English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese,
Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For February 03/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews21/english.february03.21.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since
2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Bible Quotations For today
Prophet, Anna, Blesses The Child Jesus In The Temple
Luke 02/36-40/There was also a prophet, Anna, the
daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with
her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was
eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and
praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke
about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.
When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they
returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became
strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him.
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials
published on February 02- 03/2021
Ministry of Health: 2770 new
infections, 81 deaths
Decision to Gradually Reopen Country Expected on Thursday
Reports: Hariri to Meet al-Sisi after Aoun Meets Egypt Ambassador
Pro-Berri MP Says Unacceptable for Aoun to 'Stand Idly By'
Lebanon’s Berri: 'Internal' Hurdles Are Obstructing Govt Formation
Berri meets UNIFIL's Del Col, French ambassador
UNIFIL Head Chairs 1st Tripartite Meeting of 2021 with Lebanese and Israeli
Officers
Lebanese Army Slams Israel Violations, Urges End to Occupation
Lebanon: Macron Links Beirut Visit to Government Formation
Strong Lebanon Bloc Decries 'Systematic Campaign' against It
Finance Minister: 50 billion L.L. to those affected by Beirut blast
Lebanon’s police arrest parents of abandoned baby
8 Lebanese Freed by UAE Arrive in Beirut
Diab Chairs Meeting on Rationalization of Subsidies
The Tripoli uprising is a signpost for Lebanon’s future/Makram Rabah/Al Arabiya/February
02/2021
Coping With the Coronavirus/Interview With Professor Salim Adib/Micheal
Young/Carnegie MEC/Febrauary 02/2021
Titles For The
Latest
English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on
February 02- 03/2021
Iran's Zarif: If Iran wanted, we would already have a
nuclear weapon
How long till Iran builds a bomb? US, Israel disagree
Iran launches satellite-carrying rocket, fuels concerns
Explained: Two sides of the debate over the new US Iran envoy Robert Malley
Israel sees 6-month Iran nuclear breakout, longer than Blinken projection
Israel PM Netanyahu plans three-hour visit to UAE and ‘lightning’ trip to
Bahrain
Government, IDF working on budget for potential Iran strike plan - report
Iran increased enrichment capacity of centrifuges at Natanz: IAEA
Turkey, US Security Advisers Hold First Talks since Biden Inauguration
UN Libya Forum Starts Voting for Country's Interim Presidency Council
Arab League, African Union Look Forward to Next Joint Summit in Saudi Arabia
UN Envoy to Iraq Slammed over Visit to Tehran
Sudan’s Communist Party Demands Exclusion of Military Figures from Sovereign
Council
KSA Bars Entry from 20 Nations Including Lebanon
Trump 'Singularly Responsible' for Riot, Impeachment Trial Brief Says
Titles For The Latest
The Latest LCCC English analysis &
editorials from miscellaneous sources published
on February 02- 03/2021
Purported militant groups claim responsibility for
blast near Israeli embassy/Joe Truzman/ FDD's Long War Journal/February 02/2021
Iran blinks again and again on 'redlines' - analysis/Yonah Jeremy Bob/Jerusalem
Post/February 02/2021
Denmark: "Our Goal is Zero Asylum Seekers"/Soeren Kern/Gatestone
Institute./February 02/2021
The Risk of Nuclear Cataclysm Is Increasing/Andreas Kluth/Bloomberg./February
02/2021
Biden’s Dance with Iran/Robert Ford/Asharq Al-Awsat/February02/021
A confused US administration in the face of Iran/Khairallah Khairallah/The Arab
Weekly/February 02/2021
Future Iran nuclear talks should include the GCC and regional issues/Dr. Abdel
Aziz Aluwaisheg/Arab News/February 02, 2021
US, Iran on collision course over nuclear deal’s future/Osama Al-Sharif/Arab
News/February 02, 2021
Erdogan using deniable private militias to destabilize the Middle East/Dr. Hay
Eytan Cohen Yanarocak and Dr. Jonathan Spyer/Arab News/February 02, 2021
This structure is used both for internal repression and for off-the-grid
adventures abroad by the Turkish government./Dr. Hay Eytan Cohen Yanarocak and
Dr. Jonathan Spyer/Arab News/February 02, 2021
The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on February 02- 03/2021
Ministry of Health: 2770 new infections, 81 deaths
NNA/February02/021
The Ministry of Public Health announced 2770 new coronavirus infection cases,
which brings the cumulative number of confirmed cases to 305842.
81 deaths have been registered over the past 24 hours
Decision to Gradually Reopen Country Expected on Thursday
Naharnet/February02/021
Lebanon’s anti-coronavirus ministerial committee will meet Thursday to evaluate
the results of the full lockdown that has been in place since January 14, media
reports said. “There might be an inclination to gradually reopen the country as
of February 8,” al-Jadeed TV reported. Dr. Abdul Rahman Bizri, the head of the
government’s emergency health committee, meanwhile told MTV that the ministerial
committee is likely to recommend a gradual reopening, noting that schools would
not be included in such a plan. Daily infections and death have soared in recent
weeks in Lebanon and hospitals have struggled with COVID-19 patients, reporting
near full occupancy in ICU beds. To respond to the crisis, the government
imposed a nearly month-long nationwide lockdown, the strictest since the virus
hit Lebanon. Measures in place since mid-January to fight the virus' spread have
been criticized by many as coming too late, particularly after the government
relaxed previous restrictions to allow for holiday season spending from visiting
expats. Many saw the relaxation as the reason for the worsening of a surge in
infections already in full swing in December. The strict lockdown measures with
little to no governmental assistance have sparked protests across Lebanon,
mainly in the northern city of Tripoli where days of violent clashes left one
person dead and more than 400 injured.
Reports: Hariri to Meet al-Sisi after Aoun Meets Egypt
Ambassador
Naharnet/February02/021
Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri will leave Wednesday for Cairo to meet with
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, media reports said on Tuesday.
“President Michel Aoun met today with Egypt’s ambassador to Lebanon and
PM-designate Saad Hariri will leave tomorrow for Cairo to meet President Abdel
Fattah al-Sisi,” pro-Hizbullah journalist Salem Zahran tweeted. “Will Egypt
engage in the details of the Lebanese file through the gateway of the
government’s formation?” he asked.
Pro-Berri MP Says Unacceptable for Aoun to 'Stand Idly By'
Naharnet/February02/021
MP Yassine Jaber of Speaker Nabih Berri’s Development and Liberation bloc on
Tuesday urged President Michel Aoun to act in order to facilitate the formation
of the new government. “The Presidency is required to turn the Baabda Palace
into a work cell in order to form a government,” Jaber said in an interview with
al-Jadeed TV. “Insistence on the blocking one-third is unacceptable, so that no
one manages to control the decisions of the coming government,” the MP added.
“The president must summon the PM-designate and the national forces to find a
solution and it is unacceptable for the president to stand idly by,” Jaber went
on to say. Berri has escalated his stance regarding the new government after,
according to media reports, Aoun and Free Patriotic Movement chief Jebran Bassil
rejected an initiative he made last week to break the impasse.
Lebanon’s Berri: 'Internal' Hurdles Are Obstructing Govt
Formation
Beirut/Asharq Al-Awsat/February02/021
Lebanon's parliament speaker Nabih Berri broke his silence Monday by indirectly
holding President Michel Aoun responsible for the delay in forming a new
government by demanding a blocking third. "Following the incidents in Tripoli
and the statement of the spiritual leaders who called to rescue the country and
the Lebanese starting with the formation of a government of specialists, we are
keen to clarify to the public opinion that the obstacle to forming a government
is not external but internal," Berri said in a statement. Within this context,
he underlined that nobody was entitled to the "blocking third." The speaker
stressed that he would not lose hope and that he would continue his government
formation efforts.Aoun’s media office was quick to respond to Berri’s
statements, denying the accusations. “Political and media sources insist on
promoting that the President is demanding the “blocking third” in the upcoming
government, which led to delaying its formation, despite the statements and
stances which confirm the invalidity of such allegations, which were issued by
the Presidential Palace on different dates, last of which was on the 22nd of
last January.”The office also said that Aoun, who had never asked for the
blocking third, is keen to exercise his constitutional rights in naming
Ministers of the Government who are skilled and competent.
Berri meets UNIFIL's Del Col, French ambassador
NNA/February02/021
House Speaker, Nabih Berri, on Monday received at his Ain El Tineh residence
UNIFIL Head of Mission and Force Commander Major General Stefano Del Col, with
whom he raised the issue of Israeli escalation and violations of Lebanese
sovereignty by land, sea and air in a flagrant violation of Resolution 1701.
UNIFIL Head Chairs 1st Tripartite Meeting of 2021 with
Lebanese and Israeli Officers
Naharnet/February02/021
UNIFIL Head of Mission and Force Commander Major General Stefano Del Col on
Tuesday chaired the first Tripartite meeting of 2021 with senior officers from
the Lebanese and Israeli armies at a U.N. position in Ras Al Naqoura. The
meeting was convened in a curtailed format due to the ongoing COVID-19
restrictions. Discussions focused on the situation along the Blue Line, air and
ground violations, as well as other issues within the scope of UNIFIL’s mandate
under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 and related resolutions. While
commending the "cooperation of the parties in mitigating evolving challenges,"
Del Col said any actions, especially adjacent to the Blue Line, must at all
times be guided by "principles of positive engagement through UNIFIL’s liaison
and coordination mechanisms, prior notification, and respect for the Blue Line
to reduce potential sources of tension," UNIFIL said in a statement.
“Despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, we continue to find ways
and means to maintain our operational tempo and to ensure that operational
outputs are at no times reduced throughout the area of operations,” he told the
delegations. “Our widely appreciated liaison and coordination mechanisms
continue to play a key role in de-escalating tensions and its augmentation is a
critical enabler,” he added. Citing recent examples of mitigating tensions along
the Blue Line, the UNIFIL head said the "tried-and-trusted" liaison mechanisms
of UNIFIL should be “our default position on issues of concern along the Blue
Line rather than engaging in unilateral action.”He also updated the parties on
the progress in the refurbishment of security infrastructure along the Blue
Line, adding that more than 100 Blue Line markers and cut lanes have been
refurbished in the recent months. “Blue Line marking is a deconfliction tool
which helps to reduce ambiguity and potential points of friction. Enhancing the
security infrastructure along the Blue Line is in all our interests,” he added.
“Let us build on this new momentum.”Major-General Del Col also stressed that
Lebanese Army and Israeli army activities along the Blue Line should remain
predictable, with sufficient prior notification and coordination through UNIFIL
in order to prevent escalation and potential misunderstandings. Tripartite
meetings have been held regularly under the auspices of UNIFIL since the end of
the 2006 war in south Lebanon as an "essential conflict management and
confidence-building mechanism," UNIFIL says.
Lebanese Army Slams Israel Violations, Urges End to
Occupation
Naharnet/February02/021
The Lebanese Army on Tuesday raised the issue of Israel’s intensification of its
violations against Lebanon’s sovereignty in recent weeks and the need for it to
withdraw from Lebanese territory it is still occupying. The remarks were
discussed in the first UNIFIL-hosted Tripartite meeting of 2021 that was
attended by senior officers from the Lebanese and Israeli armies at a U.N.
position in Ras Al Naqoura. “The meeting tackled the latest incidents that
happened along the Blue Line, from the abduction of the shepherd to the attempt
to kidnap another and the theft of cows,” the Lebanese Army said in a statement.
It added: “The Lebanese side condemned the Israeli enemy’s continued
territorial, maritime and aerial violations of Lebanese sovereignty, and the
intensive overflights and violations by the aircraft of the Israeli enemy over
Lebanese territory.”It also reiterated Lebanon’s commitment to “all U.N.
resolutions, especially Resolution 1701 with all its stipulations,” while
stressing the need for “the Israeli enemy’s withdrawal from all occupied
territory.”The army identified the occupied territory as “the area adjacent to
the north of the Blue Line; the Shebaa Farms, Kfarshouba Hills and the northern
part of the Ghajar village, and the occupied B1 area.”It also renewed its call
for “listing the occupied B1 area in the coming U.N. reports and resolutions,
akin to the rest of the aforementioned occupied areas.”
Lebanon: Macron Links Beirut Visit to Government Formation
Beirut - Mohammed Shukair/Asharq Al-Awsat/February02/021
French President Emmanuel Macron will not conduct his third visit to Lebanon
unless the necessary conditions for its success are met, a well-informed
Lebanese political source told Asharq Al-Awsat. This requires the main parties
to immediately agree on the formation of a strong government and remove all
obstacles hindering its birth. The source noted that Macron was aware that the
problem was internal, as expressed by Speaker Nabih Berri, who said earlier this
week that the obstacle to the cabinet’s formation was not external, indirectly
holding President Michel Aoun responsible for the delay by demanding a blocking
third. “We are keen to clarify to the public opinion that the obstacle to
forming a government is not external but internal,” Berri said in a statement on
Monday. The political source pointed out that Macron was still counting on the
internal parties to resolve the nodes, which requires the resumption of
consultations between Aoun and Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri. The French
president is currently exerting pressure in to guarantee that his visit to
Beirut would come in parallel with the announcement of the new government
lineup, the source added.
