English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For January 23/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

#elias_bejjani_news
 

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews21/english.january23.21.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today

Everyone who acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God but whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 12/08-12/:”‘And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. When they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, do not worry about how you are to defend yourselves or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that very hour what you ought to “

Question: "How can I have assurance of my salvation?"
GotQuestions.org?/Friday 22 January 2021 
Answer: Many followers of Jesus Christ look for the assurance of salvation in the wrong places. We tend to seek assurance of salvation in the things God is doing in our lives, in our spiritual growth, in the good works and obedience to God’s Word that is evident in our Christian walk. While these things can be evidence of salvation, they are not what we should base the assurance of our salvation on. Rather, we should find the assurance of our salvation in the objective truth of God’s Word. We should have confident trust that we are saved based on the promises God has declared, not because of our subjective experiences. How can you have assurance of salvation? Consider 1 John 5:11–13: “And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” Who is it that has the Son? It is those who have believed in Him (John 1:12). If you have Jesus, you have life. Not temporary life, but eternal. God wants us to have assurance of our salvation. We should not live our Christian lives wondering and worrying each day whether or not we are truly saved. That is why the Bible makes the plan of salvation so clear. Believe in Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Acts 16:31). “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). Have you repented? Do you believe that Jesus died to pay the penalty for your sins and rose again from the dead (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21)? Do you trust Him alone for salvation? If your answer to these questions is “yes,” you are saved! Assurance means freedom from doubt. By taking God’s Word to heart, you can have no doubt about the reality of your eternal salvation. Jesus Himself assures those who believe in Him: “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:28–29). Eternal life is just that—eternal. There is no one, not even yourself, who can take Christ’s God-given gift of salvation away from you. Take joy in what God’s Word is saying to you: instead of doubting, we can live with confidence! We can have the assurance from Christ’s own Word that our salvation will never be in question. Our assurance of salvation is based on the perfect and complete salvation God has provided for us through Jesus Christ.

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on January 22-23/2021

Ministry of Health: 3,220 new corona cases, 57 deaths
Aoun Signs Decree to Complete Distribution of Aid to Blast Victims
Dispute between Aoun and Hariri escalates in Lebanon
Report: Rahi Pursues Govt. Endeavors to Ease Formation
Hariri 'Sends' Letter to Aoun after Video Barb, Center House Denies
Israel shoots down drone in Israeli airspace from Lebanon: Army
Qabalan: Traitor is that Who Leaves the Country to Fatal Vacuum
Joumblatt says “compromise to form cabinet” a must
The American University of Beirut’s battle for survival/Abdullah Malaeb, Al Arabiya English/Thursday 21 January 2021

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 22-23/2021

Israel Fires Missiles at Syria from Lebanon Airspace, SANA Says
Four civilians, including two children, killed in Israeli-Syria strikes: State media
ISIS claims attack inside Iraq’s capital of Baghdad, US says terrorist threat remains
ISIS bombing kills police officer, wounds three others in Sinai: Egypt officials
Moscow Police Vow to Suppress Weekend Navalny Protests
Russia 'Welcomes' Biden Proposal to Extend New START Treaty
Iranian human rights lawyer moved back to notorious prison after surgery: Husband
Twitter suspends account of Khamenei after threat to Trump
Iran's Zarif calls on Joe Biden to 'unconditionally' lift US sanctions
White House: Biden calls for assessment of US domestic terrorism threat
Austin wins Senate confirmation as first Black Pentagon chief
Turkey says Cyprus talks to be held in New York with UN, EU by early March
Does Qatar seek to exclude Bahrain from Gulf reconciliation?
International Muslim Brotherhood pins revival hopes on Biden
Missing Catholic priest found dead in Burkina Faso
 

Titles For The Latest The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on January 22-23/2021

Full text of US President Joe Biden’s inaugural speech/Al Arabiya English/Wednesday 20 January 2021
Biden Inherited Immense Leverage over Iran. Will He Use It?/Jonathan Spyer/The Jewish Chronicle/January 22/2021
The Case Against the Iran Deal/Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi/The Atlantic/January 22/2021
Pentagon Decision on Israel Recognizes Reality and Presents Opportunity/Bradley Bowman/Policy Brief-FDD/January 22/2021
What to Make of Pompeo’s Parting Moves Regarding China/Thomas Joscelyn/The Dispatch/FDD/January 22/2021
Justice is elusive six years after the murder of Alberto Nisman/Toby Dershowitz/Jewish News Syndicate/January 22/2021
Canada has a limited window to get concessions from Iran/Alireza Nader/ National Post/January 22/2021
The Palestinian Plan to Dupe the Biden Administration/Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/January 22/2021
The Biden administration’s hasty desire for Iran talks/Maria Maalouf/Arab News/January 22/ 2021

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on January 22-23/2021

Ministry of Health: 3,220 new corona cases, 57 deaths
NNA/Friday 22 January 2021 
The Ministry of Public Health announced 3,220 new cases of coronavirus infection, which raises the cumulative number of confirmed cases to 272,411.
57 deaths have been registered over the past 24 hours.

Aoun Signs Decree to Complete Distribution of Aid to Blast Victims
Naharnet/Friday 22 January 2021
President Michel Aoun on Friday signed a decree to advance 50 billion Lebanese Liras to complete the payment of compensation to individuals affected by the Beirut port blast that ripped through the capital on August 4.n Aoun asked the Army chief, General Joseph Aoun to speed up the distribution to the beneficiaries in accordance with the mechanism established by the leadership of the army and the Directorate of Beirut.
 

Dispute between Aoun and Hariri escalates in Lebanon
Najia Houssari/Arab News/January 22/ 2021
Deadlock continues as country awaits formation of new government
BEIRUT: The rift between President Michel Aoun and Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri over the formation of Lebanon’s new government widened on Friday. Hariri was instructed to form a new government on Oct. 22, but no progress has yet been made, leaving the country in a political deadlock to add to its economic woes and the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Video footage was broadcast on Jan. 11 of a meeting between Aoun and the caretaker prime minister, Hassan Diab, in which Aoun accused Hariri of lying when he claimed that his proposed government lineup had been approved. Commentators have claimed that, in doing so, Aoun insulted the office of prime minister and head of government, thus widening the gulf between the president and the prime minister-designate. Over the past 10 days, several attempts to bridge that gap have failed.
On Friday, Aoun’s media office issued a statement in response to what it described as “analyses and articles suggesting that the president is the one who is putting obstacles in the face of the PM-designate to obstruct the government formation process.” “The president did not ask for the obstructing third in the government,” the statement said, adding that “the head of the Strong Lebanon bloc, MP Gebran Bassil, did not obstruct the formation of the government, nor was he involved in this process at all.” Bassil is the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement and Aoun’s son-in-law. The media office also denied that Hezbollah is “putting pressure on the president in the government formation matter.”The statement said that “naming, nominating, and distributing the ministers to ministerial portfolios is not an exclusive right for the prime minister-designate, based on two articles in the Constitution,” adding that the president “has a constitutional right to approve the entire government before signing.” “The president does not have to repeat his call on the prime minister-designate to go to the Baabda Palace, which is waiting for his arrival with a government lineup that takes into account the standards of fair representation in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, especially in light of the extremely pressing circumstances — on more than one level — to form the government,” the statement continued.
Hariri’s media advisor, Hussein Al-Wajh, said he was “surprised” by the statement issued by the presidency, and questioned whether it had been issued “on behalf of Gebran Bassil and not the president.”Al-Wajh told Arab News: “No one is arguing about the powers of the president, but this has to do with issuing a decree to form the government in agreement with the prime minister-designate and signing the formation decree after the prime minister conducts parliamentary consultations to form the government.”He continued: “Since the circumstances are extremely pressing, perhaps those concerned should go with the prime minister-designate’s (suggested) government lineup, which takes into account fair representation according to the constitution, not according to political and partisan quotas.” Al-Wajh indicated that Hariri would not be willing to change his proposed lineup. “His aim is to form a government based on the standards of the constitution, the national interest, and the rules laid down by the French initiative. The problem is not with Hariri, but with Aoun, who objects and says he does not agree to this or that name, but gives no reason for his objections.”
MP Sami Fatfat, a member of the Future parliamentary bloc, said: “We have arrived at a deadlock between us and the president and we cannot overcome it. The president has the right and duty to debate all the names proposed in the formation process, but instead of debating, he has presented a proposal that is not based on the constitution.” He went on to accuse the president of failing to act in accordance with the protocols of his position. “President Aoun must know that 65 MPs have assigned Hariri to head the government,” he said. “The president today acts as a party and as a head of a political party, not as a president entrusted with the constitution.”Elsewhere on Friday, the regional director of the Mashreq department at the World Bank Group, Saroj Kumar Jha, stressed that the bank remains committed to discussions with Lebanon’s leaders about ways to strengthen the country’s economy and improve the lives of the many people in Lebanon who are living below the poverty line. “The World Bank is greatly concerned and feels a responsibility to help to form the government,” Jha told Lebanon’s Central News Agency. “Things are getting worse every day.”

Report: Rahi Pursues Govt. Endeavors to Ease Formation
Naharnet/Friday 22 January 2021
Maronite Patriarch Beshara el-Rahi continues to put in efforts to ease three-months-old obstacles hampering the formation of the government due to differences between President Michel Aoun and PM-designate Saad Hariri, the Saudi Asharq el-Awsat reported Friday. The two are divided over the number of ministerial seats in the new cabinet, over the unity of standards, and over the party entitled to name the future ministers. On Thursday, Rahi met with Adviser to Aoun, ex-minister Salim Jreissati as part of his endeavors to accelerate the line-up of a new government. But no progress mentioned was recorded, according to the daily. The formation of a government is much-needed in Lebanon to implement reforms in order to unlock foreign aid for the crisis-hit country grappling with multiple crises including an unprecedented economic crisis. After its weekly meeting, Hizbullah’s Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc considered “the crisis in Lebanon requires the formation of a government as soon as possible.”“The circumstances are pressing and the possibility is available to form a government, especially if steps are taken to round the corners,” they said. In light of the complications preventing the formation, member of the Strong Republic bloc of the Lebanese Forces, MP Ziad Hawat, urged Hariri to “display to the Lebanese people the format he had presented to the President,” and also urged Aoun to explain to the public the reasons that made him reject that format. “Since day one of his designation, we told Hariri they will not let him form a government of experts,” said Hawwat. “Rotation in portfolios must include all sects. The idea of forming a government of experts was broken when the Shiite community refused the principle of rotation,” added Hawat.
 

Hariri 'Sends' Letter to Aoun after Video Barb, Center House Denies
Naharnet/Friday 22 January 2021
Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri reportedly “disregarded” the latest “insulting” leaked video remarks against him by President Michel Aoun, al-Joumhouria daily reported on Friday. The daily said that Hariri has sent a message to Aoun on the matter, assuring him that he “overlooked the leaked video and the personal offense it contained.”Later on Friday, sources of Hariri's Center House said the report published in al-Joumhouria was unfounded, and that Hariri did not send any letter to the President. The sources said the news was intended to "only relay a message that Aoun is not going to invite Hariri for talks at Baabda Palace," which only "reflects Baabda's adamant insistence to only adopt the standards placed" by Aoun's son-in-law MP "Jebran Bassil, despite constant denial."The two men have not met on the government formation since last week when the video was leaked. But the newspaper added that Aoun “will not initiate contact with Hariri, nor will he invite him to a meeting at Baabda Palace if he does not see a change in Hariri’s his tough stances, and a tendency to form a government according to criteria raised by Aoun during their earlier meetings.”
 

Israel shoots down drone in Israeli airspace from Lebanon: Army
Reuters/Friday 22 January 2021
Israel’s military said on Friday it downed a drone that crossed from Lebanon and would continue to protect its sovereignty. With frictions high between Israel and Iranian-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, drone activity is common along the border. It is not infrequent for one side to report shooting down an unmanned aircraft dispatched by the other.“The drone was monitored by the Israel Defense Forces throughout the incident,” the military said in a statement, without giving further details. There was no immediate comment from officials in Lebanon. Israel has also carried out hundreds of air strikes in neighboring Syria in recent years against suspected Iranian military deployments or arms transfers to Hezbollah.

