English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For March 06/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

#elias_bejjani_news
 

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews21/english.march06.21.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today

‘Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep
Matthew 12/,01-14/:”At that time Jesus went through the cornfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, ‘Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.’ He said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests. Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath and yet are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice”, you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.’He left that place and entered their synagogue; a man was there with a withered hand, and they asked him, ‘Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath? ’ so that they might accuse him. He said to them, ‘Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.’ Then he said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’ He stretched it out, and it was restored, as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.”

Question: "If aliens were proved to exist, how would that discovery impact the Christian faith?"
GotQuestions.org/March 05/2021
Answer: First, let it be said, we do not believe that aliens exist. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe; in fact, the Bible gives us several key reasons why there cannot be. However, that has not stopped theologians, astronomers, and science fiction fans and writers through the years from contemplating the “what ifs” long and hard. The debates have narrowed down where the problems would arise, if the existence and discovery of extraterrestrial life could be proved. Those who contemplate the existence of aliens and the impact their existence would have on the Christian faith commonly discuss the identity and work of Jesus. God sent His only begotten Son, God incarnate, to save mankind and redeem creation. Does that redemption include life on other planets? Or would God have manifested Himself on those other planets, as well (in the manner of Aslan in Narnia)? Does “only begotten” mean “only physical representation”? Or is it more limited, referring only to the human species? Another consideration: would an otherworldly, sentient, advanced life form sin and need redemption in the same way we do? Human life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). Where is the life of these hypothetical aliens? And what would have to be sacrificed to save them? Could the shedding of Jesus’ human blood save silicon-based glass creatures whose sin was melting and reforming themselves into unnatural shapes? Another topic of discussion concerning the existence of aliens and Christianity is what it means to be made in the “image of God.” Since God has no physical body, we take this to mean a reflection of God’s non-physical aspects—rationality, morality, and sociability. Would aliens, if they exist, embody the same characteristics?
One issue rarely broached is the impact of young earth creationism on the discovery of alien life. It is conceivable, if highly unlikely, that the geological pyrotechnics that took place during the global flood could have spewed a bacteria- or lichen-tainted stone all the way to Mars where it found shelter in a misty canyon. But any life form more complicated or farther out would be much harder to harmonize with a literal reading of Genesis 1. Could demons have taken trees and shrubs and rodents and bugs to another planet with an environment similar to Earth’s? Possibly. But without the Spirit’s blessing of life, it’s unlikely any of it would have survived. Parallel creations? Maybe. The Bible does not mention them. Considering what we know about space and life and the world as the Bible portrays it, we already have an explanation for so-called alien activity on Earth. Reports of “close encounters” describe the ethereal, transient, deceptive, and malevolent. Accounts also record that encounters with supposed aliens can be stopped by a real, authentic call to Jesus. Everything points to the activity of demons, not extraterrestrials. In fact, it is plausible that the “powerful delusion” spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 will involve an alien-abduction theory to explain away the rapture. The “discovery” of alien life would have no effect on genuine Christianity. The Bible stands as written, no matter what secular theories are advanced or discoveries are claimed. The Bible says the earth and mankind are unique in God’s creation. God created the earth even before He created the sun, moon, or stars (Genesis 1). Yes, there are strange and inexplicable things that take place. There is no reason, though, to attribute these phenomena to aliens or UFOs. If there is a discernable cause to these events, it is spiritual or, more specifically, demonic in origin. In the final analysis, all conjecturing about what would happen to our faith if aliens were proved to be real falls under the category of “godless chatter” and “foolish and stupid arguments” that we are warned against (2 Timothy 2:16, 23).

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on March 05-06/2021

Elias Bejjani/Visit My LCCC Web site/All That you need to know on Lebanese unfolding news and events in Arabic and English/http://eliasbejjaninews.com/

Lebanese Dread End to Subsidies as Economic Crisis Bites
Abiad: Younger COVID-19 Patients Admitted to ER
Aoun Welcomes Pope’s Visit to Iraq
Israel Reveals Secret Map of 'Hizbullah' Sites in Lebanon
Clashes in Jiye, Khalde as Road-Blocking Protests Continue across Lebanon
U.S. Denies Reports of Salameh Sanctions, Governor to File Lawsuits
French Ambassador Declares New Aid for Lebanon, Says Support Doesn’t Replace Reform
Report: U.S. Weighs ‘Sanctions’ on BDL Governor
Lawyer Says Kelly Innocent of Ghosn Pay Scheme
Reports of sanctions on Lebanon central bank chief are ‘untrue’: State Department

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on March 05-06/2021

Pope welcomed in Iraq as ‘pilgrim of peace’ with message of hope to Christians
'Silence the Arms!' Pope Urges on Historic Iraq Trip
Pope Francis delivers impassioned plea for peace as historic Iraq visit gets underway
Official: Israel upgrading contingency plans for Iran attack
Greenpeace Slams Israeli Charge of Iranian Eco-Terror
Iran’s top diplomat says will soon present ‘concrete plan of action’ on nuclear deal
Iran casts long shadow over Pentagon nominee's Senate hearing
UN slams Iran’s Baluchistan crackdown
UK to unveil major post-Brexit defense and foreign policy overhaul on March 16
Explosions in north Syria near Turkish border: State TV
 

Titles For The Latest The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on March 05-06/2021

The New McCarthyism Comes to Harvard Law School/Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/March 5/2021
Israeli ex-generals battle over the Iran deal - opinion/Ruthie Blum/Jerusalem Post/March 05/2021
Saudi Arabia: Iran continues nuclear blackmail, IAEA safeguards system at stake/Arab News/March 05/2021
The New McCarthyism Comes to Harvard Law School/Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/March 5/2021
The Problem With the Declassified Report on Khashoggi’s Death/Thomas Joscelyn/The Dispatch-FDD/March 05/2021
What Red Line Tells Us About Syria’s Chemical Weapons/David Adesnik/The National Interest/March 05/2021
Putin and Erdogan: Two Men Race to the Bottom/Aykan Erdemir/The Globalist/March 05/2021
Biden Can’t Bring Peace to Yemen While Iran Keeps Sending Weapons//Bradley Bowman and Katherine Zimmerman/Foreign Policy/March 05/2021
Iran Conducts Major Wave of Executions and Shootings of Ethnic Minorities/Brenda Shaffer/ Policy Brief-FDD/March 05/2021
Australian Imams Stand up for Shariah/Mark Durie/ME Forum Quadrant/February 25, 2021

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on March 05-06/2021

Elias Bejjani/Visit My LCCC Web site/All That you need to know on Lebanese unfolding news and events in Arabic and English/http://eliasbejjaninews.com/

Lebanese Dread End to Subsidies as Economic Crisis Bites
Agence France Presse/March 05/2021
To feed her family, Lebanese mother Sandra al-Tawil sold her fridge and washing machine. Now she fears the cash-strapped state will scrap food subsidies, plunging them deeper into poverty. Lebanon is locked in its worst economic crisis since the 1975-1990 civil war, with no end in sight.
The value of the Lebanese pound has plunged, driving up the price of crucial imports like food and fuel and triggering small but angry protests. More than half of Lebanon's population is poverty stricken and relies on subsidies, but a central bank demand for "an immediate plan to ration subsidies" is looming. "We're already tightening our belts. What will we eat if we can no longer buy rice or lentils?" 40-year-old Tawil said. Tawil and her husband lived a comfortable life in Dubai before returning to their homeland to open a high-end hair salon in 2019. But that dream turned to nightmare after the financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic hit. "I had to sell my washing machine and fridge... just to get the minimum of daily bread and pay rent," said the mother of two young children. Her husband found a job at the start of the year, and the Beit El Baraka charity is helping them out with food and school fees. But Tawil is still worried, and furious with the political class she blames for the malaise. "If I see people heading out to protest, I'll be the first to join them," she said.
Money running out
In a country that imports 80 percent of its food, much of the six million population depends on subsidies to get by. Even without them being lifted, many are already struggling, said Beit El Baraka founder Maya Ibrahimchah. "There have been many more demands for help over the past four months," she said. "Those we are helping today are all from the middle class." The state has poured up to $437 million into subsidies a month, the World Bank estimates, to keep prices in check for bread, medicine, fuel and electricity, as well as around 300 other items since mid-2020. To counter the pound's drastic devaluation, importers get access to dollars at a preferential rate to ensure they can afford to continue bringing in supplies. For flour, fuel and medicine, for example, they offer dollars at the official exchange rate of 1,507 pounds to cover most of their cost. But traders must resort to the black market to cover the difference, where Tuesday the rate hit a record low of 10,000 pounds to the dollar. As a result, in less than a year the price of a large bag of subsidised bread has risen from 1,500 to 2,500 pounds. Authorities have remained vague about how the subsidies will be reduced, though meetings are ongoing. In early December, central bank governor Riad Salameh said it could only fund subsidies for another two months. Later that month, he said two billion dollars were available for them. At the end of February, the central bank's website showed it had $17.9 billion in foreign currency reserves, yet $17.5 billion of that is the bank's required reserves.
The bank did not respond to AFP's repeated requests for comment. The UN food agency has warned any subsidy reduction would have "major inflationary repercussions" and "put an unbearable strain on households". The price of bread could increase by up to three times and fuel by 4.5 times, the World Food Programme said, adding it was critical to immediately scale up assistance to the poorest.
'Catastrophic'
Under the government's latest plan, subsidies could be gradually lifted, with financial aid to soften the blow over several years. The state would first lift subsidies for bread, fuel and around 300 other items, under the plan seen by AFP, before later on reviewing spending in the electricity sector. To compensate, up to 80 percent of the population would receive handouts -- 50 dollars a month for adults aged over 23 and half for anybody younger. Those amounts, and the numbers of beneficiaries, would then progressively diminish. Until then, the authorities have secured $246 million from the World Bank to help 786,000 Lebanese. But Nasser Jomaa, 52, said he doubted the government would really provide any financial support. "It's just empty words. We have zero faith in the state," said the driver, who lives with his unemployed 25-year-old son. As the Lebanese pound has plunged on the black market, he has seen his monthly income drop in value from $1,000 to just $160. He added that any lifting of subsidies would be "catastrophic".
Already, he said, "we no longer eat meat."

