LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
September 20/2019
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.september20.19.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Bible Quotations For today
Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves
that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 12/32-34/:”‘Do not be
afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the
kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that
do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and
no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.””
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese
Related News published on September 19-20/2019
What happened to Lebanon?
Lebanon Central Bank Agrees to Liquidation Request from Sanctions-Hit Bank
Aoun Underlines Radical Changes In Economic Structures
Berri: To invest in construction of liberated lands
Case of Lebanese Newspaper Critical of Iran Referred to Appellate Court
Loyalty to Resistance meets in regular session, broaches overall situation
US-Sanctioned Jammal Trust Bank Self-Liquidates
Qassem Says 'Internal' Parties Have Role in Hizbullah Sanctions
Bou Saab Says Israeli Drones Had Mission to Attack Beirut
Hariri to Partake in Public Investment Forum in Riyadh
Hariri Suspends Work at His TV Channel
UK and Lebanon sign trade continuity agreement: It demonstrates strength of
Lebanese UK partnership
British Ambassador Writes about His 'Optimism' on Lebanon
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports
And News published on September 19-20/2019
US Report: Khamenei Approved Saudi Attack
Iran attack on Aramco ‘unprecedented, unacceptable’: Saudi Crown Prince, Pompeo
French FM says Houthi account of Saudi Aramco attacks ‘not very credible’
Pompeo: There is consensus in the Gulf that Iran responsible for attacks
US Central Command welcomes Saudi Arabia into international maritime coalition
France sends 7 experts to join investigation into Saudi oil facilities attacks
Saudi Amb. to UN: Initial signs of recent attacks show weapons used Iran-mad
Pakistan PM expresses full support to Saudi Arabia during Jeddah visi
UAE joins international maritime security alliance
France: Houthi Claim of Responsibility for Saudi Attack ‘Not Very Credible’
Israel’s Gantz says he should be PM in Israel unity governmen
Netanyahu Calls on Gantz to Form a Unity Government Together
Who Is Benny Gantz, Israel’s Potential Next Prime Minister?
Taliban Claim Suicide Truck Bomb in Southern Afghanistan That Killed at Least 20
Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published on September 19-20/2019
What happened to Lebanon/Dr.Walid Phares/Face Book/September 19/2019
Lebanon, Hezbollah and Iran’s Emerging Client State/Tony Badran and Jonathan
Schanzer/The Wall Street Journal/September 19/2019
France: Macron Sides with Iran’s Mullahs/Guy Millière/Gatestone
Institute/September 19/ 2019
10 Factual Errors Committed by ‘The Spy’ Series on Eli Cohen/Ibrahim Hamidi/Asharq
Al-Awsat/Thursday, 19 September, 2019
Populism Will Probably Just Go Away Soon, So Relax/Michael R.
Strain/Bloomberg/September, 19/2019
The Solution Is With Iran/Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al-Awsat/September, 19/2019
No Principles, No Dignity, No Power, No Deterrence/Yigal Carmon/MEMRI/September
19/2019
US-Iran next moves — Déjà vu of Obama administration mistakes/Jacob Nagel/The
Hill/September 19/2019
Now That Israel’s Elections Are Over, What Will You Be Watching For/Micheal
Young/Carnegie MEC/September 19/2019
Trump must outline Iranian threat during UN address/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab
News/September 19/ 2019
Iranian threat extends far beyond Saudi Arabia/Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Arab
News/September 19/ 2019
The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News
published
on September 19-20/2019
What happened to Lebanon?
Dr.Walid Phares/Face Book/September 19/2019
There were days (decades) where you'd hear wise and rational comments and ideas
by intellectuals such as Charles Malek, Fuad Afram Bustany, Moussa Prince, Selim
Jahel, Mohamed Shatah, Samir Frangieh, Samir Qassir, and many other
sophisticated thinkers. You may agree or disagree with them, but there was a
logic to their thinking. Nowadays you read or hear blabbing that doesn't make
sense, abstract proposals, disconnected narrative. You understand what Hezbollah
and the pro Iran camp is talking about. They know what they want. And what they
seek, most of Lebanese reject.
But the discourse of their opposition doesn't stand. Aside from very few among
them, you can feel the fear, the disarray and the quest for local political
survival. Or at best they lose themselves in Byzantine quarrels disconnected
from reality.
Will a new wave of focused and strategic minds rise?
Lebanon Central Bank Agrees to Liquidation Request from
Sanctions-Hit Bank
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 19 September, 2019
Lebanon's central bank said on Thursday it agreed to a request from Jammal Trust
Bank, which was hit by US sanctions last month, to liquidate itself. The value
of the bank's assets, and its share of the national deposit guarantee body, "are
in principle enough to pay all deposits and commitments", the central bank
statement said, according to Reuters. Washington hit Jammal Trust bank and its
subsidiaries with sanctions in August, accusing it of helping to fund the
Iran-backed Hezbollah party in Lebanon. The bank rejected the US allegations and
pledged to appeal the decision. Lebanon's Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh
reassured again that all depositors' funds would be guaranteed at maturity, the
statement said. Jammal Trust Bank has 25 branches in Lebanon and representative
offices in Nigeria, the Ivory Coast and Britain, its website says. The bank is a
relatively small lender. It had net assets of 1,600 billion Lebanese pounds ($1
billion) as at the end of 2017, according to the annual report on the latest
year for which data is available. Washington has sought to choke off Hezbollah's
funding worldwide, with sanctions among a slew of steps against Tehran since US
President Donald Trump withdrew last year from a 2015 international nuclear deal
with Iran.
Aoun Underlines Radical Changes In Economic Structures
Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 19 September, 2019
President Michel Aoun said that Lebanon was working on an economic plan “that
will bring about radical changes in the economic structures,” and will allow the
country to “face the various challenges and overcome the current crisis.”
“The productive sectors have been identified and their potential employed, which
will enhance the various Lebanese regions,” Aoun told his visitors on Wednesday,
hoping that the transition to the productive economy would soon be implemented
in accordance with this plan. The president emphasized that the issue of
displaced Syrians and Palestinian refugees constituted “a huge burden on
Lebanon.” He added that the country was now unable to bear its consequences,
“both in terms of the population density, which has doubled, or with regards to
the high unemployment rate among Lebanese youth and the scarcity of resources in
Lebanon.” “The various services also suffer from this burden, which doubles the
rate of emigration… without forgetting the high crime rate as a result of the
economic conditions we are experiencing, the increasing problems of education,
and the weak infrastructure that cannot collectively absorb the consequences of
this crisis,” Aoun remarked. He pointed out that international assistance was
not proportional with the needs, adding: “This burden is being imposed on us
because some parties require a political solution in Syria before the return of
the displaced.” “The Syrians came to Lebanon as a result of the deterioration of
the security situation in their country. Now that the situation has stabilized
in most of the Syrian territory, they are able to return,” Aoun stressed. “But
there are those who prevent them from going back. This in itself is one of the
injustices against Lebanon by some of the international community.”
Berri: To invest in construction of liberated lands
NNA -Thu 19 Sep 2019
Speaker the House, Nabih Berri, on Thursday called for swift investment in the
construction of the liberated territories in the southern town of Hounine. "Let
us invest all our liberated lands until the very last inch of them," he said.
His remarks came during his meeting at Ain-el-Tineh with a delegation of Hounine
town. Berri promised his guests to build a school in their village as soon as
constructions end. He also maintained that the Lebanese citizenship must not be
particular to the rich. Berri later met with State Minister for Economic
Empowerment of Women and Youth, Violette Khairallah. He also held talks with US
Ambassador to Lebanon, Elizabeth Richard.
Case of Lebanese Newspaper Critical of Iran Referred to
Appellate Court
Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 19 September, 2019
The editor-in-chief and director of the Nidaa al-Watan Lebanese daily appeared
on Wednesday before acting State Prosecutor Imad Qabalan over the daily’s
publishing of a headline that was critical of Iran. Editor-in-Chief Beshara
Charbel and managing director George Berbary were ordered to appear in court for
the headline, “New ambassadors in Baabda… Welcome to the Khamenei
republic.”Qabalan referred them to the appellate general prosecution in Beirut.
A sit-in in solidarity with the Charbel and Berbary was held in front of the
Justice Palace. Ahead of the hearing, head of the editor’s syndicate Joseph al-Qusaibi
met with General Prosecutor Ghassan Ouweidat and Qabalan to request that the
case be handled by the Press Offenses Court because it has jurisdiction over
such affairs. Speaking in front of the Justice Palace, Charbel declared: “We
have nothing to justify. Our right to freedom of expression is safeguarded by
the constitution. This is a right granted to us by law and we are practicing
it.”“We came here today to underscore our right to freedom of expression,” he
added. “We want the decision of war and peace to be in the hands of the state.
We did not attack the presidency,” he continued.
Former minister Ghazi al-Aridi was also present at the sit-in. He said: “We can
only stand by freedom of opinion. This is the position of Progressive Socialist
Party leader Walid Jumblat. We adamantly reject the targeting of the newspaper
and journalists.”MP Butros Harb expressed his support to Nidaa al-Watan, saying
it had played its “natural role and practiced its right to freedom of speech.”A
lawyer, Harb said he volunteers to defend the newspaper as part of his “national
and professional duty.”
Loyalty to Resistance meets in regular session, broaches
overall situation
NNA - Thu 19 Sep 2019
"Loyalty to Resistance" bloc on Thursday held its periodic meeting at its
headquarters in Haret Hreik, under the chairmanship of bloc head, MP Mohammed
Raad. The bloc discussed most recent developments in Lebanon and the broad
region. In a statement issued in the wake of the meeting, the bloc said that the
recent infiltration of the criminal collaborator (Amer al-Fakhoury)- known as
the 'Butcher of the Khiyam Detention'- into the country, who is now under arrest
and trial, has revealed a number of loopholes that need to be addressed. This
matter also revealed the need for legal measures to be taken to avoid similar
situations that threaten the security of Lebanon and provoke the Lebanese. On
the current debate over the state budget draft for 2020, the bloc said that the
improvements and further reform measures to be introduced into the 2020 budget
shall contribute to reducing deficit and public debt service to the maximum
possible extent. The Bloc stressed that it shall contribute positively to this
debate with the political forces and through the government and Parliament.
US-Sanctioned Jammal Trust Bank Self-Liquidates
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 19/2019
Lebanon's Central Bank announced Thursday it had agreed to the self-liquidation
request it received from a bank hit by US sanctions last month over ties with
Hizbullah. "Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh announced today he approved the
request made by Jammal Trust Bank SAL," the Lebanese state-run National News
Agency reported. On August 29, Washington slapped heavy financial sanctions on
JTB, which was accused of acting as a key financial institution for Hizbullah.
The US Treasury said the bank was used for enabling several of the Shiite
militant group's financial activities, "including sending payments to families
of suicide bombers."The news agency quoted Salameh as stressing that the value
of the bank's assets and of its contribution to the national deposit guarantee
body were sufficient "in principle" to pay back all deposits and fulfill
obligations. Iran-backed Hizbullah has been a US-designated terrorist group
since 1997 and fights alongside the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
in the neighbouring country's civil war. It is Tehran's most potent proxy on the
regional scene and also wields significant influence in Lebanese politics.
One of a handful of Shiite-owned Lebanese banks, JTB had specialised in
micro-credit in remote areas of the country's Shiite-majority south, which is
also Hizbullah's heartland.
Qassem Says 'Internal' Parties Have Role in Hizbullah
Sanctions
Naharnet/September 19/2019
Hizbullah deputy chief Sheikh Naim Qassem accused “internal” parties in Lebanon
of “having a role in the US sanctions against Hizbullah,” al-Jooumhouria daily
reported on Thursday. “We have information that internal parties are part of a
system promoting Americans and their sanctions, and they report periodically to
the Americans and propose specific measures on how to confront Hizbullah in
Lebanon,” Qassem said in remarks to the daily. Assuring that US sanctions “won’t
affect” Hizbullah, he said Hizbullah understands the US enmity towards the
party, “but we won’t accept sanctions against Lebanese citizens, and
institutions, or their intervention in the country, pushing things in certain
directions and order the government and central bank to make certain
arrangements,” he said. He said Hizbullah won’t accept “orders from the US
President. We are weighing our options now.”
