English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese,
Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For January 20/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews21/english.january20.21.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since
2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Bible Quotations For today
God will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be
blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful; by him you were
called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.”
First Letter to the Corinthians 01/01-09: “Paul, called to be an apostle of
Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God
that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be
saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:Grace to you and peace from God our
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I give thanks to my God always for you because
of the grace of God that has been given you in Christ Jesus, for in every way
you have been enriched in him, in speech and knowledge of every kind. just as
the testimony of Christ has been strengthened among you. so that you are not
lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus
Christ. He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on
the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful; by him you were called into
the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on January 19-20/2021
Lebanon Reports New Record High Virus Death Toll
Coronavirus: Lebanon doctors urge lockdown extension as infections spike
Everything you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine in Lebanon
Lebanon Doctors Urge Lockdown Extension
Asmar Says Virus Death Rate is ‘Alarming’, Urges Abidance by Rules
Report: Shortage Aggravates in Baby Milk, Medicines, 300 Pharmacies Shutdown
Lebanon bank chief denies sending $400m abroad/Najia Houssari/Arab News/January
20/2021
Aoun Calls Higher Defense Council for Urgent Meeting
Lebanon Receives Swiss Request for Cooperation on Suspected Salameh Fund
Transfers
STL Schedules Fifth Status Conference in Ayyash Case in February
'State of Our State': How Lebanon's Situations Got Worse in 2020
Strong Lebanon Bloc Calls on Hariri to 'Communicate' with Aoun
Hariri Stresses Need for Govt., Vows Continued Bid to Get Vaccines
Diab Pushes for Govt. Formation in Talks with Aoun, Berri, Hariri
Lebanon Returns Two Stolen 18th-Century Icons to Greece
Is Lebanon condemned to an endless drift or endless purgatory/Nathalie Goulet/Arab
News/January 20/2021
Lebanon’s Maronite patriarch urges Aoun to seek reconciliation
Pro-Hezbollah journalist says party cannot continue with current ties with Iran
Govt formation awaits Aoun’s position on 'reconciliation meet' with
Hariri/Hussein Dakroub/The Daily Star/January 19/2021
Lebanon: Impeach the President/Rami Rayess/Al Arabiya/Tuesday 19 January 2021
Titles For The
Latest
English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on
January 19-20/2021
Israel, Syria officials discuss
removal of Iran and its militias from Syria: Report
Gulf states, Israel demand seat at Iran nuclear deal negotiations: UAE Diplomat
US not close to rejoining Iran deal, says Biden’s pick for national intelligence
Iran sanctions US President Trump, Secretary Pompeo, other American officials
US denies involvement in alleged attack on Iraq’s Baghdad: Embassy
Explosion and fire reported at oil and gas facilities in Homs, Syria: State TV
Libya's Rivals Meet in Egyptian Resort over Constitution
Trump Decorates Bahrain King on Last Full Day in Office
Qatar Calls for Gulf Talks with Iran
Kremlin Dismisses Calls to Free Navalny, Warns against Protests
UN Calls on Israel to Stop New Settlement Construction in West Bank
Blinken Says U.S. to Seek 'Longer and Stronger' Deal with Iran
Titles For The Latest The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on January 19-20/2021
Biden needs clear strategy to end US’ tit-for-tat approach/Nadim
ShehadiI/Arab News/January 20/2021
Palestinian elections may not end the stalemate/Osama Al-Sharif /Arab
News/January 20/2021
Return to Iran Nuclear Deal Would Be Unwise/Jacob Nagel/Real Clear World/January
19/2021
Memo to President Biden: Please Don’t Mess Up the Abraham Accords/Bret
Stephens/Commentary Magazine/January 19/2021
Iran jails U.S. businessman, possibly jeopardizing Biden's plans for diplomacy
with Tehran/Dan De Luce/NBC/January 19/2021
Nuclear Extortion: Mullahs Want More Concessions from Biden/Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone
Institute/January 19/2021
The Pernicious Effects of Popular Nuclear Mythology/Stephen Blank and Peter
Huessy/Gatestone Institute/January 19/2021
The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on January 19-20/2021
Lebanon Reports New Record High Virus Death Toll
Naharnet/January 19/2021
Lebanon on Tuesday announced a new record high daily toll of 61 coronavirus
deaths, after 53 fatalities were registered on Monday. It also recorded 4,359
fresh virus cases in a 24-period, the Health Ministry said. The new fatalities
raise the overall death toll to 2,020. The fresh cases meanwhile take the
country’s overall tally since February 21 to 260,315 cases -- among them 3,667
cases detected among arriving travelers and 156,984 recoveries. The country
entered a strict 11-day lockdown last Thursday after recording a 70 percent
uptick in infections in one of the steepest increases in transmission worldwide.
Infections had skyrocketed after authorities loosened restrictions during the
holiday season, allowing restaurants and nightclubs to open late, despite
warnings from health professionals. Hospitals have struggled to cope with the
influx of new patients, with some treating cases in cars, paediatrics units and
even dining halls. The World Health Organization said Monday that the occupancy
rate for intensive care beds in hospitals across Lebanon stood at 87.4 percent,
down from 90.4 percent last week. Sleiman Haroun, head of the Syndicate of
Private Hospitals, said Tuesday that a lockdown extension is necessary.
Coronavirus: Lebanon doctors urge lockdown extension as
infections spike
AFP/ Beirut/Tuesday 19 January 2021
The head of Lebanon’s main coronavirus hospital Tuesday backed the extension of
a total lockdown to curb soaring infection figures and save a fragile healthcare
system from collapse. “Easing the lockdown cannot occur if the virus is
spreading unchecked in the community,” Firas Abiad said on social media. “The
infection is not under control.”The country of more than six million has
recorded 255,956 coronavirus cases and 1,959 deaths since its outbreak started
in February. It entered a strict 11-day lockdown last Thursday after recording a
70 percent uptick in infections in one of the steepest increases in transmission
worldwide. The lockdown, which includes a round-the-clock curfew, is expected to
last until January 25 but the health ministry on Monday announced a new high of
53 coronavirus deaths in a day. This came after Lebanon hit a new daily record
of more than 6,000 new infections on Friday. Petra Khoury of the government’s
COVID-19 taskforce told AFP that the duration of the lockdown needed to be
doubled. “We need at least three weeks of total lockdown” instead of just 11
days, she said. Infections had skyrocketed after authorities loosened
restrictions during the holiday season, allowing restaurants and nightclubs to
open late, despite warnings from health professionals. Hospitals have struggled
to cope with the influx of new patients, with some treating cases in cars,
pediatrics units and even dining halls. The World Health Organization said
Monday that the occupancy rate for intensive care beds in hospitals across
Lebanon stood at 87.4 per cent, down from 90.4 per cent last week. Sleiman
Haroun, head of the Syndicate of Private Hospitals, said a lockdown extension
was necessary. “Medical cadres are worn out and I am alarmed over the large
number of cases arriving in hospitals every day,” he told AFP.
Everything you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine in
Lebanon
Tala Ramadan, Al Arabiya English/Tuesday 19
January 2021
While governments worldwide are negotiating to acquire more vaccines or
accelerating the delivery of existing orders, Lebanon only signed its first deal
for 2.1 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine on Sunday. According to the
Ministry of Health, the vaccine doses are due to start arriving in batches,
beginning February. Lebanon finalized the agreement amid an uncontrollable surge
in cases, overwhelming the country’s health care system beyond its capacity.
Parliament approved a law last week to protect Pfizer-BioNtech and other
companies that will provide vaccines to Lebanon from any future liability claims
for two years. Given the economic crisis, how will Lebanon buy vaccines?
According to caretaker Health Minister Hamad Hassan, the World Bank gave Lebanon
credit to buy the doses developed by the US and German companies and, thus, "be
distributed in a free and fair manner."
Head Parliament’s Health Committee, MP Assem Araji, said that Lebanon had
secured a price of $18 per dose, which means that vaccinations, which require
two doses per person, will cost the country $37.8 million in total.
What is the vaccination strategy going to be? Lebanon's national health
authority unveiled its plan for vaccinating the public, with a first phase
prioritizing healthcare workers and those over the age of 75.
The second phase will target people over the age of 50, health practitioners,
and those who have asthma, diabetes, chronic heart diseases, cancer and other
critical health issues. The final stage will open for all citizens and residents
wanting to take the vaccine.
Will Lebanon rely on one vaccine?
Lebanon's president approved a payment to reserve 2.73 million doses of COVID
vaccine under the COVAX program, enough for 1,365,000 people. Along with the 2.1
million doses from Pfizer (enough for 1,050,000 people), this would cover
2,415,000 people out of a population of approximately 6 million, including at
least 1 million refugees. The Health Ministry said that another 2 million doses
were being discussed with the private sector in Lebanon and other multinational
pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines, suggesting Oxford-Astrazeneca
and China's Sinopharm. The Ministry has also reserved vaccines from US company
Johnson & Johnson, awaiting its global approval. Lebanon is currently
considering more vaccines from US-based Moderna and Russia’s Sputnik, with the
private sector's aid. Could the decrepit electricity grid pose challenges for
storage requirements? The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is highly sensitive and can
only be stored at -70 degrees Celsius (-94 degrees Fahrenheit). Once thawed, it
must be administered within five days, and each individual must receive two
shots. During a recent interview, Hassan said Lebanon had 12 specialized
freezers, each with a storage capacity of 35,000 doses. But the country's
limited electricity - where even government-run hospitals rely on donations to
buy fuel for their generators to back up the unreliable state grid - has raised
citizens' concerns about how the government will handle availability,
distribution and storage. Lebanese residents took to Twitter to question how
citizens could trust the government's plan to store the vaccine. “Possessing the
vaccine is one thing, but administering it is the real bottleneck," Fouad
Naccache, a citizen who is anxiously waiting to get vaccinated, told Al Arabiya
English.
What about herd immunity?
Heiko Wimmen, project director of the Iraq, Syria, Lebanon International Crisis
Group, said that Lebanon could become the first country in the world to achieve
herd immunity due to the rapid pace at which people were contracting the
coronavirus. Wimmen predicted that around 500,000 people would have contracted
the virus by February when the first vaccinations begin in the country. “Then
the question is how fast they can scale it up, as they may find it challenging
to handle the logistics of it. With the cooling requirements and the unreliable
electricity supplies, it may not be possible to do it in a decentralized
fashion,” Wimmen told Al Arabiya English. According to Wimmen, although no one
knows how much a country needs to reach herd immunity, 40 percent could slow
down the spread significantly. As the total number of coronavirus cases hit
255,956 cases at the start of the week, Lebanon, one of the hardest-hit
countries in the Middle East, may face an even more dire situation in the weeks
and months ahead. Deaths in the county have continued to climb as the national
death toll passed 2,000 deaths on Tuesday. Hospitals have run out of room in
intensive care units, though new cases and hospitalizations appear to have
rolled back in recent days. The county records a coronavirus-related death
roughly every hour, and last week was its highest recorded ever for coronavirus-related
fatalities.
The increasing toll has added a new level of urgency to the rollout of vaccines,
which has already been criticized as slow.
Lebanon Doctors Urge Lockdown Extension
Agence France Presse/January 19/2021
The head of Lebanon's main coronavirus hospital Tuesday backed the extension of
a total lockdown to curb soaring infection figures and save a fragile healthcare
system from collapse. "Easing the lockdown cannot occur if the virus is
spreading unchecked in the community," Firas Abiad said on social media.
"The infection is not under control." The country of more than six million has
recorded 255,956 coronavirus cases and 1,959 deaths since its outbreak started
in February. It entered a strict 11-day lockdown last Thursday after recording a
70% uptick in infections in one of the steepest increases in transmission
worldwide. The lockdown, which includes a round-the-clock curfew, is expected to
last until January 25 but the health ministry on Monday announced a new high of
53 coronavirus deaths in a day. This came after Lebanon hit a new daily record
of more than 6,000 new infections on Friday. Petra Khoury of the government's
COVID-19 taskforce told AFP that the duration of the lockdown needed to be
doubled. "We need at least three weeks of total lockdown" instead of just 11
days, she said. Infections had skyrocketed after authorities loosened
restrictions during the holiday season, allowing restaurants and nightclubs to
open late, despite warnings from health professionals. Hospitals have struggled
to cope with the influx of new patients, with some treating cases in cars,
paediatrics units and even dining halls. The World Health Organization said
Monday that the occupancy rate for intensive care beds in hospitals across
Lebanon stood at 87.4 per cent, down from 90.4 per cent last week. Sleiman
Haroun, head of the Syndicate of Private Hospitals, said a lockdown extension
was necessary. "Medical cadres are worn out and I am alarmed over the large
number of cases arriving in hospitals every day," he told AFP.
Asmar Says Virus Death Rate is ‘Alarming’, Urges Abidance by Rules
Naharnet/January 19/2021
Spokesperson of the Lebanese Higher Defense Council Brig. Gen Mahmoud al-Asmar
warned on Tuesday of the latest alarming death rate in Lebanon as the result of
coronavirus, noting that a decision to extend or not the lockdown is up to the
government. “The huge leap in deaths we saw yesterday as a result of coronavirus
is scary, we urge Lebanese to abide by the rules and we urge security forces to
be even more strict in rule application,” said Asmar in televised remarks to
LBCI. Asmar said “people tend to break the rules,” but he urged full commitment
in order to halt the spread of the virus, noting that efforts are ongoing to
improve the lockdown procedures. “A decision to extend the lockdown or not is
taken by the government,” he said. On Thursday, Lebanese authorities began
enforcing an 11-day nationwide shutdown and round-the-clock curfew, hoping to
blunt the spread of coronavirus infections spinning out of control after the
holiday period. Asmar said: “The health situation is terrible and the hospitals
are at full capacity. I urge people to abide by precautionary rules.” Lebanon on
Monday reported 53 new coronavirus deaths, a new record high daily death toll
for the small country.
It also registered 3,144 new virus cases in a 24-period, the Health Ministry
said. The new fatalities raise the overall death toll to 1,959. The fresh cases
meanwhile take the country’s overall tally since February 21 to 255,956 cases --
among them 3,657 cases detected among arriving travelers and 154,611 recoveries.
“We are working seriously on the idea of creating centers in some areas to try
to relieve pressure on hospitals,” added Asmar. Lebanon, a country of more than
6 million, including at least 1 million refugees, has seen a massive climb in
infections since Christmas and New Year holidays. The surge has overwhelmed
hospitals and the health care system.
Report: Shortage Aggravates in Baby Milk, Medicines, 300
Pharmacies Shutdown
Agence France Presse/January 19/2021
Lebanon is reeling under multiple crises including a deteriorating health sector
and a shortage in medicines as a result of the exchange rate crisis, which also
reflected on a shortage in infant milk formula strictly sold at pharmacies,
Asharq el-Awsat reported on Tuesday. Amid concerns of lifting subsidies from the
import of basic goods, Lebanese rush to store medicine and baby milk in
anticipation, which, if approved, will lead to a 6-fold increase in prices, said
the daily.Panic buying did not ease despite the assurances made by caretaker
Health Minister Hamad Hassan and the ministerial health committee, that the
government will only rationalize the prices of medicine and milk if it agreed on
lifting subsidies. The scarcity of medicines also affected the availability of
infant baby milk, which is restricted for sale in pharmacies. "There is a real
availability crisis in infant formula which is now missing as a result of people
storing it in large numbers, in addition to an approved rationing for its
distribution, which is based on the consumption of each pharmacy in 2020,”
Richard Khwairi, a pharmacy owner told Asharq el-Awsat. “The missing milk is
mainly for babies of one year old or older, because it is not subsidized. It is
more likely that the milk is being stored to be sold later at higher prices when
the health ministry approves a plan,” a pediatrician who refrained from being
named said in remarks to the newspaper. Ghassan al-Amin, head of the Order of
Pharmacists of Lebanon, told the daily: “Today, medicine has become like a
dollar for the Lebanese. The more they are able to store, the more they feel
safe.”He added that “the declaration made by the Governor of the central bank
some time ago that he is heading to stop the subsidy was a major cause of the
crisis that made citizens stockpile,” their essential goods. Al-Amin said the
pharmacies have been “placed in a confrontation with the people,” knowing they
are “not to blame for the crisis. They are being subjected to daily harassment
and insults, even with weapons.”He said that the obligation by the Central Bank
to secure funds in cash, has “added to the crisis and led to the closure of
around 300 pharmacies, the number will likely increase in the coming months,” he
said. Infant baby milk, drugs for everything from diabetes and blood pressure to
anti-depressants and fever pills used in COVID-19 treatment have disappeared
from shelves around Lebanon. Officials and pharmacists say the shortage was
exacerbated by panic buying and hoarding after the Central Bank governor said in
November that with foreign reserves running low, the government won't be able to
keep up subsidies, including on drugs.