Macron not only contacted Aoun, but also communicated with Hariri, according to
the source. The premier-designate then talked to Berri, who decided to break his
silence over the matter. Hezbollah, for its part, decided to enter the line of
consultations, hoping that it could revive the contacts between Aoun and
Hariri.In this context, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah contacted
the head of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), former Minister and MP Gebran
Bassil, to push the talks forward. The source asked whether Nasrallah’s move was
based on regional developments, which are not yet visible, that have led the
party to change its position and decide to pressure Bassil. While the political
source could not ascertain that a change in the international and regional
stances was behind Hezbollah’s initiative, he stressed, on the other hand, that
Macron would not make a third visit to Beirut unless he sees concrete signs of
improvement in the political climate.
Strong Lebanon Bloc Decries 'Systematic Campaign' against
It
Naharnet/February02/021
The Free Patriotic Movement-led Strong Lebanon bloc said Tuesday that there is a
“systematic campaign” to blame President Michel Aoun and the bloc for the new
government’s delay, denying seeking a one-third-plus-one veto power. “We were
the only ones who backed naming truly specialist and independent ministers in PM
Diab’s government and the events have proved the independence of their
decisions,” the bloc said in a statement issued after its weekly e-meeting.
Noting that it has offered to stay out of the government in order to “facilitate
its formation,” the bloc added that it has only asked for “unified standards” in
naming the ministers.The bloc also categorically rejected suggestions by
PM-designate Saad Hariri’s camp that the president’s role is limited to “issuing
the decree of the government’s formation,” stressing that Aoun has the right to
“fully participate in the formation process in terms of the government’s shape,
candidates, portfolios and number of seats.”
Finance Minister: 50 billion L.L. to those affected by
Beirut blast
NNA/February02/021
Caretaker Minister of Finance, Ghazi Wazni, on Tuesday ordered the payment of 50
billion L.L. to those affected by the Beirut port blast, to be distributed by
the Higher Relief Committee.
Lebanon’s police arrest parents of abandoned baby
Rawad Taha, Al Arabiya English/ Wednesday 03 February 2021
Lebanon’s police have arrested the parents of a child who died after abandoning
their baby in the suburbs of Beirut over their "illegitimate relationship."The
body of the baby was found dumped between the trees on a secondary road in the
locality of Khaldeh, according to a statement from the General Directorate of
Internal Security Forces Public Relations Division. The body was transported to
one of the government hospitals in the region. “Through investigations, it was
found that the child was born in a hospital in the southern suburbs of Beirut.
It was also found that the parents took the lead in throwing the child as he was
a result of an illegitimate relationship,” the statement added. The statement
added that the parents were a 23-year-old Syrian national mother and a
28-year-old Syrian national father.
8 Lebanese Freed by UAE Arrive in Beirut
Naharnet/February02/021
A Middle East Airlines plane carrying eight Lebanese released by the UAE landed
Tuesday at Beirut’s Rafik Hariri International Airport, state-run National News
Agency said. TV footage showed emotional reunions between the returnees and
their families at the airport. The former detainees did not speak to journalists
after arriving in Beirut and some relatives rushed to cover the returnees' heads
with pieces of clothes to conceal their faces from cameras. NNA identified the
eight men as Nader Khalil, Hassan Husseini, Mohammed al-Husseini, Maher al-Zein,
Zaher al-Zein, Ali Mukhadder, Hassan Zreiq and Hussein Zreiq. General Security
chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim, who led a two-year mediation for the release of
the Lebanese citizens, had announced Monday that ten of them would arrive in
Lebanon on Tuesday. One was released and flown home on Sunday.It was not
immediately clear why they had been detained. But with Gulf nations rocked by
tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the UAE has in recent years expelled or
sentenced to jail dozens of Lebanese Shiites over alleged ties to Hizbullah, a
Tehran-backed Lebanese group Abu Dhabi classifies as a "terrorist" organization.
Another 15 Lebanese will remain in the UAE facing trial, Ibrahim has said.
Amnesty International reported on May 15, 2019 that an Emirati court had that
day sentenced a Lebanese man to life imprisonment and two compatriots to 10
years in prison on charges of planning attacks on behalf of Hizbullah. Emirati
state news agency WAM reported on the same date that the Abu Dhabi Federal
Appeal Court sentenced "three Arab nationals" to life and two others to 10 years
in a case involving charges against 11 people of "forming a terror cell
affiliated to Hizbullah in Lebanon, as well as planning acts of terrorism."
Eight of the accused were Lebanese citizens resident in the United Arab Emirates
for more than 15 years, seven of them as employees of Dubai-based airline
Emirates, Amnesty said. They were arrested between December 2017 and February
2018 and put on trial under terrorism charges. Since 2011, Ibrahim has
repeatedly interceded to release Lebanese and non-Lebanese detainees from
foreign countries, including in neighboring war-torn Syria and in Iran.
Diab Chairs Meeting on Rationalization of Subsidies
Naharnet/February02/021
Caretaker Prime Minister Hassan Diab chaired a meeting on Tuesday of the
inter-ministerial committee on the rationalization of subsidies of goods, the
National News Agency reported. The meeting was held in the presence of Ministers
Zeina Akar, Ghazi Wazni, Raoul Nehme, Imad Hoballah, Raymond Ghajar, Hamad
Hassan, and Abbas Mortada, in addition to Secretary-General of the Council of
Ministers Mahmoud Makkieh, and PM’s Advisor, Khodor Taleb. The meeting
deliberated on the subsidy program and relevant proposed scenarios, said NNA.
The Central Bank is expected to end subsidies on the imports of fuel, wheat and
medicine. Since the local currency’s collapse, the bank has been using its
depleting reserves to support imports of fuel, wheat and medicine. Lebanon is
grappling with an unprecedented and worsening economic crisis that pushed many
Lebanese into poverty. A plan to stop subsidies on basic goods would aggravate
the economic crisis even more, and leave a large part of the population unable
to secure their basic needs.
The Tripoli uprising is a signpost for Lebanon’s future
Makram Rabah/Al Arabiya/February 02/2021
As one of the longest inhabited cities on the Mediterranean basin, Tripoli,
Lebanon’s second biggest city, has attracted much attention lately as the return
of protests and riots on its streets have raised fears, and aspirations, that
the popular revolution that broke out in November 2019 has been resurrected.
The Tripoli uprising is not merely a cry against poverty and hunger, but rather
a clear signpost to where the popular revolution should go next, and an equally
important experiment to draw out Lebanon’s oligarchs, who look at these
movements as an opportunity to exploit to their advantage – rather than a clear
wakeup call for immediate reform. Over the past year, the total collapse of
Lebanon’s economy coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic has devasted Tripoli and
led its youthful, unemployed, and highly illiterate population over the edge,
the majority of which have lately taken to the streets to demand a better life.
Branded as one of the poorest cities in the region, Tripoli’s unemployment and
poverty rates are dangerously indicative of the rage on the streets, as years of
conscious neglect by its local and national political elite has left the city
and its people open to exploitation by different political actors bent on using
the streets to serve their respective political agendas. With the outbreak of
the Syrian revolution in 2011, Tripoli, with its Sunni majority, became part of
the regional feud, with Saad al-Hariri and the pro-Iranian Alawite minority
transforming this once peaceful city to a virtual war zone, and dividing it
along strict sectarian lines.
The recent protests have been viewed by some with reservations and fear as many
worry that that these popular and just movements were in fact triggered or
masterminded by the traditional political establishment – mainly between
President Michel Aoun and prime minister-designate Saad al-Hariri who are caught
up in a fierce confrontation over the formation of Lebanon’s next cabinet.
People also suspect that Hariri’s older brother, Bahaa Hariri, who has clearly
clashed with Saad over his appeasement of Hezbollah, has played an active role
in the protests turned riots, an allegation which the elder Hariri has denied.
Hezbollah also equally believed to have a stake in the ongoing protests through
his small, yet effective, local paramilitary groups with the aim of putting more
pressure on Saad Hariri to concede to Aoun’s unrealistic demands and swiftly
form the government.
Yet all these reservations and speculations, even if warranted, do not really
change much about the Tripoli uprising, but merely reaffirm to the wider public
the futility of engaging the current political establishment in any talks or to
hope for any semblance of reform from them. In the same respect the rioting
which has broken out, and the attacks against the Lebanese army, security
forces, and government buildings, is nothing short of normal, given that these
young men have not only been driven to the wretchedness of poverty, but more
dangerously their dignity and humanity has been taken away from them.
Rather than fixating on why Tripoli has awakened, it is more advantageous to try
and understand where these violent protests are heading, and to what extent the
political establishment and Hezbollah would go to suppress these voices, and use
the violence and rioting as a scarecrow to prevent other regions across Lebanon
to follow suit.
With the transition into the Biden administration and the revitalization of the
French initiative of President Emmanuel Macron, Lebanon’s political elite are
scrambling to ensure that they are not left out of any future political
compromise. Macron’s recent statements of his commitment to resume his
initiative and visit Lebanon for the third time since the August 4 port
explosion in Beirut, makes Tripoli even more important, as this underprivileged
city can prevent a regional and international compromise which might come at the
expense of the Lebanese.
For the longest time, Tripoli has been a victim of the Lebanese clientelist
system and its oligarchs which have only looked the city and its inhabitants as
votes at the ballot boxes or as simply guns to use for sectarian violence.
Even if the voice of Tripoli’s people are momentarily silenced by regional and
international initiatives, such as the approach the French are peddling, this
should in no way lead one to assume that Lebanon’s endemic crisis is over, but
rather that it is in an induced political coma which will require more than a
miracle to overcome.
Coping With the Coronavirus/Interview With Professor Salim
Adib
Micheal Young/Carnegie MEC/Febrauary 02/2021
In an interview, Salim Adib discusses Lebanon’s management of Covid-19, and
expresses some hope for the future.
Professor Salim Adib is a medically-trained epidemiologist who obtained a
doctorate of public health in 1991 from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Between 2010 and 2012, he was manager of the Public Health Department of the
Emirate of Abu Dhabi. In 2013, he served as a Professional International Expert
for the Non-Communicable Diseases Department of the World Health Organization
East Mediterranean Regional Office in Cairo. Adib was the International
Epidemiological Association’s council member for the Middle East and North
Africa from 2014 to 2021, and has been on the executive council of the
Association of Francophone Epidemiologists since 2017. He is now a professor of
public health practice at the American University of Beirut. In 2017, he
cofounded the Lebanese social democratic reformist party Sabaa (www.sabaa.org),
in which he currently serves as shadow cabinet Prime Minister. Diwan interviewed
Adib in late January to get his perspective on the Covid-19 crisis in Lebanon.
Michael Young: How would you assess Lebanon’s national strategy to combat
Covid-19?
Salim Adib: The strategy Lebanon has adopted has gone through two distinct
periods. The first one started with the first report of a confirmed Covid-19
case in late February 2020, and the second began in May 2020 and is still
ongoing.
During the first phase, the magnitude of the epidemic was still relatively
limited, characterized by dissemination in well-defined clusters centered around
cases brought by travelers to the country. The government responded through a
series of radical measures that included the total closure of all land and air
travel into Lebanon. This first phase was crowned with relative success.
Thereafter, a triumphal attitude overtook the government, and the airport was
reopened in a chaotic way around the end of May 2020. From that point on, the
response became erratic, incoherent, emotion-led, and marked by largely
unjustifiable measures. Risk areas such as the healthcare system’s response or
the fragile surveillance system were not addressed, allowing the situation to
spiral out of control. Lebanon’s financial bankruptcy and the explosion at
Beirut Port last August 4 made things worse. It is by sheer luck that the
epidemic has remained within relatively moderate dimensions and seems to be
slowly moving toward a favorable outcome.
MY: Lebanese hospitals are being overwhelmed by people suffering from the virus,
which many say justifies a tight lockdown. Yet there are growing protests in the
country, particularly among the poorer segments of the population, against the
latest lockdown that prevents them from earning a living. What would be a
solution to this dilemma?
SA: Even under normal circumstances, no government can enforce a global lockdown
without preparing a social safety net as a contingency for those who will find
themselves in great distress. This has simply not happened. It may be argued
that social protection is not possible given Lebanon’s dire financial
circumstances. An alternative would have been to work with the various economic
sectors to define safety conditions under which some businesses could continue
to function and to maintain a modicum of economic activity. That too did not
happen. The government suspended annual taxes that nobody would have paid
anyway, but did not attempt to limit inflation by reducing extravagant public
spending. Children are forced into online home schooling, but no help has been
provided to poorer families to ensure online access for their children. Social
deprivation is a clear and present danger that the vulnerable population
understands better than it does a hypothetical threat from a virus. Not
addressing this sense of deprivation is a recipe for unrest.
MY: Does Lebanon have any body that collects and analyzes data on Covid-19?
SA: The body that is supposed to collect data about the epidemic is the
Epidemiological Surveillance Unit at the Ministry of Public Health. However,
from the very beginning of the epidemic, data have also been collected by the
World Health Organization’s office in Lebanon, the Emergency Coordination
Department under the Office of the Prime Minister, and the Lebanese Red Cross.