Bou Saab Says Israeli Drones Had Mission to Attack Beirut
Naharnet/September 19/2019
Defense Minister Elias Bou Saab announced in a press conference on Thursday the
outcome of investigations into the attack of two Israeli drones on Beirut's
southern suburbs late in August . "The enemy drone violation of Beirut's suburbs
is the most serious since the 2006 July war; it proves that Israelis have
adopted a change in the rules of engagement with Lebanon," said Bou Saab.
Counting Israel’s violations of UN Resolution 1701, he said: “480 Israeli
violations of resolution 1701 were reported within the last two months, the most
serious of which has been the explosives-loaded drones that passed over Beirut
airport and endangered air traffic, and then headed to the city's southern
suburbs.”He added saying that “Several enemy planes were in the Lebanese
airspace to control the path of the two drones,” noting that one the drones was
carrying 4.5 plastic explosives. “The drone, which fell in the suburbs, is a
sophisticated military one that aimed to attack the city of Beirut. It was
launched from Habonim Airfield in Israel and could be controlled via UAV," Bou
Saab added, noting that the aim of the drone was to attack not just tape footage
of the area. He pointed out that Lebanon today was in a “self-defense mode,”
deeming this is a legitimate right as per the government's ministerial
statement. Moreover, the Minister denied any links between the issue of Israeli
agent Amer al-Fakhouri and the Israeli drone attack. "According to our
information, the military court sentenced Fakhouri back in 1996 on charges of
collaborating with the enemy," Bou Saab said, stressing that the Lebanese army
will not be lenient with any collaborator "who killed and tortured members of
the resistance and prisoners."
Hariri to Partake in Public Investment Forum in Riyadh
Naharnet/September 19/2019Prime Minister Saad Hariri received an invitation from
Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz to partake in the third edition of the ‘Future
Investment Initiative’ organised by the Public Investment Fund that will take
place in Riyadh from 29-31 October. Hariri received the invitation from Saudi
ambassador to Lebanon Walid al-Bukhari when the latter visited the Premier on
Wednesday.The platform will be held under the theme ‘What Is Next for Global
Business’ to engage with Saudi decision-makers and global business
representatives.
Hariri Suspends Work at His TV Channel
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 19/2019
Prime Minister Saad Hariri announced on Wednesday the suspension of Future TV,
his ailing mouthpiece whose employees had recently been on strike over unpaid
wages. The channel set up by his father Rafik al-Hariri in 1993 follows several
other once-thriving Lebanon-based media outlets into bankruptcy.
"It is with a sad heart that I announce today the decision to suspend the work
at Future TV and settle the rights of the workers," Hariri's office said in a
statement. He said the decision was motivated by "the same material reasons that
led to the closing of Al-Mustaqbal newspaper" in January this year. Hariri said
the decision was not a closure and but aimed at "preparing for a new phase in
which it aspires to return in the coming months." Future TV's director general
Ramzi Jbeily told AFP that the "transitional period" would be used to
restructure and pay the channel's debts. The Saudi Oger firm, a once-mighty
construction firm that was the basis of the Hariri business empire, collapsed in
2017, rendering thousands jobless. The premier's financial difficulties are
mirrored on the political stage, where he has narrowly held on to his job but
struggles to juggle pressure from his rivals. Future TV's demise temporarily
leaves him without a strong media arm in a country where all major players own a
paper or channel to promote their interests.
UK and Lebanon sign trade continuity agreement: It
demonstrates strength of Lebanese UK partnership
NNA - Thu 19 Sep 2019
In a press release by the British Embassy in Beirut, it said: "Trade Policy
Minister, the Rt Hon Conor Burns MP and the Lebanese Minister for Foreign
Affairs and Emigrants, Gebran Bassil have signed today a UK-Lebanon trade
agreement. It ensures British businesses and consumers will continue to benefit
from preferential trading terms with Lebanon after we leave the European Union.
The signature of the UK-Lebanon Association Agreement at the UK-Lebanon Tech
Forum in London will provide a framework for cooperation and development on
political, economic, social and cultural links.
The new UK-Lebanon Association Agreement provides, among other trade benefits,
tariff-free trade of industrial products together with liberalisation of trade
in agricultural, agri-food and fisheries products. Trading on these preferential
terms delivers significant savings, helping to support British jobs and also
providing a positive boost for Lebanon's economy, which continues to be impacted
by the Syrian crisis. This agreement provides a platform for trade between the
UK and Lebanon to grow, with total trade worth £603 million in 2018. It also
provides the certainty for British and Lebanese consumers and businesses to
continue trading following the UK's withdrawal from the EU. The agreement sends
a strong signal that Britain is committed to a close bilateral relationship with
Lebanon.
Minister of State for International Trade Conor Burns said: "Our priority is to
ensure businesses are fully prepared and have the tools they need to continue to
trade by the 31 October. Today's signing with Lebanon will help provide
certainty and opportunities for businesses in both the UK and Lebanon.
"I hope that this Agreement will usher in a new phase of increased bilateral
investment in each other's economies, which is the basis for continued stable
economic growth."
Minister for the Middle East and North Africa Dr Andrew Murrison said:
"I welcome the signing of the UK-Lebanon Association Agreement, which provides
certainty and confidence to UK and Lebanese consumers and businesses as we leave
the European Union. The economic and trade relationship between our two
countries holds much potential. I look forward to more British and Lebanese
companies doing business with each other, investing and operating in the UK and
Lebanon as a result of this Agreement."Her Majesty's Ambassador to Lebanon Chris
Rampling said: "The signing of the UK-Lebanon Association Agreement - our first
bilateral trade agreement - marks the strength of the UK-Lebanon partnership and
a new phase of increased bilateral investment in each other's economies. Lebanon
represents un-tapped opportunities for UK companies, especially in new
technologies, creative industries, infrastructure and energy, and as a gateway
to the Middle East. This Agreement promotes our countries' political, economic,
security and cultural cooperation and will ensure continuity, lead to more
liberalisation, and present opportunities to do more together.
The UK supports Lebanon's economic reform programme, and recognises the
potential opportunities for much deeper trade and investment ties between our
two complementary economies and their global diasporas."This agreement will now
be subject to the domestic internal procedures of both countries party to the
agreement before it can be brought into force. The UK will continue to be
covered by the EU-Lebanon Association Agreement while it is a member of the EU.
This agreement is designed to take effect when the EU-Lebanon agreement ceases
to apply to the UK.
Trade with Lebanon was worth £603 million in 2018, with £486 million in UK
exports to Lebanon and £117 million in UK imports from Lebanon. The UK's top
goods exported to Lebanon in 2018 were pharmaceutical products (HS30, £56
million), vehicles other than railway or tramway rolling-stock (HS87, £52
million) and machinery and mechanical appliances (HS84, £52 million). In
December 2018, we signed the largest bilateral deal in the history of UK -
Lebanon relations, with a $300 million trade deal between Rolls Royce and Middle
East Airlines. MEA's new aircrafts Airbus A330-900 neo will be powered by
Rolls-Royce Trent 7000 engines due to deliver in 2021. A regularly updated list
of all signed agreements is available on GOV.UK."
British Ambassador Writes about His 'Optimism' on Lebanon
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 19/2019
After one year in Lebanon British Ambassador Chris Rampling has written a blog
entitled: '12 months in Lebanon: 'It can sometimes be hard to stay
optimistic...but here's why I do', the UK embassy said. 2 months in Lebanon: ‘It
can sometimes be hard to stay optimistic … but here’s why I do’
This time last year was one of the highlights of my career – presenting Queen
Elizabeth’s letter to President Aoun that nominated me as Ambassador. The
anniversary has allowed reflection on the year: for Lebanon, and for the UK. My
first 12 months in Lebanon has been remarkable. Rolls Royce and MEA signed our
largest ever bilateral trade deal. I met the 10,000th Lebanese soldier trained
by the UK, and one of the UK’s most modern naval frigates came to Beirut. We
hosted the first official visit by a British Royal, and partnered with the
National Library for a stunning celebration of the UK in Lebanon. I have seen
the results of our sustained work with women in Parliament, on community
policing in Beirut, and in the education sector. And I have been lucky enough to
visit every Governorate, meeting incredible people, with remarkable and
inspiring stories. After we changed our Travel Advice, I became the first
British Ambassador in 10 years to attend the Baalbek Festival.
Lebanon
But supporting Lebanon has not been a walk along the corniche. Efforts to
stabilise the economy have been the main theme. The UK supports the Government’s
programme and CEDRE: economic reform will be painful, but it is not optional and
it is urgent. Debt must come down, the books be better balanced, and domestic
and international confidence rekindled. Only then can Lebanon fulfil its
enormous potential. There are plenty of opportunities for more Trade and
Investment, and we have a new UK Trade Envoy. But this will not come just
because we wish it. If things do not change, the economy will not recover.
The effects of the Syrian crisis have also been a theme. I have opened UK-funded
community centres in the Bekaa, the fishing port in Jiyeh, and seen a new apple
factory in Jezzine. Listened to Syrian children in schools, and adults in
communities. We will continue to support Lebanon, and to look for new areas in
which we can work together. Standing with both host communities and the refugees
themselves. he last thing Lebanon needs is more insecurity, and the isolated
attack in Tripoli on LAF and ISF officers was deeply saddening. Your security
services – of whom we remain proud partners - do critical work, in difficult
environments. But other security concerns are also serious. Just after I
arrived, there were the tunnels to Israel, and in recent weeks the tension
between Hizballah and Israel. The region is uncertain. Furthermore, the UK
recognised in February that it was no longer tenable to distinguish between the
military and political wings of Hizballah and proscribed the latter. We continue
to call for calm and full respect by all for UN Security Council Resolution 1701
and the Baabda Declaration. I believe passionately that Lebanon’s security and
that of its people can and will only be served by respect by all of these
commitments.
UK
And obviously, I cannot reflect on the last 12 months without thinking about the
UK. We have this year seen a change in Prime Minister and a number of changes in
the legal date for our departure from the European Union. Brexit dominates the
headlines about my country, and the perceptions of some.
But I know this is not the overwhelming feeling of most Lebanese. Many recall
our world-leading Education (4 of the top 15 universities in the world). Or our
strong economy, with record low unemployment and high skills base. Our
cutting-edge financial, legal, arbitration, and technology services (with a
perfectly-timed Forum in London this week. Some of the most exhilarating,
diverse, cities in the world. A stunning culture and sport offering. And so on.
It is easy to stay positive about the UK’s future.
The Future
As it is with Lebanon. I have lived in 6 countries outside the UK, and the
Lebanese are the most creative, entrepreneurial and agile. You look all around
the compass, and have what you need for success. Times are tougher now, but
education, languages, technology, and openness to the world are the keys to the
future. Lebanon has all. And, as I felt when we said goodbye last week to the
latest group of UK Government Chevening scholars, through much of your history,
your people have led the way. Building a successful future is at the heart of
the UK/Lebanon Year of Education that is almost upon us. Through that, our
economic, security and service programmes, my team and I plan to spend more time
around the country in the coming year, whether in Nabatieh, Saida, Tripoli,
Baalbek, Zahle, Byblos, the Chouf or elsewhere. Everywhere we go, we will see
how the UK can invest today, for a better tomorrow.
So, despite the current challenges this wonderful country faces, I remain
positive. I hope you can too.
Lebanon, Hezbollah and Iran’s Emerging Client State
توني بدران وجوناثان شانزر/وول ستريت جورنال: لبنان وحزب الله وبروز دولة لبنان
العميلة لإيران
Tony Badran and Jonathan Schanzer/The Wall Street Journal/September 19/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/78633/%d8%aa%d9%88%d9%86%d9%8a-%d8%a8%d8%af%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86-%d9%88%d8%ac%d9%88%d9%86%d8%a7%d8%ab%d8%a7%d9%86-%d8%b4%d8%a7%d9%86%d8%b2%d8%b1-%d9%85%d9%86-%d9%88%d9%84-%d8%b3%d8%aa%d8%b1%d9%8a%d8%aa-%d8%ac/
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2019/09/18/lebanon-hezbollah-and-irans-emerging-client-state/
The country was once a ‘safe haven’ for terrorist organizations.