Abiad: Younger COVID-19 Patients Admitted to ER
Naharnet/March 05/2021
Director of the state-run Rafik Hariri University Hospital, Firass Abaid voiced concern on Friday over the rise in number of younger COVID-19 patients admitted to the emergency room. “In the last two days, the Covid emergency department at RHUH was exceptionally busy. One particular observation was concerning. Younger patients are presenting more frequently to ER, many of them in critical condition,” he said in a series of tweets, and wondered “could this reflect a more dominant UK strain?”According to the Health Ministry in Lebanon “cumulatively, 12% of Aleyh’s population have tested positive for Covid, the highest % in any Kaza in Lebanon. The true incidence is probably 4 times that number. Even with that, Aley has the highest incidence of new Covid cases in the past 14days,” he said. When 50% of the population of the Kaza has been infected previously, “one expects a large portion have developed immunity to the virus. This immunity should help slow down community transmission, as the virus has less people to infect. This is still not being seen in Aley,” stated Abiad. He said a report has shown that over the past weeks, the “test positivity rate was very high and trending upwards, revealing increasing community spread.” Urging more people to get the vaccine, he concluded: “A slow vaccination drive is not helping either. Easing the lockdown is likely to continue. Double mask, avoid unnecessary gatherings and poor ventilation.”

Aoun Welcomes Pope’s Visit to Iraq
Naharnet/March 05/2021
President Michel Aoun welcomed the historic visit of Pope Francis on Friday to Iraq, the National News Agency reported. Aoun hoped the visit would constitute a push to establish real peace much-needed by Iraqis as well as the rest of the peoples of the region.
“Welcome His Holiness, Pope Francis, on the land of the Levant, the land that has always been a foothold for civilizations, religions and cultures,” said Aoun in a tweet. “We sincerely hope His Holiness’s visit to Mesopotamia will give impetus to the establishment of real peace that the people of Iraq need as well as all the peoples of the region,” he added. The Pope landed in Iraq on Friday to urge the country's dwindling number of Christians to stay put and help rebuild the country after years of war and persecution, brushing aside the coronavirus pandemic and security concerns to make his first-ever papal visit.

Israel Reveals Secret Map of 'Hizbullah' Sites in Lebanon
Associated Press/March 05/2021
Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz revealed on Friday a target map of "Hizbullah" missiles amid civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. Gantz made an interview with the American "Fox News" channel, during which he claimed that "Hizbullah" has hundreds of thousands of missiles, claiming that the map shows "the locations of Hizbullah ground forces, storage sites, command offices, and missile launch sites." On Friday, al-Sharq newspaper quoted the American channel as saying that Gantz gave the map to Fox News journalist, Terry Yingst, in order to see it, when he asked him about the number of missiles that Hizbullah had, but the channel hid the map details when the interview was aired. When the journalist asked whether the map represented a "list of targets for the Israeli army in Lebanon," the Israeli Defense Minister said: "This is a target map. Each one of them has been checked legally, operationally, intelligence-wise and we are ready to fight." Previously, Israel's military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kohavi, warned that in future conflicts, Israel would use heavy force in residential areas where Hibullah rockets are stored and launched. He has said Israeli troops would warn civilians to evacuate their homes before launching such strikes.

Clashes in Jiye, Khalde as Road-Blocking Protests Continue across Lebanon
Naharnet/March 05/2021
Several people were injured Friday in a clash between Hizbullah supporters and protesters who were blocking the Jiye road, prompting the army’s intervention, media reports said. An-Nahar newspaper said knives and rocks were used in the clash. LBCI TV said the clash first started between a young man who hails from Barja and young men from Jiye described as Hizbullah supporters. Earlier in the day, heavy gunfire was heard in the Khalde area during the blocking of roads there. The National News Agency reported that the army was encircling the region. The Mustaqbal Web news portal, citing a social media video, said gunmen on a motorcycle opened fire towards Sheikh Omar Ghosn and his sons, who have influence in the Khalde area. The video purportedly shows one of the shooters in the army’s custody after he was captured by men from the area. His bloodied face and hand suggest that he was beaten up. Asked by the men about where he hails from, the young man answers Baalbek. It was not immediately clear whether the incident was linked to the road-blocking protests in the area. Separately, two people were injured when the army intervened to reopen Sidon's seaside road after it was blocked by protesters. Protesters meanwhile blocked highways and road in Jal el-Dib, Zouk, Jounieh, al-Saadiyat, Naameh, Mazraat Yachouh, Beirut's Martyrs Square, Salim Salam, Jarmaq, Jdita, Deir Zannoun, Tripoli's al-Nour Square, the Kuwaiti embassy intersection, the Cola roundabout, Riyaq, al-Beddawi, Ksara, Kfartebnit, Palma, Aramoun, Saadnayel and Ferzol.

U.S. Denies Reports of Salameh Sanctions, Governor to File Lawsuits
Naharnet/March 05/2021
U.S. Embassy spokesman Casey Bonfield on Friday told al-Jadeed TV that reports claiming that Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh will be hit with U.S. sanctions are baseless. The Central Bank’s press office meanwhile announced that Salameh will file a series of lawsuits inside and outside Lebanon against Bloomberg News, its correspondent in Beirut and “anyone who stands behind them” on charges of “fabricating news, insults and attempts to tarnish the reputation of the central bank governor.”It added that “such insults negatively affect all Lebanese,” are tantamount to “national treason” and are harmful to “the country’s financial security and rescue chances.”Bloomberg has reported that the U.S. is considering sanctions against Salameh, quoting four people familiar with the matter. “Officials within the Biden administration have discussed the possibility of coordinated measures with their European counterparts targeting Riad Salameh,” Bloomberg quoted the sources as saying. “The discussion has so far focused on the possibility of freezing Salameh’s overseas assets and enacting measures that would curtail his ability to do business abroad… Deliberations are ongoing and a final decision over whether to take action may not be imminent,” Bloomberg added. Swiss authorities are looking into allegations that Salameh indirectly benefited from the sale of Lebanese Eurobonds held in the central bank’s portfolio between 2002 and 2016, according to a Lebanese judicial official and a person familiar with the Swiss investigation, both of whom requested anonymity as the information is sensitive. Also of interest to authorities is the relationship between Salameh’s brother, Raja, and the brokerage firm Forry Associates Ltd, which charged commissions on the sale of Eurobonds to investors, four of Bloomberg’s sources said. The commissions under scrutiny total more than $300 million, according to a person familiar with the Swiss investigation.

French Ambassador Declares New Aid for Lebanon, Says Support Doesn’t Replace Reform
Naharnet/March 05/2021
French Ambassador to Lebanon Anne Grillo announced a new batch of French aid for Lebanon, stressing that assistance for the crisis-hit country “does not replace much-needed reforms.”Grillo said in an article she wrote in al-Joumhouria daily that France’s emergency support for Lebanon “cannot replace” the much-needed reforms the crisis-hit country largely needs.Her article came under the title “France delivers concrete promises,” and she answered a question “Where is France today?”She pointed out that "emergency support was and is still necessary, but it cannot replace the reforms that the Lebanese are awaiting today." Grillo added, “France will continue, through tangible steps, to fulfill its pledges, and this assistance will materialize, in the coming days, in 3 areas: First, exceptional aid worth 1.1 million euros will be provided to organizations that provide direct assistance to the residents of Tripoli and its neighborhood, especially in Akkar, in the fields of food and health assistance. Second, France will present a new donation of essential medical equipment, in order to combat the Corona pandemic.Third, a signed agreement with UNICEF to support the rehabilitation of Karantina Governmental Hospital.”

Report: U.S. Weighs ‘Sanctions’ on BDL Governor
Naharnet/March 05/2021
The US administration is reportedly considering sanctions on the governor of the Central Bank of Lebanon, Riad Salameh, as investigation expands into alleged embezzlement of public funds in Lebanon, Bloomberg reported Thursday evening, citing 4 people familiar with the matter.
The network reported that officials within the administration of US President Joe Biden had practically discussed the possibility of taking coordinated measures with their European counterparts targeting Salameh, sources told the network on condition of anonymity. Two sources said discussions have focused so far on the possibility of freezing Riad Salameh's assets abroad, and enacting measures that would limit his ability to do business abroad. Salameh has repeatedly denied committing any wrongdoing and has expressed willingness to cooperate with the Swiss Public Prosecution in this regard. US authorities had previously considered sanctions on Salameh, but the former President, Donald Trump, was not interested in taking such a measure, said the sources. Protesters in Lebanon blame the political class for the country’s unprecedented economic, financial and livelihood collapse. They also accuse Salameh of adopting a financial model that ultimately failed, leading to depreciation of Lebanese deposits with banks.The UN said more than half of the population is now living in poverty.

Lawyer Says Kelly Innocent of Ghosn Pay Scheme
Associated Press/March 05/2021
The chief lawyer for Greg Kelly, an American on trial in Japan on charges of under-reporting Nissan former Chairman Carlos Ghosn's compensation, says his client was merely trying to prevent Ghosn from going to a rival automaker. "Greg has no motive at all to commit such a crime," Yoichi Kitamura said Friday at his Tokyo office. At the time, Kelly, then a Nissan executive vice president, was making good money, had a successful career and moreover, was a lawyer. "He talks like a lawyer, and he thinks like a lawyer," Kitamura said. "He wouldn't do anything wrong or illegal."Kelly and Ghosn were arrested in late 2018 and are the only Nissan officials who were charged. Ghosn jumped bail in December 2019, and fled to Lebanon, which has no extradition treaty with Japan. He also says he is innocent. The trial, which began in September, has shown that top officials at Nissan Motor Co., including Kelly and former Chief Executive Hiroto Saikawa, all knew Ghosn took a drastic pay cut after the disclosure of high executive pay became required in Japan in 2010. Prosecutors have alleged that Kelly was involved in trying to help Ghosn hide compensation. Kitamura says Kelly was not aware of earlier planning for Ghosn's pay that might have violated the law. Kelly, according to Kitamura, was just working out ways to pay Ghosn after retirement, through consulting fees and arranging a "non-compete" to prevent him from going to a rival automaker. Such pay doesn't need to be disclosed in advance. Kitamura has a record of winning acquittals in high-profile cases. Even in Japan, where more than 99% of criminal trials result in convictions, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he noted. "We don't have to prove innocence," he said. He said he was confident Kelly will be acquitted. If not, he would appeal.
"The important thing is that he knew nothing," said Kitamura. A verdict in Kelly's trial isn't expected for months. If convicted, he could face up to 15 years in prison, as the charges involve under-reporting compensation by 9 billion yen ($88 million) over several years. It's also possible Kelly would get a suspended sentence, meaning he won't serve time, or that he might be able to return to his home in Tennessee if there is an appeal. "That would be the last day Greg would stay in Japan," Kitamura said. Earlier this week, two American men who are suspected of having helped Ghosn flee Japan while he was hidden in a musical instruments case were extradited from the U.S. and sent to a Tokyo detention center. Michael Taylor and his son, Peter, had been detained in a Boston jail since May and were handed over to Japanese custody on Monday. They were arrested on suspicion of aiding a criminal though formal charges are still undecided. Under Japanese law, suspects can be held without a formal charge for up to 23 days.