Lebanon bank chief denies sending $400m abroad
Najia Houssari/Arab News/January 20/2021
BEIRUT: Lebanon’s central bank has denied allegations that its governor, Riad
Salameh, transferred up to $400 million abroad along with his brother and an
assistant. The bank’s claim follows an announcement by Swiss authorities of an
investigation into money transfers by Salame. The Swiss attorney general’s
office said it had requested legal assistance from Lebanon in the context of a
probe into “aggravated money laundering” and possible embezzlement tied to the
Lebanese central bank. Salameh has denied any wrong-doing, describing the claims
as “fabrications” and “false news.”
In a statement on Tuesday, the Banque du Liban said: “Salameh, as always, abides
by the Lebanese and international laws in force, and cooperates with all parties
concerned.”Lebanon’s pro-Hezbollah Al-Akhbar newspaper said the same day that
Lebanon had received an official request from EU and Swiss authorities to
provide judicial assistance in an investigation into financial transfers
involving Salameh.
According to the newspaper, European investigators are seeking information on
bank transfers totaling $400 million made by Salameh, his brother Raja and
assistant Marianne Hoayek. Earlier in the day Justice Minister Marie-Claude Najm
confirmed that she had received a request from Swiss judicial authorities to
cooperate on an inquiry into money transfers by Salameh. The newspaper said:
“The investigation into criminal behavior does not concern Salameh alone.
Rather, it will have to do with the Banque du Liban and its affiliated
institutions, especially the Finance Bank, Middle East Airlines (MEA), Intra
Bank and Casino du Liban.”President Michel Aoun and Hassan Diab, the caretaker
prime minister, have been informed of the case, the newspaper said.
Al-Akhbar quoted sources, which it did not identify, saying: “The European
authorities are studying Salameh’s case as part of a file that includes a long
list of Lebanese personalities prepared in cooperation with France, Britain and
the US, which requested the participation of the EU and demanded that the
sanctions are not solely imposed by the US Treasury Department and are not only
related to combating terrorist financing.”Lebanon’s central bank described the
newspaper’s claims as “groundless fabrications,” and warned of legal action in
response. A financial and banking source told Arab News: “The governor of the
central bank has no legal right to transfer any funds abroad from the Banque du
Liban. All transfers made through private commercial banks and all the
operations of the Banque du Liban are fully monitored by the Central Council and
the government commissioner at the Banque du Liban.”
The source said that when any central bank in the world makes any transfers
abroad, “these are automatically under US surveillance.”
According to the source, “Lebanon usually receives requests from abroad to
provide assistance based on the tax information exchange agreement.”The source
said: “I am not attempting to defend anyone. What was mentioned indicates that
there is a political conflict, and what was published is part of the political
war in Lebanon.”Aoun and his team are calling for a forensic audit that covers
the central bank, and parliament has approved a request to extend the audit to
cover all state institutions. The Banque du Liban is being blamed for the loss
of Lebanese dollar deposits in private banks after it borrowed funds to finance
Lebanese government policies. Lebanon’s crippled banking system is at the heart
of a financial crisis that erupted in late 2019. Banks have since blocked most
transfers abroad and cut access to deposits, resulting in widespread anger as
growing numbers of people face economic hardship.
Aoun Calls Higher Defense Council for Urgent Meeting
Naharnet/January 19/2021
President Michel Aoun called the Higher Defense Council for an “urgent” meeting
on January 21 at Baabda Presidential Palace. According to reports, the meeting
will likely discuss an extension of a ten-day total lockdown that came into
effect last week Thursday. Lebanon on Monday reported 53 new coronavirus deaths,
a new record high daily death toll for the small country. It also registered
3,144 new virus cases in a 24-period, the Health Ministry said. The new
fatalities raise the overall death toll to 1,959.
Lebanon Receives Swiss Request for Cooperation on Suspected
Salameh Fund Transfers
Associated Press/January 19/2021
Caretaker Justice Minister Marie-Claude Najm announced on Tuesday that she had
received a request from judicial authorities in Switzerland to cooperate on an
inquiry into financial transfers made by the Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh,
media reports said. Najm added that she “haa submitted the request to the Public
Prosecutor to take the necessary measures.”Salameh issued a statement saying
that Lebanon abides by international and local laws and is cooperating with all
those concerned. According to a government official, Swiss authorities had
opened an investigation into transfers by Salameh. Later on Tuesday, the office
of Switzerland's attorney general said it requested legal assistance from
Lebanese authorities for an investigation into possible money laundering and
embezzlement tied to Lebanon's central bank. The Swiss attorney general
confirmed in a statement it had opened an investigation following media reports
in Lebanon about it but no additional details were released. The office declined
to provide further information on its inquiry. The investigation was apparently
launched at the request of the Lebanese government, which is looking into
reports of what it said were billions of dollars that left Lebanon after banks
blocked transfers abroad. Lebanon is facing a crippling financial crisis that
was in full throttle last year, when private banks enforced informal capital
controls, limiting withdrawals and blocking transfers abroad. The value of
Lebanon's currency tumbled against the dollar amid an unprecedented shortage of
foreign currencies. The government defaulted on its foreign debts and began
talks with the International Monetary Fund for a rescue package. Amid the chaos,
reports surfaced of capital transfers, including by government officials.
Caretaker Prime Minister Hassan Diab has held Salameh responsible for the
currency crash, accusing him of pursuing "opaque" policies that sent the
Lebanese pound on its downward spiral against the dollar. The government also
hired a New York-based company to conduct a forensic audit of the central bank,
which later pulled out, saying it was unable to acquire needed information and
documents. Diab said Salameh was inaccessible. Disagreements between the head of
the government and the central bank governor were widely publicized. Salameh,
who has held the central bank post since 1993, has defended his role, alleging a
systematic campaign meant to hold him responsible for the country's financial
crisis. Meanwhile, talks with the IMF faltered amid disagreements between
government officials on how to estimate the banking sector losses.
STL Schedules Fifth Status Conference in Ayyash Case in February
Naharnet/January 19/2021
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s (“STL”) Pre-Trial Judge, Daniel Fransen, will
hold a fifth Status Conference on 3 February 2021, the STL said in a press
release on Tuesday. The hearing aims at reviewing the status of the Ayyash case
and ensuring the expeditious preparation for trial, through an exchange between
the Prosecution, Defence and Legal Representatives of the Victims. In a
scheduling order issued today, the Pre-Trial Judge states that the hearing will
begin at 10.00 AM (C.E.T.) The Status Conference will be public; however, the
Judge might decide to go into private session during the course of the hearing
if confidential matters need to be discussed. The Status Conference will take
place in the STL courtroom, with remote participation via video-conference. The
hearing will be streamed on the STL website with a 30-minute delay in Arabic,
English, and French. The first status conference in the Ayyash case took place
on 22 July 2020, the second on 16 September, the third status conference on 4
November and the fourth took place on 16 December 2020. In accordance with Rule
94 of the STL Rules of Procedures and Evidence, the Pre-Trial Judge shall
convene a status conference within no more than eight weeks after the initial
appearance of the Accused -or its equivalent in absentia proceedings, which
coincides with the Trial Chamber decision to proceed with a trial in the absence
of the Accused. The Pre-Trial Judge shall also convene status conferences within
eight weeks from the previous one, during the pre-trial proceedings, and until
the case is ready for trial.
'State of Our State': How Lebanon's Situations Got Worse in 2020
Naharnet/January 19/2021
The Lebanon Renaissance Foundation on Tuesday released its 2020 version of the
‘State of Our State’ index, which evaluates the country’s situation in several
key fields on yearly basis. The Foundation has released yearly reports since
2010.
“State of our State index compiles, on annual basis, the evaluations of people
hailing from diverse backgrounds, all of whom members of the Foundation
(activists, former officials and business leaders),” the Foundation said in a
statement emailed to Naharnet. “Basic functions of a State are to provide
physical security, efficient institutions and a capable administration. The Goal
of this index is to evaluate Lebanon’s situation and share results with the
Lebanese public in a succinct manner. It also enables us to prioritize
initiatives that are to be addressed by our foundation,” it added. “Inspired by
similar approaches created by various research & analysis groups, 13 criteria
have been specifically adopted to reflect the Lebanese conditions. Those same
criteria are also evaluated for a model country (Norway) thus enabling the final
Lebanese result to be compared to a benchmark or model,” the Foundation
explained.
The biggest drops in 2020 were recorded in the fields of the quality of
political leadership, the rule of law, the efficiency of civil society and the
government’s control over its territory. Since inception in 2010 with a score of
4.3/10, the index has dropped 7 times and remained unchanged twice with a single
improvement recorded in 2016. Each of the following 13 criteria is evaluated on
a 0 to 10 scale by the evaluators (worst to best) for both Lebanon and Norway
and a simple arithmetic average for all evaluators comes out as the index figure
for the year under review (2020).
1. Stability over 3 years (LEB 1.9 - NOR 8.7)
2. Citizens’ personal security (LEB 2.7 – NOR 8.6)
3. Government control over territory (LEB 1.4 – NOR 9.4)
4. Capacity to resist foreign influence (LEB 1.2 – NOR 8.2)
5. Rule of law (LEB 1.5 – NOR 9.0)
6. Quality of political leadership (LEB 0.5 – NOR 8.0)
7. Freedom of speech (LEB 4.2 – NOR 9.0)
8. Cultural and religious tolerance (LEB 4.4 – NOR 8.0)
9. Efficiency of civil society (LEB 4.3 – NOR 8.0)
10. Limiting corruption (LEB 2.0 – NOR 8.0)
11. Confidence in public institutions (LEB 1.7 – NOR 8.0)
12. Economic transparency (LEB 1.4 – NOR 9.0)
13. Sovereign debt settlement record (LEB 1.4 – NOR 8.0)
Score over 10: LEBANON 2.2 – NORWAY 8.4
- Last year (2019) result:
Lebanon 3.2/10
Norway 8.5/10
- 2018 result
Lebanon 3.2/10
Norway 8.4/10
Strong Lebanon Bloc Calls on Hariri to 'Communicate' with
Aoun
Naharnet/January 19/2021
The Free Patriotic Movement-led Strong Lebanon bloc on Tuesday reiterated the
call for Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri to communicate with President
Michel Aoun over the formation of the new government.
In a statement issued after its weekly e-meeting, the bloc hoped that “the time
has come and circumstances have become complete for the formation of the
long-awaited government.”It also called on Hariri to “end the state of stalemate
and communicate with the president so that they together form the promised
reformist government according to the principles of the National Pact and the
rules of the constitution.”Hariri had earlier in the day stressed “the need to
form a government as soon as possible.” “Throughout the previous stage, I showed
openness and willingness to go several times (to the Baabda Palace) so that we
form the government. My position is clear in this regard,” Hariri added
following talks with caretaker PM Hassan Diab, who also met Tuesday with Aoun
and Speaker Nabih Berri as part of an initiative to break the deadlock.
Hariri Stresses Need for Govt., Vows Continued Bid to Get
Vaccines
Naharnet/January 19/2021
Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri on Tuesday emphasized the need to form the
new government as soon as possible and promised further efforts to secure
Lebanon quantities of much-needed anti-coronavirus vaccines. “I would like to
thank (caretaker) Prime Minister (Hassan) Diab for his visit. We discussed
several matters, most importantly the need to form a government as soon as
possible,” Hariri said after talks with Diab at the Center House. “Throughout
the previous stage, I showed openness and willingness to go several times (to
the Baabda Palace) so that we form the government. My position is clear in this
regard, and I thank Prime Minister Diab for what he is trying to do in this
matter,” Hariri added. Asked about his efforts to secure a quantity of
coronavirus vaccines for Lebanon, Hariri said: “Hopefully, we are working on
this, and you will see me travel more and I will continue to insist on getting
the vaccine as soon as possible.”
Diab Pushes for Govt. Formation in Talks with Aoun, Berri,
Hariri
Naharnet/January 19/2021
Caretaker Prime Minister Hassan Diab held separate meetings Tuesday with
President Michel Aoun, Speaker Nabih Berri and PM-designate Saad Hariri in an
initiative aimed at facilitating the formation of the new government.
“I discussed the situations with President Aoun, especially the governmental
file, and I sensed high readiness to reactivate the cabinet formation process,”
Diab said after meeting Aoun in Baabda. “There will be a meeting between
President Aoun and PM-designate Hariri at the time they find appropriate,” he
added. Diab had earlier held a 90-minute meeting with Berri in Ain el-Tineh.
“Speaker Berri expressed readiness to help, as he has always done, in order to
resolve the few remaining obstacles that are delaying the government’s
formation,” Diab said after the talks. “The meeting was good and special and
there will be follow-up,” he added. Asked whether a new government will be
formed soon, Diab said: “We are seeking this and white hands are always
present.”“We must capitalize on the positivities, which are plenty, to see how
we can iron out some of the remaining hurdles,” the caretaker PM added.
And speaking earlier in the day after talks with Hariri, Diab said “the country
is in dire need for political accord among all the relevant sides.”“I agreed
with PM-designate Hariri that the priority is for forming a government as soon
as possible to address the repercussions and impact of these successive crises
that have rocked Lebanon and negatively affected Lebanon and the Lebanese,” he
added. “The PM-designate expressed high readiness and openness to consult with
all sides over this issue,” Diab revealed.
Lebanon Returns Two Stolen 18th-Century Icons to Greece
Agence France Presse/January 19/2021
Lebanon handed back two 18th-century religious icons of Jesus and Mary to Greece
on Tuesday after they were seized during an auction, a judicial source said. The
paintings were stolen from an exhibition in Athens in 2016, and Greece put out
an international notice calling for their return. Icons are Christian religious
paintings, often of saints, and are viewed as sacred. Lebanon has launched an
investigation, but it is not clear who stole them, or how they were brought to
the country. "The person who bought the paintings at the auction in Lebanon was
questioned," the source said, adding that the buyer was about to ship them to
Germany "to sell them on at an international auction there." The paintings were
handed to the Greek ambassador in Beirut. Greece has retrieved several other
religious icons worth thousands of dollars in recent years. In 2011, Greek
officials blocked the sale of a dozen religious icons by two art galleries in
Britain and the Netherlands after finding the items had been stolen years
before. The icons, which dated from before the 18th century and could have each
fetched from $7,000 to $21,000, were stolen from unguarded monasteries and
churches in the sparsely-populated Epirus region of northwestern Greece. In
2008, Britain returned to Greece a 14th-century icon stolen from a Greek
Orthodox monastery 30 years earlier, and found in the hands of a London-based
collector.
Is Lebanon condemned to an endless drift or endless
purgatory
Nathalie Goulet/Arab News/January 20/2021
Since Aug. 4, 2020 — the day of the tragedy at the port of Beirut — many have
looked on at Lebanon’s pain, a slow agony so deeply inscribed in its
contemporary history that many are unaware that Lebanon was once the peaceful
and prosperous Switzerland of the Middle East.
Much has been written on the causes of this drift: Exacerbated confessionalism,
corruption and haphazard governance. The country is also the favourite arena of
the internal struggles of its powerful, vampiric neighbours.
Almost six months after the dramatic explosion, Lebanon has made little headway
on the path to institutional reconstruction.
It appears totally illusory to think that we can solve the problem of Lebanon
from within Lebanon.
The businessman Omar Harfouch, a Lebanese living in Paris, has launched the
crazy gamble of forming a government of exile.
His observation is clear: Lebanon is ruled by at least 6 oligarchs, each of them
accompanied by at least 60,000 “followers” , or sycophant ,who owe their
positions to that individual, securing their futures and that of their families.
In addition to this caste of oligarchs, there are also important people who, be
they deputies or ministers or shrewd businessmen, repeat the same pattern of
courtiers and maintenance obligations on a smaller scale.
Such people have no interest in changing the system which continues from
generation to generation, a sort of inheritance of mediocrity, rather than
meritocracy.
Harfouch is proposing a program of immediate actions, with the aim of restoring
the confidence of the exhausted Lebanese. He agitates on social media and talks
about placing the Lebanese Central Bank under supervision, freezing the assets
of oligarchs abroad, and setting up an authority for the transparency of public
life, with an obligation to declare assets, based on the model of the French
High Authority for Transparency in Public Life. He has even met with its
president, Didier Migaud, to discuss how cooperation might work.
Then will follow the measures with the financial institutions, an agreement with
the IMF and a supervised donors’ conference to prevent international generosity
from financing corruption. This fight against corruption will inevitably finance
the fight against poverty, a real issue facing the country.
Then the time will come for demilitarization, and the end of private militias.
After the shock of immediate financial measures, Lebanon will also require
institutional changes and the advent of a secular “Third Republic,” a new voting
system, universal suffrage and a new social covenant.
Governance free from corruption and sectarianism is how Lebanon will find its
place back at the table of Nations. What if Harfouch’s ideas are the way
forward? His statements have reached millions already, and he’s starting
petitions to ferment new measures on change.org.