Now it’s fully entwined with one.
After Iran’s attack on a Saudi oil refinery last weekend, the U.S. sent a Navy
destroyer as a show of support for allies. But the USS Ramage didn’t sail to the
Arabian Peninsula. It docked, bizarrely, in the Port of Beirut, in Lebanon—a
country dominated by Iran’s terrorist proxy, Hezbollah.
The U.S. continues to treat Lebanon as a friend, even as the difference between
its government and Hezbollah has become hard to discern. Earlier this summer,
the U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on Lebanon’s Jammal Trust Bank for
facilitating Hezbollah transactions. Days later, Hezbollah fired missiles at
Israel from territory it controls in southern Lebanon, with the government’s
full support.
Over three U.S. administrations, since George W. Bush ’s second term, the
Washington consensus on Lebanon has gone something like this: The best way to
deal with the Hezbollah challenge is to empower the pro-Western political bloc,
strengthen state institutions, and shield the banking sector. That’s like
fighting cancer with a placebo, and the disease has overtaken the patient.
Although the Treasury described Jammal Trust as Hezbollah’s “bank of choice,”
it’s hardly the only Lebanese bank infected with Hezbollah finance. In 2011
Treasury exposed a massive Hezbollah money-laundering operation running out of
the Lebanese Canadian Bank, leading to its closure. Four years later, Treasury
imposed sanctions on Lebanese businessman Qassem Hejeij, founder and
then-chairman of Middle East and Africa Bank, for financially supporting
Hezbollah financier Adham Tabaja. Mr. Hejeij resigned and handed responsibility
to his son. Treasury chose not to impose sanctions on the bank, presumably for
fear of further destabilizing the country’s banking sector.
The Tabaja network reared its head again. Last year, Treasury identified
Muhammad al-Amin as a “liaison between Tabaja and banking officials” who “has
assisted Tabaja in circumventing the impact of sanctions.” Amin Sherri, a
Lebanese parliamentarian and Hezbollah member, was subjected to sanctions
earlier this summer because he “facilitated Tabaja’s access to Lebanese banks.”
All this comes amid repeated and emphatic denials from Lebanese bankers and
Beirut businessmen that their system is dirty.
The institution receiving the most U.S. support, the Lebanese Armed Forces, has
worked hand in hand with Hezbollah nationwide. It has deployed jointly alongside
Hezbollah fighters battling Sunni militants both in Lebanese cities and on the
border with Syria. It has laid down supporting fire using U.S.-provided weapons
and ammunition.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, passed in 2006, called for Lebanon to
disarm Hezbollah. Instead, the LAF looked the other way when Hezbollah spent two
years digging subterranean cross-border attack tunnels into Israel. The LAF
allowed the import through Lebanon’s international airport of technology, flown
in by Iranian planes, to upgrade Hezbollah’s projectiles into precision-guided
missiles. Hezbollah controls large parts of the country, even where the LAF is
deployed, from Southern Lebanon to the eastern Bekaa region and neighborhoods
and suburbs of Beirut, not to mention ports of entry.
The problem isn’t only a lack of control—it’s collusion. Israel recently exposed
a Hezbollah precision-rocket facility in eastern Lebanon. The site of the
Iran-led project is a short drive away from an LAF base, where the U.S. has
delivered equipment, including ScanEagle reconnaissance drones. The base also
hosts the U.S.- and U.K.-funded Land Border Training Center, designed to help
the LAF secure Lebanon’s porous border. Hezbollah, with Iran’s assistance, built
a missile facility next door.
The Washington consensus insists on continuing to back Beirut and shore up state
institutions. But Hezbollah and its allies hold the majority in Parliament and
dominate the government’s security and foreign policies. The U.S. warned Lebanon
last year against allowing the group to control the lucrative Health Ministry.
America’s purported Lebanese allies ignored this.
The State Department has long classified Lebanon as a “safe haven for
terrorism.” In fact, it is something worse. With the banks, the military and the
government itself answering to a terrorist organization, Lebanon is fully
entwined with Hezbollah. The Trump administration deserves praise for going
after dirty Lebanese banks. It’s time to break further with Washington’s
consensus, acknowledge Lebanon as the Hezbollah state, and act accordingly.
*Mr. Badran is a research fellow at Foundation for Defense of Democracies. *Mr.
Schanzer, a former terrorist finance analyst at the U.S. Treasury, is FDD’s
senior vice president for research.
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News
published on September 19-20/2019
US Report: Khamenei Approved Saudi Attack
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 19 September, 2019
An American report revealed Wednesday that Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei
had approved the attack against two Saudi Aramco oil facilities last week. He
gave his blessing “but only on the condition that it be carried out in a way
that made it possible to deny Iranian involvement,” a US official told CBS News.
Saudi Arabia on Wednesday displayed wreckage of Iranian cruise missiles and
drones. The circuit boards can be reverse engineered to determine the exact
route the weapons flew, said the report. “But US officials said the most damning
evidence is still unreleased satellite photos showing the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard making preparations for the attack at Ahvaz Air Base in southwestern
Iran,” it added. The satellite photos were of no use in stopping the attack
since their significance was not realized until after the fact, explained the
report. “We were caught completely off guard,” one US official said. The Trump
administration and Saudi Arabia have pointed the finger at Iran for the
September 14 raids, which hit the world's biggest crude oil processing facility
and initially knocked out half of Saudi output. The French army spokesman said
it sent seven experts to Saudi Arabia to join an investigation. UN officials
monitoring sanctions on Iran and Yemen are also helping probe the attack. US
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said the attacks, which he described as an
“act of war” against Saudi Arabia, would be a major focus of next week’s annual
UN General Assembly meeting. He had arrived in Jeddah on Wednesday for talks
with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Defense.
Iran attack on Aramco ‘unprecedented, unacceptable’: Saudi
Crown Prince, Pompeo
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English/hursday, 19 September 2019
Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the US Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo agreed that the Iranian attacks on Saudi Aramco’s oil installations
are “unprecedented and unacceptable,” the US mission to Saudi Arabia tweeted on
Thursday. “The attacks didn’t just threaten the Saudi national security, but it
also threatens American lives living in the Kingdom and global power supplies in
general,” the two leaders concluded, reported the mission’s via Twitter. The
mission also tweeted that Pompeo and the Crown Prince discussed the necessity of
a united international community in the face of the constant threat which the
Iranian regime poses, adding that the leaders agreed on “holding the Iranian
regime accountable for its aggressive, reckless, and threatening behavior.” US
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Thursday that America backs Saudi Arabia’s
“right to defend itself” after weekend attacks targeted the heart of its oil
industry, comments coming after he described the assault as an “act of war.”His
visit came after Saturday's attacks on oil facilities in Abqaiq and Hijrat
Khurais. The US Secretary of State is travelling to the United Arab Emirates on
Thursday to meet with Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
French FM says Houthi account of Saudi Aramco attacks ‘not very credible’
Reuters, Paris/Thursday, 19 September 2019
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday that Yemen’s
Iran-backed Houthi militia's account of the Saudi Aramco attacks is “not very
credible.”“Yemen’s rebels have announced they have triggered this attack. That
is not very credible, relatively speaking,” the minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian,
told C News television. “There is an international investigation, let’s wait for
its results. I don’t have a specific opinion before these results,” he said,
adding the investigation into the Saudi oil attacks will be fast. The Trump
administration and Saudi Arabia have pointed the finger at Iran for the
September 14 raids, which hit the world’s biggest crude oil processing facility
and initially knocked out half of Saudi output. Iran, which supports the Houthi
militia in Yemen, has denied any involvement in the attacks.
Pompeo: There is consensus in the Gulf that Iran responsible for attacks
Agencies/Thursday, 19 September 2019
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Thursday his country wanted a “peaceful
resolution” to the crisis over attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure. He added
there is a consensus in the Gulf that Iran is responsible for the attacks. “We’d
like a peaceful resolution. I hope the Islamic Republic of Iran sees it the same
way,” he told reporters in the UAE, following Saturday’s attacks. Pompeo
explained that the US was building a coalition to deter Iran after an attack on
Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities, but it wanted a peaceful resolution. “We are
still striving to build out a coalition in an act of diplomacy while the foreign
minister of Iran is threatening all out war and to fight to the last American,
were here to build up a coalition aimed at achieving peace,” Pompeo told
reporters after meeting Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed.
US Central Command welcomes Saudi Arabia into international maritime coalition
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English/Thursday, 19 September 2019
The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Gen. Kenneth McKenzie issued a
statement on Thursday welcoming Saudi Arabia into the International Maritime
Security Construct (IMSC). “I appreciate His Majesty King Salman bin Abdulaziz
al-Saud’s decision to join the IMSC and in taking an active role in preserving
the freedom of navigation, promoting maritime security, and de-escalating
regional tensions,” said McKenzie. “We appreciate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s
leading role in regional security matters and welcome their commitment to
preserving the free flow of commerce, which is a linchpin of the global
economy,” the statement read. Saudi Arabia joined on Wednesday the International
Maritime Security Construct - a US-led international alliance that aims to
protect merchant ships and ensure freedom of maritime navigation and
international trade. The US formed the coalition after attacks on oil tankers
that were widely blamed on Iran, as well as to address Iran’s seizure of tankers
in the region. The alliance covers areas that include the Strait of Hormuz, Bab
al-Mandab, Sea of Oman, and the Arabian Gulf. The UAE became part of the
alliance earlier on Thursday too, joining Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UK,
Australia, and the US.
France sends 7 experts to join investigation into Saudi oil facilities attacks
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English/Thursday, 19 September 2019
France's army spokesman said on Thursday that seven of their experts were sent
to Saudi Arabia to join the investigation into the attacks on the Kingdom's oil
facilities.
Saudi Amb. to UN: Initial signs of recent attacks show weapons used Iran-made
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English/Thursday, 19 September 2019
Saudi Arabia invited UN and international experts to participate in ongoing
investigations of the attacks on the country’s oil facilities, in a letter on
Thursday. Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the UN Abdallah Al-Mouallimi called
attention to Saturday’s “cowardly and heinous terrorist attack” on two Saudi
Aramco oil facilities, in a letter to the UN Security Council. Al-Mouallimi said
the attacks targeted Saudi Arabia, international energy supplies and the
security of the global economy. Al-Mouallimi reiterated findings announced by
the Arab Coalition – that the recent attacks on Saudi oil facilities were not
launched from Yemeni territory and the weapons used were Iranian-made.
Pakistan PM expresses full support to Saudi Arabia during Jeddah visit
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English/Thursday, 19 September 2019
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan expressed full support to Saudi Arabia
after he arrived in Jeddah on Thursday the Saudi Press Agency reported. Khan's
statements come following recent attacks on Saudi Aramco oil facilities last
weekend. The prime minister was received at King Abdulaziz International Airport
by Prince Khalid al-Faisal, the governor of Mecca, and Dr. Ibrahim Al-Assaf, the
minister of foreign affairs, as well as a number of officials.