Qabalan: Traitor is that Who Leaves the Country to Fatal Vacuum
Naharnet/Friday 22 January 2021
Grand Jaafarite Shiite Mufti Sheikh Ahmed Qabalan described as “traitor” the officials who leave the country to its deadly governmental vacuum, while the Lebanese drench down into poverty. “Traitor is that who leaves the country to deadly vacuum, traitor is that who bargains on the hunger of Lebanese, traitor is that who invests in foreign blockade suffocating the Lebanese, traitor is that who uses the dollar exchange game and monopolizes the markets, traitor is that who contributes to the country’s bankruptcy,” said Qabalan during the Friday prayers. “Delusional are those who believe that starving the people grant them power to turn the table. History shall hold them accountable,” added Qabalan. The formation of a much-needed government has stalled in Lebanon since the designation of PM-designate Saad Hariri in October. President Michel Aoun and PM-designate still can not agree on a government format of experts to begin a reform process of steering the country out of multiple crises, including a crippling economic crisis. Addressing the political class, Qabalan stated that “Lebanon has changed drastically. The country is now in another mold, we do not want to be pushed into chaos, but it is unacceptable that you be satiated and safe while the people starve and get baffled. Political change must be based on national unity.”
 

Joumblatt says “compromise to form cabinet” a must
NNA/Friday 22 January 2021 
Progressive Socialist Party leader, Walid Joumblatt, on Friday said that a compromise to form the lengthy awaited cabinet was required.  Interviewed by the Voice of Lebanon radio station, Joumblatt said that he had advised Prime Minister designate, Saad Hariri, to “let his opponents control power.” Moreover, he acknowledged the state’s efforts in its fight against the coronavirus pandemic; nonetheless, he underlined the need for more social awareness to help curb the spread of the virus. He added that although the Minister of Health was making great efforts, cooperation was required from all parties. He finally advised in this context following the French example by imposing a permanent curfew as of 6 p.m.

The American University of Beirut’s battle for survival
Abdullah Malaeb, Al Arabiya English/Thursday 21 January 2021
The American University of Beirut's motto: “That they may have life and have it more abundantly.”Founded in 1866, The American University of Beirut today faces a huge financial crisis. It fired over 800 employees, cut salaries, and raised tuition fees. The crisis started in 2019 and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the situation in 2020 making it harder for the university to receive funds from international donors and alumni. Some attribute the financial crisis to poor fiscal decisions made over the years, but prominent figures in Lebanon, and the region claim a political agenda against the university is afoot. It's said the aim is to demolish AUB’s significance, and end its historical role to promote freedom of thought, diversity, and liberalism. There is talk that relocating the university to Dubai, in the long run, is an option, with reports that President Fadlo Khoury discussed this with employees in an internal meeting, in the first week of December 2020. AUB was first established as the Syrian Protestant College when Lebanon was still part of the Ottoman Empire. Founded by Christian missionaries, the school played an important role to join efforts led by the liberal youth, and demand independence from Turkey. It was a hub for thinkers, and fighters that believed in Arab nationalism.b A few months after the declaration of Greater Lebanon, which marks the early establishment of Lebanon itself, the college’s name became AUB. This educational institution has survived the many crises’ that Lebanon has seen. These include: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire; the societal changes from the French mandate; the battle for independence; the consequences of the Palestine occupation in 1948; the civil war; Israeli attacks and occupation, and the assassinations of Lebanese politicians.
Today, the obstacles facing AUB are tougher than ever. This university has over 640,000 alumni in 120 countries. Graduates include Lebanese and international prime ministers, presidents and internationally recognized scientists and policy makers. With a serious threat of shutting down according to its current president, Fadlo Khoury he publicly confessed that the university cannot survive if the current economic and political deadlock continues.
Political Perspective
Fouad Siniora, former Lebanese Prime Minister, AUB alumnus and part-time lecturer believes that the financial crisis that AUB faces today, is like that of the 1980s’. He stresses the collapsed political system is deepening the crisis in a university that holds the biggest number of employees after the public sector.
“Certain groups tend to ask questions and raise doubts about AUB’s agenda, role, and even academic programs; these questions come from skeptic people that aim at shaking the university’s credibility,” Seniora told me on Sunday. According to Seniora, “The Iranian backed groups in Lebanon, mobilize the society against all what is American, and the battle that AUB faces today is a continuation to that of the 1980s’, against the same opponents that use different tactics ”.Seniora points to AUB’s role in producing academic and intellectual elites in the Arab world. He also calls the upper management of AUB administration to issue policies and regulations that fit in the current changes and that are able to rescue the university and save it from closing. “Mentioning that AUB might be relocated to Dubai serves the rhetoric of the opponents that try to picture the university as an American colony that should leave at a certain moment of history, while AUB, in reality, is deeply rooted in the society,” Seniora concludes.
Students’ Perspective
Jad Hani is the vice president of the student faculty committee, and the highest position for a student representative. He believes student concerns focus on the ability to continue pursuing their education at AUB. Hani explains that hundreds of AUB students had to drop out of university in spring 2021 because of the increase in the exchange rate tuition fees increased by 160%. “Losing AUB is something very bad, but it is worth mentioning that we as students cannot share the burden, parties that are known to be opponents of AUB’s values are the ones that offered their people jobs at AUB in line with clientalism,” Hani said.
President’s Perspective
President Fadlo khoury makes it clear that he has spoken of an existential crisis during town hall meetings in the spring semester of 2020. Although the situation deteriorated AUB took the decision to secure the institution’s continuity “I can now state with some confidence that we are in as stable and sustainable condition as we can be under the circumstances and we shall continue advancing our role as a leading institution of higher learning not just in Lebanon but throughout the entire region,” Khoury said. Khoury clarified that AUB is apolitical and not supported, or supporting any political bloc in Lebanon. “AUB serves the peoples of the Middle East and beyond by sharing our common values of freedom of thought and expression, tolerance, honesty, and respect for diversity and dialogue, and by providing opportunities for all of its community; There is no uniform intellectual or political direction at the university, so if an “agenda” against AUB exists it is based on a woeful misunderstanding of our role and mission,” Khoury said.Khoury concluded through stressing upon the roots of AUB in Lebanon, and its historical ability to endure through the storms. “Under my tenure as a president, there are no plans to relocate AUB and it is unlikely in the longer run; AUB has deep roots in Beirut and Lebanon formed over more than 154 years and we have endured many crises here, nothing will change our commitment to serve this country and its people,” Khoury said.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 22-23/2021

Israel Fires Missiles at Syria from Lebanon Airspace, SANA Says
Associated Press/Friday 22 January 2021
Israeli warplanes flew over Lebanon and fired several missiles into central Syria early Friday, Syrian state media reported, without giving word on casualties. State-news agency SANA quoted an unnamed military official as saying the attack took place shortly before dawn when Israeli warplanes flew over Lebanon. Israel has launched hundreds of strikes against Iran-linked military targets in Syria over the years but rarely acknowledges or discusses such operations.The Syrian military official said the attack was aimed at several targets in and near the central province of Hama. It added that Syrian air defense units shot down most of the missiles. It was Israel's first strike on Syria since President Joe Biden took office. Tension has been high in the Middle East over the past weeks as many had feared retaliation for the U.S. killing of Iran's Revolutionary Guard commander Qassem Soleimani last year in Baghdad. On Jan. 13, Israeli warplanes carried out intense airstrikes in eastern Syria apparently targeting positions and arms depots of Iran-backed forces. At least 57 fighters were killed and dozens were wounded, according to a Syrian opposition war monitoring group. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition war monitor that tracks Syria's war, said it recorded 39 Israeli strikes inside Syria in 2020 that hit 135 targets, including military posts, warehouses or vehicles. Israel views Iranian entrenchment on its northern frontier as a red line, and it has repeatedly struck Iran-linked facilities and weapons convoys destined for Lebanon's Hizbullah group.The strikes also come amid intensifying low-altitude Israeli warplane missions in Lebanese skies that have caused jitters among residents.
 

Four civilians, including two children, killed in Israeli-Syria strikes: State media
AFP, Beirut/Friday 22 January 2021
Four civilians, including two children, were killed by Israeli strikes on the Syrian province of Hama at dawn on Friday, the Syrian state news agency SANA reported. SANA cited a Syrian military source as saying that the country’s air defenses responded to Israeli missiles in the central province, “intercepting most” of them. It later said, “the Israeli aggression resulted in the martyrdom of a family, including a father, mother and two children”, adding another four people were wounded and three houses destroyed on the western edges of Hama city.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the Israeli raids targeted Syrian military sites and resulted in the “destruction” of five of them in an area of Hama where Iran-backed fighters are present. But the war monitor said the civilians were killed by “debris from one of the Syrian anti-aircraft defense missiles that fell on a house in a densely populated neighborhood”. The Israeli army rarely acknowledges individual raids on Syria and refused to comment on the latest reports when contacted by AFP on Friday. Israeli strikes on eastern Syria killed 57 government and allied fighters on January 13, in the deadliest raids since the Jewish state launched its air assault on targets in the war-torn country, the Observatory said. The Observatory is a Britain-based monitor that relies on sources on the ground in Syria for its reports. Israel rarely confirms it has carried out strikes in Syria, but the army said it hit about 50 targets in the war-torn country in 2020, without providing details. The Jewish state routinely carries out raids in Syria, mostly against targets linked to Iran in what it says is a bid to prevent its arch foe from consolidating a foothold on its northern border.

ISIS claims attack inside Iraq’s capital of Baghdad, US says terrorist threat remains
Joseph Haboush, Al Arabiya EnglishThursday 21 January 2021
ISIS has claimed responsibility for the twin suicide bombings that rocked the Iraqi capital on Thursday and killed at least 32 people. A message on the terrorist group’s Telegram channel said that two of its members blew themselves up in Tayaran Square in the center of Baghdad. Reuters journalists arriving after the blasts saw pools of blood and discarded shoes at the site, a clothing market in Tayaran Square in the center of the city. Health authorities said at least 110 people had been wounded. Thursday's attack took place in the same market that was struck in the last big attack, in January 2018, when at least 27 people were killed. Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi held an urgent meeting with top security commanders to discuss the attacks, after which he fired senior officials, and security and police commanders. Kadhimi’s government said a security breach allowed the bombing to take place. The acting US Secretary of State quickly condemned the terrorist attack. “They were vicious acts of mass murder and a sobering reminder of the terrorism that continues to threaten the lives of innocent Iraqis,” acting Secretary of State Daniel Smith said. Smith is in office until Anthony Blinken, President Joe Biden’s nominee for the top US diplomat position, is confirmed by the Senate.

ISIS bombing kills police officer, wounds three others in Sinai: Egypt officials
The Associated Press, El-Arish/Friday 22 January 2021
ISIS has blown up a roadside bomb in the restive northern Sinai Peninsula, killing one member of Egypt’s security forces and wounding three others, medical and security officials said late Thursday. The explosion at dawn Thursday was triggered by a remote-controlled device that targeted an armored vehicle. It was carrying forces on a patrol mission along the Mediterranean coast of the town of Sheikh Zuweid, said the officials, who asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to brief the media. ISIS has posted a statement on a militant-affiliated website claiming responsibility for the attack. Egypt has been battling ISIS-led insurgency in the Sinai that intensified after the military overthrew an extremist president in 2013. The militants have carried out scores of attacks, mainly targeting security forces and minority Christians. The conflict in Sinai has largely taken place out of public view, with journalists and outside observers barred from the area. The fighting has so far not expanded into the southern end of the peninsula, where popular Red Sea tourist resorts are located. In February 2018, the military launched a massive operation in Sinai that also encompassed parts of the Nile Delta and deserts along the country’s western border with Libya. Since then, the pace of ISIS attacks in Sinai’s north has diminished.
 

Moscow Police Vow to Suppress Weekend Navalny Protests
Agence France Presse/Friday 22 January 2021
Russian police on Friday said they would crackdown on opposition protests in support of the jailed opposition politician Alexei Navalny at the weekend. "Attempts to hold unsanctioned public events, as well as any provocative actions on the part of their participants, will be regarded as a threat to public order and immediately suppressed," Moscow police said in a statement.
 

Russia 'Welcomes' Biden Proposal to Extend New START Treaty
Agence France Presse/Friday 22 January 2021
Russia said Friday it welcomed a proposal by US President Joe Biden to extend New START, a landmark nuclear arms reduction agreement due to expire next month."We can only welcome the political will to extend this document," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters, noting that any decision to extend the pact will depend on "the details of this proposal".

Iranian human rights lawyer moved back to notorious prison after surgery: Husband
Yaghoub Fazeli, Al Arabiya English/Friday 22 January 2021
Prominent Iranian human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh was moved back to prison this week after being temporarily released due to health concerns, her husband has revealed. Sotoudeh, 57, returned to the notorious Qarchak prison just days after she underwent an angiogram at a hospital in Tehran, her husband Reza Khandan said. “Unfortunately, the conditions of prisoners in Iran are miserable, and prisoners with physical problems and illnesses have it worse,” wrote on Twitter. Sotoudeh, a winner of the European Parliament’s Sakharov prize, was arrested in 2018 on espionage charges, spreading propaganda, and insulting Iran’s supreme leader. She denies all charges. In 2019, Sotoudeh was sentenced to 38 years in prison and 148 lashes. Last September, Sotoudeh ended a 46-day hunger strike to protest the risk that political prisoners in Iran face amid the coronavirus pandemic due to deteriorating health. Protests erupted in several Iranian prisons in late March over concerns about the spread of coronavirus in prisons.According to the rights group Amnesty International, around 36 prisoners are believed to have been killed by security forces during the protests.
 

