offshoot of al-Qaeda, which became what is known as ISIS, and that also shows that in terms of structure and control over Islamist terrorism, al-Qaeda had competitors and, in some cases, those who superseded them. So you had ISIS operating in Syria, and there is al-Qaeda. In Afghanistan, now there is al-Qaeda and there is ISIS.
Now with the removal of the caliphate, as it has identified itself — quite presumptuously, if I might say — there is going to be even more of a breakdown of structures that used to hold these operatives together. So my view is that we're going to see more and more of the already existing lone wolf operations as we see during the last 3 years, particularly a growing number of those lone wolf operators, whether in Europe or in Saudi Arabia or in other parts of Africa and so on.
Al-Monitor: You've been personally and professionally invested in the US-Saudi relationship for decades as former director-general of Intelligence, as ambassador here in Washington, a student at Georgetown University … and as a private citizen and member of the Saudi royal family. How do you see the relationship now? Obviously, there's been repercussions from the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. How, when you come to the United States today, do you see the relationship, given that event and also moving forward into the future?
Prince Turki: The kingdom's engagement with the United States is strategic from the Saudi side and has been so since it was established by the late King Abdul-Aziz and the late President Roosevelt when they met back in 1945, before the end of the Second World War. We've had our ups and downs. We've differed on major issues like Palestine, for example, but nonetheless, we maintained the strategic linkage. The latest manifestation of that, of course, is what happened after the Iranian attacks on the Aramco facilities when the kingdom and the United States got together and agreed that there will be a deployment of US forces in Saudi Arabia to meet the challenge of potential attacks from Iran on Saudi installations.
So from that aspect, that has been a constant, and it's been with both Democrats and Republicans. That has not changed, and I hope that it will continue in that manner.
Obviously, issues like Sept. 11 and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi have had a stigmatizing effect on the kingdom, and we were the first to suffer from it. We were not the perpetrators, although Saudis committed these crimes, but the government and the leadership in the kingdom was against these matters. And the Khashoggi family themselves, the heirs to Jamal, have accepted the king's assurance that they would get to the bottom of this crime and deal with the perpetrators, who have already been arrested and are being tried in the kingdom. And the condemnation, both official and public, by the public in Saudi Arabia was expressed in the holding of funeral services for Jamal, the late Jamal Khashoggi in the two holy mosques in Saudi Arabia, in Mecca and Medina. So that is the official position on that.
But the stigma is there, and the fact that he was killed by Saudis, official Saudis in an official Saudi building, the consulate in Istanbul, does stigmatize us, and we will have to live with that.
Unfortunately, in your media and your congressional competition to find fault with President Trump by some Democrats, they tend to see Saudi Arabia's relationship with the administration as justifying their attacks on Saudi Arabia, and that, I think, is unfair. And I said so in a public speech that I gave last week in Washington: We are not a punching bag for politicians in the United States, and if the US wants to have a continued strategic relationship with us, we are willing to work with both sides of the aisle in the United States. We have no preference. Rather, we seek a friendship from all sides and also from the media particularly. They tend to, as I mentioned, use a blinkered view of the kingdom concentrating on Khashoggi and other issues of difference of opinion between us and the United States rather than on what brings us together and what Saudi Arabia truly is, which is a dynamic and a developing and an improving situation for human beings in the kingdom.
Al-Monitor: Last question. Picking up on that point, how do you see the prospects for the crown prince's Vision 2030?
Prince Turki: I think the most remarkable achievement so far in the kingdom is to lay a plan for the future that takes into consideration our shortcomings and tries to overcome those shortcomings by concerted and transparent and accountable action, and my favorite words that I use about Vision 2030 are these two words: "accountability" and "transparency." On a quarterly basis, the government publishes online the accomplishments that were announced for the Vision when it was first introduced, and so any Saudi can check where that progression is taking place.
Also, we've already seen the accountability of various ministerial departments by changes of ministers, by bringing together departments and creating new establishments, et cetera.
And for me, the highlight of Vision 2030 is how it is dealing with the issue of the rights of women, which had been talked about much before that, but it took the Vision and the leadership, King Salman and the crown prince, to implement what had been talked about before, whether it is issues of women's rights or their engagement in life in general through commerce, through identity, establishment, ec., etc.