French President Emmanuel Macron failed to help start reform, because he based
his policies on the surviving and corrupt shreds of the country, instead of
seeking new people.
In doing so, he was unable to secure the support of a breathless and hopeless
people, or the political class.
The president “oxygenated” and restored great families, like the Hariri’s, thus
prolonging the country’s agony.
The reality is that no one from within Lebanon will be able to reform it or face
the militias that attack all those who want to end their privileges. It must
come from elsewhere.
* Nathalie Goulet is a senator for Orne. Twitter: @senateur61
Lebanon’s Maronite patriarch urges Aoun to seek
reconciliation
The Arab Weekly/19 January/2021
BEIRUT – Lebanon’s top Christian cleric has urged President Michel Aoun to set
up a reconciliation meeting with Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri to form a
cabinet and end the country’s political deadlock. “The tragic state of the
country and the people does not justify any delay in the forming of (new)
government,” Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai said at his Sunday sermon
at his seat in Bkirki. “The door leading to the road of a solution is the
formation of a salvation Cabinet made up of Lebanese elite, personalities who
succeeded in Lebanon and the world,” he added. The country’s fractious
politicians have been unable to agree on a new administration since the last one
quit in the aftermath of the August 4 Beirut port explosion, leaving Lebanon
rudderless as it sinks deeper into economic crisis. Tensions between Aoun and
Hariri, who publicly traded blame in December after failing to agree to a
cabinet, came to a head last week when a leaked video showed Aoun apparently
calling Hariri a liar. Rai said at his Sunday sermon that the situation in
Lebanon was now “tragic” and there was no excuse to further delay forming a
government. “We wish that his Excellency the president takes the initiative and
invites the prime minister-designate to a meeting,” he said. Veteran Sunni
politician Hariri was named premier for a fourth time in October, promising to
form a cabinet of specialists to enact reforms necessary to unlock foreign aid,
but political wrangling has delayed the process. The leaked video that
circulated on social media last week showed Aoun talking to caretaker Prime
Minister Hassan Diab about Hariri. Lebanese President Michel Aoun (L) speaks
with Lebanese Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri during their meeting at the
Baabda Presidential Palace, in “There is no government formation, he (Hariri) is
saying he gave me a paper, he is lying,” Aoun is heard saying. Sources in the
president’s office said the dialogue had been taken out of context and was not
complete. After the video circulated, Hariri tweeted Biblical verses referring
to wisdom not residing in bodies that were amenable to sin.
The souring of the relationship between Aoun and Hariri comes as the country
continues to struggle with an acute financial crisis that has seen the currency
sink by about 80%.Lebanon’s healthcare system is also buckling under the
pressure of a severe spike in COVID-
Pro-Hezbollah journalist says party cannot continue with
current ties with Iran
Rawad Taha, Al Arabiya English/Tuesday 19 January 2021
Pro-Hezbollah Lebanese journalist Kassem Kassir said Hezbollah cannot continue
with its current relationship with Iran and that it must become a Lebanese
political party. Kassir’s statements have been heavily attacked by supporters of
the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia after his interview aired on NBN TV station
which is largely funded by Hezbollah’s Shia ally movement Amal. Kassem Kassir is
a political writer who specializes in Islamist movements and has written a book
about the change in Hezbollah’s discourse between 1982 and 2016. He has been
seen as a writer who has generally supported Hezbollah, according to observers.
Kassir’s recent comments on Hezbollah come at a time of rising frustration from
Iran’s growing influence in Lebanon and an international and regional pressure
to suspend Iran’s presence in Syria via Hezbollah and other militia groups.
“There are two issues that Hezbollah must resolve. The first issue is the
relation with Iran, Hezbollah cannot continue with the same relationship it has
had with Tehran, Hezbollah has to become a Lebanese political party, [it is fine
if] there is a religion or sentimental relationship with Iran, but Hezbollah
shouldn’t be led with orders from Wali al-Faqih [Supreme leader Ali Khamenei],”
Kasser said during the interview. The second issue that Kassir discussed was
Hezbollah’s role in “resisting Israeli threats” to Lebanon.
“Hezbollah cannot stay resisting alone, it must fall under a national defense
strategy, the idea that the Shiaa have a transnational role to play must seize
to exist, they must integrate within their countries’ communities” Kassir added.
“We need Hezbollah, and the Shia in general, to [remain humble],” he added. “In
the past 10 years, for geo-political reasons, Hezbollah was pressured into
mobilizing outside of Lebanon, however, Hezbollah in its internal organization
and manifesto states that is must not interfere in other nation’s issues,
Hezbollah learned from the experiments of other resistance movements, like
Fatah,” Kassir added. “Hezbollah meddled in Syrian affairs for one reason or
another, that has happened, I don’t have to state my position on that matter,
but from now on Hezbollah must return to Lebanon”, Kassir added.
Kassir commented on the mass media campaign that was held on Soleimani’s death
memorial saying that it has negatively impacted Lebanon internally. “Regardless
of the role Soleimani has played in Lebanon during the 2006 war with Israel, we
must do an internal critic, [everything that is over-done has negative
consequences],” he added. Kassir received different reactions on his prior
statements which were heavily criticized by some of Hezbollah’s followers. NBN
channel removed his statements from its social media networks. Kassir had to
clarify his stances in a social media post where he mentioned that he is not
partisan and does not have role or responsibility within Hezbollah. “I am just a
writer, a journalist, or a humble viewer and a university researcher who works
to spread dialog. I was and still am with the resistance in Lebanon and
Palestine and against every occupier. I wish for those who want to discuss
opinions to do so calmly in the interest of our nation and for the sake of the
unity of our country. I have worked and still work within my conviction and
freedom,” he added.
Govt formation awaits Aoun’s position on 'reconciliation meet' with Hariri
Hussein Dakroub/The Daily Star/January 19/2021
BEIRUT: Political attention Monday shifted to President Michel Aoun’s position
on the Maronite patriarch’s call on him to invite Prime Minister-designate Saad
Hariri for a “reconciliation meeting” to agree on the formation of a “salvation
Cabinet” to deal with the country’s multiple crises and enact reforms demanded
by the international community.
Given the rising tensions between the president and the premier-designate caused
by a leaked video in which Aoun was shown calling Hariri a liar over the
government formation process, many politicians expressed concerns that Aoun’s
possible rebuff of Maronite Patriarch Bechara al-Rai’s call threatened to plunge
the crises-ridden country into a prolonged Cabinet deadlock with all the dire
consequences this entailed for the crumbling economy and fragile stability.
There was no comment Monday from the president’s office, a day after Rai issued
the call for a “reconciliation meeting” between Aoun and Hariri to agree on the
swift formation of a new government.
Hariri’s return to Beirut Sunday night from a visit to the United Arab Emirates
was expected to hasten Aoun’s declaration on Rai’s call.
A source at Baabda Palace said Aoun’s position would be known after Hariri’s
return from a foreign trip. “I don’t know what the president’s position [on
Rai’s call] will be. We will see when Prime Minister Hariri returns to Lebanon,”
the source told The Daily Star Sunday.
Similarly, there was no immediate comment from Hariri after his return to Beirut
on Rai’s call, the second to be issued in less than month by the Maronite
patriarch who is trying to narrow differences between the president and the
premier-designate over the formation of a proposed 18-member Cabinet made up of
nonpartisan specialists to deliver reforms in line with the French initiative.
Asked whether Hariri would accept Rai’s call for a reconciliation meeting with
Aoun, a source close to the premier-designate told The Daily Star Monday: “The
Constitution governs the relationship between the president and the prime
minister.”In making the call on Aoun to invite Hariri for a “reconciliation
meeting,” Rai expressed his fears of a possible social unrest as a result of the
crippling economic crisis that is hitting the Lebanese hard and has put half the
country’s 6 million population below the poverty line.
"The tragic state of the country and the people [cannot tolerate] any delay in
the government formation. In this situation, we wish that his excellency the
president will take the initiative and invite the prime minister-designate to
this [reconciliation] meeting,” Rai said in his Sunday sermon at his seat in
Bkirki.
Rai’s call came as Lebanon continues to reel from one of the worst economic and
financial crisis in its history and mounting health hazards posed by a
frightening surge in coronavirus infections. The economic crisis has been
aggravated by the grave consequences of the massive Aug. 4 explosion that
pulverized Beirut’s port, damaged half of the capital, killed nearly 200 people,
injured thousands, left 300,000 people homeless and caused billions of dollars
in material damage.
While a French initiative to rescue Lebanon remained deadlocked after rival
Lebanese leaders failed to agree on the swift formation of a “mission
government” to implement a slew of economic and administrative reforms
stipulated in the initiative, it remained to be seen whether Rai’s new call for
a reconciliation between Aoun and Hariri would materialize this time.
Meanwhile, while Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri is coming under pressure to
intervene to help break the Cabinet deadlock, now in its sixth month, other
mediators are gearing up to patch up the rift between Aoun and Hariri over the
government formation.
Deputy Parliament Speaker Elie Ferzli, an ally of Aoun and the Free Patriotic
Movement headed by MP Gebran Bassil, is mediating with Baabda Palace and the FPM
in a bid to bridge the gap with Hariri, a political source said.
General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim, who had previously mediated in
disputes between the president and the prime minister, will also be in contact
with both Aoun and Hariri to facilitate the Cabinet formation, the source added.
Lebanon has been left without a fully functioning government since then-Prime
Minister Hassan Diab’s Cabinet resigned on Aug. 10 in the aftermath of the port
blast. Berri was quoted by visitors as saying he was waiting for tensions
between Aoun and Hariri to ease before intervening. This was confirmed Sunday by
MP Mohammad Khawaja, who belongs to Berri’s parliamentary Development and
Liberation bloc.
Long-simmering tensions between the president and the premier-designate, who
last month publicly traded accusations of responsibility for obstructing the
formation of an 18-member Cabinet of nonpartisan specialists to deliver reforms
in line with the French initiative, came to a head on Jan. 11 when Aoun was
shown in the leaked video calling Hariri a liar. Aoun’s accusation has
exacerbated the impasse in the Cabinet formation process, already stalled by a
disagreement between the president and the premier-designate over the
distribution of key ministries. The video episode has deepened a crisis of
confidence between the two leaders and ramped up political tensions in the
country.
Some politicians warned that Lebanon risked descending into an open-ended
Cabinet crisis with all the grave repercussions this carried for the country’s
ailing economy and stability if Aoun and Hariri refused to budge from their
conflicting positions on a new government.
Since his designation on Oct. 22, Hariri has been striving to form a proposed
18-member Cabinet of nonpartisan experts to implement reforms urgently needed to
unlock billions of dollars in promised international aid to the cash-strapped
country that is teetering on the verge of a total economic collapse.
But his attempts have stumbled over a dispute with Aoun regarding who gets to
name the Christian ministers and who controls two key ministries: Interior and
Justice, and demands by Aoun’s son-in-law, Bassil, for veto power and
representing political parties in the government. In addition to refusing to
grant veto power to any party in the next government, Hariri is reportedly also
opposed to allotting the Interior and Justice ministries to Aoun and the FPM.
Future officials have said Hariri would not bow to pressure from Aoun and Bassil
aimed at pushing him to step down or meet their conditions for the Cabinet
formation.
Lebanon: Impeach the President
Rami Rayess/Al Arabiya/Tuesday 19 January 2021
There are little expectations related to resolving the severe multiple crises’
that Lebanon is passing through. With Coronavirus imposing total lockdown in the
country, there are barely any political meetings to form a new cabinet, or to
draw a road map out of the impasse.
Impeaching the Lebanese President, Michel Aoun seems far-fetched, as long as he
earns the support of Hezbollah. The Christian parties' silence is deafening with
fear of the precedent being set to remove the incumbent Christian President.
They ignore two earlier similar cases that happened in Lebanon’s contemporary
history.
The first was in 1952 when a so-called “White Rebellion” removed the first
President after the country's independence in 1943. As the Lebanese took to the
streets refusing corruption and requesting reform, they took from office, Behara
el Khoury. The second removal happened six years later, when in 1958, a popular
revolution crippled Camille Chamoun's chances to renew his term as president.
Today, any call for the President to resign is categorically refused by the
Maronite Church and several Christian political parties.
The President is not above the law and is accountable for his decisions. It
implies a sectarian divide, when Muslims call for the Christian president's
resignation. It is not. Calling for the removal of the President cannot be
regarded as a sectarian call; rather it is a political demand.
Sectarian divisions have been always been present in Lebanon, and reached their
peak during the long civil strife from 1975 to 1990, but they rarely reached
that level during times of peace.
Refusal to impeach a President found its roots in 2005 when the late Patriarch
Nasrallah Sfeir blocked plans to oust the incumbent President at the time, Emile
Lahoud.
The mainstream media in Lebanon has placed emphasis on a meeting held between
three former Prime Ministers. Fouad Saniora, Tammam Salam and Najib Mikati along
with the Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Joumblatt met almost three
weeks ago in Salam's house. Many analysts considered that this meeting marked
the first step towards forming a wider political alliance aiming at ousting the
President.
Joumblatt had denied in several televised interviews his willingness to indulge
in any front with other political players before Christian leaders and Christian
parties led calls for ousting the President. He wants to avoid the rise of
sectarian tension in the country.
The Lebanese Constitution does not stipulate any particular provisions to
impeach the President unless for indictment for such as, high treason.
The Taif Accord (1989) that ended the Lebanese fifteen year civil war rearranged
political prerogatives and removed important powers from the hands of the
President. They were instead allocated to the collective decision of the council
of ministers. Introducing impeachment amendments hasn't happened.
With little political change expected in Lebanon due to the current balance of
power, largely tilted in favor of Hezbollah, the President and his party, the
Free Patriotic Movement do little. Hezbollah controls the political process in
the country through its proxy allies.
The Presidency, Parliament, Premiership and other constitutional institutions
are not fully impaired, but taking important political decisions are at the
behest of Hezbollah.
With the country’s economy crumbling, leaders in charge of forming the new
cabinet seem totally disconnected with the upcoming social catastrophe.
Hyperinflation is reaching untenable levels, and accompanied by currency
devaluation.
The crisis of confidence between President Michel Aoun and the Prime Minister
Designate, Saad Hariri has peaked, after leaked TV footage revealed Aoun saying
that Hariri lied when he said he handed the President a list of nominees for the
ministerial posts for the cabinet, which the President discarded as incorrect.
If Lebanon does not embark on a full reform plan launched by a trustworthy
cabinet of specialists, the economic situation will deteriorate further with no
clear political solutions on the horizon. Impeaching the incumbent President is
the first step necessary, but is insufficient to bring change to the country. Is
the worst yet to come?
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 19-20/2021
Israel, Syria officials discuss removal of Iran and its
militias from Syria: Report
Rawad Taha, Al Arabiya English/Wednesday 20
January 2021
Israel’s demand to remove Iran and its militias from Syria was discussed by
Syrian and Israeli officials last month at the Russian Hmeimim base in Syria’s
Latakia, according to the Syrian Bridges Center for Studies.
According to the report, the meeting included the Director of Syria’s National
Security Office Major General Ali Mamlouk, Security Advisor at the Syrian Palace
Bassam Hassan, Israel’s former chief of staff of the Israeli army Gadi Eisenkot
and former Mossad general Ari bin Menashe. Alexander Tchaikov, the commander of
the Russian forces in Syria, was also present at the meeting. Observers and
international affairs experts have been monitoring Russia’s work as a mediator
between Syria and Israel in recent weeks. Sources have confirmed that Israeli
army has been informing the Russians of airstrikes on Syria beforehand. After
the recent “Abraham Accords” peace deals between Israel and Arab states, some
have speculated that Syria may be next, despite Iranian presence on its soil,
after multiple Syrian officials openly discussed the possibility of peace after
negotiations. The center said that the Syrian delegation requested facilitating
the return to the Arab League and obtaining financial aid to pay off Iranian
debts along with stopping western sanctions to open the way for Syria to expel
Iran. The center added that Israeli demands included “completely removing Iran,
Hezbollah and Tehran's militias and forming a government that includes the
opposition, restructuring the security and military establishment.” The center
added that the meeting did not conclude with specific agreements, but that it
constituted the beginning of a path that Russia is pushing toward and is
expected to witness a major expansion in 2021. The report added that Moscow
believes that building a direct relationship between the regime and Israel could
constitute a lifeline for the regime and obtain international support for its
political project in Syria. Last Tuesday, Israel, with US support, launched the
heaviest raids on Iranian and Syrian sites in northeastern Syria. The Israeli
army announced in its annual report for 2020 that it carried out 50 air strikes
on targets in Syria and launched more than 500 missiles and smart missiles
during the past year, with the aim of preventing Iran's positioning in Syria.