Twitter suspends account of Khamenei after threat to Trump
WASHINGTON - Twitter suspended an account linked to Iran’s supreme leader on Friday, hours after it carried the image of a golfer resembling former US President Donald Trump apparently being targeted by a drone alongside a vow to avenge the killing of a top Iranian general in a US drone attack.
Iran’s supreme leader’s office posted a photo montage of Trump playing golf under the shadow of a warplane alongside a pledge to avenge a deadly 2020 drone strike he ordered. The post on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s Twitter account late Thursday warned there was no escape from payback for the US strike outside Baghdad airport which killed Iran’s storied foreign operations chief General Qassem Soleimani and his Iraqi lieutenant. “Revenge is inevitable. Soleimani’s killer and the man who gave the orders must face vengeance,” it said.Trump left office on Wednesday and flew straight to his Mar-a-Lago golf club in Florida, without attending the inauguration of his successor, President Joe Biden. Iranian officials have pledged repeatedly that Soleimani will be avenged. Earlier this month, on the first anniversary of his killing, judiciary chief Ebrahim Raisi warned that not even Trump was “immune from justice” and that Soleimani’s killers would “not be safe anywhere in the world.”

Iran's Zarif calls on Joe Biden to 'unconditionally' lift US sanctions
NNA/AFP/Friday 22 January 2021
Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif Friday called on the new US administration to "unconditionally" lift sanctions imposed by Donald Trump on the Islamic republic to salvage the 2015 nuclear deal. The administration of new US President Joe Biden "should begin by unconditionally removing, with full effect, all sanctions imposed, reimposed, or relabeled (on Iran) since Trump took office", Zarif wrote in an op-ed published by Foreign Affairs magazine Friday, warning against any attempt at "extracting concessions" from Tehran.
 

White House: Biden calls for assessment of US domestic terrorism threat
Reuters/Friday 22 January 2021
US President Joe Biden has tasked his administration with completing a full assessment of the risk of domestic terrorism in the wake of the attack on the US Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump, the White House said on Friday. The assessment will be completed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in coordination with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. “We want fact-based analysis, upon which we can shape policy,” she told reporters in a briefing. Psaki said that, in addition to the threat assessment, the White House would build out capability within its National Security Council to counter domestic violent extremism, including a policy review on how the federal government can share information about the threat better. The White House also will coordinate relevant parts of the government to “enhance and accelerate efforts” to address the issue, Psaki added. “The January 6th assault on the Capitol and the tragic deaths and destruction that occurred underscored what we have long known: the rise of domestic violent extremism is a serious and growing national security threat. The Biden administration will confront this threat with the necessary resources and resolve,” Psaki said. The US Senate on Wednesday confirmed Avril Haines as the Director of National Intelligence, the nation’s top intelligence job.
 

Austin wins Senate confirmation as first Black Pentagon chief
Agencies/Arab News/January 22/2021
WASHINGTON DC: Lloyd J. Austin, a West Point graduate who rose to the Army's elite ranks and marched through racial barriers in a 41-year career, won Senate confirmation Friday to become the nation's first Black secretary of defense. The 93-2 vote gave President Joe Biden his second Cabinet member; Avril Haines was confirmed on Wednesday as the first woman to serve as director of national intelligence. Biden is expected to win approval for others on his national security team in coming days, including Antony Blinken as secretary of state. Biden is looking for Austin to restore stability atop the Pentagon, which went through two Senate-confirmed secretaries of defense and four who held the post on an interim basis during the Trump administration. Austin's confirmation was complicated by his status as a recently retired general. He required a waiver of a legal prohibition on a military officer serving as secretary of defense within seven years of retirement. Austin retired in 2016 after serving as the first Black general to head US Central Command. He was the first Black vice chief of staff of the Army in 2012 and also served as director of the Joint Staff, a behind-the-scenes job that gave him an intimate view of the Pentagon's inner workings. The House and the Senate approved the waiver Thursday, clearing the way for the Senate confirmation vote. Austin, a large man with a booming voice and a tendency to shy from publicity, describes himself as the son of a postal worker and a homemaker from Thomasville, Georgia. He has promised to speak his mind to Congress and to Biden.At his confirmation hearing Tuesday, Austin said he had not sought the nomination but was ready to lead the Pentagon without clinging to his military status and with full awareness that being a political appointee and Cabinet member requires “a different perspective and unique duties from a career in uniform.” As vice president, Biden worked closely with Austin in 2010-11 to wind down US military involvement in Iraq while Austin was the top US commander in Baghdad. American forces withdrew entirely, only to return in 2014 after Daesh captured large swaths of Iraqi territory. At Central Command, Austin was a key architect of the strategy to defeat Daesh in Iraq and Syria.
Biden said in December when he announced Austin as his nominee that he considered him “the person we need at this moment,” and that he trusts Austin to ensure civilian control of the military. Critics of the nomination have questioned the wisdom of making an exception to the law against a recently retired military officer serving as defense secretary, noting that the prohibition was put in place to guard against undue military influence in national security matters. Only twice before has Congress waived the prohibition — in 1950 for George C. Marshall during the Korean War and in 2017 for Jim Mattis, the retired Marine general who served as President Donald Trump's first Pentagon chief. Austin has promised to surround himself with qualified civilians. And he made clear at his confirmation hearing that he embraces Biden's early focus on combatting the coronavirus pandemic.
"I will quickly review the department’s contributions to coronavirus relief efforts, ensuring we are doing everything we can — and then some — to help distribute vaccines across the country and to vaccinate our troops and preserve readiness,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Under questioning by senators, Austin pledged to address white supremacy and violent extremism in the ranks of the military — problems that received relatively little public attention from his immediate predecessor, Mark Esper. Austin promised to “rid our ranks of racists,” and said he takes the problem personally. “The Defense Department’s job is to keep America safe from our enemies,” he said. “But we can’t do that if some of those enemies lie within our own ranks.”Austin said he will insist that the leaders of every military service know that extremist behavior in their ranks is unacceptable.
“This is not something we can be passive on,” he said. “This is something I think we have to be active on, and we have to lean into it and make sure that we’re doing the right things to create the right climate.”He offered glimpses of other policy priorities, indicating that he embraces the view among many in Congress that China is the “pacing challenge,” or the leading national security problem for the US. The Middle East was the main focus for Austin during much of his Army career, particularly when he reached senior officer ranks.
 

Turkey says Cyprus talks to be held in New York with UN, EU by early March
Reuters, Ankara/Friday 22 January 2021
Talks over the divided island of Cyprus will be held in New York in the next two months with the participation of the United Nations, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Friday. The United Nations has been trying unsuccessfully for decades to reunite Cyprus, split in a Turkish invasion in 1974 after a brief Greek-inspired coup. The last attempt collapsed in disarray in 2017 after negotiations attended by all parties. Only Ankara recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) as an independent state. It does not recognize the internationally recognized Greek Cypriot government to the south.
Cavusoglu said Turkey, Greece, Britain -- the island’s guarantor powers -- and the United Nations would convene the talks with the two Cypriot sides in late February or early March, with the European Union as an observer. Speaking in Brussels after talks with senior EU officials, Cavusoglu said the bloc had so far “disregarded the rights of the Turkish side.”“We conveyed to them that this trust needs to be re-established,” he added. Cyprus’s division has long been a source of friction between Turkey and EU member Greece, which will hold talks next Monday on a separate dispute over maritime rights in the eastern Mediterranean. Turkey faces the threat of EU economic sanctions over the maritime rights dispute with Greece and Cyprus. However, the EU and Turkey have both signaled this week that they want to improve relations, which have also been strained by disagreements over migration and Ankara’s human rights record.

Does Qatar seek to exclude Bahrain from Gulf reconciliation?
The Arab Weekly/January 22/2021
MANAMA - Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid al-Zayani did not hide his country's disappointment with Qatar's move to obstruct the decisions made at the Al-Ula summit for reconciliation between the two countries. Observers of Gulf affairs say his statements seem aimed at showing that Manama does not bear any responsibility for the obstructionist efforts of Doha, which harbours plans to exclude Bahrain from the reconciliation process. The Bahraini foreign minister said in a parliamentary session Thursday that Qatari authorities have not expressed any intent to resolve the outstanding issues with his country and have shown no interest in directly negotiating such files since the end of the summit. He revealed that his ministry sent a written letter to Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani calling on Doha to dispatch an official delegation to start talks on pending issues between the two sides, but has not received a reply from Qatar. He added that his country "is looking forward to a new process in relations with Qatar that takes into account the rights and interests of each country, through clear mechanisms to ensure more balanced relations." His criticism contrasted with the optimistic assessment of Saudi Arabia's relationship with Qatar expressed by Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, who told the Dubai-based Al Arabiya TV on Thursday that the kingdom will reopen its embassy in Doha "within days."
Qatar has recently opted to pursue policies based on raising contentious issues with Bahrain in a way that completely contradicts the reconciliation process announced after the mediation drive undertaken by Kuwait, the United States and Oman, with a green light from Saudi Arabia.
After raising the issue of Bahraini fishermen accused of crossing into Qatari territorial waters, Doha resorted to the United Nations and the UN Security Council and filed a complaint against Manama accusing Bahraini fighter planes of violating Qatar's airspace.
Observers expected Doha to discuss the contentious issue on the bilateral or Gulf levels, especially given that the Qataris had shown enthusiasm about reconciliation and a return to the Gulf fold. But that kind of bilateral or regional discussion did not happen, raising questions about Qatar's real intentions.
The Qatari moves have raised doubts about Doha's understanding of reconciliation with all the boycotting capitals, and led to questions over whether Doha wants to reach a form of reconciliation that is limited to Riyadh. Qatar was previously accused of seeking to play on differences between countries of the Arab quartet, which had led the boycott movement against it. Observers of Gulf affairs believe that Qatar plans to target Manama and exclude it from reconciliation. They see Doha as sending a negative message according to which Qatar has negotiated and reached a de-escalation agreement with Riyadh but is not concerned with Bahrain. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is acting and negotiating in agreement with the other three quartet partners. Analysts say Manama is most provoked by Qatar's excessive talk about a reconciliation process that includes Iran, as Bahrain considers Tehran to be intent on jeopardising Bahrain's security, and that Manama's political position will not change regardless of the initiatives taken by Gulf countries to achieve acceptable understandings. The absence of Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa from the Al-Ula summit showed the limits of Bahrain’s optimism towards the reconciliation process with Qatar, as Manama does not believe Doha is serious about resolving all of Bahrain's concerns. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt agreed during the Al-Ula summit to restore diplomatic, trade and travel ties that they had severed with Qatar in 2017 over accusations Doha supported Islamic extremism and held close ties with Iran. If the Bahraini foreign minister was keen on displaying a calm and sober demeanor in calling on the Qataris to carry out their pledges within the reconciliation process, observers believe that in view of the ambiguity of Doha’s position, Manama may not wait much longer, and could in fact react by announcing the end of any commitment to reconciliation, especially as it considers itself the most affected by the repercussions of the Qatari agenda in the region since the 2011 protests.
In 2017, Bahraini judicial investigations led to charges being levelled at leaders of "the Bahraini opposition" who were accused of “communicating” with Doha during the protests in order to “carry out hostile acts inside the Kingdom of Bahrain, harm its military, political, economic and national interests, and undermine its prestige and stature abroad.”Since 2011, the relationship between the two countries has remained tense, especially after Bahrain accused Qatar of urging Bahraini citizens to give up their nationality in exchange for Qatari citizenship. This created a climate that made Manama most supportive of the boycott option at the time.