The datasets collected have often overlapped and contradicted each other on some
items, while completing each other on others. The validity of all these
datasets, or their finality, was never seriously checked. None of these
governmental agencies runs meaningful analyses of the data. Stakeholders using
the data for epidemiological analysis and projections noticed an erosion of
quality as the number of cases increased and the epidemic persisted. As of
today, all the analyses are estimations based on educated opinions.
MY: Has it been a good decision to close schools, given that studies have shown
that children are unlikely to be severely affected by Covid-19, and actually can
serve as a barrier to the virus in society if they catch it?
SA: Closing schools would have been justified while schools were being
refurbished and staff trained to ensure a minimal probability of viral
transmission in class. Instead, schools were closed with no further steps taken.
The educational inequity resulting from this situation was never discussed.
Closing schools simply meant that poorer schoolchildren were going to miss years
of studies, while those from richer families had all the means available to
follow online courses, while also being able to afford private tutoring at home.
MY: Lebanon is planning to distribute the Pfizer vaccine and has taken measures
that include setting up a website to register those who want to take it. How
would you characterize this vaccine selection process?
SA: The Ministry of Public Health has set up a commission to oversee the vaccine
procurement process. This commission has presented a vaccination plan that reads
like a list of subtitles drawn from a World Health Organization template. The
whole document does not attempt to estimate the number of persons expected to be
prioritized for vaccination. It has no set timetable based on secured contracts.
The budget needed to run the process—from buying vaccines to importing and
distributing them—has not been secured. The issues of cold preservation of
vaccines, their safe storage, the agreements passed with vaccination centers,
the special considerations concerning the elderly are all discussed vaguely and
evasively.
If past behavior can help predict the future, the first batches secured through
public funds will eventually reach Beirut, only to be distributed rapidly to
members of the political class and their henchmen. The rest of the population
will be left to its own devices, to buy privately imported vaccines at market
prices rigged by the big drug importers. Fortunately, by then herd immunity
would have reached the needed threshold to stop the circulation of the virus.
MY: How do you see the progression of the disease in the coming months?
SA: Following the viral dissemination generated by a chaotic summer season, the
aftermath of the port disaster, and the festive Christmas season, a new peak of
cases was reached in the first half of January 2021. The crest seemed to have
been reached at around the end of January. A major effort by all private
hospitals is slowly but surely absorbing the surge in cases requiring in-patient
care. The case-fatality rate is still less than 1 per 1,000, despite the rising
number of deaths. It is estimated that by now 30 percent of the Lebanese
population has been exposed and has recovered from Covid-19, thus gaining a more
or less important level of immunity.
With more stringent restrictions on international flights, the slow but still
growing rate of persons obtaining vaccination through personal means, and the
increasing rate of naturally immunized persons, it is very likely that a 50–60
percent threshold needed to stop the infection in Lebanon will be reached by the
end of March. Only renewed blunders from the amateurs in the government, which
is supposed to be managing the crisis, can prolong this ordeal to the summer of
2021.
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on February 02- 03/2021
Iran's Zarif: If Iran wanted, we would already have a
nuclear weapon
Jerusalem Post/February 02/2021
Zarif said that the uranium enriched by the Islamic republic could immediately
be scaled back to comply with the nuclear deal if the US lifts sanctions. If
Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, it would have built one already, Iranian Foreign
Minister Javad Zarif said in an interview with CNN published Tuesday.
“If we wanted to build a nuclear weapon, we could have done it some time ago,”
he told Christiane Amanpour. “But we decided that nuclear weapons are not, would
not augment our security and are in contradiction to our, eh, ideological views.
And that is why we never pursued nuclear weapons.”
On Monday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told NBC if Iran violated
additional restrictions included in the 2015 nuclear deal, it could obtain
enough fissionable material for a bomb within “a matter of weeks.”The uranium
enriched by Iran could immediately be scaled back to comply with the nuclear
deal if the US lifts sanctions, Zarif said. “Eight thousand pounds of enriched
uranium can go back to the previous amount in less than a day,” he said.
President Joe Biden’s administration has a “limited window of opportunity” to
reenter the 2015 nuclear agreement, Zarif said. “The time for the United States
to come back to the nuclear agreement is not unlimited,” he said. “The United
States has a limited window of opportunity, because President Biden does not
want to portray himself as trying to take advantage of the failed policies of
the former Trump administration.” European Union foreign policy chief Josep
Borrell can “sort of choreograph the actions that are needed to be taken by the
United States and the actions that are needed to be taken by Iran,” Zarif told
CNN. “There can be a mechanism to basically either synchronize it or coordinate
what can be done,” he said when asked how to bridge the gap between Washington
and Tehran. Each government wants the other to resume compliance first.
*Reuters contributed to this report.
How long till Iran builds a bomb? US, Israel disagree
The Arab Weekly/February 02/2021
WASHINGTON--Israel’s energy minister said on Tuesday it would take Iran around
six months to produce enough fissile material for a single nuclear weapon, a
timeline almost twice as long as that anticipated by a senior member of the
administration of US President Joe Biden. Israel is wary of the Biden
administration’s intent to reenter the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal and has long
opposed the agreement. Washington argues that the former US President Donald
Trump’s withdrawal from the deal backfired by prompting Iran to abandon caps on
nuclear activities. Speaking last month a day before he took office as US
secretary of state, Antony Blinken said that the so-called “breakout time” — in
which Iran might ramp up enrichment of uranium to bomb-fuel purity — “has gone
from beyond a year (under the deal) to about three or four months.” He said he
based his comments on information in public reporting. But Israeli Energy
Minister Yuval Steinitz, in a radio interview, said the Trump administration
“seriously damaged Iran’s nuclear project and entire force build-up.”“In terms
of enrichment, they (Iranians) are in a situation of breaking out in around half
a year if they do everything required,” he told public broadcaster Kan. “As for
nuclear weaponry, the range is around one or two years.”Iran, which denies
seeking nuclear weaponry, has recently accelerated its breaches of the deal,
which it started violating in 2019 in response to the US withdrawal and
reimposition of sanctions against it. The last quarterly estimates by the UN
nuclear watchdog in November show that Iran’s stock of enriched uranium had
risen to 2.4 tonnes, more than 10 times the amount allowed under the deal but
still a fraction of the more than eight tonnes it had before. Since then, Iran
has started enriching uranium to higher purity, returning to the 20% it achieved
before the deal from a previous maximum of 4.5%. The deal sets a limit of 3.67%,
far below the 90% that is weapons grade.
Iran launches satellite-carrying rocket, fuels concerns
The Arab Weekly/February 02/2021
TEHRAN— Iranian state TV on Monday aired the launch of the country’s newest
satellite-carrying rocket, which it said was able to reach a height of 500
kilometres. Although Iran has always claimed its satellite program and its
nuclear activities are aimed at civilian applications, Western countries have
long been suspicious of the program because the same technology can be used to
develop long-range missiles, especially Tehran has invested in a full fledged
ballistic missile program. The footage of the solid-liquid-fueled rocket showed
the launch taking place during daytime in a desert environment. The report did
not say when or where the launch happened. The rocket, named Zuljanah for the
horse of Imam Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, did not launch a
satellite into orbit. The satellite carrier is 25.5 metres long and weighs 52
tons. Ahmad Hosseini, spokesman for the Defense Ministry’s space department,
which oversaw the launch, said the rocket is capable of carrying either a single
220-kilogramme satellite or up to 10 smaller ones. He said the test helped Iran
achieve its “most powerful” rocket engine and that the rocket can be launched
using a mobile launching pad. State TV said the three-stage rocket uses solid
fuel in the first and second stages and fluid fuel in the third. In the past,
Iran has used various fluid-fuel satellite carrier rockets to put smaller
devices into orbit. Last year, the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard said it used
a Qased, or “Messenger,” satellite carrier to put its Noor satellite into space.
Iran often coordinates its tests of new military and scientific projects with
national holidays, to maximise the propaganda value of such tests. It will
celebrate the 42nd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution later in February.
Explained: Two sides of the debate over the new US Iran
envoy Robert Malley
Yaghoub Fazeli, Al Arabiya English/Tuesday 02 February 2021
Robert Malley, a former top Iran adviser in President Barack Obama’s
administration, has been appointed as US envoy to Iran, the White House
confirmed on Friday. His appointment drew mixed reactions. Malley served on the
Obama team that negotiated the Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint
Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) - an agreement that former President Donald
Trump abandoned in 2018, imposing crippling sanctions on Tehran as part of his
“maximum pressure” campaign. Most recently, Malley served as president and CEO
of the Washington-based International Crisis Group, a non-profit organization
focused on global conflict. On Jan. 20, the Jewish Insider reported that Malley
was being considered for a position as special envoy on Iran, sparking a fierce
debate online between critics and supporters of Malley. Malley’s arrival has
been welcomed by pro-Tehran figures and proponents of the JCPOA, while Iranian
dissidents and rights activists, as well as some Republicans, have expressed
concern over the appointment. Malley’s critics say he is too lenient with the
Iranian regime and worry he would overlook Tehran’s human rights abuses in order
to reach agreements, while his supporters say he is the ideal choice for
diplomatic re-engagement with Iran.
Support for Malley
Hesamoddin Ashena, a senior advisor to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani,
welcomed reports that US President Joe Biden was considering Malley as US Iran
envoy, tweeting on Jan. 22: “Robert Malley’s possible appointment carries a
clear message about an efficient approach to resolving the conflict quickly and
effectively.”In an article published on Jan. 22, Iranian Revolutionary
Guards-affiliated news agency Tasnim described Malley’s critics as “anti-Iranian
extremists.” Reza Nasri, a Tehran-based foreign policy analyst and a supporter
of the nuclear deal, also described Malley’s critics as “anti-Iranian,” tweeting
on
Those who accuse Malley of sympathy for the Islamic Republic have no grasp of –
or no interest in – true diplomacy, which requires a level-headed understanding
of the other side’s motivations and knowledge that can only be acquired through
dialogue,” the statement, signed by former US officials, academics and
Iranian-Americans, read. They claim that Malley is the target of a coordinated
smear campaign by proponents of Trump’s “failed” Iran policy.
Malley’s critics
Critics of Malley argue that his appointment signals to Tehran that Washington’s
main priority is to rejoin the JCPOA, and that issues such as Iran’s human
rights abuses and regional activities are less of a priority for the new
administration.
On Jan. 20, a number of Iranian activists and former prisoners in Iran wrote to
Secretary of State Antony Blinken, urging him against appointing Malley as Iran
envoy. Malley’s “track record goes counter to an administration that has pledged
to promote human rights and democracy … Malley’s appointment would send a
chilling signal to the dictatorship in Iran that the United States is solely
focused on re-entering the Iran nuclear deal and ignoring its regional terror
and domestic crimes against humanity,” the letter read.
“During his tenure in the Obama administration, Mr. Malley did not engage
Iranian human rights activists nor did he seem at all interested in pursuing a
dialogue or consultation. Instead, he focused on consulting former officials of
the Islamic Republic,” the letter added.
Wang Xiyue, a Chinese-American researcher who was imprisoned in Iran from 2016
to 2019 on espionage charges, is one of the letter’s signatories.
“During my imprisonment Mr. Malley was a senior White House official. He played
no positive role in facilitating my release, a view shared by present and past
hostages and their families. If he is appointed, it’d suggest releasing US
hostages from Iran won’t be a priority,” he wrote on Twitter.
6. During my imprisonment Mr. Malley was a senior White House official. He
played no positive role in facilitating my release, a view shared by present and
past hostages and their families. If he is appointed, it’d suggest releasing US
hostages from Iran won’t be a priority.
— Xiyue Wang (@XiyueWang9) January 22, 2021
“More importantly, Malley’s appointment will convey to Tehran that Sec.
Blinken’s principled remarks on strengthening the JCPOA, working with regional
partners, and standing up for human rights in Iran were merely empty words,”
Xiyue added.
One Iranian dissident said endorsements for Malley from within Iran are cause
for concern.
“When higher echelons of power in Iran approve of Malley’s appointment, there’s
indeed reason to be worried about,” Vahid Yucesoy, a researcher on Iran and
Turkey at the University of Montreal, wrote on Twitter, referring to Ashena’s
tweet on Malley.
“The Biden administration had promised to prioritize human rights in its Middle
East policy. Malley’s appointment means appeasement of dictators, not human
rights,” Yucesoy added.