Gulf states, Israel demand seat at Iran nuclear deal negotiations: UAE Diplomat
Rawad Taha, Al Arabiya English/Wednesday 20
January 2021
The UAE does not have a problem with rapprochement with Iran but that any talks
of a nuclear deal need to be conditional and participatory, a UAE diplomat told
CNBC during an interview. “We need to be able to engage also with the Biden
administration, with the Iranians, with the region. I think that was the problem
with the JCPOA [nuclear deal], is that it didn’t take our concerns into account.
It treated us as bystanders and spectators when we felt that it was directly
concerned with our security,” said UAE’s Assistant Minister of Culture and
Public Diplomacy at the Foreign Ministry Omar Ghobash. US President-elect Joe
Biden has stated his intention to return to the Iran nuclear deal, if Tehran
fully complies with the agreement. The original nuclear deal signed under the
Obama administration between Iran and international actors did not include the
Gulf states and Israel and did not tackle Iran’s ballistic missile program and
proxies in the region. “We do business with Iran and we have sort of a
significant Iranian population here. We don’t have an issue with that. We do
have an issue with ballistic missiles, nuclear technology, looking at a nuclear
weapon and the corrosive influence that they have on many Arab economies. So, if
we can put an end to all of that, fantastic, everybody would be very happy to
deal with Iran and on an equal basis when we think about how this is all going
to play out in the future,” he added. Ghobash added that it’s kind of “low
hanging fruit” to use the UAE’s relationship with Israel to present a more
unified position across the region in terms of what happens with Iran. “We do
have common interests [with Israel], it’s clear, because we stand on the side of
stopping nuclear proliferation in the region and we stand on the side of sort of
developing local economies and developing our human resources. In that sense, we
stand on the same side, how the Biden administration will take that into
account, it’s something that we all need to work on,” “We in the Emirates are a
positive influence. The Gulf states are a positive influence. And it’s our
belief that the Biden administration and the group of nations that have been
negotiating with Iran take us on board and see the positive influence that we
can bring to discussions on Iran,” Ghobash added.
US not close to rejoining Iran deal, says Biden’s pick for
national intelligence
Joseph Haboush, Al Arabiya English/Tuesday 19 January 2021
The United States is not close to rejoining the Iran nuclear deal, incoming
Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said during her confirmation
hearing Tuesday. “I think, frankly, we are a long ways” from Iran coming back
into compliance with the nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA), Haines said. President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee
suggested that Iran’s ballistic missile program and other destabilizing
activities in the region needed to be studied as well. Separately, Haines said
China would be a priority and a challenge. “It’s something I will have to focus
on,” she said.
Iran sanctions US President Trump, Secretary Pompeo, other
American officials
Yaghoub Fazeli and Emily Judd, Al Arabiya English/Tuesday 19 January 2021
Iran’s foreign ministry imposed sanctions on outgoing US President Donald Trump,
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and several current and former members of the
Trump administration, on Tuesday. Current American officials sanctioned include
Trump, Pompeo, acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, Secretary of the
Treasury Steven Mnuchin, CIA Director Gina Haspel, US Special Representative to
Iran and Venezuela Elliot Abrams, and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
chief Andrea Gacki. Former Trump national security adviser John Bolton, former
US envoy for Iran Brian Hook, and former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper were
also sanctioned. The US State Department told Al Arabiya English it was aware of
the reports of the Iranian sanctions and called the move a “transparently
political stunt.” “This is a transparently political stunt by the Iranian
government that does not deserve the seriousness of a substantive response,” a
State Department spokesman told Al Arabiya English. Iran sanctioned the
officials for their alleged involvement in the killings of top Iranian military
commander Qassem Soleimani and nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, as well as
“supporting acts of terror against Iran” and imposing sanctions against the
Islamic republic, the semi-official ISNA news agency cited foreign ministry
spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh as saying. The sanctions are based on a law that was
approved by Iran’s parliament in 2017, meant to “confront America’s human rights
violations and adventurist and terrorist acts in the region.”According to the
law, sanctioned individuals are not allowed entry to Iran, any assets they own
within the Islamic republic are confiscated, and their bank accounts in the
country are frozen. Last month, Iran also blacklisted the US ambassador in
Yemen, one day after Washington imposed terrorism-related sanctions on Tehran’s
envoy to the Yemeni Houthis. Tensions between Iran and the US have escalated
since Trump pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal and reimposed crippling
sanctions on Tehran in 2018 as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign. Experts
argue the maximum pressure campaign has created leverage for US President-elect
Joe Biden to negotiate a better nuclear deal. Biden has pledged to rejoin the
accord if Iran returns to complying with it. However, his incoming Director of
National Intelligence Avril Haines said the US is not close to rejoining the
deal during her confirmation hearing on Tuesday.
US denies involvement in alleged attack on Iraq’s Baghdad:
Embassy
Tamara Abueish, Al Arabiya English/Tuesday 19 January 2021
The United States was not involved in the alleged attacks on the south of
Baghdad in Iraq, a spokesperson for the US Embassy in Baghdad confirmed on
Tuesday. “We are seeing reports of potential explosions near Jurf as-Sakhr,
south of Baghdad. We can confirm that no US personnel or assets were in the
vicinity of Jurf as-Sakhr and that there was no US involvement in this alleged
incident,” the spokesperson said. The US Central Command also denied allegations
that Washington had any involvement in the attack. “Explosions reported earlier
today about 40 miles outside of Baghdad, Iraq, in the town of Jurf Sakhar were
not the result of US military action,” the US Central Command quoted Captain
Bill Urban as saying. Earlier on Tuesday, the official account of the security
media cell of the Iraqi Prime Minister’s Office denied reports of airstrikes
hitting Iraq’s Baghdad on Monday night, calling them “incorrect”. The sound of
explosions that were reportedly heard at the scene were the result of electrical
towers that were hit by ISIS militants, the media cell said on Twitter on
Tuesday. Security officials began a search operation to arrest those responsible
for the attack, according to the statement. Several reports on Monday had
suggested the explosions may have been US or Israeli airstrikes on Iran-backed
militias.
Explosion and fire reported at oil and gas facilities in
Homs, Syria: State TV
ReutersTuesday 19 January 2021
Syrian state media said three loud explosions were heard in the city of Homs on
Tuesday and initial reports said they were near oil storage tankers near the
country’s main Homs refinery. The news flash from state media gave no details on
casualties but said civil defense units had rushed to the site with conflicting
reports on where the blasts were located in the city. A correspondent at the
state-owned al Ikhbariyah television station said a fire had erupted in oil
storage tankers in an area near the country’s main Homs refinery. It was not
clear if the explosions were an accident or the result of sabotage in a war-torn
country where violence has subsided but insurgents and rebels still wage attacks
in government-held areas. The central province of Homs has, in recent months,
seen hit-and-run attacks on government forces by remnants of Islamic State
militants who take shelter in outlying sparsely populated areas. The Russian air
force has also been active in helping the Syrian army bomb suspected hideouts of
militants in the Homs area.
Libya's Rivals Meet in Egyptian Resort over Constitution
Agence France Presse/January 19/2021
Libyan officials from rival administrations on Tuesday began talks in an
Egyptian Red Sea resort about constitutional arrangements for presidential and
parliamentary elections later this year, the United Nations said.
According to the U.N. acting envoy for Libya, Stephanie Williams, failure to
find an arrangement will have "negative repercussions on the other tracks,
including the security and economic situation."She urged the gathering via
videocall to wrap up their discussions within a two-month deadline agreed to in
November in Tunisia. That agreement also called for presidential and
parliamentary elections to be held on Dec. 24, 2021. Oil-rich Libya sunk into
chaos following a NATO-backed uprising that overthrew and later killed dictator
Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. The North African country is today divided into two
rival administrations, each backed by an array of militias and foreign powers.
An administration backed by military commander Khalifa Hifter rules the east and
south while a U.N.-supported government based in the capital, Tripoli, controls
the west. The so-called Libyan Political Dialogue Forum, has been negotiating a
mechanism for choosing a transitional government that would lead the country to
elections. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres appointed former Slovak
Foreign Minister Jan Kubis on Monday to lead the U.N. political mission. Kubis,
the current U.N. envoy in Lebanon, replaces Ghassan Salame who resigned last
March amid fierce fighting between Libya's rival sides over Tripoli. In October,
Libya's rivals agreed to a U.N.-brokered cease-fire in Geneva, a deal included
the departure of foreign forces and mercenaries from Libya within three months.
But so far, no progress has been made on that.
Trump Decorates Bahrain King on Last Full Day in Office
Agence France Presse/January 19/2021
US President Donald Trump bestowed a rare award on King Hamad of Bahrain on
Tuesday, acknowledging the Gulf state's normalisation of ties with Israel on his
last full day in office. Trump, who sees Arab recognition of Israel as a key
overseas achievement of his presidency, already conferred the same award on King
Mohammed VI of Morocco last week for his move to restore ties. Announcing his
bestowal of the Legion of Merit, Degree Chief Commander, on King Hamad bin Isa
Al Khalifa, Trump also paid tribute to Bahrain's hosting of a June 2019
conference on the economic dimensions of his controversial Middle East peace
plan, which broke with decades of international consensus and was boycotted by
the Palestinians. "King Hamad has shown extraordinary courage and leadership
through his support of the Vision for Peace and his decision to establish full
diplomatic relations with the State of Israel," the official Bahrain News Agency
quoted Trump as saying. "King Hamad has challenged old assumptions about the
possibility for peace in the region, and in doing so, positively reshaped the
landscape of the Middle East for generations," Trump added. Just across the Gulf
from Iran, Bahrain is a longstanding Western ally which is home to the US Fifth
Fleet. In 2011, with support from neighbouring Saudi Arabia, the Sunni ruling
family crushed month-long Shiite-led protests for an elected prime minister. It
has since banned the two main opposition parties and thrown dozens of dissidents
in jail. The Legion of Merit is a military award that was created to honour
allied leaders in World War II and had gone into obscurity until it was revived
by Trump, who last month also presented it to the prime ministers of Australia,
India and Japan. On Wednesday at noon, President-elect Joe Biden will be sworn
in and the Trump presidency will be over.
Qatar Calls for Gulf Talks with Iran
Agence France Presse/January 19/2021
Qatar has called for Gulf Arab countries to hold talks with Iran, the foreign
minister said in an interview aired Tuesday, after Doha reconciled with its
neighbours following a rift. Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman
Al-Thani, who has previously called for dialogue with Iran, told Bloomberg TV he
was "hopeful that this would happen and we still believe this should happen".
"This is also a desire that's shared by other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
countries," he said. It comes weeks after GCC hawks Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and
the UAE re-established ties with Qatar after breaking them off in June 2017
partly over allegations that Qatar was too close to Iran. Doha denied the
accusations. Qatar and Iran share one of the world's largest gas fields and Doha
maintains cordial relations with Tehran. Doha is a close ally of Washington and
has previously mediated between the US and Iran suggesting that Sheikh
Mohammed's intervention could be timed as a signal to the incoming
administration of President-elect Joe Biden. Biden is due to take office on
Wednesday. The current occupant of the White House, President Donald Trump, has
pursued a policy of "maximum pressure" on Iran and pulled the United States out
of a multilateral nuclear deal with it in 2018. Tehran's arch-rival Riyadh, the
dominant Gulf Arab power, has not publicly indicated any willingness to engage
with Iran. Instead Saudi Arabia insisted that this month's rapprochement with
Qatar meant the Gulf family would be better able to combat "the threats posed by
the Iranian regime's nuclear and ballistic missile programme"."Qatar will
facilitate negotiations, if asked by stakeholders, and will support whoever is
chosen to do so," added Sheikh Mohammed.
Kremlin Dismisses Calls to Free Navalny, Warns against
Protests
Agence France Presse/January 19/2021
The Kremlin on Tuesday dismissed Western demands to free top opposition
politician Alexei Navalny and said his calls to stage mass protests were
troubling. "We hear these statements. We cannot and are not going to take these
statements into account," President Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov
told journalists, in the Kremlin's first reaction to Navalny's arrest on Sunday
when he flew back to Russia from Germany. Peskov said the Kremlin was also
"troubled" by Navalny's calls to stage "illegal" protests after he was ordered
jailed for 30 days on Monday.
UN Calls on Israel to Stop New Settlement Construction in
West Bank
Agence France Presse/January 19/2021
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Monday urged Israel to "halt and
reverse" its decision last week to build 800 new homes for Jewish settlers in
the occupied West Bank. The decision is "a major obstacle to the achievement of
the two-State solution, and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace" in the
Middle East, Guterres said in a statement. "The establishment by Israel of
settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East
Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under
international law.
"Settlement expansion... further erodes the possibility of ending the occupation
and establishing a contiguous and viable sovereign Palestinian State, based on
the pre-1967 lines," Guterres said. Israel on Sunday approved the construction
of 780 homes in the occupied West Bank, ordered last Monday by Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. All Jewish settlements in the West Bank are regarded as
illegal by much of the international community. There are currently some 450,000
Jewish settlers in the West Bank, living amid an estimated 2.8 million
Palestinians.
Blinken Says U.S. to Seek 'Longer and Stronger' Deal with
Iran
Agence France Presse/January 19/2021
The U.S. will come back into a nuclear accord with Iran if it returns to
compliance, and Washington will eventually seek a stronger deal of greater
duration, secretary of state-designate Antony Blinken said Tuesday.
President-elect Joe Biden "believes that if Iran comes back into compliance, we
would too," Blinken told his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. "But we would use that as a platform with our allies and
partners, who would once again be on the same side with us, to seek a longer and
stronger agreement," he said.
The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources
published
on January 19-20/2021
Biden needs clear strategy to end US’ tit-for-tat approach
Nadim ShehadiI/Arab News/January 20/2021
A multipolar world is one of competing visions, strategies and actions. During
inauguration week in the US, there is much speculation about the new
administration’s worldview and the position of the Middle East in that context.
How seriously one can take US election campaign promises? In the heat of the
moment, candidates trash their opponent’s policies and promise to dismantle or
reverse them. But is there a vision behind all this? The US’ allies in the
region have existential stakes in the matter and are on the edge of their seats
in anticipation. Since 9/11, the Arab region has been at the center of these
debates. The war on terror, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey, the Arab Spring, and
Libya have all raised questions about the role of the US and its limits.
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice summed up the Bush era’s vision in
her Cairo speech of 2005: “For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued
stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East —
and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are
supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.”
The “neocons” blamed the 9/11 attacks on the “dual containment” policies of the
1980s and 1990s, which brought us the Iran-Iraq War and sanctions, with
dictators like Saddam Hussein consolidating their power as a result and becoming
more tyrannical. Saddam even invaded Kuwait and massacred his own people. The
consequences were catastrophic and regime change was the answer. This was the
rationale behind the Iraq invasion of 2003, which took inspiration, as George W.
Bush himself said, from the Second World War’s transformation of the Axis Powers
into democracies. “Every nation has learned, or should have learned, an
important lesson: Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for —
and the advance of freedom leads to peace,” he said soon after Saddam’s regime
fell.
However, the Iraq invasion resulted in a tragedy. Apart from whatever mistakes
were made in its aftermath, it was correctly seen as a threat by other regimes
in the region, which feared they would be next. Syria and Iran contributed to
its failure through the creation of chaos aimed at driving the Americans out of
the region. They succeeded, as the US ultimately chose withdrawal and
capitulation.
President Barack Obama reversed Bush’s approach. Instead of confrontation, he
chose engagement; and instead of regime change, he made deals with both Iran and
Syria. Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry both visited Bashar Assad in Damascus while
he was sending extremists across the border to defeat the US in Iraq. Obama, in
his 2009 Cairo speech, reassured all the dictators of the region that the US
would not pursue regime change and that he understood that they have special
circumstances. “So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be
imposed upon one nation by any other,” he said. “Each nation gives life to this
principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America
does not presume to know what is best for everyone.”
The result was the US abandoning Iraq, negotiations with Iran over the nuclear
deal, and half-hearted support to the revolts in Syria, leading to Obama’s
retraction from his “red lines” — all with catastrophic consequences. Obama also
had tense relations with Israel and with traditional Arab allies, who perceived
the nuclear deal as giving Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) a
free hand to create havoc in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
Donald Trump was more of a disruptor, but he also followed that pattern of
reversing most of his predecessor’s policies, including in the Middle East. He
challenged the Iran deal and asked for it to be renegotiated, confronted Tehran
in Syria and Iraq, and declared the IRGC a terrorist organization and targeted
its leadership, culminating in the January 2020 assassination of Qassem
Soleimani. He also pursued a policy of extreme pressure by imposing crippling
economic sanctions on Iran, the Syrian regime, and the IRGC and its allies.
While Obama and Kerry tried to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Trump
addressed it as an Arab-Israeli problem. US-led rapprochement between some Gulf
states and Israel led to successful “normalization deals” with four Arab
countries.
All the indications are that Biden will continue the pendulum swing pattern and
reverse Trump’s policies.