UAE joins international maritime security alliance
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English/Thursday, 19 September 2019
The UAE has joined the International Maritime Security Construct - a US-led
international alliance that aims to protect merchant ships and ensure freedom of
maritime navigation and international trade - Emirates News Agency (WAM)
reported on Thursday. The alliance is currently made up of the US, UK,
Australia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Its operation covers the Strait
of Hormuz, Bab al-Mandab, the Sea of Oman and the Arabian Gulf, WAM said. WAM
quoted It Salem al-Zaabi of the Emirati Foreign Ministry as saying the UAE
joined the coalition to “ensure global energy security and the continued flow of
energy supplies to the global economy.”Saudi Arabia joined the same alliance on
Wednesday. The move comes amid tensions in the Arabian Gulf. Several oil tankers
have been attacked in Gulf waters this year. Washington and Riyadh have blamed
Iran for the explosive blasts, a charge Tehran denies.Iranian authorities
previously boasted that their forces can seize any ship, any time, even if
accompanied by American or British forces. (With Agencies)
France: Houthi Claim of Responsibility for Saudi Attack ‘Not Very Credible’
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 19 September, 2019
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said Thursday that the Iran-backed
Houthi militias’ claim of responsibility for the attack against Saudi Arabian
oil facilities was “not very credible.”"There is an international investigation,
let's wait for its results. I don't have a specific opinion before these
results", he told C News television, adding the probe into the Saudi oil attacks
will be fast. The Trump administration and Saudi Arabia have pointed the finger
at Iran for the September 14 raids, which hit the world's biggest crude oil
processing facility and initially knocked out half of Saudi output. The French
army spokesman said it sent seven experts to Saudi Arabia to join the
investigation. UN officials monitoring sanctions on Iran and Yemen are also
helping probe the attack. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said the
attacks, which he described as an “act of war” against Saudi Arabia, would be a
major focus of next week’s annual UN General Assembly meeting. He had arrived in
Jeddah on Wednesday for talks with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Defense.
Israel’s Gantz says he should be PM in Israel unity
government
AFP/September 19, 2019
TEL AVIV: Benny Gantz, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s main opponent
in the country’s general election, said Thursday he should be prime minister in
a broad unity government. Gantz spoke to journalists after Netanyahu called for
them to join together in a unity government as results from Tuesday’s vote
showed neither with an obvious path to form a majority coalition. A senior Blue
and White leader Moshe Yaalon also told reporters at an event attended by Gantz:
“We will not enter a coalition led by Netanyahu.”Making the surprise offer,
Netanyahu, head of the right-wing Likud party and Israel’s longest-serving
leader, said in a video clip that in the run-up to Tuesday’s election, he had
pledged to form a right-wing government. “But to my regret, the election results
show that this is impossible,” Netanyahu said. “Benny, we must set up a broad
unity government, as soon as today. The nation expects us, both of us, to
demonstrate responsibility and that we pursue cooperation.”
In subsequent comments, at a ceremony — which Gantz also attended — marking the
third anniversary of the death of Israeli statesman Shimon Peres, Netanyahu said
his offer came with no preconditions. A smiling Netanyahu and Gantz warmly shook
hands at the event. Netanyahu hinted at a possible rotating premiership deal
with Gantz, noting that Peres, a left-wing leader, had forged a coalition with
conservative Yitzhak Shamir in which they rotated top office between 1984 and
1988. Netanyahu’s comments reflected his heightened political vulnerability
after again failing to security a parliamentary majority, following an
inconclusive election in April. President Reuven Rivlin, who commands wide
respect in Israel in his largely ceremonial position, said he welcomed
Netanyahu’s unity call. Under Israeli law, Rivlin taps a party leader to try to
form a government after the final vote tally is in. The campaigns run by
Netanyahu, 69, and Gantz, 60, pointed to only narrow differences on many
important issues, and an end to the Netanyahu era would be unlikely to bring
about significant changes in policy on relations with the United States, the
regional struggle against Iran or the Palestinian conflict.
With Israeli media reporting more than 95 percent of votes counted in Tuesday’s
election, a Likud-led right-wing, religious bloc looked poised to control 55 of
parliament’s 120 seats, with 56 going to a center-left alliance. On Wednesday,
Gantz said he hoped for a “good, desirable unity government.” But he has also
ruled out forming one with a Netanyahu-led Likud, citing looming corruption
charges against the prime minister. Netanyahu denies any wrongdoing.
“Mr Clean“
Gantz is a newcomer to politics. Many voters saw him as a “Mr Clean,” an
alternative to Netanyahu and the cloud of alleged criminal misdeeds hanging over
him. Netanyahu’s call for a broad government preceded a scheduled visit later on
Thursday by Jason Greenblatt, an architect of US President Donald Trump’s as-yet
unveiled plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Israeli cabinet minister Tzachi
Hanegbi, a senior Likud member, said he believed Greenblatt was coming to
discuss the peace blueprint. Palestinians, who seek a state in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital, have rejected the Trump plan out
of hand, accusing the president of pro-Israeli bias. “As to whether he (Greenblatt)
will be presenting the plan, I have no idea,” Hanegbi said on Army Radio. With
Israeli politics in flux, Netanyahu canceled his annual speech at the UN General
Assembly next week, a spokesman said on Wednesday about a visit that might have
provided an opportunity to meet with Trump. Netanyahu highlighted his close ties
with Trump in his election campaign. But in Los Angeles on Wednesday, Trump
appeared to distance himself from Netanyahu, amid political stalemate in Israel.
He told reporters he had not spoken to Netanyahu since Tuesday’s ballot and
said: “Our relationship is with Israel.”
Netanyahu Calls on Gantz to Form a Unity Government
Together
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 19/2019
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on his main challenger Benny
Gantz on Thursday to form a unity government together as election results showed
both without an obvious path to a majority coalition. Netanyahu, in a video
message, said he preferred to form a right-wing coalition, but the results
showed it was not possible. The admission was a major development following
Israel's general election on Tuesday that has put Netanyahu's status as the
country's longest-serving prime minister at risk. "During the elections, I
called for the establishment of a right-wing government," Netanyahu said. "But
unfortunately the election results show that this is not possible." He went on
to call on Gantz to form a "broad unity government today." Gantz had not yet
responded, but he has repeatedly called for a unity government. It is unclear
however if he would accept such a government with Netanyahu, who faces possible
corruption charges in the weeks ahead, remaining as prime minister.
Who Is Benny Gantz, Israel’s Potential Next Prime Minister?
Aiden Pink /The Forward/September 19/2019
With more than 90% of the votes counted in the Israeli election, the party with
the most of them appears to be the Blue and White alliance, led by former
Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz.
Although the party leader with the most votes doesn’t always win, Gantz very
well could become Israel’s 13th prime minister in the next few weeks – quite a
development for someone who only became a politician less than a year ago.
Here’s what you need to know about Gantz:
He was marked for greatness from a young age.
Gantz was born in 1959 and grew up on a small moshav (cooperative farm) in
central Israel called Kfar Ahim. His parents, who helped found the moshav, were
Holocaust survivors.
Gantz enlisted in the IDF at age 18 in 1977. His first assignment was serving in
the security detail for Egyptian president Anwar Sadat’s historic visit to
Israel.
Gantz rapidly rose through the IDF’s ranks, advancing so fast that he was
nicknamed “the Prince.”
Among his most notable duties was leading the commando unit that ensured
security for Operation Solomon, the rescue airlift of 14,000 Ethiopian Jews in
1991. He served as commander of the IDF’s Lebanon Liaison Unit, and was the last
Israeli soldier to leave that country after Israel’s military occupation there
ended in 2000.
He led Israel through two wars.
Despite his success, Gantz was an unexpected choice to be named as the IDF’s
chief of staff – he was a compromise figure who was picked by Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu after two more favored candidates became mired in scandal.
He oversaw military operations during two wars in Gaza – Operation Pillar of
Defense in 2012 and Operation Protective Edge in 2014. The IDF was criticized
for the hundreds of civilian casualties during those two wars, but Gantz
defended himself by citing Hamas’s tactics of embedding in civilian areas and
praised the IDF’s efforts to avoid deaths.
Gantz also appointed Orna Barbivai to be the first female IDF major general.
Barbivai is now a member of Blue and White.
Gantz retired at the end of his term in 2015, with much praise from Netanyahu,
who called him “excellent.”
*He’s an untested politician emphasizing his serious security credentials.
Israeli law states that chiefs of staff must wait three years after retiring
before entering politics. Almost as soon as that cooling-off period ended, Gantz
got in.
Gantz’s policies on security aren’t that far away from Netanyahu – after the
prime minister pledged to annex the Jordan Valley, Blue and White said in a
statement that the area “is part of Israel forever.”
But while Gantz has stressed his military bona fides in his campaign ads, he’s
also shown some openness to engaging in peace talks and consider giving up
Israeli territory – though he hasn’t endorsed a two-state solution.
On the domestic front, Gantz has proposed many measures supported by secular
Israelis and opposed by religious ones, such as recognizing civil unions for gay
couples, allowing transportation on Shabbat and revoking draft exemptions for
Orthodox Jews.
Taliban Claim Suicide Truck Bomb in Southern Afghanistan
That Killed at Least 20
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 19 September, 2019
A powerful early morning suicide truck bomb devastated a hospital in southern
Afghanistan on Thursday. The explosion killed as many as 20 people and wounded
more than 90 others, Afghan officials said. Taliban claimed responsibility for
the suicide bombing. Thursday’s massive explosion destroyed part of the hospital
in Qalat, the capital of southern Zabul province, and left a fleet of ambulances
broken and battered, the Associated Press (AP) reported. Local residents, many
of whom had come to see their sick family members, used shawls and blankets to
carry the wounded inside the destroyed building, while authorities scrambled to
take the worst of the wounded to hospitals in nearby Kandahar. Hours earlier, a
drone attack in eastern Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province blamed on US forces
killed and wounded as many as 30 people, most of them civilians, said Jawaid
Zaman, presidential adviser on tribal affairs. There was no immediate response
to a request for comment from the US military in Afghanistan. Attaullah Khogyani,
spokesman for the provincial governor, said the target was ISIS group militants
who are in the area. According to AP, Zaman said the local residents had
notified the authorities in the area that they would be collecting dried fruit.
As many as 50 people were in the fields when the aerial attack occurred, Zaman
noted.
The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published
on September 19-20/2019
France: Macron Sides with Iran’s Mullahs
غي ميلير/معهد جيتستون: الرئيس الفرنسي، ماكرون يصطف إلى جانب ملالي إيران
Guy Millière/Gatestone Institute/September 19/ 2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/78628/%d8%ba%d9%8a-%d9%85%d9%8a%d9%84%d9%8a%d8%b1-%d9%85%d8%b9%d9%87%d8%af-%d8%ac%d9%8a%d8%aa%d8%b3%d8%aa%d9%88%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b1%d8%a6%d9%8a%d8%b3-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%81%d8%b1%d9%86%d8%b3%d9%8a%d8%8c/
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14899/france-macron-iran-mullahs
On September 14, just a few days after former National Security Advisor
Ambassador John R. Bolton was comfortably disappeared from the administration,
Iran inflicted major damage on a massive oil processing facility in Saudi
Arabia,
Macron, in short, has done as much or more than any other European country to
favor the Iranian regime — more than Germany, and even more than the European
Union itself. He could have chosen to act as a reliable ally of the United
States, but the choice he made was a different.
The French officials act and speak as if the Iranian regime was totally
honorable, and as if they did not discern the obvious: that the Iranian regime
has destructive goals. The nuclear deal did not divert the regime from its goal
of building nuclear weapons. The deal, in fact, floated the regime toward
precisely that end. The American strategy of applying maximum pressure through
economic sanctions seems the only non-military way to pressure this regime to
change course.
During a visit to Washington in April 2018, French President Emmanuel Macron’s
main goal seemed to be convincing US President Donald Trump not to withdraw from
the Iran nuclear deal. He tried seduction, hugging Trump incessantly, before
turning to arrogance, saying in a speech before Congress: “France will not leave
the Iranian nuclear agreement because we signed it. Your President and your
country will have to face their responsibilities.” (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty
Images)
On August 25, in Biarritz, France, the leaders of the Group of Seven (G7)
reunited to discuss world problems. The situation in the Middle East was not on
the agenda. French President Emmanuel Macron, the organizer of the summit this
year, was about to force it in.
He had decided to invite to the summit Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad
Zarif. Macron did not warn his guests of Zarif’s attendance until the last
minute. His goal, it seems, was to bring about a meeting between the Iranian
minister and US President Donald J. Trump. President Trump declined. Zarif had
an informal conversation with Macron and some French ministers, then flew back
to Tehran. But Macron did not give up. At a press conference the next day, he
publicly asked President Trump to meet Iranian leaders as soon as possible.