Reports of sanctions on Lebanon central bank chief are ‘untrue’: State Department
Joseph Haboush, Al Arabiya English/05 March/2021
The US State Department Friday denied reports that Washington was looking to sanction Lebanon’s central bank chief Riad Salameh. “We have seen reports about possible sanctions of Riad Salameh. They are untrue,” a State Department spokesperson told Al Arabiya English.
Bloomberg first reported that the US was considering sanctions against Salameh over the alleged embezzlement of public funds. The report surprised several former and current US officials as Salameh has been seen as a key partner in enforcing US economic sanctions against clients using Lebanese banks. Following the State Department denial, Salameh released a statement saying he would sue Bloomberg for the report. Salameh is one of the world's longest-serving central bank governors. A former Merrill Lynch banker, Salameh was appointed to his current role in 1993. But he has been faced with criticism in Lebanon after the local currency tumbled to record lows and depositors became unable to access their money in Lebanese banks.
 

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on March 05-06/2021

Pope welcomed in Iraq as ‘pilgrim of peace’ with message of hope to Christians
The Arab Weekly/March 05/2021
BAGHDAD--Pope Francis arrived in Iraq on Friday to urge the country’s dwindling number of Christians to stay put and help rebuild the country after years of war and persecution, brushing aside the coronavirus pandemic and security concerns to make his first-ever papal visit.
The pope, who wore a facemask during the flight, kept it on as he descended the stairs to the tarmac and was greeted by two masked children in traditional dress. He was visibly limping in a sign his sciatica, which has flared and forced him to cancel events recently, was possibly bothering him.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein said Iraqis were eager to welcome Francis’s “message of peace and tolerance” and described the visit as a historic meeting between the “minaret and the bells.”Among the highlights of the three-day visit is Francis’s private meeting Saturday with the country’s top Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a revered figure in Iraq and beyond.
Much-awaited visit
A red carpet was rolled out on the tarmac in Baghdad’s international airport with Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi on hand to greet him. A largely unmasked choir sang songs as both pope and premier made their way to a welcome area in the airport. Hundreds of people had gathered along the airport road with hopes of catching a glimpse of the pope’s plane touching down. Iraqis were keen to welcome him and the global attention his visit will bring, with banners and posters hanging high in central Baghdad, and billboards depicting Francis with the slogan “We are all Brothers” decorating the main thoroughfare.
In central Tahrir square, a mock tree was erected emblazoned with the Vatican emblem, while Iraqi and Vatican flags lined empty streets.
Increased security
The government is eager to show off the relative security it has achieved after years of wars and militant attacks that nevertheless continue even today. Francis and the Vatican delegation are relying on Iraqi security forces to protect them, including with the expected first use of an armoured car for the popemobile-loving pontiff. Tahsin al-Khafaji, spokesman for Iraq’s joint operations, said security forces had been increased. “This visit is really important to us and provides a good perspective of Iraq because the whole world will be watching,” he said. The high stakes will give Iraqi forces “motivation to achieve this visit with safety and peace.”
A message of support and reconciliation
Francis is breaking his year-long COVID-19 lockdown to refocus the world’s attention on a largely neglected people whose northern Christian communities, which date from the time of Christ, were largely emptied during the violent ISIS reign from 2014-2017. For the pope, who has often travelled to places where Christians are a persecuted minority, Iraq’s beleaguered Christians are the epitome of the “martyred church” that he has admired ever since he was a young Jesuit seeking to be a missionary in Asia. In Iraq, Francis is seeking to not only honour its martyrs but deliver a message of reconciliation and fraternity.
The few Christians who remain in Iraq harbour a lingering mistrust of their Muslim neighbours and face structural discrimination long predating both IS and the 2003 US-led invasion that plunged the country into chaos. “The Pope’s visit is to support the Christians in Iraq to stay, and to say that they are not forgotten,” the Chaldean patriarch, Cardinal Luis Sako, told reporters in Baghdad this week. The aim of Francis’s visit, he said, is to encourage them to “hold onto hope.”
Shadow of pandemic
The visit comes as Iraq is seeing a new spike in coronavirus infections, with most new cases traced to the highly contagious variant first identified in Britain. The 84-year-old pope, the Vatican delegation and travelling media have been vaccinated; most Iraqis have not. Ahead of the pope’s arrival Friday, dozens of men, women and children gathered in a Baghdad church, many not wearing masks or observing social distancing, before boarding buses to the airport to welcome the pontiff. The Vatican and Iraqi authorities have downplayed the threat of the virus and insisted that social distancing, crowd control and other healthcare measures will be enforced. The Vatican spokesman, Matteo Bruni, said this week the important thing is for Iraqis to know that the pope came to Iraq as an “act of love.”“I come among you as a pilgrim of peace, to repeat ‘you are all brothers,’” Francis said in a video-message to the Iraqi people on the eve of his visit. “I come as a pilgrim of peace in search of fraternity, animated by the desire to pray together and walk together, also with brothers and sisters of other religious traditions.”
A persecuted community
Christians once constituted a sizeable minority in Iraq but their numbers began dwindling after the 2003 US-led invasion. They fell further when ISIS militants in 2014 swept through traditionally Christian towns across the Nineveh plains. Their extremist brand of Islam forced residents to flee to the neighboring Kurdish region or further afield. Few have returned, and those who have found their homes and churches destroyed. Returnees have had to contend with more struggles. Many cannot find work and blame discriminatory practices in the public sector, Iraq’s largest employer. Since 2003, public jobs have been mostly controlled by majority Shia political elites, leaving Christians feeling marginalised. While hard numbers are hard to come by, there were an estimated 1.4 million Christians in Iraq in 2003. Today the number is believed to be around 250,000. During his visit, Francis will pray in the Baghdad church that was the site of one of the worst massacres of Christians, the 2010 attack by Islamist radicals that left 58 people dead. He will honour the dead in a Mosul square surrounded by shells of destroyed churches and meet with the small Christian community that returned to Qaraqosh. He will bless their church, which was used as a firing range by ISIS. The Vatican and the pope have frequently insisted on the need to preserve Iraq’s ancient Christian communities and create the security, economic and social conditions for those who have left to return. But that hasn’t necessarily translated into reality. “I am the only priest in Mosul. Every Sunday I hold mass at 9 am, and only around 70 people attend,” said Reverend Raed Adil Kelo, parish priest of the Church of the Annunciation in the onetime de-facto ISIS capital. Before 2003, the Christian population in Mosul was 50,000, he said. It had dwindled to 2,000 before ISIS overran northern Iraq. He doesn’t expect more to return, but he said Francis’s visit would have immeasurable importance for those who stayed. “This visit will bring peace to Iraq” he said.

'Silence the Arms!' Pope Urges on Historic Iraq Trip
Agence France Presse/05 March/2021
Pope Francis called for an end to extremism and violence in his opening address Friday on the first-ever papal visit to Iraq, long scarred by war and now gripped by coronavirus. The 84-year-old is defying a second wave of the global pandemic and renewed security fears to make a "long-awaited" trip to comfort one of the world's oldest Christian communities, while also deepening his dialogue with Muslims. "May there be an end to acts of violence and extremism, factions and intolerance!" urged Francis in the stirring address, his first after arriving in Iraq. Francis landed in the afternoon at Baghdad's International Airport, where he was greeted by Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhemi, as well as groups showcasing Iraq's diverse folklore music and dance. He then met with President Barham Saleh -- who had extended the official invitation to the pontiff in 2019 -- as well as other government and religious figures.At the imposing presidential palace, the head of the world's 1.3 billion Catholics gave a moving address, stressing the deep roots of Christianity in Iraq. "The age-old presence of Christians in this land, and their contributions to the life of the nation, constitute a rich heritage that they wish to continue to place at the service of all," said Pope Francis. He also urged Iraqi officials to "combat the scourge of corruption, misuse of power and disregard for law," in a country consistently ranked one of the most graft-tainted by Transparency International. The Pope, a prominent promoter of interfaith dialogue, also hailed other devastated Iraqi minorities. "Here, among so many who have suffered, my thoughts turn to the Yazidis, innocent victims of senseless and brutal atrocities," he said. Just like Iraq's Christian population, the esoteric Yazidi community was ravaged in 2014 by the Islamic State group's sweep over much of northern Iraq.
'Victory' over death -
The trip is the pontiff's first travel abroad since the coronavirus pandemic, which had left him feeling "caged" in Vatican City -- and it has been hailed as a bold choice. Iraq endured decades of war, is still hunting for IS cells and is now facing a second spike of Covid-19 infections, with more than 5,000 new cases and dozens of deaths daily. Authorities have imposed a full lockdown through the papal trip, which means Francis will not be greeted by massive crowds of believers like on other foreign trips. The Pope has been vaccinated and was seen taking off his mask on Friday to speak with officials and religious figures in Baghdad, just days after Iraq launched its modest inoculation campaign. "I'll try to follow directions and not shake hands with everyone, but I don't want to stay too far," Francis said ahead of his arrival. He was also seen walking with a slight limp, likely a result of a painful bout of sciatica that he has suffered this year. Inside the country, he will travel more than 1,400 kilometers (870 miles) by plane and helicopter, flying over areas where security forces are still battling IS. For shorter trips, Francis will take an armored car on freshly paved roads lined with flowers and posters welcoming him warmly as "Baba al-Vatican". He will address the faithful later on Friday afternoon at the Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad's commercial Karrada district, where attendance has been restricted to allow for social distancing. In 2010, Islamist militants stormed the church and killed 44 worshippers, two priests and several security force personnel in one of the bloodiest attacks on Iraq's Christians. Now, stained-glass windows at the church bear the victims' names and a defiant message above the altar reads, "Where is your victory, oh death?"
Meeting 'revered' Sistani
The pope has insisted on going ahead with the visit despite resurgent violence, including rocket attacks that have left three people dead in recent weeks. On the eve of Francis's arrival, one shadowy group that claimed a recent rocket attack said it would "halt all military activity" during his visit. The pope's determination to travel to areas long shunned by foreign dignitaries has impressed many in Iraq -- as has his planned one-on-one with the top authority for the country's Shiites. The reclusive but highly revered Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, 90, will host the Pope at his humble home in the shrine city of Najaf. The meeting will be a major step in deepening ties to Shiite Muslims, who are majority in Iraq but a minority globally. "Despite a broad shift away from religion around the world, the reverence for Sistani is unmoved," said Marsin Alshamary, a Brookings Institute research fellow. Banners all over Najaf have celebrated "the historic encounter, between the minarets and the church bells".Francis, a major supporter of inter-religious dialogue, will then hold an interfaith service at the desert site of Ur, where Abraham is thought to have been born.