All the indications are that Joe Biden will continue the pendulum swing pattern
and reverse Trump’s policies. During his election campaign, he promised to
restore the Iran deal and was critical of Trump’s engagement with the Gulf
states. He will refocus on the Palestinian-Israeli dimension of that conflict
but his policy toward the Assad regime in Syria is, at best, ambiguous.
Is that all there is to it? There is a common thread in the lack of appetite for
war and the need to pivot out of the region. A pattern of consecutive
administrations undoing the work of their predecessor without a clear goal is
worrying.
This is a legitimate concern. Domestic politics are certainly important, but the
pattern of tit for tat without any rationale or strategy is indeed worrying.
This is not the case for other powers competing in the region: China has a
worldview based on its Belt and Road Initiative, Russia and Turkey aim to
restore past influence, and Iran has a clear strategy of perpetual war against
the US and, through its IRGC proxies, collapsing states, building alternative
institutions and gaining control. Whether they will succeed or not is beside the
point; in the US, partisan politics will never amount to a national strategy.
*Nadim Shehadi is the executive director of the LAU Headquarters and Academic
Center in New York and an Associate Fellow of Chatham House in London.
Palestinian elections may not end the stalemate
Osama Al-Sharif /Arab News/January 20/2021
More than 15 years after the Palestinians held their last presidential and
legislative elections, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas on
Friday issued a decree calling for fresh votes to be held this year. His
four-year-term as president ended in 2009, but the rift between the PA and Hamas
— when the latter took over the Gaza Strip in 2007 — prevented the holding of
new elections.
In the 2006 legislative elections, Hamas won a majority and Abbas was forced to
name Ismail Haniyeh as prime minister. That government was short-lived and its
collapse led to Hamas’ bloody coup in Gaza. Since then, multiple initiatives
aimed at ending the intra-Palestinian rift have been unsuccessful. With a
crippled legislature, Abbas emerged as an authoritarian ruler and was able to
sidestep Palestinian democratic institutions.
A majority of Palestinians are skeptical of the upcoming elections. A survey
conducted in December found that 52 percent of those polled believed that the
elections would be neither free nor fair, while 76 percent said Fatah, the
largest of the Palestinian factions, would not accept the outcome if Hamas
emerged as the winner. A number of Palestinian factions said that elections
should not be held until reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas has been
concluded.
Hamas has welcomed Abbas’ decree, but with reservations. The legislative
elections will be held in May, while the presidential poll will take place at
the end of July, followed by elections for the Palestinian National Council in
August.
Meanwhile, inter-factional dialogue continues with little progress under
Egyptian and Turkish auspices. Hamas and Fatah have reached multiple
understandings in the past but failed to implement them. The rift has weakened
the Palestinian position both regionally and internationally. Hamas also runs
the beleaguered Gaza Strip uncontested and has refused to allow the PA to
return. Abbas, 85, remains the only candidate for president despite calls to
allow younger faces to take over. Analysts believe the upcoming elections, if
they are held on time, are meant to renew Abbas’ legitimacy while there is a new
US administration in office. Hamas is also under pressure, especially as
Israel’s blockade of Gaza is taking its toll on the Strip’s population. The
coronavirus epidemic has added to Gaza’s woes.
While the UN and EU have welcomed Abbas’ announcement and called on Israel to
facilitate the holding of the elections, it is doubtful that the occupying
authority will allow polls to take place in East Jerusalem. In 2006,
Palestinians in East Jerusalem were allowed to vote. Another challenge lies in
dealing with a government or legislature that includes Hamas members. The US,
Israel and most EU members have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.
Regardless of the outcome of the elections, Hamas is unlikely to give up its
control of Gaza.
Still, the elections come at a crucial moment for the region. Under President
Donald Trump, the Palestinians suffered major political and economic losses,
beginning with the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and ending with
the normalization agreements struck between Israel and a number of Arab
countries. The expansion of illegal settlement activities in East Jerusalem and
the West Bank during the last four years has also been astronomical.
For the Palestinians to restore a semblance of regional and international
support, they must achieve genuine reconciliation and unity.
While President-elect Joe Biden has committed himself to reviving the two-state
solution, he is unlikely to launch a new initiative in the first few months of
his term. But his administration will at least restore political and economic
ties with the Palestinians and call on Israel to resume peace negotiations.
Realistically, the implementation of the classical two-state solution will prove
improbable and there may be a return to Trump’s proposed peace plan as a
starting point.
Abbas has to understand that the geopolitical stage has changed dramatically
since 2016 and that, for the Palestinians to restore a semblance of regional and
international support, they must achieve genuine reconciliation and unity. The
elections provide a challenge that could deliver both, but they could also
deepen existing divisions. Two countries that have a vested interest in uniting
the Palestinians are Jordan and Egypt. On Sunday, Abbas was visited by the heads
of both countries’ intelligence agencies, apparently to urge him to make serious
moves toward Palestinian reconciliation ahead of the elections. But Abbas must
also commit to initiating the wholesale reforms that are needed to restore
confidence in the PA, especially among the Palestinians themselves.
If the elections are held, they must be free, with international observers
overseeing the process. The fact that Abbas will run uncontested may prove
problematic, while a failure to achieve reconciliation before the elections
could deliver a situation where the current stalemate drags on for years to
come.
*Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.
Twitter: @plato010
Return to Iran Nuclear Deal Would Be Unwise
Jacob Nagel/Real Clear World/January 19/2021
Israel and its new Gulf allies are growing increasingly concerned that the
incoming Biden administration intends to re-enter negotiations with Iran with
the aim of returning to the deeply flawed 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The deal yielded wide sanctions relief and
other concessions to Iran but never blocked the world’s most prolific state
sponsor of terrorism from a direct path to a nuclear arsenal in short time.
Should the Biden team re-enter the deal, the fallout could be far greater. The
Iranians have made progress in the nuclear realm since 2015. Thus, the United
States, Israel, and their regional allies have great challenges ahead. But there
are four concrete steps they should take to avert a full-blown crisis.
First, Israel should demonstrate internal political unity. This is no simple
task given the political tumult in Israel, which is heading for its fourth round
of elections in a span of just two years. Still, political figures in the
current government should maintain discipline in speaking with the press.
Even if some politicians in Israel’s current government think they have a better
policy dealing with Iran, they should demonstrate restraint and not present
their policy as Israel’s, particularly if it differs from the official directive
issued by the prime minister. When it comes to apolitical civil servants in
Israel’s military, intelligence community, and foreign ministry, it should be
discouraged. This was the way the Israeli team of experts worked with the six
world powers involved in the prior negotiations. The team spoke in one voice,
explained to the negotiators Israel’s grave concerns, and worked to mitigate the
JCPOA’s fatal flaws. Unfortunately, the current situation in Israel is more
chaotic. Some officials, politicians, and even civil servants are granting
interviews, mostly off the record, breaking rank, and offering their personal
views. This is not wise and only sends confusing messages.
Second, Israel must build a broad international coalition to include its new
peace partners in the Middle East. Those countries harbor similar and often
stronger concerns about Iranian nuclear threats. The United States ignored the
concerns of these regional partners during last round. It will be harder to
ignore them now, especially if they speak with one voice alongside Israel.
Third, Israel and its Gulf allies must join hands with both Democrats and
Republicans that oppose up-front concessions to Iran. For Israel and its new
regional allies, it is important to avoid making this a partisan issue. Still,
it is important to convince banks and businesses worldwide that re-entering Iran
would be risky. Iran is still engaged in a wide range of illicit conduct, and no
political agreement can erase that. It is also worth noting that future U.S.
Congresses, not to mention future presidents, may still seek to exit a faulty
deal with Iran, much the way President Donald Trump did in 2018.
Fourth, Israel and its regional allies must work with the United States to
retain a credible military threat against Iran’s nuclear program. This should
not be a means to encourage war. Iran simply will not negotiate a new reasonable
deal unless Tehran is certain its nuclear facilities are under threat of
destruction. Similarly, the regime itself should know that its survival is far
from certain if it does not relinquish its entire nuclear program this time.
Convincing the new administration to adopt this doctrine will not be easy.
Israel and its partners must stress that Iran’s malign nuclear activities have
not ceased. The regime has engaged in nuclear blackmail, enriching uranium up to
20 percent at its Fordo facility, continuing research and development (R&D),
installing new advanced centrifuges in underground facilities, and taking other
dangerous steps in the nuclear arena.
The International Atomic Energy Agency director general recently declared that a
new agreement is required to revive the deal. At the same time, the agency
published reports demonstrating that Iran has violated the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, the nuclear safeguards agreement, and the nuclear deal
itself. These reports are backed by site visits in Iran and by documents Israel
captured from a secret Iranian atomic archive.
So far, the international community has failed to take decisive action.
Multilateral decisions are not easy in the most ideal circumstances. Under
pandemic conditions and amidst political changes, it has been ever more
difficult. The Iranians, playing their cards very wisely, waited for the U.S.
election, hoping Trump would lose – and he did. Israel and its partners must now
work together with the incoming administration to ensure Iran does not avoid
accountability for its nuclear violations.
Israel and its regional allies are not opposed to a new agreement. However, the
next deal must permanently block Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. The last
one failed to do that. The next deal must fully prevent Iran from maintaining a
“civilian nuclear program” in underground facilities. It should also address all
three elements of Iran’s illicit nuclear program: fissile materials,
weaponization, and means of delivery.
The United States and its allies must also adjust to some new realities. Iran’s
strategy has changed. The regime no longer seeks to “break out,” but rather to
“sneak out” with the help of advanced centrifuges, advanced R&D, and underground
or clandestine facilities. A future agreement cannot allow underground
facilities, open Possible Military Dimensions questions, or regime-backed
organizations dedicated to weaponization, such as Iran’s Organization for
Defensive Innovation and Research, or SPND.
Some have advised the incoming Biden administration that Washington should focus
on finding a compromise, like requiring Iran to reduce low-enriched uranium
stocks (to a number larger than that allowed under the JCOPA) or dismantle some
advanced cascades, and now they can add to the list to stop or reduce the 20
percent enrichment, in exchange for sanction relief. This would be a huge
mistake. It was exactly this logic that allowed Iran, under the previous deal,
to enrich uranium with more than 5,000 centrifuges. Remarkably, the Iranians
were rewarded for cutting their centrifuge numbers down from 10,000, even though
unanimous UN Security Council resolutions called for that number to be zero.
Those that seek a rapid new deal with Iran posit that such tough demands will
only lead to conflict with the Islamic Republic. This is the wrong mindset for
starting a negotiation with Iran. The new administration should not rush to the
negotiating table, and it should reject any assertion by Iran’s leaders that the
United States should atone for Trump’s policy. Iran leaders should pay for their
violations, both past and present.
There are, of course, other Iranian activities that will require the attention
of the incoming Biden administration and its allies in the Middle East. They
include supporting terrorism, precision guided munitions, and more. But the
United States, Israel, and the Arab Gulf states must differentiate between
dealing with the nuclear program and other concerns. It would be an error to
include Iran’s terror support or malign actions in Syria and Lebanon in the
nuclear negotiations. These concerns can be tackled in parallel tracks or after
the nuclear problem is resolved. Merging these files could lead to dangerous
nuclear concessions. (Some reporters have wrongly asserted that Israel and the
Gulf countries rejected the JCPOA because it did not include Iran’s malign
behavior and ballistic missiles.)
The new administration is understandably eager to address looming challenges in
the Middle East. But it would be wise to move deliberately and carefully,
learning from past mistakes. Israel can help, but it must speak with one voice
and coordinate carefully with its partners, working assiduously to avoid a
return to the disastrous agreement of 2015.
**Brigadier General (Res.) Jacob Nagel is a senior fellow at the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies and a visiting professor at the Technion Aerospace
Engineering Faculty. He previously served as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s
acting national security advisor and head of Israel’s National Security Council.
The views expressed are the author’s own. FDD is a nonpartisan think tank
focused on foreign policy and national security issues.
Memo to President Biden: Please Don’t Mess Up the Abraham
Accords
Bret Stephens/Commentary Magazine/January 19/2021
In November 2013, I participated in an interview at the Wall Street Journal with
Alwaleed bin Talal, a Saudi prince of legendary riches and blunt, if sometimes
unsavory, views.
To New Yorkers with long memories, Alwaleed was the man who, after September 11,
2001, had sought to donate $10 million to the city, along with the suggestion
that the U.S. government “adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian
cause.” (Then-mayor Rudy Giuliani returned the check.) To the Journal, he was a
major shareholder in News Corporation, the paper’s parent company. Getting a
meeting with the editorial board, of which I was then a member, was not a
problem.
It turned out to be an exceptionally interesting interview. Three months
earlier, Barack Obama had surrendered his red line in Syria, refusing to make
good on his prior threats of military action in response to Bashar al-Assad’s
use of chemical weapons. Instead, Obama seized on a Russian proposal to have
Assad voluntarily relinquish his declared arsenal—a proposal that proved
remarkably easy to violate while heralding a new era of American fecklessness in
the Middle East.
“The U.S. has to have a foreign policy,” Alwaleed said that day. “Well-defined,
well-structured. You don’t have it right now, unfortunately. It’s just complete
chaos. Confusion. No policy. I mean, we feel it. We sense it.”
As dismayed as Alwaleed was by Obama’s climbdown in Syria, he was even more
alarmed by Obama’s turn toward Iran, in the form of an interim nuclear deal that
would later become the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. The
prince warned that Iran’s supposedly moderate leaders were not to be trusted,
and that the only policy that could work was to “put maximum pressure now on the
United States not to succumb to the president of Iran’s soft talk.” He also
hinted that Saudi Arabia had a nuclear option thanks to an “arrangement with
Pakistan.”
And then Alwaleed dropped a little bomb of his own. “For the first time,” he
said, “Saudi Arabian interests and Israel’s are almost parallel. It’s
incredible.”
That a prominent Saudi prince was willing to say it on the record, in the pages
of a leading U.S. daily and in impolitic defiance of an American president,
proved how right he was.
In many ways, the meeting with Alwaleed was the first hint of what, seven years
later, would bear fruit in the peace deals known as the Abraham Accords. Israel
signed the first of them in September with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
It is in the process of finalizing (with the help of some U.S. diplomatic
bribery) ententes with Morocco and Sudan, will probably soon make a deal with
Oman, and seems ultimately destined to strike one with Saudi Arabia itself. The
prospect that the Arab–Israeli conflict, long thought to be the world’s most
intractable, might be brought to an end much sooner than anyone dreamed possible
offers powerful lessons to the incoming Biden administration for how to conduct
a successful Mideast peace policy—provided it has the humility and good sense to
learn them.
This is a story in three parts. The first is about the Arab world and its
belated reckoning with the consequences of decades of domestic misrule. The
second is about Israel, and the policies it pursued in defiance of relentless
international condemnation. The third is about the United States, and what it
can achieve when it abandons decades of conventional wisdom regarding the nature
of the Middle East’s problems and the solutions to them.
ONE THE ARAB RECKONING
IT IS NOT much of an exaggeration to say that Arab civilization at the beginning
of this millennium resembled nothing so much as a gigantic prison of desperate
inmates, dangerous gang leaders, cruel wardens, and crumbling walls. It was also
a civilization that had long been in denial about the causes of its failures. As
the historian Bernard Lewis pointed out at the time, for centuries much of the
Arab world had developed an almost reflexive habit of accounting for its
misfortunes by asking: “Who did this to us?” There was never a shortage of
scapegoats: Mongol invasions in the 13th century, Ottoman overlords in the 17th
and 18th, British and French imperialists in the 19th and 20th, and then, after
1948, the Zionists and their friends in America.
The endless search for outside culprits, Lewis noted, served to deflect a more
difficult, if also more productive, question: “What did we do wrong?” That began
to change in 2002, when the United Nations Development Program published the
first of five landmark studies, written by prominent Arab scholars. The Arab
Human Development Reports collectively served as a kind of 360-degree mirror for
a civilization that had spent decades trying either to deny its own problems or
otherwise locate their source in anyone and anything except itself.
Among their findings: Spain translated more foreign books into Spanish in a
single year than the Arab world had translated foreign books into Arabic in a
millennium. Spain also had a larger gross domestic product than all 22 states of
the Arab League combined. Half of all Arab women were illiterate. Per capita
income growth in Arab countries was the second-lowest in the world, after
sub-Saharan Africa’s, with 20 percent of people living on less than $2 a day.
Unemployment was high and getting higher, especially among the youth. In terms
of demography, nearly 40 percent of all Arabs were under the age of 14, the
largest youth cohort in the world.
What kind of future could such a world have in store for them?
Though the report contained the obligatory throat-clearing about the alleged
evils of Israeli occupation, it was refreshingly candid about where the real
problems lay. The Arab world, it argued, suffered from critical deficits in
political and personal freedoms, educational resources and scientific know-how,
and women’s empowerment. These were not the result of perfidious outsiders, but
of repressive leaders, corrupt elites, and a broader inability to master the
challenges of modernity. Barring urgent domestic reforms, the inevitable
endpoint for such failures was social collapse of the sort that would soon come
to places like Libya, Yemen, and Syria.