Trump, in answering a journalist’s question on the possibility of such a
meeting, politely answered that such a meeting was possible, but only “if the
circumstances were correct.” The Iranian regime answered that first, the United
States would have to remove all sanctions. The Trump administration did not
bother to reply.
Macron then invited to Paris an Iranian delegation led by the deputy foreign
minister of Iran, Abbas Araghchi “to try to define a common position to France
and Iran.” On September 3, the day after the delegation’s departure, France
reportedly proposed offering Iran a $15 billion line of credit. In response,
Brian Hook, the United States Special Representative for Iran said on September
4, “We can’t make it any more clear that we are committed to this campaign of
maximum pressure and we are not looking to grant any exceptions or waivers.”
This statement meant that the French proposal to the United States was rejected.
The same day, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced that Iran would speed
up its uranium enrichment. He did not mention Macron’s gambit.
This announcement apparently did not discourage Macron.
The Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),
reached between Iran and China, France, Russia, the UK, the US and Germany on
July 14, 2015, but never signed by Iran – allowed the Islamic Republic to
dispose of $150 billion that had been frozen in foreign banks. French leaders,
evidently recognizing an economic opportunity, invited Rouhani to Paris.
When Macron’s predecessor, President François Hollande, welcomed Rouhani in
January 2016, he expansively announced that old disputes had to be discarded and
that it was time to open a “new chapter in relations between the two countries.”
Agreements were signed; Rouhani said that Iran “fights terrorism”, and Hollande
meekly bowed his head.
One of the reasons the French government Donald Trump’s election as bad news is
that Trump indicated in 2015 that he considered the Iran nuclear deal to be a
bad agreement from which he wished to withdraw.
When Trump was later elected president, it appears that saving the deal became
Macron’s highest priority.
During a visit to Washington in April 2018, Macron’s main goal seemed to be
convincing Trump to change his mind. He tried seduction, hugging Trump
incessantly. He tried arrogance, announcing in a speech before Congress:
“France will not leave the Iranian nuclear agreement because we signed it. Your
President and your country will have to face their responsibilities.”
After Trump announced on May 8, 2018 that the US would be abandoning the nuclear
deal, Macron apparently panicked and asked for an emergency meeting of European
leaders. The European Union asked French and European companies to defy Trump,
but ultimately, fearing American sanctions, some European companies stopped
doing business in Iran.
France and Germany then tried to set up a mechanism to help companies bypass
America’s decision and continue doing business with Iran. A system of evading US
sanctions on Iran, Instex (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges), was
formally introduced in early 2019, but is still not operational. No major
European decision-maker, it seems, wants to take the risk of using it and having
a problem with the United States.
On September 8, days after Rouhani’s statement on speeding up Iran’s uranium
enrichment, French Foreign Minister Jean Yves Le Drian summarized the French
position. He said that Iran was making “bad decisions,” but that France would
try to help and “keep the dialogue going.” He added, incorrectly but
unflappably, that Iran had scrupulously respected the nuclear agreement until
the moment the United States “sat on the deal.” He further added, bewilderingly,
that Iran had been “deprived of the benefits” it could expect from the deal —
referring, it seems, to the opportunity soon to engage in legitimate unlimited
nuclear weapons development — and how it was now necessary “to avoid the risk of
regional destabilization.” He did not specify which region. He threw in the
criticism that “America prevents non-American companies from taking their
decisions freely.”
Macron and the French government know perfectly well that the nuclear deal was
flawed, that it did not prevent the Iranian regime from pursuing its bellicose
activities. Macron and the French government also know that Iran repeatedly
violated the deal. They also know that Israel’s Mossad intelligence services
seized thousands of damning documents in Tehran. They were public information,
disclosed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on April 30, 2018. French
officials, however, continued to speak as if they knew nothing. They lied.
Sadly, they still persist in claiming that President Trump arbitrarily withdrew
from the unsigned deal, and they pretend not to know what Trump said when he
announced his decision:
“The Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror. It exports dangerous
missiles, fuels conflicts across the Middle East and supports terrorists,
proxies and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
“Over the years, Iran and its proxies have bombed American embassies and
military installations, murdered hundreds of American service members and
kidnapped, imprisoned and tortured American citizens. The Iranian regime has
funded its long reign of chaos and terror by plundering the wealth of its own
people…
“the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and over time reach the
brink of a nuclear breakout. The deal lifted crippling economic sanctions on
Iran, in exchange for very weak limits on the regime’s nuclear activity and no
limits at all on its other malign behavior…”
French officials also falsely claimed that Iran had not “benefited” from the
deal. Iran, however, instead of making investments with foreign companies, Iran
simply used the bulk of the $150 billion of unfrozen funds and credits to
provide Islamic terrorist organizations with up billions to sow mayhem and death
throughout the Middle East, attack the assets of the US and the UK, and knock
out half of Saudi Arabia’s oil production — representing 5% of the daily global
oil supply.
French officials speak of “regional destabilization” as if they did not see that
Iran has already profoundly destabilized Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and the Gaza
Strip.
French officials also disingenuously claim the need to defend free trade and
free enterprise — an excuse that is a transparent subterfuge to help a criminal
regime.
They also never mention the innumerable human rights violations committed by the
regime, and the despair and misery of the Iranian people. Nor do they ever speak
of the harsh anti-Semitic rhetoric disseminated by most regime leaders and the
incessant calls for the genocidal destruction of Israel by Iran’s leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The French officials act and speak as if the Iranian regime was totally
honorable, and as if they did not discern the obvious: that the Iranian regime
has destructive goals. The nuclear deal did not divert the regime from its goal
of building nuclear weapons. The deal, in fact, floated the regime toward
precisely that end. The American strategy of applying maximum pressure through
economic sanctions seems the only non-military way to pressure this regime to
change course.
In light of France’s history of appeasing hostile regimes, France’s attitude
toward the Iranian regime is not really surprising.
In the past few decades, France tried several times to give priority to its
immediate financial interests, even if it increased the danger to others and
even ultimately to themselves. In 2001-2002, when France signed oil deals with
Iraq, documents show that the French opposition to toppling Saddam Hussein was
essentially based on a desire to save the oil deals. Three decades earlier, on
November 18, 1975, after France had signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with
Iraq, then Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein called the agreement “the first
concrete step towards the production of the Arab atomic weapon.” Had Israel not
destroyed the nuclear reactor at Osirak on June 7, 1981, Iraq would almost
certainly have been able to acquire nuclear weapons. The attempt of France today
to prioritize its financial interests in spite of the Iranian regime’s malign
activities, is simply doing more of the same.
French leaders have often criticized — or even attempted to obstruct — the
United States whenever it was confronted by enemies. On September 1, 1966,
General Charles de Gaulle delivered a speech in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, harshly
criticizing “American imperialism” in Vietnam. When US President Ronald Reagan
described the Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” the French Ministry of Foreign
Affairs expressed “reservations” about America’s “risky hawkish attitude.” When
US President George Walker Bush designated North Korea, Iraq and Iran as the
“axis of evil,” French President Jacques Chirac spoke of his “fright”.
French leaders have, in addition, rarely taken into account the fate of
populations in countries with which potentially lucrative relations could be
made. They never paid attention to the anti-Semitic speeches and calls for the
destruction of Israel that erupted from leaders of the Muslim world. They have
generally overlooked declarations of war from Israel’s enemies. In 1967, shortly
before the outbreak of the Six-Day War, General de Gaulle decided on an arms
embargo against Israel. In 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, when Egypt and Syria
attacked Israel, French Foreign Minister Michel Jobert said that the “Arabs
wanted to return home” and added that that it was “not necessarily an
aggression.” The indifference of French leaders toward Iran’s threats towards
Israel is all of a piece with well-established French political traditions.
France is not the only European country behaving this way toward the Iranian
regime. When Angela Merkel realized that Macron had failed to convince Trump to
stay in the nuclear deal, she went to Washington and she attempted to influence
the president. To this day, Germany continues to endorse France’s positions
regarding Iran. Instex was born out of cooperation between the France and
Germany. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas even went to Tehran to explain to
the Iranian government how the trade instrument would work.
The European Union, as well, supports France’s position.
Macron, in short, has done as much or more than any other European country to
favor the Iranian regime — more than Germany, and even more than the European
Union itself.
He could have chosen to act as a reliable ally of the United States, but the
choice he made was a different.
In a speech on October 31, 2017 before the Council of Europe in Strasbourg,
Macron said that “making human rights prevail is a fight, even for countries
like France.” It is sometimes difficult to see how Macron tries to make human
rights prevail at all.
Political analyst Daniel Krygier wrote recently that “President Trump does not
offer anything without getting something in return.” Even if Trump were to
decide to meet Rouhani, and even if it were a useless meeting, Trump would
address it from a position of strength, and one hopes, without having conceded
to anything.
On September 14, just a few days after former National Security Advisor
Ambassador John R. Bolton was comfortably disappeared from the administration,
Iran inflicted major damage on a massive oil processing facility in Saudi
Arabia, disrupting half of Saudi Arabia’s oil production and 5% of the world’s
daily oil supply. While Iran-backed Houthi insurgents, currently fighting a war
with Saudi forces in Yemen, claimed responsibility, the US blames Iran.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sent a tweet saying that “there is no evidence
the attack came from Yemen” and added:
“Tehran is behind nearly 100 attacks on Saudi Arabia while Rouhani and Zarif
pretend to engage in diplomacy. Amid all the calls for de-escalation, Iran has
now launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply…
“We call on all nations to publicly and unequivocally condemn Iran’s attacks.
The United States will work with our partners and allies to ensure that energy
markets remain well supplied and Iran is held accountable for its aggression.”
Trump might, nevertheless, meet with Rouhani in New York.
The French government issued a statement saying that the attack on the Saudi oil
processing facility could “aggravate tensions and the risks of conflict in the
region”. Iran was not even mentioned.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said: “Up to now France doesn’t have
proof permitting it to say that these drones came from such and such a place,
and I don’t know if anyone has proof…. We need a strategy of de-escalation for
the area, and any move that goes against this de-escalation would be a bad move
for the situation in the region.”
“The attack,” a French diplomatic source added, “does not help what we are
trying to do.”
*Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27
books on France and Europe.
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No
part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied
or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Exclusive - 10 Factual Errors Committed by ‘The Spy’ Series
on Eli Cohen
Ibrahim Hamidi/Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 19 September, 2019
Netflix last week released a series about Israeli spy, Eli Cohen, who had
infiltrated Syria in the 1960s. The six-episode series sought to glamorize the
image of the spy, taking into account only the Israeli version of accounts. The
show was after all written and directed by Israeli director Gideon Raff and
sought to present Israeli intelligence “heroics” in contrast with corruption and
betrayal among the Syrian political class.
The series, starring comedic actor Sacha Baron Cohen, was rife with factual and
political errors and omits the Syrian version of the story. Few Syrian accounts
exist. One was recounted by Judge Salah al-Dalali, who presided over the court
that sentenced Cohen to death. The Mossad spy operated in Syria between 1962 and
1965 when he was arrested and executed.
Syrian writers and historians pointed to ten historical errors committed in “The
Spy”:
1- President Amin al-Hafez: The series showed that he met and struck a
friendship with Cohen when he served as Syria’s military attache in Argentina.
Hafez himself denied the relationship during a television interview in 2001. He
explained that he was in Argentina in 1962 long after Cohen had arrived in
Damascus. He revealed that he only met Cohen after his arrest in 1965. Claims of
the friendship was promoted by Egyptian dailies at the time as part of a
campaign against Hafez over a backdrop of political tensions. No document or
picture exist to prove the relationship between Hafez and Cohen.
2 - Hafez al-Assad and Amin al-Hafez: Assad was not a lieutenant general as
claimed by the series. He was an officer deployed in Egypt. Amin al-Hafez did
not come to power after the March 8, 1963 coup in Syria as shown in the series.