Pope Francis delivers impassioned plea for peace as historic Iraq visit gets underway
Francesco Bongarrà/March 05/2021
Pontiff remembers Christians massacred in 2010 church attack
He hailed Iraq as a “cradle of civilization,” despite its many problems
ROME/BAGHDAD: Pope Francis on Friday called for an end to extremism, violence and corruption as his historic visit to Iraq got underway.
He began the first-ever papal trip to the country by meeting government officials in Baghdad, before traveling to a church where Christians were massacred by militants in 2010. He was greeted at Baghdad’s International Airport by Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi and treated to a display of traditional dancing.
He then met President Barham Salih at the Presidential Palace, where he delivered a strongly worded speech highlighting the problems that continued to blight the country. “May the clash of arms be silenced,” he said. “Enough of violence, extremism, factions, intolerance. Iraq has suffered the disastrous effects of wars, the scourge of terrorism and sectarian conflicts often grounded in a fundamentalism incapable of accepting the peaceful coexistence of different ethnic and religious groups.” The pope, referring to the outside influences often blamed for destabilizing Iraq, said the international community must provide help “without imposing ideologies” and urged Iraqi officials to “combat the scourge of corruption, misuse of power and disregard for law.”His visit comes as Iraq attempts to claw its way to stability after years of sectarian conflict, the Daesh occupation, chronic corruption, and widespread anger at government officials for failing to provide basic services. Iraq’s Christian population has also dwindled, with many fleeing overseas to build new lives. But the pope hailed Iraq as a “cradle of civilization,” despite its many problems, and believed that all the crises it faced could be overcome by building a society based on fraternity, solidarity and concord. He said that Iraq, with its varied religions, culture and ethnicities, could show that diversity should lead to harmony within society rather than conflict.

Official: Israel upgrading contingency plans for Iran attack
AP/March 05/2021 19:32
Israeli Prime Minister blamed Iran for mysterious explosion that hit Israeli-owned vessel in Gulf of Oman while Tehran denied.
Iranian nuclear escalation must be stalled, Israeli defence minister told Fox News
TEL AVIV, Israel: Tension seems to be rising between Iran and Israel as the latter’s defense minister said his country is upgrading contingency plans to strike Iranian targets if Tehran shows signs of nuclear escalation. Israel is still working on its plans, but that “we have them in our hands of course,” Israeli defense minister Benny Gantz told the American cable network Fox News on Thursday. His comments came as President Joe Biden considers re-joining a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers to limit Iran’s nuclear program, with some changes to toughen curbs on Tehran’s activities.
The US’s Former President Donald Trump pulled his country out of the atomic accord in 2018 and imposed a so-called campaign of maximum pressure, including sanctions, on Tehran. Since then, Iran has stepped up uranium enrichment. The UN nuclear watchdog — the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, which monitors Iran’s nuclear program — said earlier this week that Iran nearly tripled its stockpile of enriched uranium since November in violation of its deal with world powers. Deadlock over how to revive the deal struck between Iran and the Biden administration, with Tehran demanding an immediate lifting of sanctions while the US calling on Iran to first return to full compliance with the agreement’s restrictions. Israel has vehemently opposed the nuclear deal. Meanwhile, tensions have been rising between arch foes Israel and Iran. Last week, an Israeli-owned cargo ship, the Helios Ray, was damaged by a mysterious explosion in the strategically important Gulf of Oman. Iran denied accusations of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that they attacked the vessel. During Fox News interview, Gantz was asked about the ongoing uranium enrichment and whether Israel was completing preparations to strike Iranian targets if needed. “We have them (plans) in our hands of course but we will continue constantly improving them,” Gantz said. “The Iranian nuclear escalation must be stalled. If the world stops them before, it’s very much good. But if not, we must stand independently and we must defend ourselves by ourselves.” Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Unlike Iran, Israel’s atomic program, which is widely believed to include an undeclared nuclear bomb program, is not under the watch of the IAEA. During the interview, Gantz showed a map of Lebanon that he said includes ground forces, missiles and launching sites set up by the militant Hezbollah group, a proxy for Iran. “This is a target map. Each one of them has been checked legally, operationally, intelligence-wise and we are ready to fight,” he said. Previously, Israel’s military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kohavi, warned that in future conflicts, Israel would use heavy force in residential areas where Hezbollah rockets are stored and launched. He has said Israeli troops would warn civilians to evacuate their homes before launching such strikes.

Greenpeace Slams Israeli Charge of Iranian Eco-Terror
Agence France Presse/05 March/2021
Greenpeace on Friday slammed an Israeli minister who accused Iran of "environmental terrorism" after a devastating oil spill in the Mediterranean. Jonathan Aikhenbaum, director of Greenpeace Israel, said minister Gila Gamliel's comments did more harm than good. "It is simply scandalous and lacking any factual basis at this stage," he told public radio.  He said her accusation against Israel's arch foe carried "a bad smell of election propaganda" as a March 23 general election beckons. Gamliel is a staunch ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose hardline stance against Iran is a key part of his re-election campaign. Aikhenbaum said her Wednesday accusations on Twitter were "a blow to Israel's credibility in the international arena and especially the credibility of the ministry for environmental protection". Storms last month washed tonnes of sticky tar ashore along Israel's entire Mediterranean coastline, blighting 160 kilometres (96 miles) of beach from the Gaza border to Lebanon. Gamliel told reporters that the culprit was a Libyan-flagged ship sailing from Iran that had "entered Israel's exclusive economic zone and deliberately polluted" the waters. "Our long arm will reach anyone who harms our nature, our sea or our coasts," she warned. Public radio has reported that the intelligence community do not share the minister's assessment. Greenpeace said that the culprit could have been another of the vessels that were in the area at the time. "The minister downplays the well-known and widespread phenomenon of destructive sea pollution from oil spills by ships," its website said. Gamliel's statements came after the Jewish state accused Iran of an attack late last month on an Israeli-owned ship in the Gulf of Oman, further raising tensions. Iran has denied any role in the explosion that hit the MV Helios Ray, leaving two holes in its side but causing no casualties. The latest escalation between the arch rivals comes as the international community tries to salvage a troubled 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

Iran’s top diplomat says will soon present ‘concrete plan of action’ on nuclear deal
Tuqa Khalid, Al Arabiya English/05 March/2021
Iran will soon present a “constructive” plan of action on the nuclear deal, the Foreign Minister said on Friday, after European countries scrapped a plan to submit a resolution criticizing Tehran at a meeting of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency “As Iran's FM [foreign minister] and chief nuclear negotiator, I will shortly present our constructive concrete plan of action—through proper diplomatic channels,” Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Twitter. The nuclear deal, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, has been unravelling since former US president Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the agreement in 2018. President Joe Biden’s administration has signaled to Iran its willingness to return to talks to revive the nuclear deal. He reversed Trump’s determination that all UN sanctions against Iran had been restored and the State Department eased stringent restrictions on the domestic travel of Iranian diplomats in New York. Yet, Tehran demanded that all Trump-era sanctions on Iran be lifted before taking any real action to return to the deal. Iran said earlier this week it did not consider the time to be “suitable” for an informal meeting on reviving the deal. However, diplomatic sources told Reuters on Thursday Tehran has given encouraging signs in recent days about opening informal talks. "Things are moving in the right direction and we have had positive signals this week and especially in last few days," the source told reporters. "We are seeing movements we weren't seeing last weekend," he said. The US maintained its stance as ready to meet with Iran without being “dogmatic” about how.- With Reuters

Iran casts long shadow over Pentagon nominee's Senate hearing
Reuters/05 March /2021
President Joe Biden's nominee to become the Pentagon's top policy adviser faced relentless Republican criticism on Thursday over his support for the Iran nuclear deal, in a confirmation hearing that could foreshadow bigger fights over Biden's national security agenda. Colin Kahl, who was a top aide to Biden during the Obama administration, reaffirmed his views on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, strong defense ties with Israel and the U.S. military's so-called "triad" of nuclear missiles, submarines and bombers. But Republicans including their most senior member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jim Inhofe, lambasted Kahl over his past remarks about Iran and social media posts that were sharply critical of Donald Trump's policies as president. "How can you reassure this committee that your hyper-partisan advocacy would not drive Pentagon decisions?" asked the senator from Oklahoma. Inhofe added that if he sounded a little upset, it was because "frankly, I am." The Iran nuclear deal, aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, was fiercely opposed by Republicans and some Democrats, and Trump withdrew from it in 2018. Biden wants to revive the deal, which was agreed by Tehran and six major powers. Biden's bid for diplomacy has been overshadowed in recent weeks by rocket attacks by Iran-backed militia on U.S. forces in Iraq that have triggered concerns about escalation. Kahl suggested he would favor strong responses to such attacks. "When Iran takes actions against our own forces, we should defend ourselves and punch back," Kahl said.
'PROXY WAR'
Tensions in Kahl's confirmation hearing echoed concerns raised on Wednesday, when a different Senate panel grilled Wendy Sherman over her nomination to be No. 2 official at the State Department. Sherman helped negotiate the 2015 Iran deal, and so is also likely to lose Republican votes.
During Thursday's hearing, Kahl defended his concerns about Trump's 2018 pullout from the Iran deal and the decision to pile pressure on Tehran, including round after round of economic sanctions. Kahl at the time worried it would encourage Iran to increase its provocations and accelerate its nuclear program. "Both of those things have happened in the last three years. Iran is a lot closer to the fissile material required for a nuclear weapon than they were at the end of the Obama administration," Kahl said. "And we've seen more attacks." Republican Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa said she would not support Kahl's nomination and that members of the U.S. military "deserve someone that will take a serious outlook to policy."Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said Kahl's hearing was being used by critics to re-litigate the 2015 agreement. "I really believe that the controversy over your nomination is essentially a proxy war," Kaine said. "Republicans didn't like the Iran deal."Republican Senator Tom Cotton said Kahl had warned on Twitter of the risk of conflict with Iran after the Trump administration killed top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani last year. He said Kahl had spent "the last four years warning about impending wars that never happened." He also pointed to a tweet by Kahl describing Republicans as "the party of ethnic cleansing" after Trump abruptly ordered a Syria withdrawal in 2019 in a move that many said put at risk America's Kurdish allies. Kahl apologized and said the last several years had been "pretty polarizing on social media.""I'm sure there are times that I got swept up in that," he said.