International Muslim Brotherhood pins revival hopes on Biden
The Arab Weekly/January 22/2021
Doha – For the international organisation of the Muslim Brotherhood, political expediency has taken the upper hand over religious dogma, as the globally-implanted militant organisation welcomed incoming US President Joe Biden’s commitment to Christian virtues. On Thursday, the secretary-general of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, Ali al-Qaradaghi, expressed appreciation for what he called the “religious trait” in Biden’s personality.
“In America, President Biden begins his presidential term with a church mass and swears on the Bible. The ceremony is interspersed with priestly words and prayers. I saw the attendees with their heads bowed when hearing the priest’s sermon with much respect and humility,” Qaradaghi wrote on Facebook.
He wondered, “Why do secularists in our Arab and Islamic countries imitate manifestations of atheism, moral failure, and attacks on the Islamic faith and its symbols, and do not respect the collective identity of their peoples and their religious sanctities?”
The United States constitution does not compel presidents to swear the oath of office over a religious book, but historical custom and tradition have turned the Bible into part of inauguration ceremonies since the election of George Washington in 1789.
Qaradaghi’s praise for Biden’s Christianity comes in the context of a particular attention by activists and leaders affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood to the inauguration of the new American president. Their focus is on the perceived paradox between what they consider the politicisation of Christianity on an important US event, and the opposition they face at home as they try to politicise religion as a way to infiltrate and control power.
Analysts see the Brotherhood’s conspicuous welcome of the new president as a way for the organisation to move closer to the Biden administration and consolidate the ties it tried to build during the election campaign between the new president’s representatives, backers and sympathisers on the one hand, and Islamic associations close to the Brotherhood that helped push members of the Muslim community to vote for Biden, on the other hand. The organisation did not hide its “joy” over Biden’s arrival to the White House, believing his presidency will give it another opportunity to revive its project in the Arab region, with the support of Qatar and Turkey. Its leading figures also hope to receive open-ended support from Democrats based on the Islamists’ interpretation of the experience they had with former US President Barack Obama’s administration.
The Muslim Brotherhood believes Biden’s presidency could also give it a new lease on life in Egypt, as former US President Donald Trump was a strong supporter of the regime of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and did not object to the Brotherhood being designated as a terrorist organisation in countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The Islamist group posted a statement on its official website after Biden’s victory quoting its deputy general guide, Ibrahim Mounir, as saying “the time has come to review the policies of support for dictatorships, and the crimes and violations committed by despotic regimes around the world.” But Kamal Habib, an expert on Islamist movements, says it is unlikely the group will receive any US support for its attempts to return to the fore of the political scene. He believes the Biden administration might work to “improve the situation of human rights or the treatment of political parties and civil society groups but not facilitate the return of the Brotherhood.”Analysts say that the Biden administration cannot go back to square one in betting on the Muslim Brotherhood, and that the previous administration’s stance on the Brothrhood had nothing to do with Trump personally, but was instead part of a US policy ending support for the group that began during Obama’s presidency. The Obama administration had bet on the Brotherhood in the early stages of of the “Arab spring,” but Islamists’ performance in power in Egypt and Tunisia, and their alliances in Syria and Yemen, prompted the US administration to change its position and distance itself from the controversial organisation. The Obama administration witnessed the fall of the Egyptian Brotherhood in 2013, and the eruption of a mass uprising against its rule. It also followed the tense security and political situation in Tunisia and the wave of assassinations the same year. The attitude of Islamist militants against the US Embassy embassy in Tunis and the US’s diplomatic representation in Benghazi also left an indelible mark. The US did not issue any statement of support for the group or its desire to stay in power, especially in light of a wave of popular anger rejecting the Brotherhood’s rule.

Missing Catholic priest found dead in Burkina Faso
NNA/AFP/January 22/2021
A priest missing since Tuesday in Burkina Faso’s jihadist-plagued southwest has been found dead, security and local sources said Thursday. “The priest’s lifeless body was found in the Toumousseni Forest” in the Cascades region bordering Ivory Coast and Mali, a security source said.
A local politician confirmed that the priest, Abbot Rodrigue Sanon from the Notre Dame de Soubaganyedougou parish, had been found dead. While the priest’s disappearance and death remain unexplained, Burkina Faso’s southeast harbours jihadists and bandits — much like parts of neighbouring states in the Sahel region. Sanon had left his parish on Tuesday heading for the regional capital Banfora, but “never arrived”, bishop Lucas Kalfa Sanou said Wednesday in a statement. His car was found empty on the main road and security forces launched a search operation. “Everything looks like a kidnapping by armed terrorist groups,” a security source in the capital Ouagadougou told AFP, using Sahel governments’ preferred terminology for jihadists. “They must have executed their hostage to slip by the military cordon,” the source added. Since 2015, jihadist groups — some affiliated to al-Qaeda and others to the Islamic State militant group — have launched increasing numbers of attacks in Burkina Faso, one of the poorest countries in the world. Over that period, 1,100 people have been killed and more than one million have fled. Last August, the grand imam of the northern town of Djibo was found dead three days after gunmen stopped the car he was travelling in and kidnapped him. In March 2019, a priest in Djibo was kidnapped, and in February 2018, a Catholic missionary, Cesar Fernandez, was murdered in the centre of the country. --
 

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on January 22-23/2021

Full text of US President Joe Biden’s inaugural speech
Al Arabiya English/Wednesday 20 January 2021
Joe Biden was sworn in as the 46th president of the United States of America on Wednesday. Here is the full text of his inaugural address given on the steps of the US Capitol:
Chief Justice Roberts, Vice President Harris, Speaker Pelosi, Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, Vice President Pence, distinguished guests, and my fellow Americans.
This is America’s day.
This is democracy’s day.
A day of history and hope.
Of renewal and resolve.
Through a crucible for the ages America has been tested anew and America has risen to the challenge.
Today, we celebrate the triumph not of a candidate, but of a cause, the cause of democracy.
The will of the people has been heard and the will of the people has been heeded.
We have learned again that democracy is precious.
Democracy is fragile.
And at this hour, my friends, democracy has prevailed.
So now, on this hallowed ground where just days ago violence sought to shake this Capitol’s very foundation, we come together as one nation, under God, indivisible, to carry out the peaceful transfer of power as we have for more than two centuries.
We look ahead in our uniquely American way – restless, bold, optimistic – and set our sights on the nation we know we can be and we must be.
I thank my predecessors of both parties for their presence here.
I thank them from the bottom of my heart.
You know the resilience of our Constitution and the strength of our nation.
As does President Carter, who I spoke to last night but who cannot be with us today, but whom we salute for his lifetime of service.
I have just taken the sacred oath each of these patriots took — an oath first sworn by George Washington.
But the American story depends not on any one of us, not on some of us, but on all of us.
On “We the People” who seek a more perfect Union.
This is a great nation and we are a good people.
Over the centuries through storm and strife, in peace and in war, we have come so far. But we still have far to go.
We will press forward with speed and urgency, for we have much to do in this winter of peril and possibility.
Much to repair.
Much to restore.
Much to heal.
Much to build.
And much to gain.
Few periods in our nation’s history have been more challenging or difficult than the one we’re in now.
A once-in-a-century virus silently stalks the country.
It’s taken as many lives in one year as America lost in all of World War II.
Millions of jobs have been lost.
Hundreds of thousands of businesses closed.
A cry for racial justice some 400 years in the making moves us. The dream of justice for all will be deferred no longer.
A cry for survival comes from the planet itself. A cry that can’t be any more desperate or any more clear.
And now, a rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat.
To overcome these challenges – to restore the soul and to secure the future of America – requires more than words.
It requires that most elusive of things in a democracy:
Unity.
Unity.
In another January in Washington, on New Year’s Day 1863, Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
When he put pen to paper, the President said, “If my name ever goes down into history it will be for this act and my whole soul is in it.”
My whole soul is in it.
Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this:
Bringing America together.
Uniting our people.
And uniting our nation.
I ask every American to join me in this cause.
Uniting to fight the common foes we face:
Anger, resentment, hatred.
Extremism, lawlessness, violence.
Disease, joblessness, hopelessness.
With unity we can do great things. Important things.
We can right wrongs.
We can put people to work in good jobs.
We can teach our children in safe schools.
We can overcome this deadly virus.
We can reward work, rebuild the middle class, and make health care
secure for all.
We can deliver racial justice.
We can make America, once again, the leading force for good in the world.
I know speaking of unity can sound to some like a foolish fantasy.
I know the forces that divide us are deep and they are real.
But I also know they are not new.
Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal that we are all created equal and the harsh, ugly reality that racism, nativism, fear, and demonization have long torn us apart.
The battle is perennial.
Victory is never assured.
Through the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War, 9/11, through struggle, sacrifice, and setbacks, our “better angels” have always prevailed.
In each of these moments, enough of us came together to carry all of us forward.
And, we can do so now.
History, faith, and reason show the way, the way of unity.
We can see each other not as adversaries but as neighbors.
We can treat each other with dignity and respect.
We can join forces, stop the shouting, and lower the temperature.
For without unity, there is no peace, only bitterness and fury.
No progress, only exhausting outrage.
No nation, only a state of chaos.
This is our historic moment of crisis and challenge, and unity is the path forward.
And, we must meet this moment as the United States of America.
If we do that, I guarantee you, we will not fail.
We have never, ever, ever failed in America when we have acted together.
And so today, at this time and in this place, let us start afresh.
All of us.
Let us listen to one another.
Hear one another.
See one another.
Show respect to one another.
Politics need not be a raging fire destroying everything in its path.
Every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war.
And, we must reject a culture in which facts themselves are manipulated and even manufactured.
My fellow Americans, we have to be different than this.
America has to be better than this.
And, I believe America is better than this.
Just look around.
Here we stand, in the shadow of a Capitol dome that was completed amid the Civil War, when the Union itself hung in the balance.
Yet we endured and we prevailed.
Here we stand looking out to the great Mall where Dr. King spoke of his dream.
Here we stand, where 108 years ago at another inaugural, thousands of protestors tried to block brave women from marching for the right to vote.
Today, we mark the swearing-in of the first woman in American history elected to national office – Vice President Kamala Harris.
Don’t tell me things can’t change.
Here we stand across the Potomac from Arlington National Cemetery, where heroes who gave the last full measure of devotion rest in eternal peace.
And here we stand, just days after a riotous mob thought they could use violence to silence the will of the people, to stop the work of our democracy, and to drive us from this sacred ground.
That did not happen.
It will never happen.
Not today.
Not tomorrow.
Not ever.
To all those who supported our campaign I am humbled by the faith you have placed in us.
To all those who did not support us, let me say this: Hear me out as we move forward. Take a measure of me and my heart.
And if you still disagree, so be it.
That’s democracy. That’s America. The right to dissent peaceably, within the guardrails of our Republic, is perhaps our nation’s greatest strength.
Yet hear me clearly: Disagreement must not lead to disunion.
And I pledge this to you: I will be a President for all Americans.
I will fight as hard for those who did not support me as for those who did.
Many centuries ago, Saint Augustine, a saint of my church, wrote that a people was a multitude defined by the common objects of their love.
What are the common objects we love that define us as Americans?
I think I know.
Opportunity.
Security.
Liberty.
Dignity.
Respect.
Honor.
And, yes, the truth.
Recent weeks and months have taught us a painful lesson.
There is truth and there are lies.
Lies told for power and for profit.
And each of us has a duty and responsibility, as citizens, as Americans, and especially as leaders – leaders who have pledged to honor our Constitution and protect our nation — to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.
I understand that many Americans view the future with some fear and trepidation.
I understand they worry about their jobs, about taking care of their families, about what comes next.
I get it.
But the answer is not to turn inward, to retreat into competing factions, distrusting those who don’t look like you do, or worship the way you do, or don’t get their news from the same sources you do.
We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal.
We can do this if we open our souls instead of hardening our hearts.
If we show a little tolerance and humility.
If we’re willing to stand in the other person’s shoes just for a moment.
Because here is the thing about life: There is no accounting for what fate will deal you.
There are some days when we need a hand.
There are other days when we’re called on to lend one.
That is how we must be with one another.
And, if we are this way, our country will be stronger, more prosperous, more ready for the future.
My fellow Americans, in the work ahead of us, we will need each other.
We will need all our strength to persevere through this dark winter.
We are entering what may well be the toughest and deadliest period of the virus.
We must set aside the politics and finally face this pandemic as one nation.
I promise you this: as the Bible says weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning.
We will get through this, together
The world is watching today.
So here is my message to those beyond our borders: America has been tested and we have come out stronger for it.
We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again.
Not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s.
We will lead not merely by the example of our power but by the power of our example.
We will be a strong and trusted partner for peace, progress, and security.
We have been through so much in this nation.
And, in my first act as President, I would like to ask you to join me in a moment of silent prayer to remember all those we lost this past year to the pandemic.
To those 400,000 fellow Americans – mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, friends, neighbors, and co-workers.
We will honor them by becoming the people and nation we know we can and should be.
Let us say a silent prayer for those who lost their lives, for those they left behind, and for our country.
Amen.
This is a time of testing.
We face an attack on democracy and on truth.
A raging virus.
Growing inequity.
The sting of systemic racism.
A climate in crisis.
America’s role in the world.
Any one of these would be enough to challenge us in profound ways.
But the fact is we face them all at once, presenting this nation with the gravest of responsibilities.
Now we must step up.
All of us.
It is a time for boldness, for there is so much to do.
And, this is certain.
We will be judged, you and I, for how we resolve the cascading crises of our era.
Will we rise to the occasion?
Will we master this rare and difficult hour?
Will we meet our obligations and pass along a new and better world for our children?
I believe we must and I believe we will.
And when we do, we will write the next chapter in the American story.
It’s a story that might sound something like a song that means a lot to me.
It’s called “American Anthem” and there is one verse stands out for me:
“The work and prayers
of centuries have brought us to this day
What shall be our legacy?
What will our children say?…
Let me know in my heart
When my days are through
America
America
I gave my best to you.”
Let us add our own work and prayers to the unfolding story of our nation.
If we do this then when our days are through our children and our children’s children will say of us they gave their best.
They did their duty.
They healed a broken land.
My fellow Americans, I close today where I began, with a sacred oath.
Before God and all of you I give you my word.
I will always level with you.
I will defend the Constitution.
I will defend our democracy.
I will defend America.
I will give my all in your service thinking not of power, but of possibilities.
Not of personal interest, but of the public good.
And together, we shall write an American story of hope, not fear.
Of unity, not division.
Of light, not darkness.
An American story of decency and dignity.
Of love and of healing.
Of greatness and of goodness.
May this be the story that guides us.
The story that inspires us.
The story that tells ages yet to come that we answered the call of history.
We met the moment.
That democracy and hope, truth and justice, did not die on our watch but thrived.
That our America secured liberty at home and stood once again as a beacon to the world.
That is what we owe our forebearers, one another, and generations to follow.
So, with purpose and resolve we turn to the tasks of our time.
Sustained by faith.
Driven by conviction.
And, devoted to one another and to this country we love with all our hearts.
May God bless America and may God protect our troops.
Thank you, America.
 