Israel sees 6-month Iran nuclear breakout, longer than
Blinken projection
Reuters/February 02/2021
Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz said the Trump administration "seriously damaged
Iran's nuclear project and entire force build-up."Israel's energy minister said
on Tuesday it would take Iran around six months to produce enough fissile
material for a single nuclear weapon, a timeline almost twice as long as that
anticipated by a senior member of the Biden administration. Israel is wary of
the administration's intent to reenter the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal and has
long opposed the agreement. Washington argues that the previous Trump
administration's withdrawal from the deal backfired by prompting Iran to abandon
caps on nuclear activities. Speaking last month a day before he took office as
US secretary of state, Antony Blinken said that the so-called "breakout time" -
in which Iran might ramp up enrichment of uranium to bomb-fuel purity - "has
gone from beyond a year (under the deal) to about three or four months." He said
he based his comments on information in public reporting. But Energy Minister
Yuval Steinitz, in a radio interview, said the Trump administration "seriously
damaged Iran's nuclear project and entire force build-up.""In terms of
enrichment, [the Iranians] are in a situation of breaking out in around half a
year if they do everything required," he told public broadcaster Kan. "As for
nuclear weaponry, the range is around one or two years." Iran, which denies
seeking nuclear weaponry, has recently accelerated its breaches of the deal,
which it started violating in 2019 in response to the US withdrawal and
reimposition of sanctions against it. The last quarterly estimates by the UN
nuclear watchdog in November show that Iran's stock of enriched uranium had
risen to 2.4 tonnes, more than 10 times the amount allowed under the deal but
still a fraction of the more than eight tonnes it had before. Since then Iran
has started enriching uranium to higher purity, returning to the 20% it achieved
before the deal from a previous maximum of 4.5%. The deal sets a limit of 3.67%,
far below the 90% that is weapons grade.
Israel PM Netanyahu plans three-hour visit to UAE and
‘lightning’ trip to Bahrain
Reuters/Tuesday 02 February 2021
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday he planned to pay a
three-hour visit next week to the United Arab Emirates and perhaps to Bahrain,
two countries that established formal ties with Israel last year. Asked in a
news briefing whether he would go ahead with a UAE visit next week despite the
health crisis in Israel, Netanyahu said in remarks streamed live on his Twitter
page: “We postponed the visit ... twice because of (coronavirus) lockdowns. “It
has great security, national and international importance, but it has been
shortened, at my request, from three days to three hours.”Netanyahu said he
would travel to Abu Dhabi and would also “possibly make a lightning visit to
Bahrain” during the brief trip. He did not give a specific date but Israeli
media reports said he would make the trip on Feb. 9.
Government, IDF working on budget for potential Iran strike plan - report
Jerusalem Post/February 02/2021
On Wednesday, the security cabinet is set to meet to discuss tensions with
Tehran, including concerns that the US could return to the JCPOA nuclear deal.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi, the
Finance and Defense ministers and financial and military officials took part in
a large meeting at the Prime Minister's Office on Monday to discuss the budget
required for a potential strike on Iran if it is deemed necessary, according to
KAN news. The meeting comes less than a week after Kochavi stated that he had
ordered operational plans to strike Iran’s nuclear program to be ready if
necessary, but whether to use those plans and under what circumstances was a
decision for the political echelon. On Sunday afternoon, the security cabinet is
set to meet to discuss tensions with Iran, including concerns that the US could
return to the JCPOA nuclear deal. It will be the first meeting of the security
cabinet in more than a month and since Joe Biden was sworn in as president on
January 20. Kochavi warned last week that a return to the 2015 deal with Iran
would allow the Islamic Republic to break out to a nuclear weapon in 2030 when
the agreement expires.
Additionally on Monday, KAN news reported that a planned Iranian terrorist
attack on an Israeli embassy in east Africa was recently thwarted. Iran
reportedly had sent agents to a country in east Africa to collect intelligence
on the Israeli, American and UAE embassies in order to explore carrying out
attacks against them. Some of the agents were European citizens with Iranian
dual citizenship. A number of the agents were reportedly arrested in the African
country and in other countries. The attacks were reportedly meant to serve as
revenge for the assassinations of former Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds
Force commander Qassem Soleimani and Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen
Fakhrizadeh. The news comes just days after an explosion occurred next to the
Israeli embassy in New Delhi, India. No injuries were reported in the incident.
A letter found at the site reportedly warned that "the explosion is just a
trailer for what's coming." A previously-unknown terrorist organization called
Jaish-ul-Hind, affiliated with Iran, took responsibility for the attack.
*Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.
Iran increased enrichment capacity of centrifuges at Natanz:
IAEA
Reuters/Dubai Tuesday 02 February 2021
Iran has deepened a key breach of its 2015 nuclear deal, enriching uranium with
a larger number of advanced centrifuge machines in an underground plant as it
faces off with the new US administration on salvaging the accord. Tehran has
recently accelerated its breaches of the deal, raising pressure on US President
Joe Biden as both sides say they are willing to come back into compliance with
the badly eroded agreement if the other side moves first. Iran began its
breaches in 2019 in response to Washington’s withdrawal in 2018 under
then-President Donald Trump and the reimposition of US economic sanctions
against Tehran that were lifted under the deal. The accord says Iran can refine
uranium only at its main enrichment site - an underground plant at Natanz - with
first-generation IR-1 centrifuges. Last year Iran began enriching there with a
cascade, or cluster, of much more efficient IR-2m machines and in December said
it would install three more. “Iran has completed the installation of one of
these three cascades, containing 174 IR-2m centrifuges, and, on 30 January 2021,
Iran began feeding the cascade with UF6,” the International Atomic Energy Agency
said in a report obtained by Reuters on Tuesday, referring to uranium
hexafluoride feedstock. The IAEA later confirmed that the Islamic Republic had
started enriching with the second cascade. Tehran is also pressing ahead with
the installation of more advanced centrifuges, the report indicated. Of the
remaining two cascades of IR-2m machines, installation of one had begun while
the other’s installation was “nearing completion”, it said. Iran’s ambassador to
the IAEA, Kazem Gharibabadi, said on Twitter Tehran had also started installing
IR-6 centrifuges at Fordow, a site dug into a mountain where Iran has begun
enriching uranium to the 20 percent purity it last achieved before the 2015
deal. The IAEA report made no mention of that. Earlier on Tuesday Israel’s
energy minister said it would now take Iran about six months to produce enough
fissile material for one nuclear weapon, a timeline almost twice as long as that
anticipated by a senior Biden administration official.
Iran denies any intent to weaponize enrichment. The nuclear deal sets a limit of
3.67 percent enrichment purity, suitable for producing civilian nuclear energy
and far below the 90 percent that is weapons-grade.
Turkey, US Security Advisers Hold First Talks since Biden
Inauguration
Asharq Al-Awsat/February02/021
Top advisers for Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and US President Joe
Biden spoke on the phone on Tuesday, marking the first official contact between
the two countries since Biden took office. Erdogan’s Chief Foreign Policy
Adviser Ibrahim Kalin and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan discussed
issues regarding Syria, Libya, the eastern Mediterranean, Cyprus and
Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkey’s official news agency Anadolu reported. Kalin told
Sullivan that joint efforts were needed to find a solution to present
disagreements between the countries such as Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400
defense systems, and the United States’ support for Kurdish militia groups in
northern Syria, Anadolu said. In December, Washington imposed long-anticipated
sanctions on Ankara over its acquisition of the Russian-made S-400 defense
systems, a move Turkey called a “grave mistake”. It also removed Turkey, a NATO
ally, from its F-35 fighter jet program as a result. Washington says the S-400s
pose a threat to its F-35 fighter jets and to NATO’s broader defense systems.
Turkey rejects this, saying S-400s will not be integrated into NATO, and has
offered to form a joint working group to examine the conflicting claims.Ankara
says its purchase of the S-400s was not a choice, but rather a necessity as it
was unable to procure missile defenses from other NATO allies with satisfactory
conditions.
UN Libya Forum Starts Voting for Country's Interim
Presidency Council
Asharq Al-Awsat/February02/021
Participants in UN Libya talks in Switzerland cast votes on Tuesday for a new
national presidency council to create a transitional government to oversee
national elections in December, although no immediate winners emerged.
Candidates included the head of Libya’s eastern-based House of Representatives,
Aguila Saleh, and Osama Juwaili, a Government of National Accord (GNA) military
commander in the west. The candidates for the three-person council must now
consult with others to form regional lists which include nominees for prime
minister before voting can resume.
Attempts to form a temporary government by the talks’ 75 participants, chosen by
the UN last year to represent different strands of Libyan politics, is part of
Libya’s biggest peacemaking effort in years. But while the UN has hailed the
progress as “positive”, praising the list of candidates as long and diverse,
many Libyans remain skeptical after previous diplomatic efforts collapsed, and
as key ceasefire terms remain unmet. Some fear that losers in the process will
violently reject it, that the transitional leaders will refuse to cede control
once installed or that foreign powers will sabotage the process to defend their
own interests. The latest round of diplomacy accelerated after Khalifa Haftar’s
eastern-based Libyan National Army (LNA) was beaten back from its 14-month
assault on Tripoli, seat of the GNA, which is backed by Turkey. Candidates for
both the presidency council and the prime minister submitted to live, televised
questioning before the votes and pledged not to stand in the December elections
if selected. The presidency council will act as a temporary head of state with
the power to oversee the army, declare states of emergency and take decisions on
war and peace in consultation with the parliament. It will also run a national
reconciliation process. The prime minister will form a new government for
approval by the parliament, prepare a unified budget, oversee a roadmap to
elections and decide on the structure and management of state bodies and
institutions. Candidates for that job include the GNA’s Interior Minister Fathi
Bashagha and Defense Minister Salah al-Namroush.
Arab League, African Union Look Forward to Next Joint
Summit in Saudi Arabia
Cairo/Asharq Al-Awsat/February02/021
Secretary-General of the Arab League Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Chairperson of the
African Union Commission (AUC) Moussa Faki co-chaired on Monday the ninth
meeting of the Arab-African Cooperation in the League’s headquarters in Cairo.
They followed up the implementation of the decisions issued by the 2016
Arab-African summit in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, and the resulting joint action
plans. Monday’s meeting was held in preparations for the upcoming fifth
Arab-African summit, which will be hosted by Saudi Arabia. Kings and heads of
states and governments are expected to take part in the event.
“We highly appreciate the efforts exerted by the Arab League and the AUC to
follow up on the implementation of the outcomes of the 2016 Arab-African summit,
as well as the preparations for the next summit in Riyadh, despite the
challenges imposed by the coronavirus pandemic,” Aboul Gheit said.
“We remain keen on moving forward with this joint work to overcome all
obstacles,” he added. “We look forward to the continued coordination with the
AUC and the next summit’s host country to agree on its proposed date and various
preparations, hoping the conditions will us to resume the efforts exerted before
the pandemic,” he added. Aboul Gheit and Faki reviewed means to “enhance
bilateral coordination and complementary work to resolve crises and address the
multiple challenges in the Arab-African area.” They also agreed to upgrade the
level of bilateral partnership and develop existing work programs in various
political, economic, social and cultural fields. According to an Arab League
official source, both officials discussed several methods to support Libyan
parties to reach a political settlement and maintain the current ceasefire. They
further discussed means to support the political transition process in Sudan,
consolidate the Juba Peace Agreement signed between the government and armed
movements and support the state in its efforts to improve the economy, the
official’s statement read. The statement pointed out that Aboul Gheit and Faki
tackled ways to intensify Arab-African support for the federal government in
Somalia and assist it in its efforts to restore stability and security
throughout its territories as it prepares to hold elections. They also discussed
other regional issues of common interest, including the border crisis between
Sudan and Ethiopia and the African Union-sponsored talks between Egypt, Ethiopia
and Sudan on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD).
UN Envoy to Iraq Slammed over Visit to Tehran
Baghdad - Fadhel al-Nashmi/Asharq Al-Awsat/February02/021
Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Iraq Jeanine
Hennis-Plasschaert is facing a fierce wave of criticism over her latest two-day
visit to Tehran. Many are demanding her sacking and accusing the UN mission of
validating election fraud in the Levantine country. Despite the United Nations
Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) office in Baghdad confirming to Asharq Al-Awsat
that it operates private bureaus in Tehran and other neighboring countries,
observers noted that Plasschaert’s visit to Tehran has stirred doubts about the
nature of the role played by the mission. Local media and critics in Baghdad are
questioning whether or not UNAMI’s work should involve visiting Iraq’s regional
neighbors. UNAMI said it runs offices across the region because of the great
influence geopolitics has over Iraq. Plasschaert met with Hossein Amir
Abdollahian, Special Assistant to the Iranian Parliament’s Speaker and Director
General of International Affairs of the Parliament. She also held talks with Ali
Akbar Velayati, senior advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Velayati,
according to IRNA, stressed to Plasschaert that foreign powers should not
interfere with Iraq’s internal affairs and predicted Baghdad and Tehran
developing bilateral ties. “We are very optimistic about the future of Iraq, and
relations between Iran and Iraq will witness many developments,” Velayati said.
“The upcoming elections will be decisive for Iraq,” he noted. Plasschaert, for
her part, emphasized the need to preserve Iraqi unity and hold free elections.
“The situation in Iraq is better than it was in the past,” said Plasschaert,
adding that Iraq enjoys cultural, economic and historical capabilities that must
be activated. Iraqi lawmaker and member of the parliamentary foreign relations
committee Dhafer Al-Ani slammed Plasschaert for discussing Iraqi elections in
Iran. “There is no party that matches UNAMI in the way it validated fraud,
corruption, and interference in the Iraqi elections,” Al-Ani tweeted.
“The removal of the United Nations from the Iraqi elections makes it fairer,” he
added.