He was appointed interior minister and then assumed the presidency of the
revolutionary command council. He became president on July 27 later that year.
3 - Michel Aflaq: He did not meet with Cohen and did not give him a list of
people to invite, including Prime Minister Khaled al-Azm, for a March 8 soiree.
Azm had never visited Cohen in his life. Contrary to what the series claimed,
Aflaq did not have information about the army’s activity during the March 8
coup.
4 - Abdul Karim Zahreddine: An army chief of staff, he never set foot in Cohen’s
house, but his nephew, reservist Maazi, did. Maazi was Cohen’s friend and
released from the army on the day of the coup. He later assumed minor positions
in public office. He used to meet with Cohen at his house or at the al-Kamal
cafe in central Damascus. He was arrested and sentenced to five years in prison
in 1965.
5 - Maazi Zahreddine and the front: Maazi escorted Cohen to the Syrian front
with Israel in 1962. It was claimed that the spy obtained military intelligence
that was vital to the June 5, 1967 defeat during Six-Day War. However, there is
a five-year period between the visit and the defeat, raising questions over just
how vital the information actually was. Moreover, officers deployed at the front
and military positions were repeatedly changed after March 8, 1963 and later in
1966. A western expert revealed earlier this week that Cohen’s mission was not
aimed at gathering information about the front, but cracking down on Nazi
officers who were staying in Damascus. He was also tasked with following up on
the situation of Jews in the Syrian capital.
6 - Deputy defense minister: The series claimed that Cohen was considered for
the position of “deputy defense minister”. No such position had existed at the
time. It was introduced in 1970. Moreover, such a position is restricted to
military figures and no civilian can occupy it.
7 - Ahmed Suweidani: He later became chief of staff. He was not head of Hafez’s
security in Argentina. The scene from the series where Cohen secretly enters
Hafez’s office and takes photographs of classified documents is pure fiction.
The series did get Suweidani’s suspicions against Cohen right. An expert
revealed: “He was suspicious of Cohen from day one. He played a central role in
exposing and arresting him in 1965.”
8 - Execution: The series showed Damascene Majed Sheikh al-Ard doffing his hat
to Cohen out of sorrow and respect the moment he was hanged in al-Marjeh square.
A historian said that it is well-known that Sheikh al-Ard was deceived by Cohen.
He was one of his victims.
He met Cohen in 1962 on board a ship that was sailing from Europe to Beirut.
Cohen ingratiated himself to Sheikh al-Ard and entered Syria with him through
Lebanon under the alias Kamel Amin Thabet. Sheikh al-Ard helped Cohen rent a
furnished apartment on Abu Rummaneh street in Damascus. The expert added: “The
relationship between the two men did not go any further because Sheikh al-Ard
had no information of use to the spy.” Moreover, he once spoke about his
admiration of Adolf Hitler, which immediately caused friction between him and
Cohen.
Sheikh al-Ard did not witness Cohen’s execution and did not doff his hat to him.
He was in jail, serving a life sentence. He was held in Qalaa prison in Damascus
and later transferred to Palmyra prison where he died in his cell reportedly of
suicide.
Neither Hafez, not his wife, were present at the execution. Another fabrication
is the disgusting storyline about the sexual relationship between Hafez’s wife
and Cohen and allegedly with the approval of her husband.
9 - Infiltration of society: The series claimed that Cohen had wormed his way
into Syrian society and befriended influential figures. In fact, he only made
friends with B and C class figures. He avoided top rank officials out of fear of
being exposed. In 2004, Dalali told the writer that Cohen was “just an ordinary
spy.” He was buried in a cave by the al-Dimas road. Later his remains were dug
up and buried in an undisclosed location.
10 - Abu Rummaneh neighborhood: The series’ depiction of the neighborhood looks
more like Talaat square in Cairo. It also claimed that a Russian officer helped
detect radio waves, as part of communication with Israel, coming from Cohen's
apartment and which led to his discovery. There are four accounts of how he was
exposed: by the Russian officer, nearby Indian embassy that detected radio
interference, Egyptian intelligence and Suweidani.
Populism Will Probably Just Go Away Soon, So Relax
Michael R. Strain/Bloomberg/September, 19/2019
Populism has become a defining feature of public life. It embraces a narrative
of victimhood and grievance, pitting “people” against “elites.” US President
Donald Trump’s protectionism and hostility toward immigrants are fueled by
populist frustration on the political right. On the left, populism appears as
resentment of the wealthy, and the Democratic Party’s presidential primary field
is marked by proposals to penalize the rich. Compromise has become a dirty word.
Political engagement with the other side is scorned.
How much longer will this last?
Economics has something to say on that question. In a 2016 paper, the German
economists Manuel Funke, Moritz Schularick and Christoph Trebesch studied the
political ramifications of financial crises. They built and analyzed a data set
covering more than 800 elections in 20 advanced economies (including the US)
running from 1870 to 2014.
They found that far-right parties see a 30% increase in their vote share in the
five years following a financial crisis. The parties that gain are characterized
by nationalist and xenophobic oratory. The most recent financial crisis fit this
pattern, with right-wing populist parties more than doubling their vote share
after 2008 in France, the UK, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal and
Japan.
Particularly since World War II, the economists found, crises make governing
more difficult and are associated with shrinking majorities for the party in
power, a strengthening of political opposition and greater political
fractionalization. The number of parties represented in parliaments increases.
Since 1950, more than one additional party, on average, has entered the
legislature in the five-year period following a financial crisis. Street
protests, riots and strikes occur more often.
In contrast, recessions that are not caused by financial crises see relatively
little of this. The economists suggest that non-financial downturns — think of
an oil-price shock — may be seen by voters as excusable, out of the control of
elites. Financial recessions, on the other hand, may be perceived as the result
of policy failures and other elite decisions.
In addition, the measures used to combat financial recessions — central banks
purchasing long-term assets, for example — are unusual, and may reduce
confidence in government. Bailouts associated with financial crises may also be
a source of populist angst, and financial recessions might cause ugly disputes
between debtors and creditors that erode the social fabric.
The good news from the economists’ paper is that the political upheaval caused
by a financial crisis is temporary. Ten years after a crisis, nearly all the
variables they study are back to their pre-crisis levels.
The US is about a decade removed from the 2008 crisis. If the US fits the
pattern of the past century and a half, then its politics should be back to
normal. Of course, they aren’t. Why? It may be that the crisis a decade ago was
so severe that political normalization needs more time.
Indeed, the Great Recession ended sooner for some people than for others. It
took nearly eight years after the recession began for the unemployment rate to
reach its pre-recession level. In December 2012, over three years after the
recession officially ended, 7.9% of workers were still unemployed. Prior to
2008, the US hadn’t had a jobless rate that high since the mid-1980s. It wasn’t
until about five years ago that the unemployment rate fell into the 5% range.
When the recession began, 1.3 million workers had been actively looking for a
job for six months or longer without success. At its peak, there were a shocking
6.8 million long-term unemployed workers. As recently as 2015, there were still
twice as many long-term unemployed as there were on the eve of the recession.
Given the slow recovery and the lingering economic and psychological toll of the
Great Recession, it may not be surprising that populism is still an active force
in the US.
Still, another argument for populism’s looming expiration date is the failure of
its policies to deliver for the American people. Take Trump’s trade war with
China, which has not led to a rapid resurgence of US manufacturing jobs. It
hasn’t even reduced the trade deficit. Average monthly trade deficits were
higher in 2018 and 2019 than in the recent preceding years. And as its critics
predicted, the trade war has lowered national income and increased the prices
consumers face.
Economic reality is a powerful factor in politics, and given enough time the
failure of populist policies will not be an exception to this rule. Indeed, such
policies are already increasingly unpopular. In a new ABC News/Washington Post
poll, 56% of respondents disapproved of the president’s handling of trade
negotiations with China. Only 35% approved. Forty-three percent believed that
his trade and economic policies would increase the chance of a recession, and
less than half approved of his handling of the economy. Sixty percent worried
that the trade war with China would raise prices.
So don’t panic about of populism. And don’t overreact. The left shouldn’t
weaponize the tax code to punish the rich. The right shouldn’t retreat from its
long-held commitments to free trade, free markets, personal responsibility and
openness to the world. The populist threat just requires a more mundane
response: patience.
The Solution Is With Iran
Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al-Awsat/September, 19/2019
Statements launched by countries around the world to condemn and denounce a
criminal or terrorist act are no longer enough or convincing, following the
Iranian attacks that hit the backbone of the global economy.
The time has come for the world to move to a higher level than mere repetitive
statements. Curbing the Iranian threat to the world economy is more dependent on
actions than words.
Perhaps one of the most important solutions is the policy of collective
response, proposed by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson twice. The first came
in his joint statement with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the second
during his telephone conversation with the Saudi Crown Prince.
International partners, especially Europeans, are convinced that the Aramco
attack was a serious blow to all their attempts to contain the Iranian regime;
not only because it could cause an economic disaster in their own countries, but
because it greatly deceived the most sympathetic to the regime.
Once the facts that the Aramco attack was a war act by Tehran are shown to the
world, international partners will be forced to choose “collective action”.
This scenario has long been absent from the policy of dealing with the
revolutionary Iranian state, allowing it to penetrate the international
community under false pretexts, threaten the security and stability of the
world, and launch ballistic missiles at its neighbors, in an unprecedented
violation of basic rules of the international system.
If these acts of aggression are overlooked, the world will turn into a jungle
with even more insecurity, especially after the failure of the carrot-and-stick
approach with the Iranian regime.
Undoubtedly, most European countries that have gone along this path are now
ashamed of all their attempts to contain the regime and use their diplomacy with
a rogue state.
The proposed policy of collective retaliation may be the appropriate stick that
will deter Iran and prevent it from continuing to tamper with the international
system. More exactly, this policy will be a firm message to any state that will
seek in the future to follow the path of the Iranian regime and to remain intact
after achieving its subversive goals with impunity. It will make Iran think a
thousand times before a future sabotage, knowing that its price would be too
high and too costly.
Those who think that the Kingdom is incapable of responding to Iranian military
action against it are mistaken. The Saudi Air Force, for example, has the
ability to retaliate strongly to this attack. However, Saudi Arabia is a state
that adheres to the international system and international laws, and refrains
from carrying out reckless acts without a legal basis and international
evidence, and mainly without an international cover.
Just as Saudi Arabia is assuming its role in preserving global oil supplies,
which helps maintain world security and stability, countries of the world, small
and large, also have a responsibility to stop any country that shakes this
stability.
For those who demand the Kingdom alone to respond to these Iranian attacks, we
say, therefore: Do not ask Saudi Arabia to bear alone the responsibility for the
security and stability of global oil supplies.
Just as Saudi Arabia has fulfilled its responsibilities as no else has done, the
major powers have a shared duty to respond collectively to Iranian aggression
against their economic interests.
But how would the proposed collective response be? The NBC reported that US
President Donald Trump’s options include military strikes on oil installations.
Here comes the role of the states’ collective responsibility within the context
of "collective response."
But any firm and strong collective reaction must greatly change the equation and
make Iran consider a thousand times before repeating such attacks against world
security and stability.
No Principles, No Dignity, No Power, No Deterrence
Yigal Carmon/MEMRI/September 19/2019
People without principles and dignity do not understand that these are sources
of tangible power that create deterrence. People who evade projecting those
elements of power are doomed to be deterred by those with dignity and principles
– however odious and deplorable – such as Iran, Russia, and China down to the
level of Turkey. They treat the US with constant verbal contempt and actual
provocations, in the knowledge that they can bait the US with impunity. [1]
The attacks of 9/14 on Saudi Arabia's oil plants demonstrate this American
tragedy. The immediate, tactical targets were Saudi, but they could well have
been American CENTCOM targets with a similar level of damage sustained.