UN slams Iran’s Baluchistan crackdown
Arab News/March 05, 2021 16:22
‘Victims and their families have the right to truth and redress’
Rights groups have consistently criticized Tehran for treatment of minorities
LONDON: The UN’s highest human rights body has condemned Iran’s “systematic intentional use of lethal force” against the country’s minorities, following a violent crackdown last month by security forces in Sistan-Baluchistan province. “We condemn use of force violations in recent weeks by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and state security forces against unarmed fuel couriers and protesters belonging to the Baluch minority,” said Rupert Colleville, spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Feb. 22 killing of “at least 12 individuals, including at least two minors,” on the Iran-Pakistan border sparked a “series of violent events and unrest,” he added. In the days following the border killings, protesters across cities in Sistan-Baluchistan sacked government and IRGC buildings and clashed with security forces. Colleville said due to the “widespread shutdown of internet access across several cities” in the province, it has been difficult to confirm the exact number of protesters killed. The UN estimates that up to 23 people could have been killed, while sources with links inside Iran told Arab News at the time that the violence could have claimed as many as 40 lives.“We deplore the systematic intentional use of lethal force by Iranian border officials, especially against border couriers from the Kurdish and Baluch minorities,” Colleville said. Iranian Kurds, too, have faced violence at the hands of the regime. “During 2020, a total of 59 Kurdish couriers were reported to have been killed by border officials in provinces in the north-west of Iran,” Colleville said. “We call for prompt, impartial and full investigations into all such killings, and accountability for those found to be responsible for unlawful use of force leading to death or serious injury. Victims and their families have the right to truth and redress.”Iran has long been criticized for its treatment of various ethnic minorities. According to Amnesty International, “ethnic minorities, including Ahwazi Arabs, Azerbaijani Turks, Baluchis, Kurds and Turkmen” face “entrenched discrimination, curtailing their access to education, employment and adequate housing.”
Aside from systemic economic and social disadvantage, they also find themselves at the sharp end of Iran’s much-maligned judicial and penal system, according to Diana Eltahawy, Amnesty’s deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa. She said last month that she had “serious concerns that the authorities are using the death penalty to sow fear among disadvantaged ethnic minorities, as well as the wider population.” She added: “The disproportionate use of the death penalty against Iran’s ethnic minorities epitomizes the entrenched discrimination and repression they have faced for decades.”

UK to unveil major post-Brexit defense and foreign policy overhaul on March 16
Reuters, London/05 March/2021
Britain will publish a review of its post-Brexit defense, security and foreign policy priorities on March 16, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s spokesman said on Friday. The long-awaited document, known as the “integrated review” has previously been billed by Johnson as the “biggest review of our foreign, defense, security and development policy since the end of the Cold War.”It is expected to spell out the role Britain wants to play in geopolitics following its exit from the European Union, and the cyber and military capabilities it needs to achieve its ambitions.
Johnson’s 2019 election pitch to make Britain the leader of a new era of global cooperation on issues such as trade has been set back by the coronavirus pandemic. Britain currently holds the rotating presidency of the G7 and will host world leaders including US President Joe Biden at a summit in June. The March 16 publication will be followed on March 22 by a defense-specific document setting out plans for the modernization of Britain’s armed forces. The defense sector, including firms such as Babcock, BAE Systems and Qinetiq, will be closely scrutinizing both documents to see what armed force capabilities the government has decided to prioritize over the coming decade.

Explosions in north Syria near Turkish border: State TV
Tuqa Khalid, Al Arabiya English/05 March/2021
Explosions were heard in northern Syria near the towns of al-Bab and Jarablus, close to the Turkish border, state-run Ikhbariya TV reported on Friday. The blasts hit local oil refineries in the area, which is controlled by Turkey and allied rebel groups opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
There was no official Turkish comment on the incident so far. Earlier, Syrian state news agency SANA reported Turkish forces and allied fighters shelled houses in Aleppo’s northern countryside. Turkish forces and their Syrian insurgent allies seized territory in the region in an offensive in 2019 against the Kurdish YPG militia which holds swathes of north and east Syria. Turkey regards the YPG as a terrorist group tied to the PKK inside its own borders.The YPG forms the military backbone of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) alliance which defeated ISIS in northeast Syria with the help of US air power. - With Reuters

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on March 05-06/2021

The New McCarthyism Comes to Harvard Law School
Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/March 5, 2021
This self-serving defense of censorship is intended to convey a crass economic threat: if you want to get a good job after law school, make sure that Harvard bans teachers and speakers who are trying to "rehabilitate their reputations and obscure the stain of their complicity in the Trump administration...."
One would also think that signatories would be aware that if these vague criteria — anti-democratic, racists, xenophobic and immoral — were applied across the board, they would result in bans on anyone who was associated with the current regimes in China, Cuba, Turkey, Belarus, Russia, Venezuela, the Palestinian Authority and other repressive governments.
It would also apply to supporters of American anti-democratic and anti-free speech groups, such as Antifa, and the very organization — People's Parity Project — that is promoting this anti-free speech petition. Indeed, historically, repression and censorship have been directed primarily against the left.
The Harvard Law School petition is directed only at Trump supporters, not supporters of left wing anti-democratic repression, either here or abroad. It is based on the assumption that there is a special "Trump exception" to freedom of speech and due process. But exceptions to free speech and academic freedom for some risk becoming the rule for all.
Much of this effort to exclude Trump supporters from campuses comes from individuals and organizations that also demand more "diversity." But their definition of diversity is limited to race, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity. It does not extend to the central mission of universities: to hear and learn from the widest array of views, perspectives, ideologies and political preferences.
A recent petition, signed by hundreds of Harvard Law School students and alumni, demands that Harvard not "hire or affiliate with" the "architects and backers of the Trump administration's worse abuses." There is no place for selective censorship based on political affiliations at Harvard Law School or any institution of higher education, whether it receives federal funding or not — but especially if it does. (Photo by Darren McCollester/Getty Images)
A recent petition, signed by hundreds of Harvard Law School students and alumni, raises the specter of the new McCarthyism coming to the law school at which I taught for half a century. The petition states that "Harvard Law School faces a choice of whether to welcome the architects and backers of the Trump administration's worse abuses back into polite society." It demands that Harvard not "hire or affiliate with" any of these sinners, and threatens that "if it does so the school will be complicit if future attacks on our democracy are even more violent – and more successful."
The petition sees this ban as part of the educational and employment mission of the school: "it would also teach ambitious students of all ages that attempting to subvert the democratic process" will deny them access to the "revolving door to success and prestige." This self-serving defense of censorship is intended to convey a crass economic threat: if you want to get a good job after law school, make sure that Harvard bans teachers and speakers who are trying to "rehabilitate their reputations and obscure the stain of their complicity in the Trump administration ...."
This is similar to the message that the original McCarthyites tried to have Harvard convey in the 1950s, when students were denied editorship of the Law Review, clerkship recommendations, and other opportunities that they had earned, solely because of their alleged affiliation with Communism and other left wing causes. One would have thought that current Harvard Law School students would be familiar with the sordid history of McCarthyism that infected many American universities, including Brooklyn College, which I attended as an undergraduate and where I fought against the denial of civil liberties to suspected communists.
One would also think that signatories would be aware that if these vague criteria — anti-democratic, racists, xenophobic and immoral — were applied across the board, they would result in bans on anyone who was associated with the current regimes in China, Cuba, Turkey, Belarus, Russia, Venezuela, the Palestinian Authority and other repressive governments. It would also apply to supporters of American anti-democratic and anti-free speech groups, such as Antifa, and the very organization — People's Parity Project — that is promoting this anti-free speech petition. Indeed, historically, repression and censorship have been directed primarily against the left. Even today, the French government is expressing concern about the impact of "Islamo-leftist" influences from Americans universities.
The Harvard Law School petition is directed only at Trump supporters, not supporters of left wing anti-democratic repression, either here or abroad. It is based on the assumption that there is a special "Trump exception" to freedom of speech and due process. But exceptions to free speech and academic freedom for some risk becoming the rule for all.
Free speech for me but for not for thee is not a defensible principle. Today it is the mantra of the new censors, who demand deplatforming and cancelling speakers, teachers and writers who disagree with their anti-Trump zealotry. The voracious appetite of the censor, however, is rarely sated. Some are now trying to silence defenders of the Constitution, such as me, who opposed most of Trump's policies but who also opposed what we believe were unconstitutional efforts to impeach him. When I was invited to speak by a Harvard Law School student group, the event had to be moved off campus as the result of threats to shout me down and silence me.
Much of this effort to exclude Trump supporters from campuses comes from individuals and organizations that also demand more "diversity." But their definition of diversity is limited to race, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity. It does not extend to the central mission of universities: to hear and learn from the widest array of views, perspectives, ideologies and political preferences.
Today's students should welcome Trump supporters and challenge them — respectfully, civilly and with open minds. They should be willing to listen to views diametrically opposed to their own deeply felt morality and politics. Many of these cancelled speakers would express views that are accepted by tens of millions of American voters. Those of us who disagree with these views should feel confident that they will be soundly rejected in the open marketplace of ideas, as they were in the 2020 election. No university or law school should shut down this marketplace, as the old McCarthyism did and as this new McCarthyism is now trying to do. There is no place for selective censorship based on political affiliations at Harvard Law School or any institution of higher education, whether it receives federal funding or not — but especially if it does.
This anti-civil liberties petition should be rejected in the marketplace of ideas by all students, faculty and administrators who value diversity of opinions both inside and outside the classroom.
*Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the book, Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019. His new podcast, "The Dershow," can be seen on Spotify, Apple and YouTube. He is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
© 2021 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Israeli ex-generals battle over the Iran deal - opinion
Ruthie Blum/Jerusalem Post/March 05/2021
Schism in Israel's defense establishment comes to light as soon as its brass is no longer in uniform or undercover, and therefore at liberty to voice political views.
By RUTHIE BLUM MARCH 4, 2021 22:07
Two groups of retired IDF generals, Shin Bet operatives, Mossad agents and Israel Police officers are currently engaged in combat. But the battle is not against the enemies of the Jewish state that the organizations’ members devoted much of their adult lives to protecting.
No, the war in question is being fought between Commanders for Israel’s Security and Habithonistim-Protectors of Israel. The casus belli in this case is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers from which former US president Donald Trump withdrew in 2018.
Following clear indications that the new administration in Washington was eager to return to the JCPOA – both as part of its obsession with diplomacy, and to undo as many of Trump’s policies as possible – CIS announced support for US President Joe Biden’s stance.
In a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 22, CIS said that it “welcomes the American initiative to get Iran to again transparently follow the guidelines in the JCPOA, as long as it includes an Iranian commitment to abide by UN Security Council Resolution 2231.”
To refresh our collective memory, Resolution 2231, which constitutes an affirmation of the JCPOA, mentions an “implementation structure” for the UNSC to “review and decide on proposals by [member] states for nuclear, ballistic missile or arms-related transfers to or activities with Iran.”
Before doing a double take, if not guffawing, at the content of the CIS letter and the resolution on which it based – since the regime in Tehran never upheld its end of the agreement – let’s note the very different message that Habithonistim sent to Biden on March 1.
Expressing “great concern” over Biden’s interest in returning to the “flawed principles” of the JCPOA, the group wrote: “From a strict security perspective, [rejoining the accord] represents an existential threat to the Jewish state. It would also work against your administration’s stated goal of stabilizing the Middle East... [as it] would push Israel and Sunni allies into a dangerous corner, and potentially ignite a massive nuclear arms race.”
The letter went on to say that the JCPOA provided the Iranian regime with a “safe path” to obtaining a large nuclear arsenal, and that the deal’s limitations (which, as pointed out above, are meaningless anyway) have expired or will be “sunsetting shortly.”
It continued: “What is needed is not to succumb to the false brinkmanship and nuclear blackmail of Iran, and to use the maximum-pressure sanctions to demand Iran accept a more effective deal that will not include sunset clauses, and will guarantee that Iran shall never have the capability to produce nuclear weapons — a deal that dismantles the military nuclear facilities, provides for real inspections anywhere anytime, limits enrichment for a very long time or prevents it and takes care of delivery systems (ballistic missiles).”
Endorsed by 1,800 signatories, it concluded: “President Biden, your 40-year history as a public servant has clearly demonstrated that Israel’s security is something you take seriously. The Iranian regime [seems] to be expecting a deal as favorable to them as the original JCPOA. You have a unique opportunity to [disabuse] them of that fallacy by negotiating a deal that protects Israel, the Middle East and the United State of America from an empowered and nuclear-armed Iran.”
THAT NEITHER Netanyahu nor Biden will be swayed by these missives, each of which contradicts the position of its addressee, is irrelevant. What is important is the schism in the Israeli defense establishment, which comes to light as soon as its brass is no longer in uniform or undercover, and therefore at liberty to voice political views.
Unfortunately, their opinions often run counter to the very government policies that they executed during their careers. From both a legal standpoint and as a matter of free speech, this is within their rights. Nevertheless, it’s extremely damaging when the comments of security-establishment veterans are touted by Israel’s foes abroad as proof of Jerusalem’s wrongdoing.
CIS, a well-funded NGO that describes itself as “a non-partisan movement of retired senior members of the defense establishment... that promotes separation from the Palestinians into two states in a regional outline,” is one example.
Ironically, among the objectives laid out by the movement of “more than 300 retired senior officials represent[ing] more than 9,000 years of security experience” are goals that Netanyahu has been achieving at record speed. These include launching a regional peace initiative to solidify Israel’s international standing.
To be fair, CIS was established in 2014, six years before Netanyahu signed the Trump-brokered Abraham Accords with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain – followed by normalization treaties with Sudan, Morocco and Kosovo. The group’s founding even preceded the finalization of the JCPOA.
It was quick at the time, however, to criticize Netanyahu ahead of his March 3, 2015, address to a joint session of the US Congress, which had been arranged without the approval of then-US president Barack Obama. The purpose of Netanyahu’s speech was to warn American lawmakers of the “bad deal” in the works with Iran. CIS argued that the occasion would damage Israel’s relationship with the US.
AS LONG ago as that seems, and as different as the situation was at the time, there was one constant that CIS did not acknowledge then and continues to deny to this day: that the path to peace in the Middle East doesn’t pass through Ramallah. On the contrary, the Palestinian Authority is and has always been the main roadblock to its own problems, and appeasement of Iran endangers the entire region.
Army and secret-service officers ought to know that by now. Their continued inability to see it doesn’t reflect well on their collective “9,000 years of security experience,” that’s for sure.
On the other hand, not much can be expected of a group – formed two months after the end of Operation Protective Edge, Israel’s war against Hamas terrorist and infrastructure in Gaza – that called on Netanyahu “to adopt the Saudi Peace Initiative as a basis for negotiations and to set in motion a peace process with the Palestinians.”
Equally banal is CIS’s conviction that a two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians is essential for Israel’s security and future as a democratic Jewish state. It’s as if the people who utter these platitudes, which have proved time and again to be delusional, just awakened from decades of hibernation in a cave. Take CIS chairman IDF Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Matan Vilnai, for instance. In an article in Maariv in September, he claimed that the then-imminent signing of the Abraham Accords made Israel’s return to the negotiating table with the Palestinians imperative. The deduction beggared belief and defied all logic.
THANKFULLY, Habithonistim – “a movement of officers, commanders and fighters from all Israeli security sectors that aim to protect Israel’s national security needs in a way that will enable its existence and prosperity for generations to come” – emerged last year to present a very different perspective. Rather than bemoaning the absence of a phony “two-state solution,” this collection of defense honchos, headed by IDF Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Amir Avivi, championed Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan.
In an apparent dig to CIS, Avivi said in a statement this week that those who consider the JCPOA beneficial to Israel’s security are “out of touch” with reality. One might – and should – add that any new version of a deal with the devil will be just as perilous.
Meanwhile, the military, under orders from the Netanyahu-led government, should be saluted for striking Iranian targets on a regular basis.