Biden Inherited Immense Leverage over Iran. Will He Use It?
Jonathan Spyer/The Jewish Chronicle/January 22/2021
Originally published under the title "Iran's Brutal Militias Are Standing By for US Sanctions To Be Eased."
Iranian proxies such as (clockwise from top left) Hezbollah in Lebanon, Kata'ib Hezbollah in Iraq, Ansar Allah in Yemen, and the Ja'afari Force in Syria are praying for a relaxation of U.S. pressure.
I met Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis outside the oil town of Baiji, in Sunni northern Iraq, five years before he was killed by an American drone. The war against ISIS was at its height, and the Iranian military mastermind Qasem Soleimani — who met his end alongside Muhandis in January 2020 — had taken command of Iraqi Shia militias. There were already rumours about their murderous behaviour toward Sunni civilians. That day, Muhandis was in good humour, calm and amused by the western journalists seeking an audience, and the high-ranking Iraqi Army officers who hung on his every word.
Now both Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Major General Qassem Soleimani lie in their graves. The militia strength which they built together, however, remains very much alive. It is part of an archipelago of client political-military organisations which Iran seeded across the Middle East, from the Gulf of Aden to the Mediterranean Coast. The creation of this network was Soleimani's life's work. Al-Muhandis was his friend, protégé, and key lieutenant in Iraq.
The demise of the two men, combined with intense US sanctions, has brought the Iranian militia structure in the Middle East to its knees. But whether the incoming US administration will maintain that pressure is an open question — one that keeps leaders up at night across the region.
Iran's proxy network was one of the main beneficiaries of the collapse of governance across the region that began with the Arab Spring. In Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, the crumbling of the state allowed Soleimani to plant his client groups, building covert Iranian strength.
Tehran seeks to transform regional states into weakened host bodies where militias act with impunity.
In all of these countries, the goal was the same. Tehran did not seek to capture official state power. Rather, it wanted to transform the state into a weakened host body, allowing its parasitic militia to act with impunity. The long list of its armed groups shows the scale of the threat: the Ansar Allah movement in Yemen, Kata'ib Hezbollah — Muhandis' organisation — in Iraq, the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Afghan Fatemiyoun group and the Pakistani Liwa Zainebiyoun — not to mention the myriad of militia in Syria.
Over the last two years, however, their advance has been halted, if not reversed. Largely, this has been achieved by the US, and is one of Donald Trump's most notable foreign policy legacies.
Over the last two years, the advance of Iranian regional proxies has been halted.
The deaths of Soleimani and Muhandis left the militia structure decapitated. Assassination is an uncertain weapon, sometimes resulting in the emergence of a leader more formidable than the one removed. This has not been the case. Esmail Ghaani, who replaced Soleimani at the head of the Qods Force, and Abu Fadak al-Mohammadawi, now heading the pro-Iran militia structure in Iraq, are proving far less capable than the men who preceded them. The militia structure worked primarily on informal relationships, created by Soleimani over a period of years. These cannot simply be handed over to a replacement.
Alongside the drone strike that killed Soleimani and Muhandis came the US policy of "maximum pressure". The sanctions imposed on the Iranian oil, financial and banking sectors in 2018 starved the economy of funds. This meant the closing of the tap for the militias. Hezbollah in Lebanon, for example, suffered a 40 per cent reduction funding in 2020. Similarly, the four top pro-Iran militias in Iraq saw their income fall from £3-4m per month to £1-2m.
The absent leadership and lack of money is having a dramatic affect. In Syria, where there is no large Shia population, Iran has had to use cash to entice recruits. This is no longer available. In Iraq, discipline and unity have begun to break down. In their own right, the powerful militias control oil fields, checkpoints, property and land. They are not prepared to mutely follow orders from fresh commanders for whom they have little respect.
There is now a real possibility that the winds are about to change once again in Iran's favour. President-elect Joe Biden has made clear his desire to re-negotiate the 2015 nuclear accords with Iran. As a prerequisite, the theocracy is insisting on the lifting of all sanctions. In an attempt to focus American minds, it has threatened to expel international nuclear inspectors from the country on 21 February unless the money starts to flow again.
Lifting U.S. sanctions would revitalise Iran's cashflow to the militias.
An early capitulation by the Biden administration would give away any leverage that the US currently holds, reducing any chances of achieving the improved deal the president-elect has said that he wants. Lifting sanctions would revitalise the cashflow to the militias, threatening to revive their forward motion. Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis and Major General Qasem Soleimani are gone. Muhandis will stay in Najaf, where they buried him, until further notice and Soleimani will not be leaving the Kerman Martyrs Cemetery in southeast Iran any time soon. The structures these men created, however have not been wrecked but are only low on fuel. It is up to Mr Biden whether they stay that way.
*Jonathan Spyer is a Ginsburg/Milstein Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and director of the Middle East Center for Reporting and Analysis.