Out of the best intentions of sparing America wars, America will inevitably face
both "war and shame". President Trump asked Senator Lindsey Graham "How did
going into Iraq work out?" One would have expected the man who restored the bust
of Winston Churchill to the Oval Office to consider how did the appeasement
policy of Chamberlain work out and what was the cost to the US in lives a few
years later. But even the understanding that in a world where America is no
longer the guarantor of world order, the American economy will also tank is
beyond the qualifications of a great hotelier and real estate mogul.
The 9/14 attacks, correctly referred to by Secretary of State Michael Pompeo as
"an act of war", is a harsh humiliating blow dealt to the U.S., signaling an
American multilevel failure:
First, there was a failure of deterrence. The Iranians took a calculated risk
and were proven correct. They view themselves the military regional equals of
the US and via their proxies even beyond the region.
American military officials openly betray their fear of Iranian power and
retaliatory capability on CENTCOM targets and they thus make Trump's boast that
the US is the world's strongest military power, empty posturing In fact it is
Iran that is actually deterring the U.S. from any retaliation. Iran relies on
its proven ability to act in the local theater while its results have a global
ripple effect.
Secondly, it was a failure of U.S. intelligence (military, NSA, CIA and others).
Apparently, there was no early warning about an operation that must have had
dozens of parties engaged in the decision process, the secret planning and the
preparations. Since May 2019, MEMRI has issued several strategic warnings about
the Iranian threats to carry out such attacks, based on open Iranian sources.
Thirdly, the successful Iranian attack represented an American technological
failure, as not a single cruise missile or drone was intercepted. Iranian
Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif ridiculed the U.S., tweeting "Perhaps [the US is]
embarrassed that $100s of blns of its arms didn't intercept Yemeni fire".
Fourthly, and most disturbingly, it is a case of political failure - no one in
the U.S. administration expected such a bold direct Iranian attack. True, Iran
has resorted to proxies to afford it deniability, but now the Iranian leadership
has realistically gauged American hesitancy and conflict aversion and believed
that Iran could risk making a direct attack, discounting the possibility of
strong American retaliation. Considering the global effect of this bold attack,
so far, the calculated risk has proven to be a sound bet.
Why The Attacks?
The attacks of 9/14 have nothing to do with the war in Yemen; it is about the
U.S. sanctions. Iran is painfully squeezed and tries to ease the sanctions by
applying force – for now only against American allies and U.S. interests. Iran
will continue to do so until the sanctions are significantly eased, as long as
it assesses that the penalty for these attacks is nil or bearable. This is not
rocket science and only requires a basic comprehension and not secret
intelligence.
What Can Now Be Expected?
1. No deterrent American response against Iran should be expected. Knowing that
the U.S. administration will not stand by the Saudis militarily, KSA spokesmen
and leaders have refrained from explicitly accusing Iran, and have emulated the
UAE leaders, who refrained from pointing a finger at Iran after the attacks on
their tankers on June 2019, even when Iranian complicity had been proven.
2. Further Iranian attacks, based on the same Iranian logic, will take place in
the future as a result of continued U.S. sanctions, and not due to any reaction
by KSA, the U.S. etc. to Iranian attacks.
20/20 Vision
No American can gain from Iran's humbling of America. Any future president will
have to address the Iranian threat and restore America's power, deterrence,
principles and dignity, albeit at a much higher price. The powers of evil cannot
be tamed by American self-abnegation. This lesson should have been assimilated
in the previous century. With all the justified aversion to Saudi Arabia due to
the murder of Khashoggi, Saudi crimes pale in comparison to the mega murders
committed by the Ayatollah regime in their ongoing unbridled drive for an
Islamic dictatorship. The real threat is Iran's quest for regional domination
and nuclear weapons. Ideally, presidential contenders should prioritize these
long range considerations; realistically this is not going to happen.
* Yigal Carmon is the President and founder of MEMRI
[1] The American loss of dignity was on display in spades when Trump thanked the
Iranians for not downing a manned US plane that flew alongside the downed
American UAV. No wonder that the Iranians were further convinced of their moral
superiority and the justice of their Islamic Revolution ideology.
US-Iran next moves — Déjà vu of Obama administration
mistakes?
Jacob Nagel/The Hill/September 19/2019
Iran declared on Monday that its president, Hassan Rouhani, would refuse to meet
with President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the upcoming UN General
Assembly. Tehran’s announcement came after Iranian proxies allegedly attacked a
major Saudi oil facility over the weekend, and after months of vows from Iranian
leaders that they would never renegotiate with the U.S. after President Trump
withdrew from the 2015 nuclear accord last year.
Trump, for his part, insisted he would not engage with Tehran until he saw a
total change in Iran’s destabilizing behavior, echoing his secretary of state,
Mike Pompeo, who delineated 12 requirements that Iran must meet in order to
demonstrate that it is a “normal country.” But now it appears Trump may be
wavering. One might even say he is following in the footsteps of his
predecessor, Barack Obama. He is even using the same language as the president
he once derided, calling for incentives that would facilitate negotiations.
To avoid repeating some of the mistakes of the 2015 nuclear deal, formally known
as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), it’s important to understand
how they were made.
In 2012, two senior American officials from the U.S. National Security Council
and the State Department arrived in Israel for a secret visit. At the time, I
was the head of the Strategic and Defense Policy Directorate at Israel’s
National Security Council, and I participated in these meetings. The U.S.
officials told us that the U.S. needed to engage in a dialogue with Iran,
together with Russia, China and the Europeans. They said that the regime in Iran
needed to see an off-ramp from the nuclear standoff. They wanted to offer an
incentives package in the form of sanctions relief in exchange for minor
concessions from the Iranians. If Tehran rejected the incentives package, they
said, the U.S. and its partners would double down on sanctions.
We warned against this, urging the officials not to go down this slippery slope.
Once you begin negotiations, we argued, they can take on a life of their own,
and negotiators become enamored with the process itself. We insisted that the
starting point should be full Iranian compliance with all UN Security Council (UNSC)
resolutions, and only then should confidence-building measures come into play.
The American officials assured us that their ultimate goal was full compliance
with all UNSC resolutions, meaning zero uranium enrichment, zero plutonium, zero
heavy water, resolving the possible military dimensions (PMD) of the program,
and a complete end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The Iranians then proceeded to out-negotiate their counterparts at the
subsequent clandestine meetings in Oman. An interim agreement was hammered out
in 2013, granting Iran significant sanctions relief for simply sitting at the
table. The 2015 final agreement granted the regime billions of dollars in
sanctions relief and normalization, all without achieving any of the goals that
the Obama administration had promised.
What has happened since should come as no surprise. Iranian support for
terrorism worldwide has increased. The regime’s ballistic missile program has
expanded. Violations of the Iran nuclear accord have been many. After a daring
Mossad raid on a nuclear archive in Tehran last year, it is now clear that Iran
is violating the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA), which requires Tehran
to provide information about all nuclear sites, equipment, and material in its
territory. And last week, the Israeli prime minister revealed another
clandestine nuclear site that Iran failed to disclose.
It’s hard to understand how the current U.S. administration is even thinking
about a lifeline to the regime right now. Once again, the regime is demanding
meaningful sanctions relief in exchange for nothing more than a meeting. And
once again, the U.S. side is not demanding meaningful preconditions. Despite
Trump’s tough talk about Obama entering into the “worst deal ever,” it appears
he's been mulling a similar path.
Before Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, he offered the Iranians multiple
opportunities to negotiate. They turned him down, saying there was nothing to
discuss. But now they are signaling otherwise. In other words, Trump’s maximum
pressure sanctions campaign is working. The Iranians are feeling the pressure.
As a result, they are likely to concede more at the negotiating table. But the
U.S. side must demand those concessions before offering confidence building
measures. And it must not offer any concessions just to have a meeting.
Iran is now trying to demonstrate that it can hurt the U.S. through attacks on
Middle East oil installations. The regime is also engaging in nuclear blackmail,
enriching more uranium and installing new centrifuges, and threatening once
again to advance its nuclear program. But the U.S. still maintains the upper
hand with sanctions.
The administration should not ease the pressure now, particularly while the
Iranians provoke and threaten. Instead, it should issue clear demands to the
regime while urging the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to resolve any
and all issues relating to Iran’s nuclear activities.
The final goal should still be a new agreement. But it must be a better one.
Such an agreement must address all the core weaknesses of the JCPOA. It must
establish clear new terms that ensure Iran no longer has a path to nuclear
weapons. These terms should address the three main elements of a nuclear weapons
program — the production of fissile material, weaponizing the fissile material,
and building the means of delivery. But a new deal can only be achieved after
the regime comes clean about its past violations. Tehran must also halt all of
its other malign activities, such as terrorism, illicit finance, and
destabilizing the Middle East.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s 12 points are still the official American
policy. Engagement with Iran is not worth it until the regime shows that it is
serious about implementing them.
*Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Professor Jacob Nagel, a former head of Israel’s National
Security Council and a former acting national security adviser to Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is a visiting professor at the Technion and a
visiting fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (@FDD).
Now That Israel’s Elections Are Over, What Will You Be
Watching For?
Micheal Young/Carnegie MEC/September 19/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/78640/%d9%85%d8%a7%d9%8a%d9%83%d9%84-%d9%8a%d9%88%d9%86%d8%ba-%d9%85%d8%b1%d9%83%d8%b2-%d9%83%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%86%d9%8a%d8%ba%d9%8a-%d8%a8%d8%b9%d8%af-%d8%a7%d9%86%d8%aa%d9%87%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a7/
A regular survey of experts on matters relating to Middle Eastern and North
African politics and security.
Lara Friedman | President of the Foundation for Middle East
Peace
Regardless of its ultimate composition, the next Israeli government, assuming
one can be formed, will either be strongly or very strongly rightwing. On the
Palestinian front, Israeli politicians’ annexationist aspirations and preference
for security-military solutions over diplomacy align neatly with the ideological
inclinations of Trump administration officials, President Donald Trump’s key
supporters, and Republicans in Congress. As for Democrats, in the countdown to
the 2020 U.S. elections fears of being attacked as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic
are greater than ever. As a result, neither the White House nor Congress should
be expected to play a moderating role with respect to whatever policies a new
Israeli government is inclined to pursue, or is pressured by domestic forces to
pursue, vis-à-vis East Jerusalem (including the Temple Mount-Haram al Sharif),
the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Indeed, irrespective of continued noises
about releasing the “Deal of the Century,” Washington is more likely to
encourage, rather than challenge, the hardline policies of Israel’s next
government.
Things are murkier when it comes to Iran. Developments such as the firing of
John Bolton and Trump’s recent readiness to meet his Iranian counterpart likely
left some Israelis worrying that the price of being handed a blank check on the
Palestinian front could turn out to be U.S. policy on Iran that, if pursued by
any other U.S. president, Israel would publicly have denounced as a betrayal. If
there is no U.S. response in the wake of the recent attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil
facilities—of the kind desired by Israel and Saudi Arabia—it will only
strengthen concerns about Trump’s reliability on Iran. Either way, the next
Israeli government will likely seek to make even greater common cause with Gulf
Cooperation Council states toward keeping Trump firmly in the
anti-Iran-diplomacy camp.
This dynamic could have interesting implications for the Palestinian track. Thus
far, upholding the Israel-Gulf alliance has depended on Israel maintaining a
pretense of commitment to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But this
has been undermined by Israel’s moves on Jerusalem, its actions in Gaza, and
more recently public statements from politicians regarding plans to annex West
Bank land. Going forward, the next Israeli government may be forced to balance
inclinations toward pro-settlement-annexation policies in the West Bank and
military adventurism in Gaza against what many Israelis view as an existential
imperative to strengthen the anti-Iran alliance.
Ziad Majed | Associate professor at the American University
of Paris, author, with Farouk Mardam-Bey and Subhi Hadidi, of Dans La Tête de
Bachar Al-Assad (Solin/Actes Sud, 2018)
No clear majority has emerged from the Israeli elections. Neither Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu nor his main challenger Benny Gantz can secure a majority to
form a government counting on direct allies. A national unity government is
therefore a possibility. However, if Gantz sticks to his condition to exclude
Netanyahu from any government he forms, only an internal Likud coup against the
party’s leader would allow such a government to be established. Therefore,
nothing is certain for now and a third election cannot be totally excluded.