Saudi Arabia: Iran continues nuclear blackmail, IAEA safeguards system at stake
Arab News/March 05/2021
Prince Abdullah bin Khalid bin Sultan: The Kingdom calls on Iran to cooperate fully with the IAEA in order to meet its requests and to answer the inquiries submitted to it without further delay
The ambassador condemned Iran’s continuous transgressions and violations of the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), by expanding and developing its nuclear capabilities
JEDDAH: Saudi Arabia has denounced the intransigence of the Iranian side in dealing with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) demands regarding undeclared sites during the past year and a half.
Prince Abdullah bin Khalid bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Austria and the Kingdom’s permanent representative to the UN and international organizations in Vienna, delivered his remarks during his participation in the March session of the IAEA board of governors, stressing the “unsatisfactory” responses that lack any technical credibility provided by the Iranian officials. “(Iran’s responses) reflect the lack of seriousness to cooperate with the agency, despite the director general’s concern that there was no progress on outstanding and safeguards-related issues, despite IAEA’s willingness to engage Iran in proactive efforts to clarify and resolve those issues without further delay,” the prince said. He noted that the draft resolution adopted at the June 2020 session demonstrates Iran’s motives for such abstention.
The IAEA board of governors adopted a resolution calling on Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA in implementing its NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol and satisfy the IAEA’s requests without further delay.
“This confirms Iran’s continuation of its disinformation policy and reinforces doubts about what it is seeking with regard to its nuclear program,” the ambassador said. He added: “Based on Iran’s repeated violations, with the suspension of the Additional Protocol, and Iran’s attempt to evade the implementation of the Additional Protocol and Modified code 3.1 of the subsidiary arrangements to Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, the Kingdom calls on Iran to cooperate fully with the IAEA in order to meet its requests and to answer the inquiries submitted to it without further delay and procrastination.”
The ambassador condemned Iran’s continuous transgressions and violations of the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), by expanding and developing its nuclear capabilities, including irreversible expertise and suspending the Additional Protocol that revealed to the world the secrets of its non-peaceful nuclear program, in addition to its plans to produce enriched uranium by 20 percent. “Iran continues to implement its policy of threatening and blackmailing the international community, as it found shortcomings in the nuclear agreement from the outset and exploited them,” Prince Abdullah said.
He stressed the importance of a comprehensive nuclear agreement that covers all deficiencies in the current agreement, which guarantees preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons in any form and developing means of delivery. The Kingdom’s permanent representative to the UN added that Iran seems to believe in a policy of “nuclear blackmail,” which is clearly reflected in their public statements. “If Iran’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon are not contained, which is the intention of the Iranians behind this agreement from the beginning, thus representing a real risk of proliferation in the region, then this will lead to instability in the region and the world as a whole, further promoting its sponsorship of terrorism,” he said. Prince Abdullah added that the international community must take a firm stand to stop the practice of blackmail and provocation, as it is the responsibility of the member states of the board of governors to maintain the safeguards system that is now “at stake.”

The New McCarthyism Comes to Harvard Law School
Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/March 5, 2021
This self-serving defense of censorship is intended to convey a crass economic threat: if you want to get a good job after law school, make sure that Harvard bans teachers and speakers who are trying to "rehabilitate their reputations and obscure the stain of their complicity in the Trump administration...."
One would also think that signatories would be aware that if these vague criteria — anti-democratic, racists, xenophobic and immoral — were applied across the board, they would result in bans on anyone who was associated with the current regimes in China, Cuba, Turkey, Belarus, Russia, Venezuela, the Palestinian Authority and other repressive governments.
It would also apply to supporters of American anti-democratic and anti-free speech groups, such as Antifa, and the very organization — People's Parity Project — that is promoting this anti-free speech petition. Indeed, historically, repression and censorship have been directed primarily against the left.
The Harvard Law School petition is directed only at Trump supporters, not supporters of left wing anti-democratic repression, either here or abroad. It is based on the assumption that there is a special "Trump exception" to freedom of speech and due process. But exceptions to free speech and academic freedom for some risk becoming the rule for all.
Much of this effort to exclude Trump supporters from campuses comes from individuals and organizations that also demand more "diversity." But their definition of diversity is limited to race, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity. It does not extend to the central mission of universities: to hear and learn from the widest array of views, perspectives, ideologies and political preferences.
A recent petition, signed by hundreds of Harvard Law School students and alumni, raises the specter of the new McCarthyism coming to the law school at which I taught for half a century. The petition states that "Harvard Law School faces a choice of whether to welcome the architects and backers of the Trump administration's worse abuses back into polite society." It demands that Harvard not "hire or affiliate with" any of these sinners, and threatens that "if it does so the school will be complicit if future attacks on our democracy are even more violent – and more successful."
The petition sees this ban as part of the educational and employment mission of the school: "it would also teach ambitious students of all ages that attempting to subvert the democratic process" will deny them access to the "revolving door to success and prestige." This self-serving defense of censorship is intended to convey a crass economic threat: if you want to get a good job after law school, make sure that Harvard bans teachers and speakers who are trying to "rehabilitate their reputations and obscure the stain of their complicity in the Trump administration ...."
This is similar to the message that the original McCarthyites tried to have Harvard convey in the 1950s, when students were denied editorship of the Law Review, clerkship recommendations, and other opportunities that they had earned, solely because of their alleged affiliation with Communism and other left wing causes. One would have thought that current Harvard Law School students would be familiar with the sordid history of McCarthyism that infected many American universities, including Brooklyn College, which I attended as an undergraduate and where I fought against the denial of civil liberties to suspected communists.
One would also think that signatories would be aware that if these vague criteria — anti-democratic, racists, xenophobic and immoral — were applied across the board, they would result in bans on anyone who was associated with the current regimes in China, Cuba, Turkey, Belarus, Russia, Venezuela, the Palestinian Authority and other repressive governments. It would also apply to supporters of American anti-democratic and anti-free speech groups, such as Antifa, and the very organization — People's Parity Project — that is promoting this anti-free speech petition. Indeed, historically, repression and censorship have been directed primarily against the left. Even today, the French government is expressing concern about the impact of "Islamo-leftist" influences from Americans universities.
The Harvard Law School petition is directed only at Trump supporters, not supporters of left wing anti-democratic repression, either here or abroad. It is based on the assumption that there is a special "Trump exception" to freedom of speech and due process. But exceptions to free speech and academic freedom for some risk becoming the rule for all.
Free speech for me but for not for thee is not a defensible principle. Today it is the mantra of the new censors, who demand deplatforming and cancelling speakers, teachers and writers who disagree with their anti-Trump zealotry. The voracious appetite of the censor, however, is rarely sated. Some are now trying to silence defenders of the Constitution, such as me, who opposed most of Trump's policies but who also opposed what we believe were unconstitutional efforts to impeach him. When I was invited to speak by a Harvard Law School student group, the event had to be moved off campus as the result of threats to shout me down and silence me.
Much of this effort to exclude Trump supporters from campuses comes from individuals and organizations that also demand more "diversity." But their definition of diversity is limited to race, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity. It does not extend to the central mission of universities: to hear and learn from the widest array of views, perspectives, ideologies and political preferences.
Today's students should welcome Trump supporters and challenge them — respectfully, civilly and with open minds. They should be willing to listen to views diametrically opposed to their own deeply felt morality and politics. Many of these cancelled speakers would express views that are accepted by tens of millions of American voters. Those of us who disagree with these views should feel confident that they will be soundly rejected in the open marketplace of ideas, as they were in the 2020 election. No university or law school should shut down this marketplace, as the old McCarthyism did and as this new McCarthyism is now trying to do. There is no place for selective censorship based on political affiliations at Harvard Law School or any institution of higher education, whether it receives federal funding or not — but especially if it does.
This anti-civil liberties petition should be rejected in the marketplace of ideas by all students, faculty and administrators who value diversity of opinions both inside and outside the classroom.
*Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the book, Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019. His new podcast, "The Dershow," can be seen on Spotify, Apple and YouTube. He is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
© 2021 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