The Case Against the Iran Deal
Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi/The Atlantic/January 22/2021
Reviving the JCPOA will ensure either the emergence of a nuclear Iran or a desperate war to stop it.
Proponents of the Iran nuclear agreement are sounding the alarm. In 2018, the United States withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and since then, Iran has increased the quality and quantity of its uranium enrichment well beyond what the deal allows. Recently, it has even begun enriching uranium to 20 percent, a short distance away from weapons-grade. Iran, JCPOA advocates say, is closer today to producing a bomb than it was in 2015, when the deal was concluded. Only the deal’s renewal, they insist, can prevent the nightmare of a nuclear Iran.
“Five years ago, American-led diplomacy produced a deal that ensured it would take Iran at least a year to produce enough fissile material for one bomb,” Joe Biden wrote in September. “Now—because Trump let Iran off the hook from its obligations under the nuclear deal—Tehran’s ‘breakout time’ is down to just a few months.” More recently, he warned that if Iran gets the bomb, then Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt will follow.
Why, then, aren’t Israelis and Arabs—those with the most to lose from Iranian nuclearization—also demanding a return to the JCPOA? Why aren’t they panicking over its dissolution? The answer is simple: The JCPOA didn’t diminish the Iranian nuclear threat; it magnified it.
Dennis Ross: There’s a deal to be had between the U.S. and Iran
Iran needs to acquire three components in order to become a military nuclear power: highly enriched uranium, a functional warhead, and a missile capable of delivering it. The JCPOA addresses only the first of these efforts in any detail, and even then, offers merely partial and temporary solutions. The deal largely ignores the second effort, and actually advances the third.
The JCPOA did limit Iran’s immediate ability to enrich enough uranium for a bomb. It reduced the regime’s uranium stockpile by 97 percent, mothballed two-thirds of its centrifuges, and re-designated two of its major nuclear facilities as civilian research centers. Uranium enrichment was capped at 3.7 percent, far short of weapons-grade. These concessions were intended to extend the time Iran needed to enrich enough uranium for a single bomb from approximately three months to a year. Should Iran attempt to break out and go nuclear, advocates explained, the international community would have enough time to intervene. The JCPOA, they asserted, blocked all of Iran’s paths to a bomb.
But the JCPOA allowed Iran to retain its massive nuclear infrastructure, unnecessary for a civilian energy program but essential for a military nuclear program. The agreement did not shut down a single nuclear facility or destroy a single centrifuge. The ease and speed with which Iran has resumed producing large amounts of more highly enriched uranium—doing so at a time of its own choosing—illustrates the danger of leaving the regime with these capabilities. In fact, the JCPOA blocks nothing.
If the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear enrichment were inadequate, they were also designed to be short-lived, some sunsetting as early as 2024. Meanwhile, the deal allowed the regime to develop advanced centrifuges capable of spinning out more highly enriched uranium in far less time. Less than a decade from now, Iran will be legally able to produce and stockpile enough fissile material for dozens of bombs. The 97 percent reduction of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile achieved by the JCPOA would be swiftly undone. Breakout time would no longer be a year, or even three months, but a matter of weeks.
This isn’t just the assessment of the deal’s opponents, but also that of its principal architect. “If in year 13, 14, 15 [after making the deal], they have advanced centrifuges that can enrich uranium fairly rapidly, the breakout time would have shrunk almost down to zero,” President Barack Obama acknowledged in an April 2015 interview with NPR.
Realizing that the JCPOA guaranteed Iran’s future ability to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey accelerated their search for nuclear options as soon as the deal was signed. The JCPOA’s opponents never feared that Iran would violate the deal, but rather, they feared that the regime would keep it—waiting out the sunset clauses and emerging with the ability to produce enough uranium for a nuclear arsenal.
The deal, then, allows Iran to eventually possess the first component for a bomb: a stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Next it needs a warhead. Despite Iran’s insistence that it has never tried to build a bomb, Western intelligence officials have long determined that it did, but believed that the regime suspended its efforts in 2003. The weapons program was directed by Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a nuclear scientist and general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, who was assassinated in November. In a recording obtained by Israel and shared with the United States in 2008, Fakhrizadeh explained that the secret efforts in fact continued and that Iran intended to initially produce five nuclear warheads.
Michael Oren: The three myths of the Iran deal
The possibility that Iran might still be trying to build a bomb did not, however, preoccupy the framers of the JCPOA. Of the deal’s 159 pages, only half of one page addresses Iranian weaponization, and it contains no mandate for international action. Although there are provisions for inspecting enrichment-related facilities, none exist for inspecting potential bomb-making sites or punishing Iran should any be discovered. Instead, there is merely an Iranian declaration that it will not try to make a bomb—a promise that Iran, which has systematically lied about its nuclear program for decades, has repeatedly broken in the past.
The recklessness of this omission became even more glaring three years ago, after Israel exposed Iran’s secret nuclear archive. Among its many thousands of pages were documents detailing undeclared nuclear sites and radioactive materials, as well as blueprints for a missile-borne bomb. More damning, the archive confirmed that Iran’s nuclear-weapons program did not stop in 2003 but was merely split into overt and covert channels, some of them embedded in prestigious universities, and both aspects of the program were headed by Fakhrizadeh. The goal, he states in the documents, was to maintain “special activities … under the title of Scientific Development” that “leave no identifiable traces.”
These revelations underlined the fatal flaws of the JCPOA. The very existence of a secret archive was a flagrant violation of Iran’s obligation to come clean about its previous weaponization work. And it was exposed not by international inspectors, but by Israel’s Mossad. Advocates of the deal are hard-pressed to explain why Iran would keep, conceal, and repeatedly relocate designs for a nuclear weapon unless it wanted to preserve the option of someday making one.
With its nuclear infrastructure intact, its work on advanced centrifuges proceeding, and restrictions on enrichment ending with the sunset clauses, Iran’s future nuclear stockpile of enriched uranium is ensured. And with its weaponization-related efforts unimpeded, the regime needs only a system for delivering a bomb. The regime already possesses Shahab-3 missiles, based on the North Korean No-dong, capable of hitting any country in the Middle East and even nations as far away as Romania. The archive contains detailed plans for fitting a nuclear warhead on the Shahab-3. Iran aims to expand its threat to Western Europe and the United States by developing intercontinental ballistic missiles. Intelligence sources agree that the rockets Iran has already developed for its space program can easily be converted to ICBMs. Iran’s missile development violates a UN ban on its missile program—a prohibition the international community has failed to enforce. In 2023, however, the JCPOA will lift that ban entirely.
The JCPOA, then, has not substantially blocked any of Iran’s efforts. The violations that Iran has committed since America’s withdrawal from the deal, and more intensively in recent months, will pale compared with the industrial-scale enrichment program the JCPOA ultimately permits. Combined with its weaponization-related work and its missile development, this will position Iran to become a global nuclear power.
In return for merely postponing that outcome, the deal rewards Iran extravagantly. The JCPOA infused the Iranian economy with tens of billions of dollars in immediate sanctions relief and trade deals and promised to provide hundreds of billions more. Yet rather than invest in its decaying infrastructure, the regime used portions of this windfall to expand its international terror network, enhance the offensive capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah, and further assist the Syrian regime in massacring and uprooting its own people. In addition to extending its dominance of Lebanon, Iran has consolidated its influence in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Gaza. Rather than buying Iran’s moderation, the JCPOA helped fund its quest for regional hegemony.
Exporting terror and instability, massacring and expelling Syrian Sunnis, and trying to kill Israelis—all of these Iranian activities were blandly subsumed by the JCPOA’s framers under the term malign activity. The deal was intended to serve as a precedent for international cooperation in addressing these crimes, but in practice, little has happened. Instead, desperate to preserve the agreement, signatories have ignored the regime’s aggression. The failure to address this “malign activity” reflects a near-total unwillingness to confront Iran and signals that the regime generally has little to fear from international interference.
The sermons and military processions accompanied by chants of “Death to Israel”; Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, calling for the elimination of the Israeli “cancer”; even a recent bill proposed in the Iranian parliament that would commit the government to “eliminate” Israel by 2041—all of these outrages and more are taken for granted by the international community. Yet no other country today so publicly and repeatedly declares its intentions to annihilate a fellow UN member state, linking its national purpose to that goal. At the same time, Iran has committed enormous resources and paid a staggering economic and diplomatic price to develop the means to fulfill its genocidal vision. The weaknesses of the JCPOA only deepen Israel’s fear that the international community is taking the inevitability of Iran’s nuclear-weapons capability for granted, too.
Israel has vowed to prevent the regime from going nuclear, so the Iranians are investing in massive deterrence. In the Middle Eastern countries under its domination, Iran has deployed tens of thousands of missiles, a growing number of them highly accurate and capable of hitting anywhere in Israel. Though some observers now claim that Iran’s missiles, rather than its nuclear program, most endanger the region, they have it backwards. The missiles are a tactical means to a strategic nuclear end. They are intended to deter Israeli efforts to stop Iran from moving toward breakout. Even so, Israel can handle the conventional missile threat, however costly, but the nuclear threat could be existential.
The flaws with the JCPOA are painfully obvious to both Arab and Israeli leaders. Why, then, did the international community ever agree to such a deal? For Europe, in particular, financial interests were involved. For America, though, the impetus was more complex. The Obama administration seemed to genuinely believe that Iran was capable of change. If it were treated respectfully and reintegrated into the international community, Obama maintained, Iran would lose interest in a nuclear bomb long before the deal expired, choosing instead to become “a successful regional power.” The regime would finally begin addressing the needs of its restive citizens and cease supporting terror. From the very beginning of his presidency, Obama pursued reconciliation with Iran, along with Palestinian-Israeli peace, as the centerpiece of his Middle East policy.
The JCPOA was supposed to provide Iran with the time and the incentive to moderate; instead, it gave Iran the means and the legitimacy to intensify its aggression now, while enabling it to go nuclear later. Much of the American public, meanwhile, exhausted by two Middle Eastern wars, feared becoming embroiled in another overseas conflict. Many Americans believed Obama when he insisted that “all options are on the table,” and that the only alternative to the deal was war.
In fact, the alternative to the president’s approach was tougher diplomacy, aimed at producing a better deal. But that would have required pressing Iran with even harsher sanctions and posing a credible threat of military action, neither of which the administration was willing to do. The “punishing sanctions” for which the administration took credit, and which brought Iran to the negotiating table, originated in Congress and were approved over the administration’s objections.
Rather than forcing Iran’s hand, the administration made far-reaching concessions at the very outset of the secret talks in 2012. American negotiators effectively recognized the regime’s “right to enrich,” overriding UN resolutions denying it that right, and even dropped their previous demand for a temporary freeze of enrichment. This essentially reduced the rest of the negotiations to wrangling over the details.
From the outset, the Obama administration was so wary of antagonizing Iran that it consistently overlooked the regime’s outrages—including a 2011 plot to assassinate the Saudi and Israeli ambassadors in Washington (the Israeli ambassador at the time was Michael Oren, a co-author of this essay) and the routine harassment of U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf. No reckoning was sought for Iran’s complicity in the Syrian civil war, which has left some 500,000 civilians dead and 11 million homeless. Obama’s refusal to uphold his own red line regarding the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in 2013 was viewed by Israel and by Arab governments—and no doubt by Iran—as a further sign of his determination to placate Tehran.
And yet, even if America had the will, denying nuclear weapons to Iran was always fraught with risk. For religious and nationalist reasons, the regime sees itself as the Middle East’s rightful ruler, as well as a global force. More than anything else, though, Iran’s nuclear program is about the regime’s survival. Its leaders saw how the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi terminated their nuclear-weapons programs, and were later toppled and executed. They see how North Korea’s deliverable bombs have won Kim Jong Un power and immunity. They know which example to emulate.
Still, Iran can be stopped.
Although every new administration seeks to distinguish itself from its predecessor—and this incoming administration all the more so—President Joe Biden should not squander the leverage he has inherited. The reimposition and intensification of American sanctions has placed enormous pressure on the Iranian regime. After waiting out the old administration in the hope that 2021 would bring a new one, the regime is now trying to intimidate Biden into renewing the JCPOA. It is hardly a coincidence that the regime waited two years before approaching 20 percent enrichment—which it could have done at any time—but is doing so only now, with the onset of the new administration. The regime responds to pressure and acts defiantly when it senses hesitation. Biden must not give in to this nuclear blackmail.
The JCPOA allowed Iran to both maintain its nuclear program and revitalize its economy. Biden must make clear to Tehran that it can have one or the other, but not both. Tragically, spokespeople for the new administration are proposing to return to the JCPOA and lift sanctions, and only afterward negotiate a longer, stronger deal. Such a course has no chance of success. Even a partial lifting of sanctions would forfeit any leverage that could compel the regime to negotiate a deal that genuinely removes the danger of a nuclear Iran. At best, the regime will agree to cosmetic changes—for example, extending the sunset clauses—but not to dismantling its nuclear infrastructure. A fatally flawed deal would remain essentially intact.
The Biden administration must resist pressure from members of Congress and others who are urging an unconditional return to the JCPOA. Even the deal’s fervent supporters need to recognize that its fundamental assumptions—that Iran had abandoned its quest for a military nuclear option and would moderate its behavior—have been thoroughly disproved.
At the same time, America must consult its Middle East allies about what they think a better deal would look like. Such a deal would verifiably and permanently remove Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons. This means not merely mothballing the nuclear infrastructure, but eliminating it. It means empowering international inspectors with unlimited and immediate access to any suspect enrichment or weaponization site. It means maintaining economic and diplomatic pressure on the regime until it truly comes clean about its undeclared nuclear activities and ceases to develop missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. A better deal will deny Iran the ability to commit the violations it is now committing with impunity.
Achieving these objectives will require close and candid cooperation among the United States, Israel, and concerned Arab states. Such cooperation was not possible in the negotiations leading up to the JCPOA, which America initially conducted behind the backs of its Middle Eastern partners. In the final stages, U.S. officials misled their Israeli and Arab counterparts about America’s negotiating positions. This displayed not only bad faith, but a patronizing presumption of knowing the vital security interests of the countries most threatened by Iran better than they knew those interests themselves.
The incoming administration has declared its determination to restore the trust of America’s allies, along with promoting peace and human rights. But those objectives are incompatible with renewing a deal that betrayed America’s allies, strengthened one of the world’s most repressive regimes, and empowered the Middle Eastern state most opposed to peace.
The JCPOA is also incompatible with President Biden’s long-standing commitment to Israel’s security. At a 2015 gathering celebrating Israel’s independence, then–Vice President Biden said: “Israel is absolutely essential—absolutely essential—[for the] security of Jews around the world … Imagine what it would say about humanity and the future of the 21st century if Israel were not sustained, vibrant and free.”
Reviving the JCPOA will endanger that vision, ensuring the emergence of a nuclear Iran or a desperate war to stop it. Biden is a proven friend who has shared Israel’s hopes and fears. He must prevent that nightmare.
**MICHAEL OREN was Israel’s ambassador to the United States from 2009 to 2013 and, from 2015 to 2019, a member of Knesset and deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Office.
**YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI is a senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, where, together with Imam Abdullah Antepli and Maital Friedman, he co-directs the Muslim Leadership Initiative. He is chairman of “Open House,” an Arab-Jewish coexistence center in the Israeli town of Ramle. He is author of Letters to My Palestinian Neighbor.

Pentagon Decision on Israel Recognizes Reality and Presents Opportunity
Bradley Bowman/Policy Brief-FDD/January 22/2021
The Department of Defense announced Friday that it has moved Israel from the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) area of responsibility (AOR) to that of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which includes the Middle East. This reassignment reflects recent breakthroughs in Arab-Israeli relations and provides opportunities to strengthen military cooperation to address the greatest threat to regional security: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The Pentagon divides the globe into AORs and allots responsibility for each to a regional combatant command. EUCOM covers the European landmass and adjacent maritime regions, focusing primarily on the NATO alliance and the threat from Moscow.
CENTCOM is responsible for the wider Middle East and has focused on the threat from Iran and Islamist terrorism as well as the associated conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.
Despite Israel’s location, when CENTCOM was created in 1983, responsibility for the Jewish state was assigned to EUCOM.
Given the geography and respective priorities of the two combatant commands, the decision may have seemed odd. Israel, after all, is located in the Middle East and will remain so despite the efforts of Tehran and its terrorist proxies.
That decision, however, reflected Jerusalem’s isolation at the time, even after its peace agreement with Egypt in 1979 somewhat mitigated the Arab-Israeli conflict.
As the Pentagon noted last week with a bit of understatement, Israel’s regional isolation would have “complicated” efforts by CENTCOM to coordinate multilateral exercises and operations that included Israel.
But, over time, things have changed.
The Islamic Republic of Iran’s persistent efforts to pursue a nuclear weapons capability, export terrorism, subvert its neighbors, and install itself as the regional hegemon made Arab capitals progressively acknowledge, at least in private, that Iran was the real threat to regional security.
Even after Jordan made peace with Israel in 1994, EUCOM continued to take the lead for the Pentagon in coordinating military-to-military relations with Israel. This included, for example, the long-running U.S.-Israel Juniper Cobra missile defense exercise coordinated by EUCOM and conducted every two years.
Then, last year, in a major victory for American diplomacy, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain signed the Abraham Accords with Israel. Soon afterward, Morocco and Sudan took steps toward normalization.
The “easing of tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors subsequent to the Abraham Accords has provided a strategic opportunity for the United States to align key partners against shared threats in the Middle East,” the Pentagon said in its statement.
In response to the Friday announcement, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz praised the move and made clear that the decision followed weeks of bilateral dialogue.
CENTCOM, of course, maintained a relationship with Israel before this decision, one that grew over time. CENTCOM commanders visited Israel recently, and U.S. Air Forces Central Command conducted F-35 exercises with Israel last year despite the pandemic.
But this latest move by the Pentagon can facilitate deeper cooperation between the United States, Israel, and its Arab neighbors, including the expansion of existing exercises and the addition of new ones. For example, CENTCOM should seek to add Israel to the next iteration of the U.S.-UAE Iron Union exercise.
Regardless, while CENTCOM will play the lead role, it will be important to sustain key elements of EUCOM’s coordination and connectivity with Israel. This can help sustain vital existing cooperation, facilitate needed multilateral exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean, and provide a hedge against any major reversal in recent progress in Arab-Israeli relations.
If properly implemented, the transition of Israel to CENTCOM’s portfolio can begin to foster a broader, more unified, and more capable regional military coalition to protect shared interests and deter aggression from Tehran.
**Bradley Bowman is senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power (CMPP) at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). For more analysis from Bradley and CMPP, please subscribe HERE. Follow Bradley on Twitter @Brad_L_Bowman. Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD and @FDD_CMPP. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