Sudan’s Communist Party Demands Exclusion of Military
Figures from Sovereign Council
Khartoum - Mohammed Amin Yassin/Asharq Al-Awsat/February02/021
Sudan’s Communist Party escalated its political position against the government,
demanding the exclusion of military figures from the Transitional Sovereign
Council and the formation of a new transitional authority that includes civilian
forces. Intense consultations are underway between ruling partners to declare a
new government on Thursday. Head of the Transitional Sovereign Council Lt. Gen.
Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan had threatened to form an emergency cabinet amid the
political deadlock, prompting leading member of the Communist Party Sidqi
Kabbalo to declare that he does not have the right to make such a move.
Burhan’s comments were leaked from a meeting he held on Sunday with the Council
of Transition Partners (CTP). During a press conference on Monday, Kabbalo
stressed that neither the constitutional document nor any other reference allow
Burhan to form an emergency cabinet.
The Communist Party had withdrawn from the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC)
coalition in November. It also stopped supporting the transitional government
that was formed in line with the constitutional document that was approved by
the party along with civilian forces.
Kabbalo announced that the Party’s Central Committee decided to support the
transitional government’s ouster. It also agreed to review and amend the
constitutional document to keep military figures, represented by the military
command, out of the Transitional Sovereign Council.
It agreed to the formation of a sovereign council and a cabinet comprised only
of civilian figures, he added. “We will not support this government because it
has deviated from the principles of the December 2019 revolution,” he stressed.
“The Party will seek to establish a broad political coalition that includes the
revolutionary forces with the aim to revoke the 2021 fiscal budget and
consequently oust the current government,” he stated. Leading member of the
Communist Party Ahmed Hamed said that the increase in military spending in the
budget depletes the country’s resources and favors the control of military
figures over rule and thwarts the rise of a full civil state. Meanwhile,
representatives of the FFC and Umma Party handed on Sunday Prime Minister
Abdalla Hamdok their list of candidates for the new cabinet.
FFC Central Council member Ahmed Hadara told Asharq Al-Awsat that the government
will be formed on time.
KSA Bars Entry from 20 Nations Including Lebanon
Agence France Presse/February 02/2021
Saudi Arabia on Tuesday suspended entry from 20 countries, ranging from some
neighboring states to the United States, in a bid to curb a jump in coronavirus
infections. The interior ministry announced the "temporary suspension" would be
effective from 9.00 pm (1800 GMT) on Wednesday, according to the official Saudi
Press Agency. The ban applies to neighboring Egypt and the United Arab Emirates,
and in the wider region, to Lebanon and Turkey. In Europe, the ban includes
Britain, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland.
Elsewhere, as well as the U.S., it applies to Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan,
India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan and South Africa. Saudi citizens, as well as
diplomats and health workers coming from those countries, will be allowed to
enter the kingdom "in accordance with the precautionary measures," it added. The
announcement comes after Saudi's health minister Tawfiq al-Rabiah warned on
Sunday that new coronavirus restrictions could be imposed if citizens and
residents do not comply with health restrictions. Saudi Arabia has reported more
than 368,000 coronavirus cases and nearly 6,400 deaths, the highest among Gulf
Arab states. Daily infections dipped below 100 in early January, from a peak of
nearly 5,000 last June. However, new daily infections have tripled since then,
with 310 cases reported by the health ministry on Tuesday. Saudi Arabia launched
its coronavirus vaccination campaign on December 17 after receiving the first
shipment of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The health ministry said the program
would roll out in three phases, starting with people over 65 and those with
chronic ailments, or who are at high risk of infection. But last month the
ministry said it was forced to slow the rollout due to a delay in vaccine
deliveries.
Trump 'Singularly Responsible' for Riot, Impeachment Trial
Brief Says
Agence France Presse/February 02/2021
Donald Trump was "singularly responsible" for the deadly U.S. Capitol riot last
month and acquitting the former president could damage American democracy,
lawmakers leading the impeachment case said Tuesday, a week before his Senate
trial begins. Trump became the first U.S. president in history to be impeached
twice when the House of Representatives charged him last month with inciting the
mayhem inflicted by his followers when they invaded Congress on January 6. In a
pre-trial brief, the House impeachment managers made their case for the Senate
to convict, saying the American people should be protected "against a president
who provokes violence to subvert our democracy." Trump's impeachment was
triggered by a speech he delivered to a crowd on the National Mall just before
the riot, telling them that Joe Biden had stolen the presidential election and
that they needed to march on Congress and show "strength." The mob stormed the
Capitol, fatally wounded one police officer, wrecked furniture and forced
terrified lawmakers to hide, interrupting a ceremony to put the legal stamp on
Biden's victory. The nine impeachment managers, all Democrats, argued in their
sweeping 77-page document that Trump's speech had whipped the crowd into a
"frenzy." Trump, they said, "is singularly responsible for the violence and
destruction" during the riot that left five people dead and threatened the lives
of lawmakers and vice president Mike Pence. "In a grievous betrayal of his oath
of office, President Trump incited a violent mob to attack the United States
Capitol," wrote the lawmakers, led by congressman Jamie Raskin. "If provoking an
insurrectionary riot against a joint session of Congress after losing an
election is not an impeachable offense, it is hard to imagine what would be,"
the brief states. Failure to convict Trump "would embolden future leaders to
attempt to retain power by any and all means -- and would suggest that there is
no line a president cannot cross."
No 'January Exception' -
Although Trump was impeached on January 13, his term ended a week later --
before the beginning of the Senate trial.
"The present proceedings are moot and thus a nullity since the 45th president
cannot be removed from an office he no longer occupies," Trump lawyers Bruce
Castor and David Schoen wrote in their own brief outlining the case for the
defense. They also said Trump's speech in Washington, and his repeated refusal
to accept the election results, amounted to protected free speech. "The
president exercised his First Amendment right under the Constitution to express
his belief that the election results were suspect," the lawyers wrote. Democrats
rejected outright the reasoning that Trump cannot be tried once out of office.
"There is no 'January Exception' to impeachment or any other provision of the
Constitution," they wrote, adding that a president must answer for his conduct
in office "from his first day in office through his last." They point to
multiple videos -- expected to be used as evidence in the trial -- which they
say show Trump inciting the crowd to commit violence, and show rioters chanting
"Hang Mike Pence!" and hunting for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Trump spent much
of his time after the November 3 vote claiming that the election was stolen
through massive fraud.
Dozens of courts in multiple states found the argument baseless. But impeachment
managers argued that Trump's constant promoting of the unfounded accusations
that the election was stolen fueled his supporters into backing efforts to
overturn the election. When those efforts failed, the Democrats wrote, Trump
"summoned a mob to Washington, exhorted them into a frenzy, and aimed them like
a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue." The Senate's 100 members take up the
impeachment trial on February 9, and it is expected to last at least one week.
Democrats acknowledge that a conviction is unlikely. With the chamber evenly
split 50-50, Democrats would need at least 17 Republicans to break with Trump in
order to surpass the two-thirds threshold necessary for conviction. Should that
occur, a subsequent vote would be held, with a simple majority required to ban
Trump from holding public office in the future.
The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources
published
on February 02- 03/2021
Purported militant groups claim responsibility for blast
near Israeli embassy
Joe Truzman/ FDD's Long War Journal/February 02/2021
Two unknown militant groups ‘SarAllah India Hezbollah’ and ‘Jaish ul-Hind’ have
claimed responsibility for a blast near the Israeli embassy in New Delhi on
Friday. According to local reports, an improvised explosive device (IED)
detonated outside the Israeli embassy late Friday afternoon causing damage to
several vehicles parked in the vicinity of the blast. Investigators at the site
of the attack found a handwritten letter addressed to the Israeli ambassador to
India claiming credit for the assault by a group identifying itself as ‘SarAllah
India Hezbollah’. “To the terrorist, devil of terrorist nation Dr. Ron Malka.
This is just a trailer presented to you, that we can observe you.. Mind it, all
the participants and partners of Israelian terrorist ideology will be no more in
existence. Now get ready for a big and better revenge of our heros; Martyr Qasem
Soleimani, Martyr Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Dr. Mohsin Fakhrizadeh (sic),” the
statement said. Additionally, following the blast, jihadist social media
channels published a message by a second militant group identifying itself as
‘Jaish ul-Hind’ also claiming responsibility for the strike. “A strike in the
heart of Delhi. By the grace and help of Almighty Allah, soilders of the Jaish
ul Hind were able to infiltrate a high security area in Delhi and carryout an
IED attack. This Allah willing is the beginning of a series of attacks which
would target major Indian cities and pay back in kind to the atrocities
committed by the Indian state. Wait and we too are waiting (sic),” the message
stated.
Questionable claims by unknown groups. Although it is common for militant groups
to publish statements taking credit for an attack, these particular claims are
suspicious and lack the professionalism usually found in statements made by
established groups. For instance, the ‘Jaish ul-Hind’ statement doesn’t mention
the embassy, and emphasized ‘atrocities’ committed by India, not Israel.
Furthermore, the ‘SarAllah India Hezbollah’ statement also raises doubts due to
the poor grammar contained in the letter. However, it is worth noting that the
group’s name is a common Shi’ite title that has been used by Iranian-backed
groups in Bahrain and Iraq. Adding to the likelihood this assault was not
carried out by an established group like Hezbollah, local media reported the
bomb used in the strike was ‘very basic in nature’ and ‘did not appear to be the
creation of an expert bomb maker’.
Indian authorities continue to investigate the offensive and have yet to
officially disclose if the attack was perpetrated by an Iranian-backed group, or
if this was an assault by a local militant organization attempting to make a
name for itself.
*Joe Truzman is a contributor to FDD's Long War Journal.
Iran blinks again and again on 'redlines' - analysis
Yonah Jeremy Bob/Jerusalem Post/February 02/2021
In a Monday night interview with CNN, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif made
his latest shift.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif may be getting dizzy from continually
blinking and dropping "redline" positions to keep up with the Biden
administration's at least partially tougher line with Tehran as compared to the
Obama administration.
In a Monday night interview with CNN, Zarif made his latest shift.
After demanding that the US first return to the nuclear deal, end sanctions and
pay the Islamic Republic compensation for sanctions before he would commit to
ending nuclear violations, Zarif made it clear that he would drop that
requirement.
Zarif discussed the 2015 nuclear deal coordinator advertising a sequencing of
reciprocal moves by both sides to return to compliance over time.
Maybe even more significantly, Zarif suggested for the second time that Tehran
would be open to withdrawing its involvement in Yemen in exchange for an end to
Saudi Arabian and US involvement there.
Although this has come up before, usually the Saudis have been offering this and
Iran has made vague statements, trying to avoid any commitments to America about
its aggression in the Middle East.
However, after hearing repeated statements from US Secretary of State Anthony
Blinken, including this week and last week – as well as by US National Security
Advisor Jake Sullivan on Friday and other statements – the Islamic Republic may
be realizing that, whether as part of the 2015 deal or a follow-on deal, it will
not be able to act with a free hand in the region as it did after the deal
during the Obama administration.
Latest articles from Jpost
Before US President Joe Biden took office, Tehran made threats about a major
escalation if there was no deal by February 2. February 2 has now come and gone.
Their next "deadline" is February 21, when their parliament has obligated to
kick out IAEA inspectors if the US has not thrown in the towel.
But Zarif and other Iranian officials have already muddied the waters about that
threat, saying either it is not binding, that maybe they would only make a small
symbolic reduction in IAEA cooperation while keeping most inspections in place,
or that they might make some sort of technical opt out of certain cooperation,
but keeping it going on the ground based on multiple nuclear obligations they
have beyond the 2015 deal. The US for its part seems certain not to make any
major concessions – or not to implement the concessions even if some principles
are agreed to – before the March 23 Israeli election when they will have a
better idea about who they are dealing with in Jerusalem. The real interim
deadline for at least agreeing to a process for both Tehran and Washington to
start returning to the deal is more likely the Iranian elections in June. Even
that date is likely only to be interim, since the US will likely not remove all
sanctions before it also knows who it will be dealing with in Tehran
post-elections. One other issue to keep an eye on is Zarif's repeated attempts,
including in a recent article and again with CNN on Monday, to separate Yemen –
and possibly even some concessions in Iraq – from the Lebanon-Syria-Israel
front. The Islamic Republic may be more willing to tone down some activities in
Yemen and even Iraq than with this triangle. What is clear is that Zarif is
desperate to break apart the Israel-Saudi alliance. And it is unclear whether
the US and the Saudis will let him do so. But in the meantime, there has been
some success in calling Iran’s bluffs.
Denmark: "Our Goal is Zero Asylum Seekers"
Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute./February 02/2021
"Our goal is zero asylum seekers. We cannot promise zero asylum seekers, but we
can establish the vision for a new asylum system, and then do what we can to
implement it. We must be careful that not too many people come to our country,
otherwise our social cohesion cannot exist. It is already being challenged." —
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.
"Unfortunately, I believe that the easing will result in an increase in the
number of asylum seekers in Denmark once the Covid-19 crisis is over. We can
only look at the Canary Islands, which is now being flooded with refugees. The
question is whether we will experience a new migration crisis, similar to the
one in 2015, when the corona crisis is over." — Pia Kjærsgaard, MP, Danish
People's Party.