If the conclusions of the Development Report seemed academic, its point would
quickly be driven home by a more direct set of challenges. From about 2003
onward, Islamist terrorism—hitherto directed mainly against non-Muslims—turned
the weight of its savagery inward. The same Arab leaders and secular
intellectuals who privately saw the attacks of 9/11 as an overdue comeuppance
for the United States, or had celebrated suicide attacks against Israelis during
the second intifada, quickly learned how easily such methods could be turned
against them. That was true not least in Saudi Arabia, once the leading
financier and practitioner of Islamic extremism and then, suddenly, among its
leading targets.
The hard consequences of Arab economic mismanagement came home to roost as well.
In 2007–08, global food prices rose sharply. Arab countries, which import most
of their food, were especially vulnerable. In Egypt, consumer prices for bread
rose as much as fivefold in the months before the 2011 collapse of Hosni
Mubarak’s regime. In 2014, oil prices collapsed, brought about in part by a
fracking revolution that lessened U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern energy.
The hardest shock of all was the Obama administration’s abrupt abandonment of
decades of U.S. policy in support of our allies. This came in the form of serial
decisions to call for Mubarak’s departure, withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq,
steer clear of involvement in Syria, accept a Muslim Brotherhood government in
Egypt, negotiate a nuclear deal with Tehran guaranteed to strengthen its
regional hand, and treat Russia’s military reentry in the Middle East with
near-indifference. If much of the Arab world’s street had been infuriated by the
Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, its leaders were no less appalled by the
policy of American disengagement carried out deliberately under Obama.
Taken together, these developments underscored to Arab leaders—at least those
still standing—the tenuousness of their position. Could they survive major
internal upheaval? Would the U.S. continue to guarantee their security? Was it
possible to return the genie of Islamist fanaticism to its bottle? How could
they reform their economies and societies in ways that provided opportunity and
hope? Above all, what could be done to halt Iran’s seemingly unstoppable rise?
TWO: ISRAEL’S RISE
AS ARAB LEADERS struggled to come to grips with their vulnerabilities, Israel
was gaining a keener sense of its own strengths.
The Jewish state had also been in a bad state at the turn of the millennium. The
misbegotten 1993 Oslo Accords collapsed seven years later in a diplomatic
humiliation at Camp David for then-prime minister Ehud Barak. This was followed
by an eruption of Palestinian terrorism, in which more than 1,000 Israelis—the
proportional equivalent of 43,000 Americans—were murdered. The economy went into
a deep recession. The Israeli left, along with its fellow travelers abroad,
could not understand the flaw in their almost messianic belief that the creation
of a Palestinian state had to be realized at great speed and almost any cost.
Media solons insisted that Israel could not possibly defeat terrorism through
military means. In many places, Israel was treated as a pariah state.
Yet within a few years, and despite stumbles such as the 2006 Lebanon War,
Israel had turned itself around. The IDF crushed the second intifada. The
economy recovered and thrived, with GDP rising from $132 billion in 2000 to
almost $400 billion in 2019. Israel’s demographic picture did not, contrary to
the usual anxious predictions, darken: On the contrary, as the Herzl Institute’s
Ofir Haivry has shown, Israel’s fertility rate is by far the most robust in the
developed world, while fertility rates in the Arab world (including among
Palestinians) have gone into a steep decline. On the diplomatic front, Jerusalem
significantly strengthened its ties with India, Japan, Greece, Oman, Egypt,
Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Chad—all countries of strategic significance to
Israel. And while Israel fought three wars against Hamas following the 2005
withdrawal from Gaza, the Palestinian question has, for the time being at least,
become less of an existential threat and more of a chronic condition, manageable
rather than fatal.
Memo to President Biden: Please Don't Mess Up the Abraham Accords
What makes Israel’s progress all the more remarkable is that it achieved it by
consistently defying the reigning international consensus as to what it should
do.
In 2011, then-secretary of defense Leon Panetta said that Israel was becoming
increasingly isolated in the region and that it was time for it to get to “the
damn table.” Said Panetta: “I understand the view that this is not the time to
pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe
and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view.”
In 2014, Obama warned in a Bloomberg interview that time was running out for
Israel to come to terms with the Palestinians. “If Palestinians come to believe
that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer
within reach,” the president said, “then our ability to manage the international
fallout is going to be limited.”
Secretary of State John Kerry added his own confident prediction in 2016. “There
will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world,” he said. “I’ve
heard several prominent politicians in Israel sometimes saying, ‘Well, the Arab
world’s in a different place now, and we just have to reach out to them and we
can work some things with the Arab world, and we’ll deal with the Palestinians.’
No. No, no, and no.”
What was it that Israel’s leaders understood about the region that the Obama
administration didn’t? The answer could fill a book. But four main points stand
out.
For starters, Israelis distrusted the so-called Arab street and hence were not
enthusiastic about the so-called Arab Spring. Where many Westerners saw images
of Cairo’s Tahrir Square filled with anti-Mubarak demonstrators and thought of
the pro-democracy protests in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, many Israelis
were put in mind of the mass demonstrations that brought down the Shah of Iran
in the late 1970s. In other words, Israelis understood, in a way that relatively
few Westerners did, that the two most plausible alternatives to a secular
dictatorship like Mubarak’s were, on the one hand, a radical theocratic regime
led by the Muslim Brotherhood, or, on the other, chaos. (It was a lucky break
for Israel that Abdel Fatah el-Sisi’s 2013 military coup averted that outcome in
Egypt—at least for now.)
Israelis had also tired of the standard Western analysis that it was “two
minutes to midnight” before the last hopes for peace with Palestinians expired.
A solution for the Palestinians would have to wait until Palestinian leaders
stopped rejecting every Israeli peace offer and brushing aside every Israeli
olive branch. In the meantime, Israel would continue to thrive.
Israelis understood, too, how vulnerable Arab leaders were in the face of
Tehran’s tightening grip over a crescent of Arab capitals that stretched from
Baghdad to Damascus to Beirut to Gaza to Sana’a. That vulnerability was all the
more acute as it became clear that the Obama administration was not interested
in standing up to Tehran’s imperialism and was in fact happy to abet it in the
form of sanctions relief. If Arabs wanted a determined and capable ally, they
would have to look elsewhere.
Finally, Israelis knew that, in the Middle East, the coin of the realm isn’t
love. It’s respect.
In bidding for the world’s love during the Oslo years, Israel had lost much of
that respect. But in the last 20 years, the Jewish state won it back by:
crushing the Palestinian terror apparatus; locating and eliminating a North
Korean nuclear reactor in eastern Syria; assassinating powerful Hezbollah
commanders such as Imad Mugniyeh in Damascus; challenging Iran across a wide
domain; standing up to Barack Obama in Washington; and responding forcefully to
attacks and provocations from Hamas. In doing all this, Israel demonstrated to
its neighbors that, far from being their enemy, it could well be their most
valuable asset against their enemy.
In 2014, senior Israeli and Saudi figures, led by Israeli diplomat Dore Gold and
retired Saudi general Anwar Majed Eshki, began holding a series of secret talks.
In March 2015, Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his speech to Congress to warn
against the Iran deal over the administration’s furious objections. Much of the
commentariat, both in the U.S. and Israel, fretted that Netanyahu was needlessly
driving a wedge between Washington and Jerusalem while risking Israel’s
bipartisan support in Congress.
But Netanyahu had a broader audience in mind when, in the middle of his address,
he went out of his way to note that Iran had tried to assassinate the Saudi
ambassador to the United States in a Washington, D.C., restaurant. Though Arab
ambassadors had declined invitations to attend the speech, it was no secret that
the Israeli prime minister was speaking for them.
In November 2015, Israel opened a full-time diplomatic office in Abu Dhabi,
officially as part of the International Renewable Energy Agency, making it the
first permanent Israeli foreign-ministry station in a Gulf country. Such
contacts would only become more frequent in the years leading up to the Abraham
Accords. There were handshakes between senior Saudi and Israeli figures at the
Munich Security Conference; there was intensified intelligence cooperation; and
Benjamin Netanyahu made a public visit to Oman. To anyone paying attention, the
Abraham Accords could not have come as any sort of surprise.
THREE: AMERICAN FECKLESSNESS
NEAR the end of the Obama administration, a friend of mine half-joked that Obama
had belatedly earned his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize—by uniting Arabs and Israelis in
horrified opposition to him. There was more than a grain of truth to it. In the
space of a few years, Obama, whose election was supposed to herald a new era of
global respect for America, had succeeded in infuriating or betraying nearly all
of America’s traditional allies in the region while winning no new friends.
This was no way to conduct U.S. foreign policy. Much as many Americans may wish
it otherwise, the U.S. continues to have vital interests in the Middle East. The
U.S. cannot allow a hostile power to dominate a region that accounts for close
to 40 percent of global oil production (and oil that is much cheaper to produce
than what is extracted by fracking from shale). We cannot allow the world’s most
fanatical regimes to acquire nuclear capabilities, setting off an arms race in
the world’s most combustible region. We cannot accept the permanent
establishment of jihad incubators similar to what the Taliban established in
Afghanistan, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Hezbollah in much of southern
Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza. We cannot allow chaos in the region once again to
spill into Europe, setting off the chain of events that produced not only a
massive humanitarian crisis but also a populist backlash in the West.
Finally, we have a long-term interest in encouraging reformers in the region
wherever we might find them—whether it’s in government ministries in Riyadh, a
protest movement in Tehran, or a TV station in Dubai. But such encouragement is
a far cry from the sort of democracy promotion that was embraced by the Bush and
later Obama administrations, which wound up legitimizing political movements
like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the Sadrists in Iraq that view democracy
merely as a vehicle to establish their own authoritarianism.
Where does the creation of a Palestinian state rank on this list of American
priorities? Not high, in the final analysis. There’s a shopworn argument that
the failure to “solve” the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is a major reason for
ideological extremism and jihadist terrorism. Yet to the extent that extremists
and jihadis care about, and act upon, their Palestinian grievance, it’s to
destroy Israel in its entirety, not to create a Palestinian state alongside a
Jewish one. There is also an argument that a Palestinian state of some kind will
be necessary to preserve Israel’s Jewish and democratic character. But even if
one concedes the point, it’s an argument about Israeli interests, not American
ones.
The upshot is that the infatuation so many U.S. policymakers have with
Palestinian statehood has disserved American interests in myriad ways.
It confuses a vital national interest with a political wish—in this case, the
wish of American presidents like Bill Clinton and secretaries of state like John
Kerry to be lauded as peacemakers.
It wastes the White House’s political capital and diplomatic time.
It perpetuates the damaging myth that the plight of the Palestinians is the
gravest in the region—to the detriment of other Middle Eastern people, such as
the Kurds, who have fared far worse at the hands of Turks, Iraqis, and Syrians
alike.
It perpetuates the false notion that a solution to the Palestinian issue would
somehow solve everything else.
It allows the Arab world to go on asking “Who did this to us?” rather than “What
did we do wrong?”—thereby fostering a mindset of blame-avoidance, conspiracy
thinking, and political prevarication.
It plays into the propaganda of America’s radical enemies, led by Iran, that
Israel’s behavior, rather than their own, is the chief source of turmoil and
injustice in the region.
It asks that this same ally, Israel, weaken its defenses and take the proverbial
“risks for peace,” when what America most needs from Israel is a strong country
that can defend itself, come to the aid of its neighbors, provide the U.S. with
critical intelligence and tactical know-how, and serve as a bulwark against the
region’s radicals.
It puffs the vanity of Palestinian leaders and encourages them to pursue
maximalist demands and reject every compromise, since it is only through the
perpetuation of conflict that they remain relevant actors on the world stage.
The paradox of the Palestinian issue is that the greater the public and
diplomatic attention paid it, the harder it is to solve.
It stands in the way of full normalization of ties between Israel and Arab
states by tying normalization to demands that Israel cannot safely meet, such as
relinquishing the Jordan River Valley or allowing the descendants of Arab
refugees from 1948 to return to Israel.
It feeds anti-Semitic stereotypes. As one French ambassador put it not long
after 9/11, “All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty
little country, Israel. Why should the world be in danger of World War III
because of those people?”
In sum, not only did the Obama administration harm U.S. interests and values by
overworking the Israeli-Palestinian issue, it harmed Israeli, Arab, and even
Palestinian interests as well. Could the Trump administration do better?
To its credit—and to the pleasant surprise of some of its critics, including
me—it did, in spades.
FOUR: TRUMPIAN DISCONTINUITY
IN FEBRUARY 2017, toward the end of my tenure at the Wall Street Journal, I
wrote a column titled “Mideast Rules for Jared Kushner.” Donald Trump’s
son-in-law had been handed the Israel–Palestine brief by the new president, and
so I addressed him directly. “For Mr. Kushner,” I wrote,
the goal of diplomacy isn’t to “solve” the Palestinian problem. It’s to
anesthetize it through a studied combination of economic help and diplomatic
neglect. The real prize lies in further cultivating Jerusalem’s ties to Cairo,
Riyadh, Amman and Abu Dhabi, as part of an Alliance of Moderates and Modernizers
that can defeat Sunni and Shiite radicals from Raqqa to Tehran. The goal should
be to make Palestinian leaders realize over time that they are the region’s
atavism, not its future.
I don’t know whether Kushner read the piece, but the ideas I was expressing
offered an intellectual foundation for what would become the Abraham Accords.
To the extent that the Accords are about the Palestinian issue at all, it is
that they turn conventional thinking about it on its head. Instead of the usual
view that a Palestinian state is the precondition to full Arab-Israeli
normalization, the Accords suggest that a Palestinian state will happen only as
a result of that normalization. There is an intuitive and compelling logic to
this. If Israel does not have to fear a hostile or chaotic neighborhood, either
now or in the future, it has less to fear from a Palestinian state. And if
Palestinians observe that good relations between Israel and other Arab states
are the norm, there’s less of a reason for them to stand out as the violent
exception.
Yet the Abraham Accords are not, at bottom, about the Palestinians at all. On
the contrary, they are about decoupling the Israeli–Palestinian conflict from
the Arab–Israeli conflict. Doing so has obvious benefits for all sides. Israeli
airliners no longer have to take a circuitous flight path to avoid overflying
the Arabian peninsula. Abu Dhabi can acquire state-of-the-art F-35 jets from the
U.S. without risking a de facto veto from Israel’s friends in Congress. American
military strategists and intelligence operatives can leverage this burgeoning
alliance both as an added deterrent and a force multiplier against regional
enemies.
The significance of the Accords goes deeper. Had raison d’état governed the
calculations of Arab statesmen, their quarrels with the Jewish state would have
ended long ago. But the longstanding Arab refusal to accept Israel’s legitimacy
is the expression not of national interests. It’s a civilizational impulse. It
stems from centuries of faltering confidence and wounded pride, which even the
most clear-eyed Arab statesmen—including Anwar Sadat and Jordan’s late King
Hussein—found hard to challenge. Overcoming it requires a change not just of
policy but also mentality, a willingness to rethink assumptions that are as much
cultural and psychological as they are political and strategic. It means looking
at Israel as a regional role model and strategic partner, and at Palestinians as
just another nation. That at least two Arab leaders were prepared to do all this
in exchange for no territorial concessions by Israel is a considerable tribute
to their farsightedness. In this sense, the Accords are about finally coming to
grips with the fundamental causes of the decline of the Arab world, not just the
immediate threats to its existence.
As for the Trump administration, whatever else might be said about its conduct
of foreign policy, it was refreshingly indifferent to State Department formulas
and shibboleths that had governed 50 years of U.S. policy and condemned it to
futility. Land-for-peace? One state or two? The status of Jerusalem? The genius
of the Accords is that they bypass these questions to achieve realizable policy
objectives with major strategic benefits.
They also show how little the U.S. gains through a policy of Mideast
evenhandedness. To his considerable credit, Trump shut down the Palestinian
mission in Washington. He moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. He recognized
Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He offered a peace plan for an
eventual Palestinian state that clearly tilted toward Israel. The plan later
provided the pretext for the Abraham Accords, after the U.A.E. offered Israel a
peace deal in exchange for Benjamin Netanyahu backing off from his pledge to
annex parts of the West Bank.
Simply put, U.S. policy of being maximally pro-Israel did nothing to diminish
America’s standing with its Arab allies. If anything, it did the opposite. Why?
In part because Arab solidarity with Palestinians has always been opportunistic.
But it’s also because what Arab states want from the U.S. isn’t balance. It’s
reliability as an ally. An America that supports Israel to the hilt is one that
understands the value of loyalty—an attractive feature to any country that looks
to the U.S. for support.
I write all this as someone who has never disguised or disavowed my disdain for
Trump: I supported both of his impeachments and have never regretted my
opposition to him. But I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Nor am I
optimistic about the direction of Mideast policy under Biden, whose sole idea
for the region seems to be his eagerness to bring the U.S. back to the JCPOA.