So this to me is the highlight of the Vision so far, and you know, we're still in that mode that was defined in the Vision of the transformation mode. Before the Vision actually starts, the transformation mode was set to be five years, and we still have one more year to go there, as 2020 is going to be the end of that five-year transformation. We want to prepare for the Vision that would start from then until 2030.
Al-Monitor: Do you think this transformation, which you are totally quite optimistic about, will continue to proceed at this pace without accompanying political reform, or is that part of the Vision too?
Prince Turki: Political reform is being done already, and you see that in the participation, as I said.
As I said, it is part of the process that started during the late King Abdullah's reign and has continued under King Salman, whether it is women joining the Shura Council, the Shura Council itself acquiring more responsibility towards legislation and so on, the dealing with the corruption, the famous Ritz incident and what followed from that, which was the reaffirmation of the structure to combat corruption, not just in government, but in other things and so on.
So these things are procedure, and they will be part and parcel of Vision 2030, I think, as it goes forward.
Found in:YEMEN WAR, TRUMP, ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT, KHASHOGGI, ISLAMIC STATE, MBS
Andrew Parasiliti is president and chief content officer of Al-Monitor. He previously served as director of RAND’s Center for Global Risk and Security and international marketing manager of RAND’s National Security Research Division; editor of Al-Monitor; executive director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies-US and corresponding director, IISS-Middle East; a principal at the BGR Group; foreign policy advisor to US Senator Chuck Hagel; director of the Middle East Initiative at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government; and director of programs at the Middle East Institute. He received his Ph.D. from the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; an M.A. from the University of Virginia; and a B.A., cum laude, from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. He is an adjunct political scientist at RAND and a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Virginia Club of New York.

U.S. Deterrence in the Middle East Is Collapsing
John Hannah/Senior Counselor/Foundation for Defense of Democracies/November 01/2019
The withdrawal from Syria is part of a broader pattern of weakness, especially in response to Iran.
As welcome as was the U.S. raid that lead to the death of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi over the weekend, it can’t erase the damage done to U.S. interests in the Middle East over the past few months. Whatever explanations U.S. President Donald Trump and his supporters put forward to justify his impulsive decision to withdraw U.S. forces from northeastern Syria earlier this month, the searing images that followed told a far different tale. U.S. soldiers in chaotic retreat. Wartime allies abandoned. Hard-won battlefield gains surrendered to some of America’s most dangerous adversaries. And all to avoid confronting the threats of a viscerally anti-American Turkish authoritarian whose economy and military could be devastated by decisions made in Washington. Rightly or wrongly, both friends and foes of the United States have rapidly been reaching the conclusion that Trump, despite all his bluster and chest thumping, has no stomach for a sustained fight. Baghdadi’s death may mitigate, but does not reverse, the spreading perception that U.S. deterrence in the Middle East is collapsing.
That’s especially the case in the aftermath of Iran’s drone and cruise missile attack against Saudi oil facilities last month. As big a debacle as Syria has been, it’s an extremely complicated situation. The United States found itself caught between two putative allies that are sworn enemies: Turkey, a strategically critical but increasingly troublesome treaty partner, and a Kurdish militia, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), that—while serving heroically as the tip of the spear in the successful U.S. campaign to defeat the Islamic State—traces its roots to a group, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), that has fought a decades-long separatist insurgency against the Turkish state and remains on the U.S. State Department’s list of designated terrorist organizations. As morally repugnant and emotionally wrenching as Trump’s betrayal of the Syrian Kurds has been, his reluctance to risk a military confrontation with an important NATO ally does at least carry the patina of strategic logic to it. Viewed in isolation, there’s perhaps a colorable claim that Syria is unique—an outlier that doesn’t lend itself to any broader conclusions about Trump’s foreign policy.
The problem, of course, is that the U.S. withdrawal from Syria is no isolated event. On the contrary, it comes on the heels of more than five months of U.S. vacillation in the face of an escalating and increasingly brazen campaign of aggression in the region by the Iranian regime, culminating in last month’s assault on Saudi Arabia.