"The fight against Islamism is about the survival of the welfare state. Denmark
must not adapt to Islam. Islam must adapt to Denmark." — Danish Immigration
Minister Mattias Tesfaye.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has announced that her government
intends to significantly limit the number of people seeking asylum in Denmark.
Pictured: Danish police conduct spot checks on incoming traffic from Germany, at
the A7 highway border crossing on January 6, 2016 near Padborg, Denmark, in an
effort to stem the arrival of refugees and migrants.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has announced that her government
intends to significantly limit the number of people seeking asylum in Denmark.
The aim, she said, is to preserve "social cohesion" in the country.
Frederiksen's comments, which many have welcomed, and others have dismissed as
empty promises, are the latest salvo in a long-running debate about
multiculturalism and the role of Islam in Danish society.
Denmark, which has a population of 5.8 million, received approximately 40,000
asylum applications during the past five years, according to data compiled by
Statista. Most of the applications received by Denmark, a predominately Lutheran
country, were from migrants from Muslim countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle
East.
In recent years, Denmark has also permitted significant non-asylum immigration,
especially from non-Western countries. Denmark is now home to sizeable immigrant
communities from Syria (35,536); Turkey (33,111); Iraq (21,840); Iran (17,195);
Pakistan (14,471); Afghanistan (13,864); Lebanon (12,990) and Somalia (11,282),
according to Statista.
Muslims currently comprise approximately 5.5% of the Danish population,
according to the Pew Research Center. Under a "zero migration scenario," the
Muslim population is projected to reach 7.6% by 2050; with a "medium migration
scenario," it is forecast to hit 11.9% by 2050; and under a "high migration
scenario," Muslims are expected to comprise 16% of the Danish population by
2050, according to Pew.
As in other European countries, mass migration has resulted in increased crime
and social tension. Danish cities have been plagued by shootings, car burnings
and gang violence. The increase in crime prompted the U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen
to issue a security alert due to spiraling gun violence in the Danish capital.
On January 22, during a parliamentary hearing on Danish immigration policy,
Frederiksen, a Social Democrat, said that she was determined to reduce the
number of asylum approvals:
"Our goal is zero asylum seekers. We cannot promise zero asylum seekers, but we
can establish the vision for a new asylum system, and then do what we can to
implement it. We must be careful that not too many people come to our country,
otherwise our social cohesion cannot exist. It is already being challenged."
Frederiksen, who has been prime minister since June 2019, also said that
"politicians of the past" were "thoroughly wrong" for failing to insist that
migrants must integrate into Danish society.
Pia Kjærsgaard, a long-time member of the Danish People's Party who is well
known for her opposition to multiculturalism, countered that Frederiksen had
actually implemented a series of measures to ease, not tighten, immigration
policy:
Frederiksen agreed to allow refugees to remain in Denmark as long as they have a
job.
She agreed to allow asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected to
remain in Denmark.
She agreed to EU-mandated annual refugee quotas.
She removed the residence requirement for entitlement to unemployment benefits.
She introduced a new child allowance that, according to Kjærsgaard,
overwhelmingly goes to immigrant families.
Kjærsgaard told parliament that the government's leniency risked sparking
another migration crisis:
"The Social Democrats have eased immigration policy, and I think that is a pity,
because we agree on foreign policy in many areas. Unfortunately, I believe that
the easing will result in an increase in the number of asylum seekers in Denmark
once the Covid-19 crisis is over. We can only look at the Canary Islands, which
is now being flooded with refugees. The question is whether we will experience a
new migration crisis, similar to the one in 2015, when the corona crisis is
over."
The Danish People's Party, in a statement, added:
"We note that, after decades of efforts, immigration to Denmark, especially by
refugees and through refugee family reunifications, has been reduced. At the
same time, we note that society is in many respects negatively affected by this
immigration, which changes our country forever. We therefore note the need to
establish that refugees and their families must return to their home countries
whenever possible, and that the legislation and the efforts by authorities in
Denmark must actively support this.
"We further state that Danish immigration policy since 1983 has meant that too
many people with a Muslim background live here who cannot or will not adopt
Danish values and traditions but will maintain values that are miles away
from the Danish ones and that challenge Denmark culturally, religiously, in
terms of employment, economics and security.
"We therefore call on the government to take initiatives that encourage refugees
living here with their families to return home as soon as possible."
On January 21, Immigration Minister Mattias Tesfaye, in an interview with
Jyllands-Posten, stressed that immigration policy is an important component of a
larger struggle of values:
"A large part of Islam in Denmark today is represented by extremists. The fight
against Islamism is about the survival of the welfare state. Denmark must not
adapt to Islam. Islam must adapt to Denmark."
In recent years, Denmark has announced a number of measures aimed at promoting
integration and discouraging mass migration.
In January 2021, for instance, the Danish government introduced draft
legislation requiring all sermons and homilies preached in places of worship to
be translated into Danish. The move was immediately criticized by both
Protestants and Catholics as discriminatory and potentially unconstitutional.
Thomas B. Mikkelsen, chairman of the Evangelical Alliance Denmark, said:
"The law aims to protect our community from the growth of radical Islamism, but
the law will probably not be effective in that regard. Radical groups tend to
establish themselves on the margins, in a parallel society, and never apply for
official recognition. I do not think a new law will affect them in any way."
Anna Mirijam Kaschner, spokeswoman for the Nordic Bishops' Conference, said:
"This law is directed primarily at Muslims — its proponents say they want to
prevent parallel societies and things being preached which no one else
understands and could be used for radicalization and calls for terror. But all
church congregations, Jewish congregations, everything we have here in Denmark —
40 different religious communities — will be placed under general suspicion by
this law....
"This law is only the latest in a long series of control measures by the state.
It will have no consequences for radical Muslim religious communities, since
they're not even recognized here, but it will affect smaller communities,
including the Catholic church."
In October 2020, the government proposed a new Repatriation Law to ensure that
more rejected asylum seekers were sent home. At least 1,100 rejected asylum
seekers in Denmark do not have the right to reside in the country, and more than
200 rejected asylum seekers have remained Denmark for a more than five years.
The measures include paying failed asylum seekers 20,000 Danish kroner (€2,700;
$3,600) to leave the country.
In September 2020, the government created a new ambassadorial post and a task
force to work to establish migrant reception centers in third countries outside
of the European Union — in Libya, Tunisia or Morocco.
Also in September 2020, the government proposed an amendment to the Foreigners'
Citizenship Act that would deny Danish citizenship to Danish jihadists —
so-called foreign fighters. Cabinet Minister Kaare Dybvad said:
"The government will go to great lengths to prevent foreign fighters who have
turned their backs on Denmark from returning to Denmark. We are talking about
men and women who have committed or supported outrageous crimes. Therefore, it
must also be possible in the future to deprive them of their citizenship."
In June 2018, the Danish Parliament approved a ban on Islamic full-face veils in
public spaces. The law, sponsored by the center-right government in power at the
time, and backed by the Social Democrats and the Danish People's Party, passed
by 75 votes to 30. Anyone found wearing a burka (which covers the entire face)
or a niqab (which covers the entire face except for the eyes) in public in
Denmark is subject to a fine of 1,000 Danish kroner (€134; $163); repeat
offenders could be fined 10,000 Danish kroner. In addition, anyone found to be
requiring a person through force or threats to wear garments that cover the face
could be fined or face up to two years in prison.
Muslims greeted the new law with defiance: A dozen women dressed in burkas and
niqabs sat in the visitor's gallery at the parliament in Copenhagen. One of them
said: "Under no circumstances will I compromise my principles."
Then-Justice Minister Søren Pape Poulsen responded that "some people do not want
to be a part of Danish society and want to create parallel societies with their
own norms and rules." This, he added, proved the need for a burka ban: "We want
to live in a society where we can see each other in the eyes. Where we see each
other's faces in an open democracy. As Danes, this is the way we must be
together."
In January 2016, the Danish Parliament adopted several measures aimed at
reducing the number of asylum seekers arriving in Denmark:
The reintroduction of the requirement that only refugees with the highest
potential for integration into Danish society be accepted.
An increase in time requirement to three years for family reunifications for
asylum seekers.
An increase in time requirement before the awarding of permanent residency
status.
Additional integration requirements, including the ability to prove language
skills, before permanent residency can be attained.
Permanent and temporary residency status were made easier to lose.
The introduction of fees to apply for family reunification and to convert
temporary residence permit to permanent residence permit.
A 10% reduction in economic aid to asylum seekers.
Police were given power to confiscate from asylum seekers items of value to
support the cost of their stay.
Asylum seekers were required to live in special housing centers.
Meanwhile, former Danish Immigration Minister Inger Støjberg, who gained
notoriety in the previous government for her role in writing the rules above,
which are among the most restrictive in all of the 27-member European Union, now
faces a federal lawsuit for illegally ordering the separation of underage asylum
seekers.
In February 2016, Støjberg, who served as minister from 2015 to 2019, ordered
that all asylum-seeking couples be separated if one or both of members of the
couple were under age 18. The rule was to be implemented without exception, even
if the females were pregnant.
Støjberg, of the center-right Liberal Party, said that her decision to separate
couples was based on a January 2016 article by Berlingske, a national daily
newspaper, which reported that so-called child brides were being accommodated in
Danish asylum shelters. She said that she was motivated by the desire to protect
girls from being forced into marriage before they are adults.
In a May 2016 Facebook post, Støjberg wrote that she intervened after
discovering that a 16-year-old Syrian "child bride" was cohabitating in a Danish
asylum shelter with a 50-year-old man. Støjberg's multicultural critics accused
her of fabricating the story.
Under Danish law, each couple's situation must be assessed on a case-by-case
basis. Støjberg's blanket order to separate all underage couples — which
affected a total of 23 couples — was deemed unlawful by a parliamentary
ombudsman after an unidentified Syrian couple complained.
The ombudsman reported that at least 34 underage girls, roughly half of whom
were pregnant, were found to be cohabitating with adult men in Danish asylum
shelters.
The evidence suggests that while Støjberg's order to separate couples under the
age of 18 may have been technically unlawful, it does appear that the legal
actions being taken against her are motivated by a political vendetta against
someone who has had the courage to take politically incorrect action against the
abuses of mass migration.
On January 24, in her final speech as vice president of the Liberal Party,
Støjberg was unapologetic:
"The Liberal Party must deliver a clear, credible and strict foreign policy. It
requires that we also dare to say and do the things that are not only right but
controversial. Not only in words but also in action. It requires that we do not
back down because the left wing and all those with politically correct attitudes
are upset.
"We must not forget for even one second that we are in a struggle of values
every single day."
*Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.
© 2021 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No
part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied
or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
The Risk of Nuclear Cataclysm Is Increasing
Andreas Kluth/Bloomberg./February 02/2021
The world can breathe a small sigh of relief this week. The last remaining arms
control treaty between the US and Russia, called New START, will not expire on
Feb. 5 after all, as recently feared.
In the nick of time, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered his new American
counterpart an extension of the treaty for five years, an option stipulated in
its text. Joe Biden agreed — after giving Putin the requisite talking to about
Russia’s massive cyberattack on the US, its jailing of the activist Alexey
Navalny and other recent outrages. In the short term, a new nuclear arms race
between the two biggies has thus been avoided. Sort of. But not really — and
there’s the rub. A wider glance at the world’s nuclear landscape reveals that
the danger of cataclysm, by design or accident, keeps growing.
New START only covers the stockpiles of Russian and American “strategic”
weapons. This refers to those warheads the two adversaries point at each other’s
homeland. The treaty says nothing about “tactical” nukes, the more flexible and
usually smaller warheads built for potential use in a war zone to win or avoid
losing a conventional conflict. But in that tactical category an arms race is
already underway. Both the US and Russia, in the name of upgrading their
arsenals, have been designing new tactical nukes and deployment technologies.
These include things that were science-fiction during the Cold War, such as
nukes delivered by drones from submarines. This race is thus fundamentally
different from the one between the US and the Soviet Union. Back then the
contest ultimately came down to a count of each side’s warheads. What ultimately
stabilized that competition was the macabre but compelling logic of deterrence
through “mutual assured destruction” (MAD)
Today’s competition is instead between newfangled technologies and, crucially,
the military strategies thus made possible. This multiplication of scenarios and
permutations undermines traditional calculations of strategy, which were largely
based on the tools of game theory developed during the Cold War.
One upshot is that it’s becoming even more important for all nine of the nuclear
powers to “signal” their “postures,” in the jargon. They should explain their
intentions and make themselves as predictable as possible to others.
And yet the most recent such signaling was hardly reassuring. In Article 4 of
its Basic Principles issued last summer, Russia asserts that one purpose of its
nuclear arsenal is “the prevention of an escalation of military actions and
their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation.”
Translated, this wording suggests that Russia could respond to a conventional
conflict with a tactical nuclear strike, as opposed to reserving nukes purely
for retaliation in kind. But that makes any altercation potentially explosive in
the fissile sense. A conflict could, for instance, start with hybrid warfare (of
the sort Russia used in its 2014 annexation of Crimea), or with cyberwar (as
waged during last year’s Russian hack of some 18,000 US computer systems) or
with a strike in space against an adversary’s satellites. If the conflagration
escalates and becomes “unacceptable,” the next step could be nukes. And then?