The Problem With the Declassified Report on Khashoggi’s Death
It presents little new evidence and is unlikely to appease critics of Mohammed bin Salman.
Thomas Joscelyn/The Dispatch-FDD/March 05/2021
On February 25, new Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines declassified an assessment blaming Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. Khashoggi was, of course, the Saudi dissident and U.S. resident who was brutally executed in Istanbul, Turkey, in early October 2018.
Bin Salman, a young royal commonly known by his initials, MBS, was immediately suspected of ordering Khashoggi’s grisly assassination. Turkish reports say Khashoggi was dismembered with a bone saw. To date, no one has really offered a credible alternative explanation for Khashoggi’s demise. Everyone knows the Saudis did it. The Trump administration even sanctioned 17 Saudis for their alleged roles in the killing.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration downplayed suspicions of MBS’s personal guilt. For instance, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed in late November 2018 that there was “no direct reporting connecting the crown prince to the order to murder Jamal Khashoggi.” It appears that Pompeo wanted to sidestep the issue of MBS’s role in the name of maintaining friendly relations with the Saudi Kingdom.
The ODNI’s assessment is intended to undercut Pompeo’s claim of ambiguity. The document bluntly states: “We assess that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.”
There’s just one problem: The document doesn’t include any intelligence showing MBS’s direct role. Even the summary line quoted above introduces a hint of ambiguity, as MBS could have approved a “capture” operation of some sort.
Now, let me make this clear: I’m not advocating on behalf of MBS. If I had to bet my house on the matter, I’d wager that MBS ordered Khashoggi’s murder.
There was an attempt to lionize MBS in the press early on in the Trump administration. MBS granted interviews with influence peddlers, and his spinmeisters planted favorable stories in the American media. But none of the U.S. officials I spoke with at the time bought into the hype. One official I trust referred to MBS as “a modern-day Caligula.”
While lacking new evidence, the ODNI’s assessment is logical. As the ODNI points out: MBS controls “decisionmaking in the Kingdom,” members of his “protective detail” and his “key adviser” were directly involved in Khashoggi’s killing, and MBS “has had absolute control of the Kingdom’s security and intelligence organizations.” The last observation makes it “highly unlikely that Saudi officials would have carried out an operation of this nature without the Crown Prince’s authorization.” Keep in mind that Khashoggi was murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. It is simply inconceivable that an official diplomatic establishment would be used without approval from the highest authority in the Kingdom—and that person is MBS.
In other words, it is highly likely that MBS did in fact order, if not directly oversee, the murder of Khashoggi. Still, the ODNI assessment doesn’t add much, if anything, new in this regard. We already knew the facts contained within it. You can piece together as much from public reporting.
For instance, the ODNI’s newly released assessment names 18 Saudi individuals who “participated in, ordered, or were otherwise complicit in or responsible for the death of Jamal Khashoggi on behalf of Muhammad bin Salman.” But at least 17 of these individuals—including MBS’s “key adviser,” Saud al-Qahtani—were already designated by the Trump administration under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act in November 2018. That is, they were publicly fingered for their role in Khashoggi’s murder just several weeks after the fact. “The Saudi officials we are sanctioning were involved in the abhorrent killing of Jamal Khashoggi,” Steven Mnuchin, then the treasury secretary, said at the time. Mnuchin called on the Saudi government to “take appropriate steps to end any targeting of political dissidents or journalists.”
As for MBS’s personal culpability, however, the ODNI’s assessment is peppered with phrases that fall well short of new, direct evidence. The ODNI observes some basic facts about how the Saudi Kingdom works. The ODNI’s analysts logically place MBS at the center of the circle of individuals who killed Khashoggi and conclude that they wouldn’t have acted without the crown prince’s approval. Fair enough. But there is no new intelligence here.
If all of these facts were already well-known, then why did the Biden administration release the ODNI’s assessment?
Some in Washington and elsewhere have been clamoring for the U.S. government to do more to hold MBS personally accountable. There is likely a mixed bag of motivations in play. Human rights activists have legitimate criticisms of MBS’s track record, including the killing of Khashoggi. Other, foreign-linked parties have a different agenda. After all, Khashoggi himself was a complicated character.
Khashoggi once knew Osama bin Laden and even lamented the terror master’s death in 2011. In a tweet, he portrayed bin Laden as someone who gave into “hatred” after their time together in the 1980s. But the al-Qaeda founder was always an Islamist and an extremist. Khashoggi also had his own “Islamist sympathies,” as the New York Times put it. The Times added that Khashoggi joined the Muslim Brotherhood earlier in his life, and though he “stopped attending” meetings, “he remained conversant in its conservative, Islamist and often anti-Western rhetoric, which he could deploy or hide depending on whom he was seeking to befriend.”
In some of his tweets, Khashoggi expressed anti-Semitic, conspiratorial views. And then there were his ties to Qatar. Although Khashoggi formerly ran in elite Saudi circles, he eventually sided with the kingdom’s rivals. Saudi Arabia had an extensive feud with Qatar during the Trump years, and Khashoggi’s writings in the Washington Post neatly fit Qatar’s agenda.
As the Washington Post itself reported in late 2018:
Perhaps most problematic for Khashoggi were his connections to an organization funded by Saudi Arabia’s regional nemesis, Qatar. Text messages between Khashoggi and an executive at Qatar Foundation International show that the executive, Maggie Mitchell Salem, at times shaped the columns he submitted to The Washington Post, proposing topics, drafting material and prodding him to take a harder line against the Saudi government. Khashoggi also appears to have relied on a researcher and translator affiliated with the organization, which promotes Arabic-language education in the United States.
In response to this revelation, the Washington Post’s editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, argued that regardless of his problematic Qatari connection, Khashoggi demonstrated “independence” in his writings. But in his column for the Post, Khashoggi continued to advocate on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood—an extremist organization with a sordid history and cozy ties to Qatar. Khashoggi portrayed the Muslim Brotherhood as a force for democracy in Egypt and throughout the broader Middle East. A version of this argument was popular in Washington foreign policy circles in 2011 and 2012. It was always a dubious political theory, which relied on a cherry-picked collection of evidence regarding the group’s statements and behavior. However, by 2018, when Khashoggi was writing in the Post, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had lost any credibility as a real force for democracy.
The Brothers won power following the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2011. A military coup ended their rule and Mohamed Morsi’s presidency in 2013. In the interim, the Brothers’ totalitarian agenda became clear. As Eric Trager documents in his masterful book, Arab Fall: How the Muslim Brotherhood Won and Lost Egypt in 891 Days, Egypt “was never likely to progress toward inclusive, let alone liberal, democracy under the Brotherhood’s rule,” because the Islamists simply couldn’t “tolerate criticism.” Trager documents the Brotherhood’s autocratic moves throughout Morsi’s short-lived reign. It is impossible to square Trager’s impeccable research with Khashoggi’s broad claims about the group’s supposedly democratic intentions. It is obvious that some Islamists are simply willing to use the ballot box—one time—to acquire power for themselves and their ideology. This doesn’t make them a force for moderation.
None of this justifies Khashoggi’s murder or is a defense of MBS—not in the least. And the U.S. government should regularly reexamine its partnerships and alliances, including ties to Saudi Arabia. The Biden administration is doing that, but MBS’s critics are unlikely to be satisfied.
In addition to releasing the ODNI’s assessment, the Biden administration announced a new “Khashoggi ban,” which restricts the travel of individuals suspected of targeting dissidents abroad and prohibits them from entering the U.S.
There were 76 Saudis included on the initial list of banned individuals.
MBS isn’t one of them.
*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.