What to Make of Pompeo’s Parting Moves Regarding China
Thomas Joscelyn/The Dispatch/FDD/January 22/2021
The State Department lifted restrictions on some interactions with Taiwan. How will the Biden administration proceed?
During times like these it may be difficult to think about foreign affairs. But America’s rivals and enemies certainly won’t pause their agendas simply because we are embroiled in domestic political discord. The Trump administration didn’t stop making foreign policy moves in its final days either, even after the president and his supporters incited a riot at the Capitol on January 6.
The State Department, under Secretary Mike Pompeo, has been especially busy. Pompeo has positioned himself as an unwavering Trump loyalist. He likely hopes to inherit Trump’s political base for the 2024 presidential election, assuming Trump himself doesn’t run again. So, Pompeo’s actions these past few weeks are about both policy and political jockeying.
Some of his big-ticket items have involved China. Pompeo has been among the most vocal champions of the idea that the U.S. has entered a period of “great power competition” (GPC) with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Russia. He isn’t the only official to spearhead the U.S. government’s repositioning. Some within the national security bureaucracy had been pushing this concept even before the Trump administration. But Pompeo has often been out in front as the face of GPC.
On January 9, Pompeo announced that the State Department was lifting a set of “complex internal restrictions” that were devised to limit “our diplomats, servicemembers, and other officials’ interactions with their Taiwanese counterparts.” These self-imposed rules were intended to allay Beijing’s concerns that the U.S. would recognize Taiwan as an independent state.
The U.S. has performed a diplomatic dance on this issue for decades, officially recognizing only “One China,” under Beijing’s rule, while merely acknowledging that the Chinese government considers Taiwan to be a part of that single sovereign state. The U.S. has maintained unofficial diplomatic and military relations with Taiwan. But this has always involved some sleight of hand. For instance, Trump administration officials boast that the U.S. has sold more arms to Taiwan in recent years than ever before—$15 billion worth of arms in four years, as compared to $14 billion worth in the previous eight years.
Naturally, the CCP bristled at Pompeo’s announcement. “China rejects and condemns the U.S. move,” Zhao Lijian, a CCP foreign ministry spokesperson, said on Jan. 11. “We advise Mr. Pompeo and his likes to recognize the historical trend, stop manipulating Taiwan-related issues, stop retrogressive acts and stop going further down the wrong and dangerous path, otherwise they will be harshly punished by history,” Zhao added.
Pompeo’s last-minute decision to break with longstanding diplomatic practice may make some sense. But if it was so urgent to lift the State Department’s rules of diplomatic engagement with Taiwan, then why wasn’t it done sooner? The timing of his announcement—less than two weeks before a new administration was set to take power—could be perceived as a political move intended to put the Biden team in a bind. However, Biden’s nominee for secretary of state, Anthony Blinken, seems to be open to the diplomatic course change, explaining at his Senate confirmation hearing that he is open to greater engagement with Taiwan.
America’s relationship with Taiwan wasn’t the only GPC-related issue on the State Department’s agenda in the closing days of the Trump administration.
Despite institutional resistance in Washington, some senior officials continued to press the theory that the virus causing COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). On January 15, the State Department released a “fact sheet” that is intended to highlight this hypothesis once again. It is, I must stress, a hypothesis. The “fact sheet” itself notes that the U.S. government “does not know exactly where, when, or how the COVID-19 virus—known as SARS-CoV-2—was transmitted initially to humans.”
The “fact sheet” draws attention to reports that “several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019 … with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.” While this is a somewhat ambiguous allegation, it draws into question Chinese denials regarding possible early infections at the Wuhan lab. The State Department also pointed to suspicious experiments, “secret military activity” at the lab and the CCP’s actions prohibiting any independent inquiry into COVID-19’s origin.
As I’ve written previously, the origin of COVID-19 has both scientific and political ramifications. While we must admit our ignorance, the Biden team would be foolish to drop the matter altogether. The CCP clearly sees it as an ongoing liability in its attempt to transform the world order, as some of its prospective partners may doubt China’s reliability in the wake of a worldwide pandemic that started on its soil and for which we still have so many unanswered questions.
Again, the Chinese foreign ministry’s reaction to the “fact sheet” was telling. During a press conference on January 18, Hua Chunying, another CCP spokesperson, claimed it is “filled with conspiracy theor[ies] and lies.” She alleged it was merely an attempt to deflect attention from the failures of “certain American politicians” who “have been fumbling through their pandemic responses.” Hua claimed the fact sheet was an example of “Last-day Madness”—a reference to the last days of the Trump administration—and dismissed Pompeo as “Mr. Liar.”
All that said, Hua couldn’t provide any answers on the origin of the virus that caused COVID-19. She could only deflect.
Finally, on January 19, Pompeo formally accused the CCP of committing “genocide” against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region of Western China. The CCP’s campaign of oppression against the Uighurs, as well as ethnic Kazakhs and Kyrgyz, has been amply documented. Pompeo pointed to the CCP’s totalitarian policies, including torture, forced sterilizations and abortions, reeducation camps and the like.
Despite the last-minute nature of Pompeo’s accusation, the Biden team will likely continue to press the case. “That would be my judgment as well,” Blinken responded Tuesday when asked during his confirmation hearing if he thought Pompeo was right. “Forcing men, women, and children into concentration camps, trying to in effect reeducate them to be adherents to the Chinese Communist Party all of that speaks to an effort to commit genocide.”
Politics aside, the challenges posed by the CCP remain formidable. And the ball is now in the Biden team’s hands.
*Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for FDD’s Long War Journal. Follow Tom on Twitter @thomasjoscelyn. FDD is a nonpartisan think tank focused on foreign policy and national security issues.

Justice is elusive six years after the murder of Alberto Nisman
Toby Dershowitz/Jewish News Syndicate/January 22/2021
This week marks six years since Argentine Special Prosecutor Alberto Nisman was found lifeless in his apartment. He was found dead the day before he was to provide evidence to the Argentine Congress he said proved that then-president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, in a massive coverup, sought to absolve Iran of its role in the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. The terrorist attack killed 85 people and wounded hundreds more. Nisman spent a decade undertaking granular research of how Iran planned the attack, used its embassies to coordinate it and recruited Hezbollah operatives to carry it out. But justice has proven elusive for victims of the AMIA bombing and for Nisman. On Dec. 23, victims’ hopes of at least one conviction in the AMIA bombing were dashed as an Argentine federal court announced the acquittal of Carlos Telleldin, who allegedly purchased the Renault van. It was the van—fitted with 606 pounds of ammonium nitrate explosives and driven into the AMIA—that detonated and brought down the five-story community center.
Telleldin was the one remaining Argentine facing accountability for the attack. The AMIA quickly said it would appeal the court’s decision, stating, “The evidence collected is more than enough to achieve the degree of certainty and to convict the accused.”
Kirchner had at one time supported the positions taken by the AMIA leadership about the bombing. She had used speeches before U.N. General Assemblies in 2008 and 2009 to demand that Iran turn over individuals Nisman had named in the plot to bomb the AMIA and for whom Interpol had issued red notices, which call on countries to apprehend suspects.
The tide turned in 2013 when her government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Iran to jointly investigate the terrorist attack. Nisman believed the MOU was not an effort to find the true culprits, whom he had already identified. He believed it was signed to send Interpol the message that the two countries were supposedly cooperating, and thus would lead the international police organization to remove the red notices for the remaining five senior Iran officials and one Lebanese man Nisman found had planned the bombing. The MOU, Nisman believed, was akin to asking an arsonist to help investigate a fire.
In 2015, an Argentine court ruled the MOU was unconstitutional. Kirchner’s successor as president, Mauricio Macri, proceeded to abrogate the MOU, but Interpol has disregarded Macri’s actions and considers the MOU valid. This has further led to suspicion by victims’ families that Interpol may be in cahoots with Kirchner and her cronies to weaken, if not lift, the red notices.
In 2017, Argentina’s Gendarmerie security forces determined Nisman’s death was a homicide. This finding was endorsed by Judge Julian Ercolini and prosecutor Eduard Taiano, who concluded there was a “criminal plan to end the life of Alberto Nisman.” They said, “The death of prosecutor Nisman was not due to suicide.” It matters because if Nisman committed suicide, there would be no murder to investigate, and therefore, no one to hold accountable for his suspicious death on the evening before he was due to present his evidence against Kirchner.
The investigation into his death continues. This week, Taiano announced that he is seeking 89 current and former intelligence agents to testify as witnesses to explain the unusual “explosion of phone calls” they made in the vicinity of Nisman’s apartment in the days leading up to and following the murder.
Should Sabina Frederic, Argentina’s minister of security, issue her own report on Nisman’s death, it will likely be influenced by recent comments made by the president. In a Dec. 31 interview with Radio 10, President Alberto Fernandez (not related to Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner) said he “had been thinking about” Nisman and now believes that he committed suicide, citing no basis for the reversal of his position.
His comments are troubling given that in 2015, four years before Kirchner became his vice president in 2019, he had penned an op-ed saying he had “no doubt” Nisman was murdered. Only after Kirchner became his vice president did he reverse his views, awkwardly stating in a January 2020 interview with Netflix, “I doubt Nisman committed suicide,” then added, “but there’s no proof of murder.”
His comments on Radio 10 coincide with the government’s uptick in disparaging statements by government leaders about Nisman in the run up to the sixth anniversary of his murder.
While Nisman is no longer alive, the case he sought to bring against Kirchner remains. After Nisman’s death, a judge used the allegations that Nisman planned to present to Congress as the basis for a new investigation. That case against Kirchner and her associates is due to go to trial, though the court has yet to set a date. One of those who stands charged along with Kirchner is Carlos Zannini, who today is Argentina’s attorney general of the Treasury. Many are skeptical that either Kirchner or her alleged collaborators will be brought to justice.
Kirchner’s actions seems to signal that she wants anything associated with the AMIA bombing—the case against Telleldin, the search for Nisman’s assassins and allegations that he was murdered, and the cover-up allegations against herself—to go away.
But Kirchner may have a plan B, should her plans to unravel the cases in which she or her associates are implicated do not succeed. The Argentine press has speculated that she may either arrange for amnesty in these cases, a move that would require approval by the Argentine Senate, or she may arrange for President Fernandez to pardon her.
Argentina’s justice system has long been plagued by rampant corruption. It would be concerning if Argentina were to allow Kirchner or others to be unjustly absolved of accountability in cases associated with the coverup of the AMIA bombing and Nisman’s murder. While that decision is up to the government, it would no doubt be factored into assessments by international institutions who weigh corruption, stability and risk.
But one of the biggest opportunities for justice is ensuring that the Interpol red notices remain in force. The international community should ensure that whatever ploys Kirchner may use to evade accountability for herself and her associates are not allowed to be used to let Iran off the hook for its role in the AMIA bombing. Nisman’s investigation into the bombing provided the world with the necessary information to hold Iran accountable, for which he ultimately paid with his life. His death should not be in vain.
*Toby Dershowitz is senior vice president for government relations and strategy at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, D.C., that focuses on foreign policy and national security. Follow her on Twitter @tobydersh.