Syria arguably presented a hard case for the exercise of U.S. military power because of Turkey’s involvement and the fact that U.S. relations with the YPG dated only to 2015, and were regularly described by U.S. officials as “temporary, transactional, and tactical.” In the case of Iran’s recent aggression, however, no such complicating factors exist. The Trump administration has repeatedly identified Iran as the greatest threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East and among its highest national security priorities. Trump is waging a campaign of maximum pressure, aiming to strangle Iran’s economy and constrain its ability to wreak regional havoc. Washington’s defense ties to the Saudi regime are more than 70 years old, as is the long-standing view that ensuring the security of the Persian Gulf’s oil resources is vital to the well-being of the global—and, therefore, the U.S.—economy. Indeed, in January 1980, U.S. President Jimmy Carter formalized Washington’s commitment to the Gulf with the Carter Doctrine—an explicit declaration that the region’s security was a vital interest of the United States and that threats to the area by outside powers would be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
Yet despite the unambiguous nature of the long-standing U.S. commitment to the region, and the high priority that the Trump administration has attached to confronting Iran, the U.S. response to a long line of increasingly dangerous Iranian provocations bears obvious similarities to the irresolution that’s been on display in Syria, suggesting that there is indeed a more fundamental, and worrisome, pattern at work.
Between May and September, the State Department says that Iran has been responsible for over 40 attacks, including threats against freedom of navigation, terrorism, and holding foreign nationals as hostages. A State Department fact sheet sent by email further indicated that when failed attacks are included in the count, as well as attacks not reported in the media, the actual number of Iranian-backed military provocations is “more than double” that. The highest-profile ones include attacks on international oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, as well as the seizure of several other tankers, including a British-owned vessel and its crew; drone strikes from southern Iraq against a Saudi oil pipeline; multiple instances of rocket attacks against U.S. facilities in Iraq by pro-Iran militias; the shootdown of an advanced American Global Hawk surveillance drone by the Iranian military; and, most recently, the precision drone and missile strikes against Saudi Arabia, temporarily knocking out the world’s largest oil-processing facility, Abqaiq, as well as the Khurais oil field. At the same time, Tehran since June has gradually, but steadily, begun to advance its nuclear program beyond the limits set by the 2015 nuclear deal.
Almost by definition, the fact that Iran has recently undertaken scores of attacks against U.S. interests with newfound boldness strongly suggests that U.S. deterrence is badly faltering.
Almost by definition, the fact that Iran has recently undertaken scores of attacks against U.S. interests with newfound boldness strongly suggests that U.S. deterrence is badly faltering.
Trump’s response to the most serious incidents has by now fallen into a predictable pattern of issuing over-the-top verbal threats (to “end” or “obliterate” Iran), imposing further economic sanctions, deploying additional troops and weapons to the Gulf, and, on at least two occasions, launching limited cyberattacks against Iran. Following the shootdown of a U.S. drone on June 20 over the Strait of Hormuz, Trump did apparently order a retaliatory strike on Iranian missile sites but aborted the mission at the last minute out of concern that the number of potential casualties that might result would not be “proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.”By now it’s abundantly clear that the administration’s playbook to deter further Iranian escalation has not worked. Tehran has continued to escalate. It’s hard to overstate the importance of the unprecedented attack on Abqaiq. The facility is arguably the single most critical piece of energy infrastructure on the face of the planet, with a processing capacity equal to about 7 percent of the global oil supply. It’s not much of an overstatement to say that deterring attacks on Abqaiq is why the Carter Doctrine was issued in the first place. The fact that Iran would have risked such a brazen assault on the world economy and such a frontal challenge to what heretofore had been widely understood as a vital U.S. interest was shocking—as was the lack of a U.S. military response against high-value Iranian economic and military targets. That Iran believed, correctly it turns out, that it could get away with such an outrageous provocation speaks volumes about the current credibility of U.S. deterrence, as well as the dangerous point toward which the U.S.-Iran confrontation could now be hurtling.
Based on the experience of the past several months, it’s hard not to believe that Iran’s leaders have come to the conclusion that for all Trump’s bombast, he wants no part of a military dustup. That belief was no doubt confirmed when, within days of Abqaiq’s geopolitical earthquake, Trump had reverted to the role of a desperate suitor in a French-concocted scheme to get him into a dialogue with the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, at the United Nations. Rouhani refused to play along, literally leaving Trump hanging on the telephone. It would not be far-fetched at all if the Iranian regime was increasingly of the view that Trump’s highest-order objective is not deterring further Iranian escalation in the Middle East but rather avoiding the risk of military conflict—especially as he seeks reelection in 2020.