At the same time, there is no reason to believe that any of the possible
scenarios would bring radical changes to the Israeli-Palestinian situation or
regional affairs. Even if Gantz evokes a return to the peace process, he remains
very ambiguous on the settlement issue and Palestinian statehood. And in the
event he were to form a national unity government, he would have to first
convince his hardline rightwing partners of any change toward the Palestinians,
even if these were minor. That is not guaranteed.
The same applies to the policy toward Iran and Hezbollah. Even if an escalation
in tensions with Iran is slowed down by a Gantz-led government—a big if—this
would not mean that the Iranian question will be any less of an Israeli
priority. That is especially true given the strong backing of President Donald
Trump, which Israel sees as an opportunity to deal with what they call “Iranian
threats.”
Aaron David Miller | Former State Department advisor on
Arab-Israeli negotiations (1988–2003), senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace
Israel’s so-called do over elections may well be remembered as among the most
consequential in the country’s history for both good and ill. Here are some key
trends that will mark the period ahead.
For the second time in six months, Benjamin Netanyahu has failed to gain enough
votes to position Likud with other rightwing parties to cross the 61 seat
threshold and form a government. The outcome is Netanyahu’s worst nightmare—no
likely Knesset majority and a Likud unfavorably positioned to get a nod from the
president to form a government. But Netanyahu, still prime minister, can’t be
counted out yet. His party isn’t yet ready to abandon him; his formal indictment
for corruption is still months away; and if there’s a national unity government
with a rotation of prime ministers, Netanyahu will still lead Likud, a key
partner in any prospective arrangement. Netanyahu can also hope that somehow the
Trump administration’s peace plan or action against Iran will save him. But for
the first time in years Netanyahu has been seriously weakened, and it is
possible to imagine an Israel without him.
For 31 out of the last 42 years, Likud and the right have dominated Israeli
politics. Three times Labor has won—twice putting forth former military chiefs
of staff, Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak, as successful candidates. Benny Gantz,
also a former chief of staff, isn’t a politician. He ran a boring and lifeless
campaign, and has no easy—or right now any—path to forming a center-right
coalition. Relying on the Arab parties to support a government from the outside
is possible, but a fraught affair. Indeed Ayman ‘Audeh, leader of the Arab Joint
List, has said publicly he’s looking forward to being the first Arab to head the
opposition. But in two elections now Gantz has held his own with Likud and could
end up as prime minister in any national unity government rotational
arrangement. Gantz represents the old Likud—tough on security, certainly no dove
on peace issues, and committed to civility and the rule of law—qualities missing
during the Netanyahu years.
Right now neither Likud nor Blue and White has easy paths to forming a
government. And even though Israel has no written constitution, if no one
succeeds in doing so the country will have its own “constitutional crisis” with
a third election scheduled for early next year. Israeli President Reuven Rivlin
has made clear that this must be avoided at all costs. And a national unity
government is likely where Israel, for the seventh time in its short history, is
headed. Gantz has said he won’t sit with Netanyahu as head of Likud. Lieberman,
the coalition maker with nine seats, has said he won’t sit in any government
with the religious parties. And Likud isn’t yet ready to abandon Netanyahu or
its rightwing partners. Throw in the possibility of a Trump peace plan or a U.S.
crisis with Iran and the volatility factor can only rise. If you thought the
last six months was turbulent, buckle your seat belts. This is going to be one
wild ride.
Zaha Hassan | Human rights lawyer and visiting fellow at
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Israeli Elections 2.0 have yielded no new earth shattering results. The next
Israeli coalition government will either be rightwing or extremely hard
rightwing. What does this mean for the ever-intractable Palestinian-Israeli
conflict? If Likud and Kahol Lavon, or Blue and White, the two largest parties,
form a coalition, I will be watching to see whether the more center-right Kahol
Lavon with its three former Israeli military chiefs of staff at the top of the
ticket will attempt to pull Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu back from his
campaign promise to annex the Jordan Valley and Israeli settlements, given the
security ramifications and likely international outcry. With U.S. presidential
campaigning in full swing, a Likud-Kahol Lavon government might feel pressure to
move ahead with annexation so that U.S. recognition of the action can be
presented as a gift to President Donald Trump’s evangelical base ahead of the
2020 elections. If the only coalition that can be formed is a hard-right one
that includes the ultranationalist and religious parties, then annexation is
almost guaranteed.
Trump must outline Iranian threat during UN address
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/September 19/ 2019
Global leaders will next week gather at the UN headquarters in New York to
discuss the most crucial issues facing the world. Members will also have the
opportunity to introduce important resolutions to be voted on by the General
Assembly and later forwarded to the UN Security Council in order to become
official.
At the sixth plenary meeting on Sept. 25, US President Donald Trump will
addressthe General Assembly. Intriguingly, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani will
also be addressing the General Assembly on the same day. One of the most
important topics that the US should discuss is the role that the Islamic
Republic is playing in the region and on the global stage.
When speaking about Tehran, the US president ought to focus on and emphasize two
important points. The first is the nexus between the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), aka the nuclear deal, and Iran’s proxies, militias and terror
groups.
Trump can emphasize the fact that the JCPOA was fundamentally flawed from the
start and that is why any attempt to revive it would be fruitless. One of the
major problems was that the negotiating team completely excluded those on Iran’s
doorstep, formulating a policy set by governments thousands of miles away in an
approach reminiscent of the bygone colonial era.
In addition, Iran’s funding of violent proxies, such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the
Houthis, was entirely overlooked, which it never would have been had the
region’s countries been at the negotiating table. In fact, the 2015 nuclear deal
freed up extra funds that have flowed to these groups in ever greater volumes.
Upon the JCPOA’s signing, former US President Barack Obama saidhe was
“confident” that the deal would “meet the national security needs of the United
States and our allies.” By this measure alone, Iran’s subsequent actions show
that the JCPOA has demonstrably failed.
What were the results of the nuclear deal? A greater propensity for Houthi
rocket launches at civilian targets in Saudi Arabia, the deployment of thousands
of Hezbollah foot soldiers in Syria, and the regular bombardment of southern
Israel by Iranian-funded Hamas rockets.
Trump can also point to the current situation in the Gulf, which has seen the
Iranian regime actively escalate tensions. This includes the harassment of ships
in the Strait of Hormuz, such as the seizing of the UK-flagged Stena Impero by
the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Iran’s wider efforts to blackmail
European nations into keeping JCPOA funds flowing as the US sanctions continue
to bite.
Thanks to the Iranian regime’s funding of violent extremists, Trump can
demonstrate the fact that, since the implementation of the nuclear deal, the
national security interests of the US’ allies in the region have far from
improved.
The US president should also argue that the response to such belligerence cannot
simply be further appeasement. That route has been tried and has failed. The
international community can see first-hand the consequences this approach has
had, with the Iranian-armed Houthis continuing to cause death and destruction in
Yemen and Hezbollah likewise in Syria.
The second pillar of Trump’s speech ought to focus on seeking the assistance of
Western allies, particularly the EU, in order to more effectively deter the
Islamic Republic. The White House should be cognizant of the fact that it cannot
counter Iran alone. The US can accomplish its objectives by illustrating that
the security threat posed by the Iranian regime to both regional and
international security is real and urgent, and attempting to revive the failed
JCPOA is not the way to combat it.
This is a good time to seek the help of the EU because European governments have
recently shown some signs that they are willing to take a tougher stance toward
Tehran. This is due to the fact that the Iranian leaders are defying the EU’s
appeals to stay in compliance with the terms of the JCPOA. The UK and Germany in
June issued a joint statement warningIran to cooperate with the UN’s nuclear
watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and to stick to its
commitments under the nuclear deal. But Tehran has continued its nuclear
defiance.
Trump should argue that the response to Iran’s belligerence cannot simply be
further appeasement. That route has been tried and has failed.
Domestic repression and hostage-taking are other issues that the US president
can point to. Human rights violations are continuing to riseunder the so-called
moderate President Rouhani and Tehran continues to arrest and harass foreign
citizens. Iran is currently holding foreign hostages as pawns to extract
economic concessions and obtain geopolitical and financial gains.
In conclusion, Trump must clearly illustrate the real and urgent threat Iran
poses to both regional and international security. Washington should also seek
the assistance of Western and regional allies in combating Iran’s threats and
terror activities.
*Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist.
He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman and
president of the International American Council. Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh
Iranian threat extends far beyond Saudi Arabia
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Arab News/September 19/ 2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/78643/%d8%b9%d8%a8%d8%af-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b1%d8%ad%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%b4%d8%af-%d8%a5%d9%8a%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86-%d9%85%d8%b9%d8%b6%d9%84%d8%a9-%d8%a3%d9%83%d8%a8%d8%b1-%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a7/
For years before the attacks on the Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities last
weekend, much of the international community had been convinced that Tehran
represents a serious threat to the world.
Concerned countries have been hoping, however, that a way would be found to
solve the problem without a war. They dream of the Iranian regime collapsing as
a result of pressures from inside or outside the country, or that it can be
persuaded to change for the better.
But nothing has changed. This is now clear even to the US, which is leading a
blockade strategy in an attempt to force Tehran to change course because
Washington does not want a military confrontation.
We have been aware for decades that Iran poses a serious threat to the very
existence of Saudi Arabia and the wider Gulf region, including Iraq and Egypt.
This danger extends far beyond the Middle East, however, and is not blocked by
the borders of a country or continent.
In just two years, between 2011 and 2013, 30 terrorist attacks linked to Iran
were documented in Kenya (Nairobi), Nigeria (Lagos), India, Thailand and the US.
These included a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington and bomb
embassies. It should be noted that, during these two years, Iran was engaged in
peace talks and presented the image of a friendly relationship with the US
government.
The continued aggressive approach employed by Iran is not practiced by any other
country in the world; not even regimes labeled as dangerous, such as North Korea
or Venezuela. The closest equivalents to the conduct of the supreme leader’s
regime can be found in the actions of Al-Qaeda and Daesh. All three, headed by
Ali Khamenei, Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi respectively, are
similar in that they are based on an aggressive religious ideology and the
rejection of the international status quo with all its restrictions and laws.
The closest equivalents to the conduct of the supreme leader’s regime can be
found in the actions of Al-Qaeda and Daesh.
Iran, Al-Qaeda and Daesh are similar in that they all aspire to expand and
spread violence, employing religion, power and chaos to do so. After the attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001, the world united and eliminated the Al-Qaeda state. Then the
world chased and demolished the “caliphate” of Daesh. However, no one has dared
to confront the supreme leader in Iran. The most likely reason for this has been
a fear of the consequences of a serious confrontation, which might be greater
than the capabilities of any one country to bear, even if it was a superpower
like the US.
This is why Washington has resorted to a complex and slow strategy: An economic
blockade of Iran, depriving it of dollars and preventing its oil exports. This
has hurt Tehran financially and, in response, it has attacked oil tankers
belonging to four countries, used militias to carry out hostile operations in
Iraq, and attacked Saudi oil facilities. Iran has also arrested Australian,
British and American citizens in an attempt to blackmail their governments by
threatening to execute them over spying and other charges.
Iran is a global nightmare that has not been dealt with seriously enough to
deter it. The international community has done nothing more than voice warnings
and postpone action, while Iran has grown stronger.
American and European leaders have tried, and failed, to reconcile with and
appease the regime in Tehran; including the signing of a fragile nuclear deal.
Tehran’s response has been increasing its involvement in wars and acts of
terrorism by planning assassinations and bombings, even on European soil.
It is difficult for the Western political mind to understand Iran because it is
still regarded as a “state” — a republic with a seat and flag at the UN. In
fact, it is nothing but a terrorist religious organization, similar to Al-Qaeda
and Daesh.
Iran will continue to pose a deadly threat to the security and stability of the
world for years to come unless the rest of the world agrees to confront it.
*Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a veteran columnist. He is the former general manager
of Al Arabiya news channel, and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat.
Twitter: @aalrashed