The first strike would still detonate somewhere — perhaps in the Baltic region,
according to one hypothetical conflict between Russia and NATO. For the local
population that would be far from “tactical,” and indeed terminal. It would also
demand a response from the alliance.
But should that response be a nuclear counterstrike? At what scale? Against
Russian forces, or a city? Moreover, how would Russia, in this hypothetical
scenario, react to this “limited” NATO counterstrike? With missiles flying at
supersonic speeds, all involved would have at most minutes to decide.
To make the global matrix even more complex, there are also the other seven
nuclear powers to consider, and perhaps additional ones in future. Of these
North Korea may appear to be the most unhinged. But China is the most ambitious.
It could have 350 warheads already, according to some estimates. The Pentagon
assumes China will double its arsenal in the coming decade.
China is the main reason why the US and Russia couldn’t agree on properly
renegotiating New START. Donald Trump, Biden’s predecessor, insisted on bringing
Beijing into the talks. The Chinese refused. Sarcastically, they wondered aloud
whether the Americans and Russians would prefer to let China raise its arsenal
to their size or to cut their own down to China’s.
That makes for a good press-conference zinger in Beijing. But it won’t help
humanity get to grips with its conundrum: More actors are getting more weapons
with more technological and tactical applications. The risk that somebody,
somewhere pulls a trigger, intentionally or inadvertently, keeps rising.
In a gesture of global protest against this insanity, 86 non-nuclear countries
have signed a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, with a goal of
totally banning these satanic arms. It took effect on Jan. 22. But these —
mainly smaller and poorer — states don’t hold the future in their hands.
The big nuclear powers do. They must put their daunting other differences aside
and begin comprehensive talks to prevent the worst. And the best placed to
extend the invitation is the leader who’s newest in office, and yet has the most
experience with disarmament: Biden.
Biden’s Dance with Iran
Robert Ford/Asharq Al-Awsat/February02/021
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/95507/robert-ford-bidens-dance-with-iran-%d8%b1%d9%88%d8%a8%d8%b1%d8%aa-%d9%81%d9%88%d8%b1%d8%af-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d9%8a%d8%af%d9%86-%d9%88%d8%b5%d8%b9%d9%88%d8%a8%d8%a9-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b1%d9%82%d8%b5/
President Biden appointing Robert Malley as his special envoy for Iran is a
clear sign negotiations with Iran are coming. It is worth noting that Biden’s
national security advisor Jake Sullivan on January 29 said that re-establishing
the 2015 nuclear agreement is urgent. I worked with Jake in Hillary Clinton’s
State Department, and he is careful to reflect the thinking of his boss. Malley
and Sullivan consider that the first negotiations with Iran must focus on
returning to the nuclear agreement. Negotiations about other issues, like Iran’s
missile program and its behavior in the region, should come later. Secretary of
State Blinken also called for using a return to the agreement as a launching
point for negotiating other issues with Iran.
But there is a huge first question: how to return to the agreement? Blinken
stated that first Iran must stop all its violations of the deal. That would mean
that Iran must reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, it must stop its
advanced centrifuge program and it must stop enriching uranium more than 3.67
percent (it now aims at 20 percent). According to Blinken, the International
Atomic Energy Agency must verify these Iranian actions before Washington would
cancel the sanctions President Trump reimposed.
Not surprisingly, Teheran insists that Washington take the first step and cancel
the Trump actions and also pay compensation for the economic damage American
sanctions caused before Teheran returns to compliance with the agreement terms.
It’s impossible to imagine American compensation to Iran. The real question is
this: will removing sanctions come first or Iran’s concrete steps to return its
nuclear program to the 2015 conditions? Some observers noticed that in
Sullivan’s remarks on January 29 he didn’t say that Iran must take the first
step.
Before it goes far, Washington will consult with allies in Europe and the Middle
East before it decides its strategy. However, there is one plan about the next
Iran steps that you can read now on the internet from the International Crisis
Group published on January 15. Malley was the director of the organization until
January 29 and he worked for them for years before and after his time in the
Obama administration. The January 15 report emphasizes the lack of trust between
Washington and Teheran worse than the suspicions of 2013-2015 and therefore it
recommends a step-by-step agreement in four phases.
In the first phase, Washington and Europe would take confidence-building
measures, such as financial aid for Iran from the International Monetary Fund
and the Europeans to finance medical and humanitarian imports. Washington in the
first phase would remove Iranian negotiators, such as Mohamed Javad Zarif from
the American sanctions list. Iran in return would release western prisoners.
The next phase in the spring this year would be negotiations among the 2015
agreement countries about a timetable for Iran to stop its violations of the
pact step-by-step in return for the Biden administration removing the Trump
sanctions step-by-step. The report mentions the role of the International Atomic
Energy Agency to verify Iranian actions. The January 15 report suggests that the
European Union in this second phase begin encouraging European companies to do
business in Iran.
After all the countries return to their commitments of the 2015 agreement, then
Washington and its allies could begin a third phase to talk to the Iranians
about some regional issues. Yemen would be the best choice, according to the
report.
Finally, the fourth phase would begin after the election of the new Iranian
president in June, and the negotiations at that time would begin to cover issues
like extending limitations on the Iran nuclear program, Iran’s missile program
and its intervention in the region.
The International Crisis Group is not part of the Biden administration, and the
decision about negotiation strategy will come from Biden personally. The
Republican Party and many Democrats reject completely negotiation with Iran.
They demand to continue the maximum pressure campaign against Teheran until it
makes concessions on its nuclear program, its missile program and its regional
intervention all together.
Leading the rejection camp is Republican Senator Tom Cotton, who will be a
candidate in the 2024 presidential election. Cotton warned Biden not to appoint
Malley but Biden ignored him. Biden may open a channel to Iran in the next
weeks, but there is a big difference between talking and taking concrete steps.
If Biden approves financial aid to Iran from the International Monetary Fund and
Europe without any Iranian reciprocal steps, he will confront sharp criticisms
from both political parties in Congress. All new presidents lose political
influence with time, but Biden risks a fast drop in his influence and a risk to
his domestic agenda if he appears weak in negotiations with Iran.
*Robert Ford/Robert Ford is a former US ambassador to Syria and Algeria and a
senior fellow at the Middle East Institute for Near East Policy in Washington
A confused US administration in the face of Iran
Khairallah Khairallah/The Arab Weekly/February 02/2021
Those who hear testimonies of senior US officials, including Secretary of State
Antony Blinken, get the impression that the Biden administration is willing to
return to the Iran nuclear agreement.
Confirming his desire to return to the agreement, Biden appointed Robert Malley,
or Rob Malley, as those close to him call him, in charge of the Iran file.
Malley, who pretends to be a leftist and does not hide his sympathy for the
Iranian and Syrian regimes, as well as Hezbollah and Hamas, will work with the
foreign minister and report directly to him.
The Iran nuclear agreement was signed in the summer of 2015 under President
Barack Obama.
Blinken and Malley played a role in secret negotiations that led to the
agreement that the P5+1 signed with Iran — that is, the five permanent members
of the UN Security Council and Germany.
But the US’s desire to return to the agreement that former President Donald
Trump tore up in 2018 is linked to other factors that the new US secretary of
state himself spoke of at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Among those factors is the need for the agreement to be made more comprehensive
and broad, and for other countries in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and
Israel, to participate.
A more comprehensive deal means that any agreement with Iran should address its
behaviour in the region — that is, its expansionist project, the ballistic
missiles it possesses and the unmanned aircraft it has used on several occasions
directly or via its proxy militias.
Will Malley implement this US policy, which takes into account the fact that the
situation in the entire region has changed since 2015, including Iran’s use of
the money it received from the Obama administration, after signing the nuclear
agreement to lend support to its sectarian militias in the region?
This is the big question, especially given that everything published by the
International Crisis Group, a non-governmental organisation headed by Malley,
indicates that the man toes a pro-Iran line and nothing less, especially since
his main goal was to defend the nuclear agreement on the one hand and criticise
everything the Trump administration did on the other hand.
His positions are that the Iran agreement was beneficial and that everything the
Trump administration did was bad, including imposing “maximum pressure”
sanctions on the “Islamic Republic.”
Regardless of the path Malley pursues, the question is to what extent he will
wield influence over the new administration, which will soon find out for itself
that is faces new realities.
First of all, if these facts show that the sanctions imposed by the Trump
administration on Iran have worked, will the US administration ignore them, as
well as the fact that the region in 2021 is not the same as in 2015 and that the
US sanctions have revealed that Iran is a paper tiger?
Most of all, there are the Iranian missiles. Missiles are as dangerous as the
Iranian nuclear programme. In the final analysis, if Iran possesses all the
nuclear bombs it wants, the question remains, what will it do with them?
As for Iranian missiles, these were used on several occasions, most recently the
bombing of Aden airport a few weeks ago.
Aden airport was severely hit by missiles fired from the Taiz area — that is,
from a distance of more than 100km by air, at a time when a civilian plane
carrying members of the new Yemeni government was landing at the airport.
Moreover, the Houthis fire Iranian missiles from time to time towards Saudi
territory.
Before that, in September 2019, Iranian missiles struck Saudi Aramco facilities
in the Abqaiq region in the kingdom. This temporarily disrupted Saudi oil
exports.
Sooner or later, it will be necessary to deal with an issue called Iranian
missiles. Nobody knows what the attitude of officials in the new US
administration will be in this regard.
However, it is certain that none of the theories advanced by Malley will help
achieve any progress in transforming Iran into a normal state that cares about
the affairs and welfare of its people instead of exporting its crises outside
its borders.
Certainly, handing over the Iranian file to someone like Malley does not inspire
confidence. Rather, it raises questions about the Biden administration’s modus
operandi and its ability to build on, rather than reject, what the Trump
administration achieved.
In 2000, Malley co-signed an article in the New York Review of Books justifying
the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s position at the Camp David summit
which brought him together with then US President Bill Clinton and then Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
The argument adopted by Malley was that Barak did not offer Arafat anything and
that the Palestinian president bears no responsibility for the failure of the
tripartite summit.
This is not true. It should have been said that the Israeli prime minister did
not provide Arafat at the time with very much. The Palestinian leader, however,
was supposed to engage in give and take instead of pushing Clinton to despair of
him and end up recommending to his successor, George W. Bush, to stop any
dealings with Abu Ammar.
People like Malley have harmed the Palestinian cause. He harmed it, knowingly or
not. Was he well intentioned or not? Nobody knows, but all he did at the time
was was contribute to taking the Palestinian leader close to the abyss and
causing a break between him and Washington. For all practical purposes, he
served the interests of the Israeli right.
The coming days and weeks will show whether the Biden administration has a clear
Middle East and Gulf policy or if it is a confused administration.
Does it know what Iran and its current regime is? Does it know that people like
Malley cannot change Iran’s behaviour at all?
It remains to be seen what can be done about Iranian missiles and how to put an
end to Iran’s attempts to strike at regional stability through its missiles and
its sectarian militias, whether in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, or Yemen.
Future Iran nuclear talks should include the GCC and
regional issues
Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg/Arab News/February 02, 2021
During its summit in AlUla last month, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) made
public its position on future talks with Iran, stating that any future
negotiation process should address Tehran’s regional conduct and missile program
“all in one basket” along with its nuclear program. It also stressed the need to
include GCC countries in this process.
The GCC’s concerns go far beyond the confines of the current Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) text. They are related to the overall scope of the 2015
agreement and its exclusion of key actors that are immediately affected by it.
While it is exceedingly important to close the gaps in the old text, Iran’s
missile program is equally worrisome, especially as the regime has beefed up its
arsenal with cruise missiles, drones and new generations of ballistic missiles.
For the region, the most immediate threat is Iran’s regional conduct, i.e.,
supporting sectarian militias regionally and all types of terrorists globally.
In addition, there is an urgent need to address the environmental risks
associated with Iran’s nuclear program, even if it were non-military. Some of
its nuclear reactors are built or planned along earthquake fault lines. Japan’s
Fukushima disaster demonstrated the risk earthquakes pose to nuclear
installations. The Bushehr nuclear facility is only 200 km from major population
centers in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If nuclear effluents pollute Gulf waters, it
could spell disaster for desalination plants.
All of these issues are urgent and need to be addressed in the talks with Iran:
Its rush to acquire military nuclear capability, a runaway missile program,
expanding rogue regional activities, and nuclear safety. There appears to be a
regional and global consensus that any future talks should have a wider scope to
include most of these issues. There is also a growing consensus to include
regional actors, although no agreement yet on the shape of that participation.
Most of the JCPOA’s original participants have voiced support for widening the
scope and participation of any new talks. US President Joe Biden has said that,
if Iran returns to compliance with the agreement, Washington would rejoin and
then seek to build a broader pact to also deal with Iran’s development of
ballistic missiles and support for proxy forces in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and
elsewhere. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser
Jake Sullivan have also made similar comments.