That is not a good place for the United States to be when it comes to a showdown with an aggressive, revolutionary, terrorist-sponsoring regime such as Iran’s that increasingly feels itself under existential threat from devastating U.S. sanctions. Once Iran’s rulers become convinced that they’ve taken Trump’s measure and found him sorely lacking, once they believe that they have escalation dominance over the most powerful country in the world, it’s a recipe tailor-made for further, even more dangerous Iranian provocations.
In the week after the Abqaiq attack, a former commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), “when the Americans are incapable of retaliating against Iran for the downing of their ultra-secret [drone] plane, would they be able to help Saudi Arabia? They cannot defend themselves, so how would they defend Saudi Arabia? Everybody has received that message.” He went on to say, “Mr. Trump has already played all his cards. He has already fired all his bullets. Now he is standing in front of us with no bullets, and the world is laughing at him.”
A member of the Iranian parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee raised a similar theme of U.S. paralysis immediately after the Abqaiq attack. “Had the Americans not witnessed the downing of their drone by Iran, they might have made mistakes. … What causes America to fear a military operation against Iran is the balance of power that will be created by a possible war,” the lawmaker, Falahat Pisheh, said, also according to a MEMRI translation. “We can say that America’s national security strategy in the 21st century does not allow it to start a war whose outcomes it cannot foresee. This fact causes America to be feeble vis-à-vis Iran.”
Saudi assessments of the response to Abqaiq were not more charitable. A Saudi journalist wrote, “It is almost certain that neither the international community, nor the superpowers, nor the U.N. and its Security Council will take any serious practical action in response to the significant, dangerous and unprecedented attack” against Saudi oil facilities, according to MEMRI. “The statements of President Trump,” he wrote, “which contradict those of the heads of his administration, and the contradictory nature of Trump’s own statements, teach us that the U.S. position on Iran, which was unclear to begin with, is feeble.”
This is a dynamic fraught with risk. It’s almost a surefire formula for more Iranian escalation of an even more threatening nature. Increasingly, the IRGC is receiving the message that so long as U.S. soldiers or citizens are not directly targeted, the threat of a U.S. use of force in response is minimal to nonexistent. Short of that, it’s effectively open season to wreak as much havoc and chaos as Iran can get away with in the Gulf. That means U.S. deterrence has collapsed—and the threat of Iranian overreach and a catastrophic war that drags in the United States is rising exponentially.
We are certainly a long way from May, when Trump’s national security advisor at the time, John Bolton, issued an official White House statement warning about intelligence indicating that Iran was planning a campaign of escalation. Bolton said, “any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force”—irrespective of whether the attack was perpetrated “by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.” More than 40 attacks later, and in the wake of the most audacious assault on the stability of the global energy market since Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, there has clearly been no unrelenting use of force by the United States—or any force at all, for that matter. Instead, Bolton himself ended up being unceremoniously fired by Trump just days before the Abqaiq attack, apparently in part for being too hawkish. In the months before Bolton’s departure, the Iranian regime had run a sustained propaganda campaign against him, warning that Bolton was working to undermine Trump’s desire for negotiations and pushing America into war. It’s not hard to imagine that, in the eyes of the regime, Bolton’s dismissal provided powerful confirmation of its emerging belief that there will be no military price to pay for further aggression.
Reversing that perception will be no easy task—especially in light of the Abqaiq attack and the precipitous flight from Syria. Simply sending a few thousand more U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia is unlikely to do the trick. Deterrence is in freefall not because Iran doubts America’s military capabilities in the region but because it believes that Trump lacks the will to use them. At this point, convincing the regime otherwise will almost certainly require that the United States actually use force against Iran—whether overtly or in a more clandestine operation that Washington doesn’t claim, but in which it is widely seen as the most likely suspect. The potential target list should be long and wide-ranging—from infrastructure critical to Iran’s own oil industry to the IRGC’s naval, missile, and drone forces in the Gulf to its expanding military assets in Syria. An obvious opportunity would arise if ongoing international investigations into the Abqaiq attack were to publicly present compelling evidence of Iranian culpability.
While not a substitute for the use of force, a statement by Trump unambiguously reaffirming that the Carter Doctrine remains U.S. policy could also help in an effort to bolster deterrence. Without question, the uncertainty that now surrounds the issue in the wake of Abqaiq has dangerously increased doubts about the U.S. commitment to the security of the region and its energy resources—in ways that can only encourage even more dangerous Iranian provocations.