Canada has a limited window to get concessions from Iran
Alireza Nader/ National Post/January 22/2021
Canada’s relations with the Islamic Republic in Iran appear to be getting more difficult by the day, after a Canadian government report on Ukraine Airline Flight 752, which was shot down by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) in January 2020, criticized the Islamist regime for denying responsibility for the plane’s destruction.
The report alleges that Tehran has refused to conduct its investigation in “a truly independent, objective and transparent manner.” Canadian officials, the report further states, are particularly frustrated that the regime “is investigating itself, largely in secret. That does not inspire confidence or trust.”
Meanwhile, Ottawa has rejected Tehran’s offer to pay the families of the victims. According to Ralph Goodale, Canada’s special adviser on Flight 752, Ottawa believes the final amount should be subject to negotiations between Iran and Canada and the four other countries whose citizens died on the plane. Tehran, however, made its offer without any consultations with the relevant parties.
Ottawa is at a clear impasse with Tehran and is unlikely to get any answers unless it fundamentally changes its policy toward the country. Ottawa’s present approach should not inspire optimism, but there are indications, including the appointment of a new foreign minister, that Canada’s policy toward the regime is at a dead end — and that Canadian officials will have to reconsider their strategy.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s policy toward Iran has entailed engaging the regime and even maintaining overtly cordial relations with its officials. In February 2020, just weeks after the plane’s downing, media outlets photographed Trudeau warmly shaking hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif, which angered the families of the 88 Iranian-Canadian citizens and permanent residents who died on the flight.
Canadian officials are unlikely to achieve justice for the victims of Flight 572 through friendly engagement and diplomacy alone. The Islamic Republic does respond to pressure, though. Ottawa can exact a price on Tehran by designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization, as a 2018 motion passed by the House of Commons called on the government to do.
That should be followed by an extensive investigation of the regime’s assets and its network of agents in Canada. Tehran’s network is involved in illicit activities, such as money laundering and sanctions evasion. According to a recent Global News report, Iranian currency traders may be “transferring incalculable sums between Iran and Canada via Dubai, a banking zone used by the Iranian regime to evade sanctions.”
Canadian law enforcement has cracked down on some of the regime’s misconduct by investigating money laundering cases, but there is a lot more of the regime’s network to uncover. Iranian-Canadians who advocate for democracy describe living in fear of the regime’s agents, who have even intimidated the families of the victims of Flight 752. Ottawa cannot ignore the regime’s malign activity on Canadian soil while trying to achieve justice for the victims of the downed airliner.
Canadian officials are mistaken in thinking that men like Zarif are “moderates” whom Ottawa can woo with diplomatic entreaties. Zarif, in fact, is just another face of the IRGC. He has admitted to co-ordinating Iran’s foreign policies with IRGC leaders, including IRGC Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, whom the United States killed only days before Flight 572 was shot down.
To achieve progress with Zarif, the IRGC must feel greater pressure and scrutiny. Yet Ottawa has failed to act. The regime is as intransigent as ever and is likely to become even more so if the IRGC, which is fielding several presidential candidates in the upcoming election, captures the presidency in June 2021. Trudeau and his government may soon be negotiating directly with IRGC officers. Will they smile and shake hands with them?
*Alireza Nader is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where he also contributes to FDD’s Iran Program and Center on Military and Political Power. Follow him on Twitter @AlirezaNader. FDD is a nonpartisan think tank focused on foreign policy and national security issues.

The Palestinian Plan to Dupe the Biden Administration
Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/January 22/2021
The proposed Palestinian elections are part of a scheme designed to deceive the international community, specifically the US and EU, into believing that the Palestinians are serious about implementing major reforms, ending financial and administrative corruption, and engaging in another peace process with Israel.
Not only does Abbas have no plans to depart from the political scene anytime in the near future, he is even said to be considering running in the presidential election.
There is one reason, and one reason only, why Abbas is now talking about holding general elections: to continue milking the cash cow he has in the form of American and European governments. Abbas wants the money to ensure his continued dictatorial rule over the Palestinians.
Abbas is hoping that such an international conference, under the auspices of the United Nations, European Union, Russia and China, would impose a solution on Israel. Abbas has only one solution in mind: one that would see Israel fully withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, including east Jerusalem, and the establishment of a Palestinian state that would undoubtedly be used in the future as a launching pad to wage war on Israel.
The Palestinians live under two dictatorships: one in the West Bank and one in the Gaza Strip. Elections, even if they are held, will not produce new leaders. They will produce Fatah flunkies and Hamas henchmen who bow obediently to their corrupt bosses.
Palestinian elections proposed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas are part of a scheme designed to deceive the international community, specifically the US and EU, into believing that the Palestinians are serious about implementing major reforms, ending financial and administrative corruption, and engaging in another peace process with Israel. Pictured: Abbas speaks in Ramallah on September 3, 2020.
One week after he entered the 17th year of his four-year term in office, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas finally announced new parliamentary and presidential elections, scheduled to take place in May and July 2021.
His announcement was carefully timed to coincide with the inauguration week of President Joe Biden and in response to immense pressure from the European Union. Abbas's announcement, which many Palestinians take as seriously as they would take the alleged sighting of a UFO, is part of an attempt to curry favor with the Biden administration and the EU.
There is only one word to describe Abbas's announcement: deception.
The proposed Palestinian elections are part of a scheme designed to deceive the international community, specifically the US and EU, into believing that the Palestinians are serious about implementing major reforms, ending financial and administrative corruption, and engaging in another peace process with Israel.
Abbas, who boycotted President Donald Trump's administration since December 2017, is hoping that the Biden administration will, among other things, resume financial aid to the Palestinians and the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA); reopen the PLO diplomatic mission in Washington, DC., and cancel the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Abbas did not call for elections because he suddenly believes in democracy and pluralism or because he wants to pave the way for new and young leaders to rise to power. Abbas did not call for elections because he wants to give the Palestinians the opportunity to elect new leaders through a free and fair electoral process. Perhaps the 85-year-old Abbas called for elections because he wants to retire and spend his time playing with his grandchildren. Better not count on that.
Not only does Abbas have no plans to depart from the political scene anytime in the near future, he is even said to be considering running in the presidential election, if and when it takes place on July 31.
There is one reason, and one reason only, why Abbas is now talking about holding general elections: to continue milking the cash cow he has in the form of American and European governments. Abbas wants the money to ensure his continued dictatorial rule over the Palestinians.
He knows that without money from the US and EU, his regime would not survive for one day. Abbas also knows that without Israel's security presence in the West Bank, Hamas and his political enemies would easily remove him from power.
Abbas is trying to show the Biden administration and the Europeans that he is not an autocrat or an illegitimate leader whose tenure ended in January 2009.
In addition to money, Abbas is apparently hoping that his election farce would persuade the Americans and Europeans to support his plan to hold an international conference for "peace" in the Middle East.
Abbas does not want to return to direct negotiations with Israel: he knows that Israel cannot comply with 100% of his demands (a full withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines and the "right of return" for "millions" of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel).
Abbas is hoping that such an international conference, under the auspices of the United Nations, European Union, Russia and China, would impose a solution on Israel. Abbas has only one solution in mind: one that would see Israel fully withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, including east Jerusalem, and the establishment of a Palestinian state that would undoubtedly be used in the future as a launching pad to wage war on Israel. If Abbas's rivals in Hamas win the parliamentary and presidential elections, the future Palestinian state that Abbas is aspiring to establish will be an Iran-backed Islamist terror entity, similar to the mini-state that already exists in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
In 2006, Hamas defeated Abbas's Fatah faction in the parliamentary election, triggering a bitter and bloody power struggle between the two rival parties. At the peak of the conflict in the summer of 2007, Hamas militiamen threw Fatah activists from the rooftops of tall buildings and killed hundreds of others.
Since then, the Palestinians have had two independent and sovereign mini-states: one to the east of Israel, on the "West Bank" of the Jordan River; and one to the west of Israel, on the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip, controlled by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terrorist groups, is being used as a launching pad for carrying out various forms of terrorist attacks against Israel, including firing thousands of rockets into Israel over the past 15 years.
Hamas leaders have welcomed Abbas's announcement They say they intend to participate in the general elections. Hamas is now hoping to repeat the victory it scored in the 2006 parliamentary election.
Public opinion polls have shown that more than 60% of the Palestinians would like to see Abbas quit. This means that a vast majority of Palestinians do not believe in Abbas and his Fatah lieutenants. In 2006, many Palestinians voted for Hamas because they were fed up with Fatah's corruption and incompetence.
The polls now show that the views of many Palestinians toward Abbas and Fatah have not changed, which means Hamas has a good chance of winning another victory in the upcoming elections. Another Hamas victory means that the West Bank would become another terrorist entity ruled by Iran's Palestinian allies and proxies. Thanks to the presence of Israel in the West Bank, there is less terrorism there. If Israel pulls out, the West Bank will fall into the hands of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who will start firing rockets at Israeli in the same way they have been doing from the Gaza Strip for years.
A reminder of Hamas's dangerous ambitions was provided on January 18, 2021, by none other than its leader, Ismail Haniyeh.
Addressing a conference in Tehran, Haniyeh said that the "resistance" against Israel remains an "ideal choice" and the "strategic option" of his group.
"Resistance" is a euphemism for continuing the war of terrorism against Israel by using rockets, suicide bombings, car-rammings, stabbings and shootings, as well as throwing rocks and firebombs at Israeli soldiers and civilians.
In early February, leaders of Fatah and Hamas are expected to meet in Egypt's capital, Cairo, to discuss preparations for the elections. The two sides are saying they want to reach agreement not only on the issue of elections, but "real partnership." Fatah and Hamas are ready temporarily to lay aside their differences to form a unified front against Israel.
Abbas wants money, while Hamas wants legitimacy and recognition from the international community. Hamas, of course, also wants to extend its control to the West Bank, overthrow Abbas and proceed with its plan to destroy Israel.
For Abbas and Fatah, the talk about elections is important because they want to dupe the US and EU into giving them more money. Hamas, for its part, is hoping that the elections will legitimize it in the international community it and turn it into an acceptable player in the Palestinian arena.
If Fatah and Hamas really cared about elections and the interests of their people, they would have held elections a long time ago. The two parties, however, have spent the past 15 years torturing and arresting each other, denying their people both free elections and basic public freedoms.
The Palestinians live under two dictatorships: one in the West Bank and one in the Gaza Strip. Elections, even if they are held, will not produce new leaders. They will produce Fatah flunkies and Hamas henchmen who bow obediently to their corrupt bosses.
*Bassam Tawil, a Muslim Arab, is based in the Middle East.
© 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 Biden administration’s hasty desire for Iran talks
Maria Maalouf/Arab News/January 22/ 2021
ماريا معلوف: رغبة إدارة بايدن المتسرعة لإجراء محادثات مع إيران
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/95199/maria-maalouf-the-biden-administrations-hasty-desire-for-iran-talks-%d9%85%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%8a%d8%a7-%d9%85%d8%b9%d9%84%d9%88%d9%81-%d8%b1%d8%ba%d8%a8%d8%a9-%d8%a5%d8%af%d8%a7%d8%b1%d8%a9/

As the Biden administration takes charge in America, it is clear that it is making adjustments to the country’s foreign policy. One change is attempting to restore relations with Iran after the Trump administration withdrew from the nuclear deal and began its “maximum pressure” strategy against Tehran.
The Biden White House has the conviction to criticize its predecessor’s policy toward Iran. But there is much speculation as to how its main foreign policy officials — such as former Secretary of State John Kerry, who is now in charge of climate change negotiations, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan — stand with regard to Iran. They appear to have an initial strategy of renegotiating with Iran in an effort to remove its menace as a lonely, isolated and renegade state that would be more of a risk if it had nuclear weapons.
Coupled with Biden’s formation of a new US diplomatic approach to Iran is the worsening of the human rights situation inside that country. One example is the recent arrest of Iranian-American businessman Emad Sharghi, who had been sentenced to 10 years in prison on espionage charges. He joins a long list of Iranians who have been sent to jail on spying indictments, with some of them having American or British citizenship.
The Biden administration is taking precautions in an effort to avoid provoking Iran’s anger on human rights questions. For example, it will not make the release of a number of Iranian-American prisoners a precondition for its potential resumption of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear capabilities.
The Biden administration is throwing itself into a very premature foreign policy conclusion. It is making an arbitration of Iran’s nuclear ambitions that is not wise. As a result, the US’ fortunes in the Middle East will decline.
One should not expect anything substantial or purposeful out of this new American plan to have discussions with Iran over its nuclear buildup. The desire of Biden and his top officials to engage Iran will be outperformed by a theocracy that is firm in making it impossible for the international community to properly measure or evaluate its nuclear force. In addition, the renewed American take on Iran concerning its nuclear program will considerably outweigh the balance needed to ensure respect for human rights in Iran, as well as the duty of the US and the community of nations to monitor Iran’s adherence to their standards.
Kerry, Sherman and Sullivan, in particular, are giving the impression that they are acting in haste in reaching out to Iran. This is in contrast to the typical slow and methodical procedures that are the regular diplomatic norms in how countries start negotiating with one another. In this case, they are getting confused between what is urgent and what is practical. Their inclination to set up immediate talks is an appeal — if not an appeasement — to Iran to not be too threatening to regional and global stability. In negotiating with any partner, there is always the desire to change its behavior. There is little hope that America negotiating with Iran will alter the latter’s behavior.
A major problem in negotiating with Iran is that it does not want to give proof that its nuclear program is not for military purposes. Hence, any countries negotiating with it are making bets as to what the ultimate outcome of Iran’s nuclear activity is. The more you negotiate with Iran, the less clear its intentions are.
The Biden administration is throwing itself into a very premature foreign policy conclusion. It is making an arbitration of Iran’s nuclear ambitions that is not wise. As a result, the US’ fortunes in the Middle East will decline.
• Maria Maalouf is a Lebanese journalist, broadcaster, publisher, and writer. She holds an MA in Political Sociology from the University of Lyon. Twitter: @bilarakib