French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday told Al-Arabiya TV that Saudi Arabia
should be involved in any new negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program.
He cautioned against repeating the mistake of excluding the countries of the
region, other than Iran, from discussions when the 2015 deal was negotiated. He
added that talks with Tehran would be very “strict” and warned that little time
remains to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon.
Germany also believes that the 2015 JCPOA is no longer enough and needs an
overhaul, calling for a broader accord to rein in Tehran’s ballistic missile
program and its regional activities. Foreign Minister Heiko Maas in December
told Der Spiegel: “A form of ‘nuclear agreement plus’ is needed, which also lies
in our interest.” He added: “We have clear expectations for Iran: No nuclear
weapons, but also no ballistic rocket program which threatens the whole region.
Iran must also play another role in the region … We need this accord because we
distrust Iran.”
France, Germany and the UK are in talks with the US to coordinate their
positions on modalities for the resumption and scope of the talks. UN
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has also voiced support, saying: “The matter
is progressively moving toward a situation where we can have an agreement that
is essential for peace and stability in the Gulf and the world … I believe that
everyone, all those who entered the JCPOA and other interested parties, must
work together to reduce uncertainties, to face difficulties and obstacles.”
Iran has voiced opposition to both widening the scope of the talks and including
other regional actors. This opposition contradicts its own pronouncements about
the need for dialogue with its neighbors. President Hassan Rouhani has publicly
expressed and sent missives suggesting that Iran and the GCC countries turn a
new page and start talking about their differences.
It is not yet clear where Russia and China stand on the agenda of the future
talks or regional participation. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif last week
visited Russia, but there was no mention of this issue in the public statements
made during his trip. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a Jan. 26
joint press conference with Zarif: “Particularly we discussed cooperation on
construction of new power units of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant in Iran,” as
well as trade, economic, energy, agriculture, transport and industrial fields.
While it is exceedingly important to close the gaps in the old text, Iran’s
missile program is equally worrisome.
Comments attributed to some Russian diplomats at the UN appeared to oppose
broadening the nuclear talks to include other issues, but it is not clear
whether those comments represent Russia’s final position on the subject. In
fact, Moscow has for some time advocated multilateral engagement in the Gulf,
which it has suggested should include discussions of regional issues among both
regional actors and the UN Security Council’s (UNSC) permanent members. As such,
it should see any new Iran talks as an example of the engagement it has been
advocating, most recently at the session Russia organized on Gulf security in
the UNSC during its presidency last October. At that session, China also
supported some form of regional engagement on security issues.
The US and other parties to the original JCPOA agreement should avoid its
shortcomings and its side effects. The deal was strongly opposed by regional
actors and eventually failed as a counter proliferation instrument. In addition,
the hope that it would be followed by regional de-escalation did not
materialize. In fact, it led to greater regional escalation.
*Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg is the GCC assistant secretary-general for political
affairs and negotiation, and a columnist for Arab News. The views expressed in
this piece are personal and do not necessarily represent GCC views. Twitter:
@abuhamad1
US, Iran on collision course over nuclear deal’s future
Osama Al-Sharif/Arab News/February 02, 2021
A battle of wills is developing between the new US administration and the
Iranian regime over the latter’s commitment to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement and Washington’s potential reversal of the
2018 decision to withdraw from it. The deal was never accepted by Israel, while
a number of Gulf states had expressed reservations over its shortcomings,
especially with regard to Iran’s ballistic missile program and its regional
agenda. Such reservations are now shared by France, Germany and the UK. The
Trump administration had used its “maximum pressure” policy in an effort to
force Tehran to renegotiate the agreement — a condition that Iran continues to
reject.
Early comments by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken indicate that tough
sanctions imposed by the former administration will not be lifted anytime soon,
and that Tehran will have to take the first step by reversing all actions that
breach the JCPOA’s conditions, such as its uranium enrichment activities. In
response, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and his Foreign Minister Javad Zarif
repeated earlier statements that the US should return to the deal immediately,
lift its sanctions, and that no new negotiations should take place. They have
also rejected a proposal to include other countries in fresh negotiations.
Time is of the essence, since Iran has threatened to suspend by mid-February its
commitment to the so-called additional protocol, which provides tools for
verification and increases the International Atomic Energy Agency’s ability to
verify the peaceful use of nuclear activities. That would spell the end of the
agreement altogether.
The US’ position is backed by its European allies and there are areas of common
understanding between Washington and Moscow over the need to salvage the deal.
But the US will have to convince Israel that there are no options other than
forcing Iran to recommit to the agreement. That will be a tough mission for new
US envoy to Iran Robert Malley, whose appointment stirred opposition from
Republicans and Democrats alike, in addition to Israel. Malley is a veteran
diplomat who served under the Obama administration and was one of the architects
of the nuclear agreement. Critics accuse him of backing an unconditional
settlement of the nuclear issue with Iran.
But there are no signs that the US will rejoin the deal before imposing new
conditions on Tehran. Congress is putting pressure on the Biden administration
not to lift sanctions and to stick to the demands that a new deal covering
Iran’s long-range missile program and its regional agenda be negotiated. Zarif
informed his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov last week that Iran’s
“flexibility” could end within a month if Washington does not take positive
steps in the coming two weeks.
There is a case to be made for expanding the agreement. Iran’s development of
long-range missiles has already demonstrated its danger across the region. The
UN has pointed the finger at Iran for the 2019 missile attack on Saudi oil
facilities, while the Houthis in Yemen have used Iranian missile technology to
launch attacks against civilian targets in Saudi Arabia.
Israel’s biggest security threat comes from the stockpiling of Iranian-made
missiles in both Lebanon and Syria. It wants Washington to end Iran’s presence
in Syria and to contain Hezbollah in Lebanon.
As for Iran’s controversial regional agenda, it goes without saying that Tehran
continues to meddle in Iraqi affairs, supporting Shiite militias and using the
country as a stage for its showdown with the US. Its military presence in Syria
has further complicated efforts to reach a peaceful settlement to the decade-old
civil war that has ruined the country. And its blatant support of the Houthis
has impeded UN efforts to end Yemen’s civil war and reunite the country under
civilian rule.
The stalemate over the nuclear deal may deepen as Iran prepares to hold its
presidential election in June, which analysts believe will deliver a more
hawkish leader. On the other hand, President Joe Biden’s foreign policy team
will have to navigate diplomatic hurdles both internally and abroad if it is to
reach a consensus on a valid strategy that paves the way to salvaging the
nuclear deal.
The stalemate over the nuclear deal may deepen as Iran prepares to hold its
presidential election in June.
Washington’s allies and other partners in the JCPOA criticized Donald Trump’s
unilateral withdrawal from the deal, and his policy of putting maximum pressure
on Iran in order to bring it to the table has obviously failed. In the process,
the sanctions he imposed wrecked Iran’s economy but did little to curtail the
power of the religious clique or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In fact,
the sanctions even empowered the extremists.
As things stand today, Biden’s mission to unravel the complex Iranian nuclear
challenge seems almost impossible. Israel and its lobby in Washington will make
his mission even harder. Meanwhile, as Iran inches closer to abandoning the deal
altogether, the risks for the region of such a move will be difficult to avoid.
*Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.
Twitter: @plato010
Erdogan using deniable private militias to destabilize the
Middle East
Dr. Hay Eytan Cohen Yanarocak and Dr. Jonathan Spyer/Arab News/February 02, 2021
As the US Biden administration settles into office, most of the discourse about
bad Middle Eastern actors is rightly focused on Iran. But under the cover of the
mayhem that has engulfed the region since the so-called Arab Spring, another
problematic actor has emerged that requires containment. This is President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey, which poses a challenge to its neighbors that is
compounded by the privileges and protections it enjoys as a member of NATO.
It is no secret that Erdogan’s rule has grown increasingly authoritarian over
the past decade, and especially since the failed 2016 coup, which underscored
the antipathy between the secular-rooted military and the Islamist-based regime.
To circumvent that problem, Erdogan has quietly established a network of private
militias manned entirely by fighters imported from Syria in a remarkably brazen
and cynical move. Their role is to advance his grand plan of re-establishing
influence over a region roughly overlapping the former Ottoman Empire — from the
Palestinian territories to Syria and the Caucasus to as far away as Kashmir,
according to some reports.
This structure is used both for internal repression and for off-the-grid
adventures abroad by the Turkish government. As such, it has implications both
for Middle East stability and for the future of Turkey’s struggling democracy.
In both areas, its impact is strongly negative.
Over the last five years, Turkey has launched armed interventions into northern
Syria and northern Iraq, offered support to the Hamas terror group among the
Palestinians, tussled with its Greek and Cypriot neighbors in the eastern
Mediterranean, and supplied military support to allies in Qatar, Azerbaijan and
Libya, often at the cost of instability and disruption.
In all these arenas (with the exception of the naval contest in the eastern
Mediterranean), the parallel structure created by Erdogan has played a vital
role alongside the official state security forces. Its central function has been
to provide the Turkish president with a large pool of available, organized,
trained, easily deployed and easily disposable proxy foreign manpower as a tool
of power projection, which can be used with a degree of plausible deniability.
By relying on these proxies, Erdogan seeks to minimize domestic public criticism
of his extraterritorial military campaigns. While he could justify the
mobilization of Turkish Armed Forces personnel to neighboring countries like
Syria and Iraq — for homeland security reasons — it is more challenging for him
to persuade the Turkish public to dispatch soldiers to a distant theater like
Libya.
By taking such bold moves, Erdogan provides a clear message to his constituency:
Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, is resuming its rightful
place as a regional power with influence in the empire’s traditional hinterland,
and this is the reason why rivals are seeking to destabilize it. Such a
neo-Ottoman foreign policy, which is intertwined with Islamist impulses, is also
driven by domestic concerns. Erdogan’s partnership with the Nationalist Movement
Party (MHP) naturally pushes him toward a harsher stance on the Kurdish PYD (the
Democratic Union Party in Syria) and the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in
Turkey). Similarly, this nationalist-rooted political alliance explains Turkey’s
unconditional support for the Azeris (a Turkic ethnic group) against Armenia.
This structure is used both for internal repression and for off-the-grid
adventures abroad by the Turkish government.
Dr. Hay Eytan Cohen Yanarocak and Dr. Jonathan Spyer/Arab News/February 02, 2021
So what are the components of this structure? At its core is the relationship
between Erdogan and a group of senior Turkish military officers cashiered from
the service for their support for Islamist politics, but subsequently brought
back to activity through informal channels. The 76-year-old retired Brig. Gen.
Adnan Tanriverdi, who was appointed national security adviser to Erdogan after
the coup attempt of 2016, is a pivotal figure in this relationship.
Tanriverdi, an artillery officer by background, founded the SADAT private
military consulting company in 2012 with 22 other former officers expelled from
the army for Islamist activity. SADAT, the only privately owned defense
consulting firm in Turkey, is the body centrally responsible for the Turkish
state’s widening practice of irregular and proxy warfare, and its mobilizing of
Islamist militants to serve Turkish state interests.
The pool of manpower that Turkey is exploiting is drawn entirely from one of the
most desperate populations of all: Syrian refugees, who have been forced out of
their country or are resident in the small and beleaguered Turkish-controlled
corner of northern Syria. They are flown out to the various war fronts in which
Ankara requires their engagement. They are then deployed as useful, disposable
and deniable cannon fodder.
The Turkish government also maintains relations with older paramilitary
formations such as the ultra-nationalist Grey Wolves organization. This body is
the youth wing of the MHP. It was recently banned in France and plans are
underway to ban it in Germany too.
This activity is especially nefarious when considered against the background of
the unrest that has swept through the Middle East over the last decade. One of
its key results has been the severe weakening (and in some cases the
near-disappearance) of formal state structures. In Syria, Libya, Lebanon and
Iraq, these have been replaced by a chaotic reality of militias, lawlessness,
and anarchy. The people of these countries have been the main victims. Turkey,
despite being a NATO member state, a candidate for EU membership and an
ostensible ally of the US, is currently one of the main factors maintaining and
destabilizing this situation.
This needs to end. Militias, terror groups and Islamist extremism are all
elements that the Middle East must outgrow if it is to achieve stability and
reconstruction. The paramilitary network established by Erdogan, in partnership
with the Islamist military officers of SADAT and extremists from northern Syria,
is one of the main factors preventing this possibility. The banning of the
ultra-nationalist, violent, far-right Grey Wolves in France is a good start. But
Western governments need to raise this matter in a more decisive manner with
Ankara. Erdogan’s proxies must be contained.
• Dr. Hay Eytan Cohen Yanarocak is an expert on contemporary Turkish politics
and foreign policy, Turkish-Israeli relations, and the Kurds.
• Dr. Jonathan Spyer has traveled extensively in Syria, Iraq and the Kurdish
areas and his books include “Days of the Fall: A Reporter’s Journey in the Syria
and Iraq Wars” (Routledge, December 2017).
*This op-ed is based on research initiated by the Jerusalem Institute for
Strategy and Security (JISS) and Trends in the UAE, a first joint effort toward
implementing the Abraham Accords between Israel and a number of key Arab
nations. The authors are senior researchers at JISS.