The alternative to taking meaningful steps to reestablish the credibility of America’s will to use force is to simply sit back, absorb Iran’s provocations, and wait until the regime caves to the steadily mounting pressure of U.S. sanctions. In the face of Iran’s escalation campaign and Trump’s own aversion to risking new military conflicts, that in fact seems to be the default policy that the administration has actually settled on. It’s by no means impossible for it to eventually work—Iran’s economy is being absolutely hammered. But the big question is how long it will take and what amount of damage an increasingly desperate Iranian regime, unconstrained by the fear of U.S. military retaliation, is capable of inflicting in the meantime on the interests of the United States and its friends and allies. If the brazen attack on Abqaiq is any indication, the answer may be a great deal of damage indeed.
*John Hannah is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, focusing on U.S. strategy. During the presidency of George W. Bush, he served for eight years on the staff of Vice President Cheney, including as the vice president’s national security advisor.

Erdogan Continues to Reward Iran Sanctions Evaders
Aykan Erdemir/Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)//November 01/2019
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) announced yesterday that it will sell its 10 percent stake in the Istanbul stock exchange after Turkey named as its CEO a Turkish banker convicted in U.S. court for his role in a multi-billion dollar scheme to evade Washington’s sanctions on Iran. Ankara’s move to reward a sanctions buster further strengthens the argument that Turkey has become a permissive jurisdiction for illicit finance.
Turkey’s sovereign wealth fund offered today to buy EBRD’s shares, which would increase the fund’s stake in the stock exchange to over 90 percent. EBRD’s exit will mean the departure of Borsa Istanbul’s only major foreign stakeholder at a critical moment in Turkey’s relations with its western allies. Ankara’s military operation in northeast Syria targeting the Syrian Democratic Forces – Washington’s key partner in the fight against the Islamic State – has drawn sweeping condemnation from the international community.
Five days after Ankara launched its Syria incursion, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on three Turkish officials and Turkey’s ministries of energy and defense. That same week, the Southern District of New York filed an indictment charging Halkbank, a Turkish public lender, for its role in the multi-billion dollar gas-for-gold scheme to evade U.S. sanctions against Iran. Halkbank’s deputy general manager, Mehmet Hakan Atilla, in 2018 received a sentence of 32 months for his role in the affair. At the time of Atilla’s sentencing, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemned the trial as a political attack on his government.
Atilla returned to Turkey in July after serving his U.S. sentence. Last week, just days after U.S. federal prosecutors indicted Halkbank, Turkish Finance and Treasury Minister Berat Albayrak, who is also Erdogan’s son-in-law, named Atilla as CEO of the Istanbul stock exchange.
Atilla’s promotion is part of a string of appointments that showcase Erdogan’s policy of rehabilitating Iran sanctions busters and rewarding corrupt officials who further his personal ambitions. In September, Erdogan appointed former Minister for European Union Affairs Egemen Bagis as Turkey’s ambassador to Prague. Bagis had resigned from the ministry after a 2013 corruption scandal implicated him in accepting bribes related to the gas-for-gold scheme run through Halkbank.
Members of Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) who dare criticize his policy of rehabilitating sanctions evaders continue to draw the Turkish president’s wrath. After publicly pronouncing strong opposition to Bagis’s ambassadorial appointment and other party policies, a senior AKP lawmaker, Mustafa Yeneroglu, resigned from the party yesterday after Erdogan commanded him to step down.
Another minister implicated in taking bribes as part of the Halkbank scheme, Zafer Caglayan, who served as minister of Economy in 2013 before resigning due to corruption allegations, has returned to political life as an AKP delegate from the Turkish city of Mersin. Caglayan is best known for accepting bribes of cash and jewelry worth tens of millions of dollars.
Erdogan’s rehabilitation of sanctions evaders continues to hurt Turkey’s image, economy, and investment climate. Ankara’s apparent disregard for U.S. sanctions, including those targeting Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, does not bode well for Washington or other NATO allies. Yet so far, President Donald Trump has shielded Erdogan from U.S. sanctions, the most recent of which he lifted after only nine days. In contrast, a biting sanctions bill focused on Turkey passed the House 403 to 16 on Tuesday. Like Congress, Trump should communicate to his Turkish counterpart that his policy of evading sanctions and rewarding sanctions busters could have dire consequences.
Aykan Erdemir is a former member of the Turkish parliament and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where he also contributes to FDD’s Center on Economic and Financial Power (CEFP). Follow him on Twitter @aykan_erdemir. Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD and @FDD_CEFP. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.