But I believe in giving new presidents the benefit of the doubt.
In the short term, Biden’s effort to return to the JCPOA will probably
strengthen Israel’s strategic ties with its new partners—at America’s expense.
U.S. outreach to Iran will also likely stiffen Israeli resistance to U.S.
pressure to resume negotiations with Palestinians. Jerusalem would be rash to
cede an inch if sanctions on Tehran are eased, to the benefit of Hezbollah,
Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, and other Iranian terrorist proxies on Israel’s
doorsteps.
Still, there is no need for Biden to replicate Obama’s Mideast mistakes. And it
behooves the incoming administration to at least consider how the Abraham
Accords can advance traditional Democratic foreign-policy objectives.
Peace: American presidents have sought, with mixed success, to normalize
Israeli–Arab relations since Harry Truman was in the White House. This is not
just a matter of altruism. The U.S. benefits when its allies are not at daggers
drawn and Washington doesn’t have to worry about placating one side at the
expense of the other. The history of Israeli–Arab wars has also been a story of
U.S. foreign-policy crises, whether it was the Eisenhower administration’s
rupture with Britain and France in 1956 over Suez, the nuclear alert during the
Yom Kippur War in 1973, the U.S. intervention in Lebanon in the early 1980s, or
Iraq’s Scud-missile attacks on Israel during the 1991 Gulf War. The Abraham
Accords are a major step toward ensuring that these sorts of crises never happen
again.
Global strategy: If the Biden administration believes that the U.S. needs
gradually to reduce the scale of its Mideast commitments—perhaps for the sake of
pursuing the Obama-era pivot to Asia—then it had better do so in a way that
neither leaves chaos in its wake nor creates openings for American adversaries.
Broad normalization between Israel and Arab states can never fully compensate
for a diminished U.S. footprint in the region; no Israeli aircraft carriers
exist to patrol the waters of the Persian Gulf. But it can help. A united
Israeli–Arab front could stymie Iran’s bid to become a regional hegemon, prevent
Assad from regaining full control of Syria, and undermine transnational threats
like Hezbollah or the remnants of ISIS—all of them threats to the U.S. as well.
Regional integration: Israel’s relationship with Azerbaijan, to which it sells
arms (some of them used to appalling effect against ethnic Armenians in the
recent conflict over Nagorno–Karabakh) and which it uses for intelligence
purposes against neighboring Iran, is one model for how Israel could cooperate
with, say, Bahrain. A better goal for Israeli–Arab relations would be the old
Turkish–Israeli alliance, which involved close commercial ties, extensive
tourism, and mutually productive diplomatic cooperation. That relationship held
for more than 50 years until the Islamist prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
came to power. Arab–Israeli economic integration cannot by itself address the
Arab world’s social and economic challenges. But it points the Arab world in the
right direction: cultivating human capital, and not letting past grievances
stand in the way of future opportunities.
A (somewhat) more reputable United Nations: Imagine a UN whose business was less
lopsidedly anti-Israel. (To adapt a line from Lennon, it isn’t easy even if you
try.) But normalization might dampen the organization’s infamous biases against
the Jewish state, restoring some of its long-lost credibility while making the
job of U.S. diplomats at Turtle Bay easier.
Anti-fundamentalism: The biggest prize for Israel, as for the United States,
would be for Saudi Arabia to join the Accords, which seemed to come
tantalizingly close to fruition after Netanyahu paid a not-so-secret visit to
the kingdom late last year. For the Saudi royal family, now deeply riven over
the question, it would also mark the ultimate reversal of policy: from being the
principal Sunni underwriter of anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic
Islamism (a point abundantly documented in Dore Gold’s 2003 book, Hatred’s
Kingdom) to being a friend and partner of the Jewish state. That, in turn, would
require a profound shift in how the kingdom approaches the practice of Islam,
what it teaches its schoolchildren, the mosques and madrassas it supports
overseas. If what the U.S. ultimately needs most in the Middle East is a region
that doesn’t export misery and fanaticism, then a prime objective of the Biden
administration’s policy should be to push the kingdom toward Israel.
Yes, the Palestinians: A Palestinian state will never come into being on account
of U.S. or international pressure. It could, however, come into existence when
two conditions are met. The first would come about when Israeli leaders have
complete confidence that territorial withdrawals in the West Bank will not lead
to Gaza-style results. And the second could happen when Palestinian leaders and
people alike abandon their long-held goal of destroying Israel as a Jewish
state, both by renouncing the so-called right of return and forswearing the use
of terror. Both those conditions would be significantly advanced in a world
where Israel had normal relations with most of its neighbors. The road from
Jerusalem to Ramallah may lead, however circuitously, through Riyadh.
FIVE: CAN BIDEN ACCEPT IT?
WILL THE BIDEN administration pay heed to any of this? Given the usual tendency
of incoming administrations from the opposing party to view everything done by
their immediate predecessor as dangerous, stupid, or both, my hopes aren’t high.
It hasn’t helped that the Abraham Accords were treated by much of mainstream
media with characteristic churlishness, as if acknowledging that the Trump
administration had accomplished something of value was tantamount to an
endorsement of fascism.
But the new administration ought to pay heed because the alternative will be
failure. Iran has made it clear that it has no interest in returning to the
JCPOA on anything but the deal’s original terms, which would have lifted the
arms embargo on Iran last year, and then lift restrictions on centrifuges and
enrichment within the decade. Whatever the Biden team thinks of that, it’s
unacceptable to Israel and its new allies. For the U.S. to return to the deal
would bring the region closer to war. Nor will a resumption of talks between
Israelis and Palestinians yield better results than the last time they were
tried, during Barack Obama’s second term. The leaders are the same; the
differences are the same; the stakes are the same. In diplomacy as in chess,
playing the same moves with the same pieces will always yield the same result.
But what if Biden simply accepted that a new dynamic is at last afoot in the
Middle East, and that there can be immense upsides—and more than enough credit
to share—by harnessing it to American purposes? What if the new president
adopted the old maxim that there is no limit to what a man can do or where he
can go if he does not mind who gets the credit? Even Jimmy Carter had the good
sense to build on diplomatic openings created by the Nixon and Ford
administrations to get to the Camp David Accords, the one lasting achievement of
his presidency.
No matter what one thinks of Joe Biden, America desperately needs a successful
presidency. The logic contained in the Abraham Accords offers him one shot at
success in a place that matters, and where so many others have failed.
We want to hear your thoughts about this article. Click here to send a letter to
the editor.
*Bret Stephens is a Pulitzer-prize-winning columnist for the New York Times.
With this article, he also joins Commentary ’s masthead as a contributing
editor.
Iran jails U.S. businessman, possibly jeopardizing Biden's
plans for diplomacy with Tehran
Dan De Luce/NBC/January 19/2021
The imprisonment of a fourth American could derail a bid by the Biden
administration to revive a nuclear agreement with Iran.
WASHINGTON — Only weeks after the U.S. election and three days after an Iranian
nuclear scientist was assassinated, Iranian authorities convicted a U.S.
businessman on spying charges, a family friend said.
The case threatens to complicate plans by the next administration to pursue
diplomacy with Iran, as President-elect Joe Biden has said he would be open to
easing sanctions on Tehran if the regime returned to compliance with a 2015
nuclear agreement.
The man, Emad Shargi, 56, who is Iranian American, was summoned to a Tehran
court Nov. 30 and told that he had been convicted of espionage without a trial
and sentenced to 10 years, a family friend said.
Shargi's family has not heard from him for more than six weeks, the family said
in a statement.
Only a year earlier, in December 2019, an Iranian court had cleared Shargi, but
the regime withheld his Iranian and U.S. passports.
The about-face by the Iranian authorities took place only weeks after Biden won
the U.S. presidential election and three days after the killing of a leading
nuclear scientist and senior defense official, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, east of
Tehran. Iran blamed Israel for the assassination; Israel has declined to
comment.
Despite Release Dual National Couple Prisoner Bahareh Amidi & Emad Sharghi's
Passport Confiscated Prevented From Traveling [fa] https://t.co/ikxbgd9W69 #Iran
#IranElection
Iranian media and Farsi-language outlets had reported Shargi's conviction but
did not mention his U.S. citizenship. Shargi was not taken into custody
immediately after he was sentenced; Iranian media reported that he was arrested
Dec. 6 in the West Azerbaijan province of Iran, near the northern border with
Iraq.
Shargi has been held incommunicado since then, his family said.
"Emad is the heart and soul of our family," Shargi's family said in a statement
obtained by NBC News.
"We just pray for his health and safety," the statement said. "It's been more
than six weeks since he was taken and we have no idea where he is or who has
him. Out of caution for his well-being, we've never spoken publicly about his
case and don't wish to now. Please pray for Emad and for his safe return home."
Iran tries to increase its leverage in future negotiations with President-elect
Biden
The case “is going to be dealt with in accordance with the domestic laws of the
country,” said Alireza Miryusefi, spokesperson for Iran’s U.N. mission.
Trump's DHS downplayed domestic extremism while pushing anti-immigration agenda,
ex-officials say
Domestic issues in either country were irrelevant to the future of the 2015
nuclear agreement, he said.
“We fully expect the Biden administration to live up to its side of the nuclear
deal and lift the sanctions altogether, as Mr. Biden himself has promised it
will," Miryusefi told NBC News.
The White House National Security Council and the Biden transition team did not
respond to requests for comment.
Apart from Shargi, three other Iranian-Americans are under detention in Iran:
Siamak Namazi, who has been behind bars since 2015; his elderly father, Baquer,
who is on medical furlough; and Morad Tahbaz, an Iranian American environmental
activist, who also holds British citizenship.
The timing of Shargi's conviction and imprisonment could put at risk the Biden
administration's plans to pursue diplomacy with Iran to revive the 2015 nuclear
agreement and reduce tensions.
President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the multinational nuclear deal,
known as JCPOA, two years ago and reimposed punishing economic sanctions on
Iran. Tehran in turn has gradually violated the terms of the accord, which had
placed limits on its nuclear work. Biden has said he would be ready to ease the
sanctions if Iran returned to compliance with the agreement, which was backed by
European powers, Russia and China.
Hard-line elements in Iran, which have remained skeptical of diplomatic
overtures to Washington, have backed provocative actions in the past, including
the imprisonment of foreign nationals, to undermine any rapprochement with the
West, according to regional analysts, human rights groups and former senior U.S.
officials.
Shargi was born in Iran and educated in the U.S., earning an undergraduate
degree from the University of Maryland and a master's degree from George
Washington University. He and his wife moved back to Iran in 2016 to reacquaint
themselves with the country, the family friend said.
He had worked in the plastics materials industry while in the U.S. and for an
aviation brokerage firm in Abu Dhabi, and at the time of his arrest, he was
working for an investment company called Sarava Holding focused on the tech
industry. The family friend said that an Iranian media report that suggested he
was the No. 2-ranking executive at the company was inaccurate and that he was
not a major shareholder. He had been working for the company for only a number
of months when he was imprisoned in 2018.
The family friend described Shargi as a gentle, caring man who is devoted to his
family and has no history or interest in political activity.
Shargi was first arrested in April 2018 and held at Evin Prison in Tehran until
December 2018, when he was released on bail. While he was behind bars, he was
subjected to repeated interrogations, and he was blindfolded and placed in the
corner of the room facing the wall, the family friend said.
During the first 44 days of his detention, Shargi had no contact with or access
to the outside world, including his family, the family friend said.
Biden faces a race against the clock for U.S. to rejoin Iran nuclear deal
Shargi's conviction and sentencing in November were handled by Judge Abolqasem
Salavati of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Court, the family friend said. Salavati,
who is known for dispensing harsh punishments, has been sanctioned by the U.S.
Treasury Department. He has "sentenced more than 100 political prisoners, human
rights activists, media workers and others seeking to exercise freedom of
assembly," according to the Treasury Department.
Human rights groups have accused Iran of arbitrarily imprisoning foreign
nationals, violating their rights to due process and using the cases as
potential bargaining chips with other governments.
Iran denies the allegations and has rejected accounts that inmates are subject
to inhumane treatment or abuse.
*Dan De Luce is a reporter for the NBC News Investigative Unit.
Nuclear Extortion: Mullahs Want More Concessions from Biden
Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone Institute/January 19/2021
Iran... rejoined the global financial system with full legitimacy -- plus
billions of dollars flowing into the treasury of the IRGC and its expanding
militias across the Middle East. You would think, then, that the regime would be
delighted to return to the same nuclear deal, right? Wrong. The mullahs want an
even sweeter deal.
Biden already showed his cards by stating that he wants the deal. The regime now
knows that Biden seems desperate for a deal, and doubtless sees this as a
delectable weakness.
The ruling mullahs also most likely assume that they can extort even more
concessions from a Democrat administration, particularly Biden's, because they
successfully did so in the past....
Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif... told a forum... that he wants a new deal.
"A sign of good faith is not to try to renegotiate what has already been
negotiated," he said, adding in the same speech that the US must "Compensate us
for our losses." Iran's top judicial body had already demanded that the US pay
$130 billion in "damages."
The regime, in addition, is playing another dangerous game, as it did with the
Obama administration, to program to extort greater concessions from the Biden
administration: It is ratcheting up nuclear threats.
Iran's ruling mullahs most likely assume that they can extort even more
concessions from a Biden administration, because they successfully did so with
the Obama administration. Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif recently said at a
forum that he wants a new deal. "A sign of good faith is not to try to
renegotiate what has already been negotiated," he said, later adding that the US
must "Compensate us for our losses." Pictured: Then US Secretary of State John
Kerry shakes hands with Zarif during negotiations in Vienna, Austria, on July
14, 2014. (Image source: US State Department)
The Iranian regime received a dangerous and unprecedented level of concessions
from the Obama administration for Iran's 2015 "nuclear deal," known as the JCPOA
(Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) -- which, by the way, Tehran never signed.
The major concession was that the deal paved the way for Iran legally to become
a full-blown nuclear state.
The sunset clauses, which enshrined that commitment, had set a firm expiration
date for restricting Iran's nuclear program. The Obama administration also
helped swiftly lift all four rounds of UN sanctions against Iran -- sanctions it
had taken decades to put in place. Furthermore, Iran's military sites were
exempt from inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and other
inspections were only to be at the times and places of Iran's choosing -- if
ever. Iran then rejoined the global financial system with full legitimacy --
plus billions of dollars flowing into the treasury of the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC) and its expanding militias across the Middle East.
You would think, then, that the regime would be delighted to return to the same
nuclear deal, right? Wrong. The mullahs want an even sweeter deal. Why?
Partially because Joe Biden already showed his cards by stating that he wants
the deal. "I will offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy," Biden stated
in a CNN op-ed.
"If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States
would rejoin the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations. With
our allies, we will work to strengthen and extend the nuclear deal's provisions,
while also addressing other issues of concern."
The regime now knows that Biden seems desperate for a deal, and doubtless sees
this as a delectable weakness.
Just as enticing to the mullahs, Biden has appointed Wendy Sherman -- a key
negotiator in the talks which led to the nuclear deal in 2015 during the Obama
administration -- to be Deputy Secretary of State. Biden actually pointed to
this professed accomplishment:
"She [Sherman] has successfully rallied the world to strengthen democracy and
confront some of the biggest national security challenges of our time, including
leading the U.S. negotiating team for the Iran Deal".
That sent a further strong message to Iran that the Biden administration was
desperate to return to the nuclear deal.
Meanwhile, the Iranian regime can only feel emboldened by the position of the
European Union. The EU is lobbying for returning to the JCPOA and lifting
sanctions on Iran -- in spite of the fact, as France's Foreign Minister Jean
Yves Le Drian recently acknowledged, that Tehran is rapidly acquiring nuclear
weapons capacity. The EU announced last week its "strong commitment" to the
Iranian nuclear deal and urged Biden swiftly to rejoin it:
"The EU reiterates its strong commitment to and continued support for the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action. The JCPoA is a key element of the global nuclear
non-proliferation architecture and an achievement of multilateral diplomacy,
endorsed unanimously by the UN Security Council through resolution 2231."
Iran's ruling mullahs also most likely assume that they can extort even more
concessions from a Democrat administration, particularly Biden's, because they
successfully did so in the past, with the Obama administration, when Biden
served as Vice President.
Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, nevertheless, told a forum organized by New
York's Council on Foreign Relations that he wants a new deal. "A sign of good
faith is not to try to renegotiate what has already been negotiated," he said,
adding in the same speech that the US must "Compensate us for our losses."
Iran's top judicial body had already demanded that the US pay $130 billion in
"damages."
Iran's regime, in addition, is playing another dangerous game, as it did with
the Obama administration, to program to extort greater concessions from the
Biden administration: It is ratcheting up nuclear threats.
Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the civilian Atomic Energy Organization of Iran,
stated on January 1, 2021 that Tehran will enrich uranium at a higher level, a
short technical step away from weapons-grade level. The IAEA confirmed the plan:
"Iran has informed the agency that in order to comply with a legal act recently
passed by the country's parliament, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran
intends to produce low-enriched uranium (LEU) up to 20 percent at the Fordow
Fuel Enrichment Plant. Iran's letter to the agency, dated [Dec. 31, 2020] did
not say when this enrichment activity would take place."
Now, at an underground facility, Iran's theocratic establishment is enriching
uranium at 20 percent.
Furthermore, on January 4, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC),
seized in the Gulf a South Korean-flagged ship carrying thousands of tons of
ethanol, according to Fars News. The move alarmed the US State Department. A
spokesperson noted:
"The (Iranian) regime continues to threaten navigational rights and freedoms in
the Persian Gulf as part of a clear attempt to extort the international
community into relieving the pressure of sanctions. We join the Republic of
Korea's call for Iran to immediately release the tanker,"
Meanwhile, General Hossein Salami, commander-in-chief of the IRGC, recently
threatened the U.S. and the United Kingdom. "If you cross our red line," he
announced, "we will destroy you. We will not leave any move unanswered. The
enemy will not have security anywhere." He added that the regime's "patience has
a limit."
The Iranian parliament also recently passed another law, requiring the
government to expel the nuclear inspectors of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA).
All these measures -- using threats and nuclear violations -- are just aimed at
getting a still sweeter deal from the Biden administration.
*Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated
scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and
president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has
authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy. He can be reached at
Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu
© 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 Pernicious Effects of Popular Nuclear Mythology
Stephen Blank and Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/January 19/2021
While one looks with alarm at the massive Russian nuclear modernization effort
now nearing completion, the disarmament lobby -- such as Ploughshares and Global
Zero -- views such modernization as simply a reflection of how the American
threat is perceived by the Russians.
There is also little doubt that the Russian Federation's priority investment in
nuclear weapons was -- and remains -- aimed primarily to checkmate the United
States' conventional weapons superiority, and give Russia a free hand to use its
own military power for hegemonic purposes. The same could be said of North Korea
and Iran's decisions to go along their respective paths to nuclear breakout.
What brings the issue to the forefront today is that many luminaries of previous
administrations who may now be staffing the incoming administration still hold
these historically inaccurate views.
A commitment to a "sole-purpose" posture -- or to its equivalent, a
"no-first-use" stance -- not only undermines the US nuclear umbrella upon which
America's allies have relied for 70 years, it also invites a Russian first
strike. Moscow's conventional and nuclear forces are configured for just that
kind of operation and are ultimately restrained only by the American nuclear
deterrent.
If the United States wrongly assumes that Russia's deterrent serves no offensive
purpose, we would be ignoring recent and authoritative evidence to the
contrary.... Russia's military posture is fundamentally offensive.... "active
defense."
Russia's ability to initiate conventional strikes against its rivals and
adversaries is closely backed up by nuclear weapons.
Iran would undoubtedly see even partial unilateral US disarmament as a green
light for its nuclear quest. One can imagine what that would lead to in the
Middle East.
Moreover, US unilateral acts of altruism, designed to lead by example, will not
be reciprocated: states in general, and certainly Russia and China, are, to
quote Charles De Gaulle, "cold monsters."
While one looks with alarm at the massive Russian nuclear modernization effort
now nearing completion, the disarmament lobby views such modernization as simply
a reflection of how the American threat is perceived by the Russians.
There is a widespread belief, especially among advocates of nuclear disarmament,
that a country with nuclear weapons is primarily interested in self-protection.
The narrative continues with another belief -- really more of a wish -- that
nuclear weapons should never be used to deter anything other than a nuclear
attack from an adversary and, if that can be agreed upon, nations would then be
willing to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether.
Those beliefs then requires a further assumption that nuclear weapons cannot
practically be used as instruments of aggression, coercion or blackmail and --
because nuclear weapons are so deadly -- that they also would not be used to
deter non-nuclear attacks, such as those involving cyber, an electromagnetic
pulse, or biological weapons.
A further assumption, held by many leaders in the disarmament community, is that
even if nuclear deterrence breaks down, no retaliatory use of nuclear weapons is
warranted -- because, again, the risks of escalation toward an all-out nuclear
Armageddon are too great. As it is also assumed that no nuclear-armed country
would risk such an Armageddon, nuclear-armed adversaries of the US must
therefore only be seeking to deter US attacks and therefore have no nuclear
ambitions beyond that.
Disarmament supporters go even further. They argue that even should nuclear
deterrence break down, the United States should still use only conventional
weapons. The late founder of Global Zero at Princeton University, for example,
Bruce Blair, testified before Congress in 2019 that for the United States, any
response to being attacked with nuclear weapons should be limited just to
conventional weapons.
As a consequence, while one looks with alarm at the massive Russian nuclear
modernization effort now nearing completion, the disarmament lobby -- such as
Ploughshares and Global Zero -- views such modernization as simply a reflection
of how the American threat is perceived by the Russians. According to this
logic, if the US simply diminished its threat by, say, pledging never to use
nuclear weapons first and to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in America's
deterrent strategy, nuclear dangers would markedly diminish and Russia, too,
would diminish its nuclear modernization efforts.
Insofar as nuclear and arms control issues are involved, it is important to
devise sound policies that advance the interests and values of the US and its
allies. Especially as President-elect Biden has now indicated his interest in
cutting both the budget for low-yield nuclear weapons and adopting abrupt
changes such as "no-first-use" in nuclear policy, it is necessary to rely on
evidence and facts, not mythology.
Particularly worrisome are the comments from defense experts associated with the
incoming administration who are calling for policies never adopted by previous
administrations or Congress in all of the 75 years of the nuclear age. These
ideas include eliminating the ICBM leg of the land-sea-air Triad, stopping the
acquisition of both low-yield warheads and the new bomber cruise missile, and
adopting such policies as "no-first-use" of nuclear weapons, all under the
assumptions that nuclear weapons -- even those held by adversaries -- exist to
deter the possible use of nuclear weapons and serve no other deterrent or
political goal.
Although discussions about United States nuclear policy should not cease, it
remains a fact that since 1945, the United States has held a bipartisan
consensus on the need over time to update and modernize the entire nuclear
establishment to ensure the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of a US
nuclear deterrent. This consensus is a remarkable achievement through 13
Presidential administrations, 7 Republican and 6 Democratic. It illustrates how,
over 75 years, a bipartisan policy can be thoughtfully and successfully pursued.
Such a consensus should not be jettisoned cavalierly.
It now appears, however, that this consensus is at risk. That possibility is not
just consequential for the United States. It is also critical for America's
allies: their safety has long been acknowledged as a vital US interest.
It is therefore most urgent to fully examine a popular argument: that it should
be US policy to assert that nuclear weapons' sole purpose can only be to deter
other nuclear weapons from being used first. This argument, unfortunately, not
only happens to be factually false, it is also dishonest -- both morally and
politically -- no small achievement.
In many instances, such as Russia's and China's attainment of nuclear weapons,
nuclear proliferation took place, at least in part, precisely to overcome and
deter the superiority of conventional weapons possessed by the Free World's
adversaries. This was true for NATO strategy during the Cold War and apparently
today as well.
Whether we are discussing India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, North Korea, Russia or
China, it seems clear that the rulers of these states were frightened by the
specter of their rivals' conventional superiority and sought nuclear weapons
expressly to deter the possible use of those superior conventional forces. There
is also little doubt that the Russian Federation's priority investment in
nuclear weapons was -- and remains -- aimed primarily to checkmate the United
States' conventional weapons superiority, and give Russia a free hand to use its
own military power for hegemonic purposes. The same could be said of North Korea
and Iran's decisions to go along their paths toward nuclear breakout.
Anyone who postulates that the purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons should be solely
to deter nuclear threats would therefore seem to have a false grasp of reality.
Historical studies of the evolution of the American nuclear deterrent reveal
that it too was driven to a considerable degree by the need to provide extended
deterrence against the clearly understood threat of a superior Soviet
conventional (and, as we now know nuclear, as well) thrust into Europe, or
another Chinese conventional attack on U.S. allies in Asia. The claim that the
sole purpose of having nuclear weapons is to deter other states' nuclear weapons
is simply historically not accurate.
What brings the issue to the forefront today is that many luminaries of previous
administrations who may now be staffing the incoming administration still hold
these historically inaccurate views. Further, the argument concerning the sole
purpose of nuclear weapons also serves as a Trojan horse aimed to get the United
States and its allies to rely on a declared "no-first-use" of nuclear weapons as
a stated policy and then rebrand it so it can be sold without explicitly naming
it to American audiences. If nuclear weapons are solely for the purpose of
stopping the first use of nuclear weapons, the argument goes, well then the
adoption of a "no-first-use" policy obviates the need for nuclear weapons in the
first place and might even gradually lead to their abolition.
The argument for "no-first-use" is therefore not only disingenuous, but also
dangerous. A "no-first-use" policy would unilaterally undermine not only US
interests but those of its allies in both Asia and Europe. Indeed, former
Defense Secretary William Perry, who has since his retirement from office become
an exponent of "no-first-use," has candidly admitted that the "sole purpose"
argument is a stalking horse for significant nuclear disarmament. How that is
meant to improve our allies' confidence in US leadership, and support
multilateral efforts to solve security problems, is beyond understanding.
These arguments also ignore Russian and Chinese military developments. Russia's
present nuclear force structure is actually designed, as the Russian government
admitted in 2020, for a first strike in order to deter conventional as well as
nuclear attacks by its main enemy, the West. News reports reveal that Russia has
just produced a 6,200-kilometer range missile, with a speed of 15,000 kilometers
an hour, each missile carrying 16-20 nuclear warheads. Just 100 such missiles
would be able to put into Russia's force 233% of the total warheads allowed by
the US and Russia's 2010 New Start Treaty -- hardly reflective of a nuclear
armed power interested in nuclear disarmament.
A commitment to a "sole-purpose" posture -- or to its equivalent, a
"no-first-use" stance -- not only undermines the US nuclear umbrella upon which
America's allies have relied for 70 years, it also invites a Russian first
strike. Moscow's conventional and nuclear forces are configured for just that
kind of operation and are ultimately restrained only by the American nuclear
deterrent. If the United States wrongly assumes that Russia's deterrent serves
no offensive purpose, we would be ignoring recent evidence to the contrary.
Experts on the Russian military fully understand that Russia's military posture
is fundamentally offensive. As Michael Kofman wrote in 2019, because Russia
appears to shun deterrence by denial, its doctrine has evolved into what Chief
of the General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov calls "active defense":
This is a set of preemptive nonmilitary and military measures, deterrence and
escalation management based on cost imposition. The Russian armed forces are
geared towards being able to preemptively neutralize an emerging threat or deter
by showing the ability and willingness to inflict unacceptable consequences on
the potential adversary. In practice this includes a range of calibrated damage,
from single and grouped conventional strikes against economic or military
infrastructure, to massed employment of precision guided weapons, followed by
non-strategic nuclear weapons, and at the outer edges, theater-strategic nuclear
warfare.
Similarly, the Norwegian expert, Katarzyna Zysk shows that from 2000, if not
before, Russia engaged in what Zysk calls "stake-raising strategies." These
involve using the threat of nuclear weapons to deter US conventional superiority
on the same principle: raising the costs of any attack on Russia to prohibitive
levels. Since 2000, Russian military doctrines, including the updated 2014
version, "maintained clauses permitting Russia the first use of nuclear weapons
in a conventional conflict." While Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu
promises that non-nuclear deterrence will be completely ready by 2021, it is
unlikely that this promise can or will be realized. That omission leaves Russian
nuclear weapons configured in an offensive first-strike mode, including new
hypersonic weapons that threaten strategic stability, as Russia's primary and
most reliable military force.
The historical and current evidence of Russia's policy shows not only that the
"sole purpose" argument is bankrupt both factually and politically; it also
clearly reveals what the consequences of a "no-first-use" policy would be. Since
2008, Russia has repeatedly used its nuclear deterrent to shield conventional
invasions against its neighbors while undertaking literally hundreds of probes
against NATO and US defenses. In short, Russia's ability to initiate
conventional strikes against its rivals and adversaries is closely backed up by
nuclear weapons. Russia is not alone in so doing. North Korea's and Pakistan's
unremitting support for terrorism against India and the Republic of Korea,
respectively, operates on a similar principle of using nuclear weapons to
backstop aggressive conventional or terrorist operations.
Further underlying the push for adopting policies such as "no-first-use" or
dismantling elements of America's nuclear deterrent, is a belief that the United
States can reduce international tensions by a partial unilateral disarmament --
by the power of setting an example. Just as the "sole purpose" and
"no-first-use" arguments on nuclear weapons fall to pieces when examined in the
light of history and the actual policies of nuclear states, so too does this
moralistic and implicitly self-righteous fantasy. It neglects that both China
and Russia, not to mention North Korea and Iran, have feared the United States'
conventional superiority, and that such fear has driven -- and still drives –
the nuclear and non-nuclear weapons programs of America's adversaries.
Unless the US disarms conventionally, the thinking goes -- a notion hardly to be
expected -- the nuclear ambitions of those four adversaries of the US will not
change.
It is important to call out the perfervid moralism that afflicts many
commentators who think it is evil for the US to have, and threaten to use,
nuclear weapons but who omit or overlook that other states have no compunction
about threatening to use their nuclear weapons. Worse, the record of observance
of disarmament treaties leaves much to be desired.
These critics also fail to consider that US steps toward unilateral disarmament
designed to showcase a superior moral posture might immediately trigger a wave
of panic-stricken nuclear proliferation in Europe and Asia among America's
allies. As one Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) study concluded, these
allies of the United States would then lose faith in America's reliability and
scramble to enhance their own nuclear capabilities. The same arms-race would
occur in the Middle East if US allies there feared facing a potential
nuclear-armed Iran by themselves.
It also is worth asking whether North Korea or China, for instance, if the US
withdrew its protective nuclear umbrella, would actually wait for South Korea or
Japan to attain their own nuclear weapons first, or whether they would act
preemptively to prevent such an eventuality. Iran would undoubtedly see even
partial unilateral US disarmament as a green light for its nuclear quest. One
can imagine what that would lead to in the Middle East. A partial US disarmament
there might very well mean an upsurge of terrorism and potential major
conventional or nuclear wars throughout that region.
To be sure, there are those who now advocate giving countries such as South
Korea and Japan a green light to go nuclear on their own. It is clear, however,
that this argument merely cloaks a US unilateral withdrawal from its alliances:
a betrayal. The move amounts to unilateral disarmament and does not seem a
realistic assessment of how the threat of unleashing nuclear weapons is actually
used.
The sentiment to disparage or even abolish nuclear weapons and the politics of
nuclear weapons is constantly being revived. While such sentiments are
understandable, that does not make them more noble, practical or correct.
Nuclear war would be an unspeakable horror for the world but this genie cannot
be put back in the bottle. Moreover, nuclear deterrence, whatever its faults,
has kept the peace between superpowers for three quarters of a century, despite
the moralism of the anti-nuclear forces who would like to ignore that major
nuclear powers do not always follow international treaties decreeing an end to
nuclear weapons or to war in general.
All these are hard, if dismaying, facts. Both Moscow and Beijing are building
hundreds of new nuclear weapons. China is on track to double them during this
decade. Moreover, US unilateral acts of altruism, designed to lead by example,
sadly will not be reciprocated: states in general, and certainly Russia and
China, are, to quote Charles De Gaulle, "cold monsters".
The appropriate US response to nuclear moves by Russia and China will, of
course, be debated by Congress and others. But the unbudgeable facts presented
here suggest that nuclear modernization, supported by the long-held bilateral
consensus of maintaining a safe, reliable and effective nuclear deterrent to
advance the interests of the US and its allies, merits continuation for the
foreseeable future. We should not deceive ourselves into believing that Moscow
or Beijing will suddenly become more accommodating if the US jettisons major
elements of its nuclear deterrent. They would probably just regard the US as
foolish and naïve. Indeed, the British Parliament concluded in a summer 2020
report that Putin and his gang of oligarchs will not relent in their struggle
against the West even if London made major concessions to it.
Policymakers in the "world as it is" rather than in the "world as we wish it
were" -- if not academics and intellectuals -- understand this. Hard analytical
observation of military history and nuclear threats -- rather than outraged
moralism -- is required. While the quest for arms control, security and peace
deserves to be pursued, such a quest requires a morality based on the evidence
of history and recognizing that one can only peacefully reduce nuclear threats
by appearing uninviting to attack. So far, that seems the only way throughout
centuries that has kept the cold monsters from launching hot wars.
*Peter Huessy, Senior Consulting Analyst at Ravenna Associates, is President of
GeoStrategic Analysis. Stephen Blank is a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy
Research 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.