What Red Line Tells Us About Syria’s Chemical Weapons

David Adesnik/The National Interest/March 05/2021
Book review: Joby Warrick’s book brings to life the history and reaction to Syria’s chemical weapons program and the difficulty in eliminating it.
In 2003, while American forces were scouring Iraq in search of chemical weapons they would never find, the U.S. intelligence community knew exactly where Bashar al-Assad had stockpiled more than a thousand tons of sarin, VX, and other toxic agents. In Red Line, veteran Washington Post correspondent and two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Joby Warrick breaks the story of a Syrian weapons scientist who called himself Ayman and was on the CIA payroll for thirteen years. Ayman welcomed the agency’s deposits in his bank accounts—he had two wives and sets of children to support, thanks to “Syria’s permissive polygamy laws” —yet Ayman appeared to be most interested in winning the admiration of foreign adversaries for his work. (pp.1-2)
When the Agency tested a sample that Ayman had passed to his case officer in Damascus, the results “caused a sensation at CIA outposts on both sides of the Atlantic. In a bare-bones lab, in a backward, autocratic state that had been shunned and blacklisted by the industrial powers of the West, the Syrian chemist had produced a weapon of astonishing quality and elegant simplicity.” (p.5) The intended targets were Israeli troops and cities. “You should warn the Jews,” the chemist told his handlers. In his view, it was only fair for Syria to have a deterrent comparable to Israel’s presumed nuclear weapons capability. (pp.3-4)
In 2002, Ayman faced a firing squad. The previous year, Bashar al-Assad’s brother-in-law, Assef Shawkat, subjected the chemist to a personal interrogation. Shawkat told the chemist the government knew what he had done. What Ayman did not realize was that Shawkat only intended to question him about the bribes that foreign companies gave the chemist in exchange for contracts from his research institute. Fearing the worst, Ayman confessed to everything. (pp.6-8)
The chemist is only a bit player in Red Line, yet his tale lets readers know that Warrick will command their attention with an array of uncanny stories built around formidable protagonists. Warrick also has a gift for immersing readers in the landscapes where his characters are searching for—or becoming targets of—Assad’s chemical weapons. This is a page-turner, not a dry policy tome.
Title aside, the book does not burrow deeply into Barack Obama’s decision to draw (but not militarily enforce) a publicly declared “red line” against Assad’s use of chemical weapons. That issue figures prominently in two well-done chapters, yet the question Warrick finds most beguiling is how U.S. and UN officials managed to dispose of more than a thousand tons of hazardous chemicals. This focus may be a bit surprising, since the disposal process turned out to be rapid, effective, and, by foreign policy standards, uncontroversial. What Warrick shows, however, is that this was a case of dogs that almost barked, or more literally, ships that almost capsized with tons of chemical weapons aboard.
Although the Syrian regime agreed to surrender its chemical weapons, no one else wanted them. Russia refused to help with disposal, despite brokering the deal with Assad and having the necessary facilities. Syria’s neighbors left much to desire in terms of stability. France said no. Belgium had a plant for destroying chemical weapons, but its regulatory maze served as an effective deterrent. Albania’s new prime minister sought to curry favor while applying for North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership, but environmentalists forced him to withdraw his offer. The Pentagon had to fall back on an untested option that one internal assessment dismissed as both hazardous and implausible: using mobile units to neutralize Syria’s arsenal aboard a massive cargo ship in the Mediterranean. (pp.137-147)
The man who made this possible was Timothy Blades, the civilian chief of a Defense Department chemical weapons team “called in for dirty jobs that no one else wanted to handle.” Warrick describes Blades as “stubborn, arrogant, and most annoyingly, given to displays of disdain toward senior military officers and civilian managers who technically outranked him.” (p.44) In other words, Blades is the kind of underdog and maverick for whom audiences cheer in political thrillers.
Critically, Blades started his work nine months before the Syrian army launched the chemical salvo that left more than 1,400 dead in the Damascus suburb of East Ghouta on just one morning in August 2013. Thanks to Ayman the chemist, the Obama administration was able to watch nervously throughout 2012 and 2013 as jihadi rebels came uncomfortably close to overrunning the facilities where Assad stored his weapons. “The threat became a recurring theme at White House intelligence briefings,” Warrick writes, “Obama sat through hours of intense discussions, often personally quizzing CIA officials.” (p.39-40) One consequence of these fears was Obama’s promulgation of his red line. Another was the tasking of Blades with figuring out how to dispose of Assad’s chemical stockpile in the event it came under U.S. or UN control.
In less than six months, Blades’ unit put together a working prototype of what became known as the Margarita Machine. It was a “sarin-destroying device that could be shipped anywhere in the world at a moment’s notice,” but only cost $3 million. (p.49) Each of its two main components could fit inside a standard twenty-foot shipping container. Since every key part had a twin, technicians could repair the unit without shutting it down. “With its rows of identical, interconnected parts in red, blue, and yellow, the thing looked like a Tinkertoy project constructed by giants,” Warrick observes. (p.57)
In July 2014, the cargo ship Cape Ray settled down west of Crete carrying a pair of Margarita Machines along with the chemical weapons turned over by the Syrians. Greenpeace and other environmentalists organized a flotilla of fishing boats and other small vessels to disrupt the operation, fearing a toxic spill. The Cape Ray had an escort of U.S. and European naval frigates, but those had little capability to control unarmed protesters. The flotilla came within a day’s sail of Cape Ray’s location, but heavy winds turned them back. (pp.218-223) Thanks to Warrick, it is now clear that the protesters were right to worry.
The ship became less and less stable as it burned through its supply of fuel, which also served as ballast. No port would allow a ship laden with chemical weapons to visit for refueling. Blades’ team worked around the clock to pump chemicals through the Margarita Machines, but the tanks that received waste products from the Machines unexpectedly began to fill with sludge that had not appeared during lab tests in Maryland. The disposal process slowed down, yet the computer program that calculated the ship’s risk of a roll-over kept counting down the time to spare. Already exhausted, Blades learned that his stepson at home had broken his back in several places in a farm accident. Yet after forty-plus days of working around the clock, the job was done.
After returning to Virginia, a few of the former crew revisited the question of how close the ship came to flipping over. The actual weight of trailers on the top deck was greater than the figure used as input for the stability algorithm. Metering equipment had also underestimated the amount of liquid in many tanks on the upper deck. “According to the revised calculations, the Cape Ray had dipped into the red zone in late August, about a week before it finished the mission,” Warrick writes. The mystery is why it did not capsize. (pp.216-227)
Had the Cape Ray become the Titanic of chemical weapons, it might have changed the course of U.S. policy or even the war in Syria. However, the ship remained upright, so the question that continues to spur debate about Obama’s red line is whether striking a deal with the Russians resolved the crisis with minimal risk, or whether the failure to punish Assad betrayed the regime’s victims, undermined American credibility, and prolonged the war to this day.
Warrick rarely addresses this question in his own voice. He prefers to let his protagonists articulate a range of opinions whose merits readers can evaluate on their own. A rare exception is Warrick’s observation in the book’s final pages, “Obama destroyed vastly more chemical weapons through diplomacy than Trump did with missiles.” (p.300) One might think that Assad’s continued use of chemical weapons would temper this judgement. What’s more, the Obama administration knew all along that Assad’s compliance was a charade. “From the beginning,” Warrick writes, “U.S. intelligence officials had known about gaps in the records turned over by Damascus as part of the U.S.-Russia deal in 2013. The Syrians had left out key facilities and experimental programs that the CIA had known about since the 1990s, thanks to the agency’s talented spy [i.e. Ayman] inside the country’s weapons complex.” (p.240) Additional inspections exposed other lies and omissions, including the Syrians inability to account for more than twenty tons of sarin precursor. (p.241-242)
Had Obama admitted publicly that he was going ahead with the deal despite flagrant violations by Assad, presumably with Russian connivance, there would have been a firestorm on Capitol Hill. Yet Red Line does not take Obama to task for this omission. The book does not recount the 2014 State of the Union address in which Obama said, “American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated.” Nor does Warrick remind readers that Secretary of State John Kerry insisted in 2014, “we struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out.” Politifact rated the claim “Mostly True,” since there was little basis for doubt in the public record.
In 2015, the Wall Street Journal published an exposé compiling the evidence that Assad held back much of his arsenal. The article described how Syria restricted the movements of UN inspectors while offering implausible explanations for the whereabouts of missing weapons and equipment. Significant details there line up with Warrick’s account. For example, both describe the regime’s inability to account for hundreds of tons of mustard agent, a less potent chemical weapon. Where the Journal differs with Red Line is its reporting that the CIA initially had confidence in Assad’s disclosures, with serious doubts only emerging in 2015. Given that both accounts rely on confidential sources, it is hard for any third party to judge their relative merits. If the CIA did believe Assad at first, then Obama and Kerry’s public comments would seem defensible. Perhaps new reporting or declassifications will someday shed further light on this question.
For readers, it may be hard to compare how Obama and Donald Trump grappled with the issue of Syria’s chemical weapons because Red Line devotes minimal space to the Trump era. The relevant material covers about twelve pages across the final three chapters. The corresponding footnotes cite two interviews with Trump NSC officials, in contrast to the long list of Obama appointees who spoke with Warrick. That said, the discussion of Syria policy under Trump is not a simple indictment. The book notes that Trump’s 2017 airstrikes, responding to the use of sarin, even had the support of “weary UN officials and aid workers who had witnessed the regime’s brutality up close.” Much more vocal was Kassem Eid, a Syrian activist who survived the 2013 sarin attack in East Ghouta, who told CNN, “I cried out of joy. I thanked God.” Eid told another journalist, “I’ll name my son Donald,” a comment that went viral on Twitter. (p.277) Correctly, the book describes as “measured” the 2017 airstrikes on al-Shayrat airbase. “By the next morning,” Warrick notes, “Syrian warplanes were taking off from al-Shayrat for their daily bombing runs.” (p.277) Following a chlorine attack in 2018, Trump ordered another punitive strike, this time with French and British participation, yet the damage was once again limited.
As such, Warrick’s praise for the efficacy of Obama’s diplomacy versus Trump’s airstrikes overlooks two important considerations. First, Trump’s airstrikes were mainly symbolic, so they hardly demonstrate whether the use of force—preferably combined with astute diplomacy—might have secured a true surrender of Assad’s stockpiles. Many analysts, myself included, recommended the minimum price for a chemical attack be the complete destruction of Assad’s air force. Second, Obama’s diplomacy resulted in the (partial) surrender of the Syrian arsenal because the threat of serious retaliation was so credible amid the global outrage that followed the slaughter in East Ghouta. A simplified comparison of Obama’s diplomacy with Trump’s air strikes falls into the common trap of treating diplomacy and force as alternatives, not complements. With regard to chemical weapons as well as Syria policy more broadly, both Obama and Trump compiled a record of failure because neither one figured out how to combine force and diplomacy.
While the red line debate is anchored in Syria, it is also inseparable from broader arguments regarding whether overextension or resignation is the greater threat to U.S. national security. As Obama prepared to leave office, he sought to recast his red line decision as a model of heroic restraint. “I’m very proud of [that] moment,” Obama said. “The overwhelming weight of conventional wisdom and the machinery of our national-security apparatus had gone fairly far,” he added, “the fact that I was able to pull back from the immediate pressures and think through in my own mind what was in America’s interest” avoided a debacle. Red Line, despite its name, barely touches on the afterlife of Obama’s decision; however, Warrick’s account of how it was made emphasizes the influence of public opinion rather than principled restraint. Obama’s national security team “overwhelmingly favored a military strike” and the president intended “to launch the attack within days.” (p.73) Then the British Parliament voted against intervention, leading Obama to hesitate and seek congressional approval for military action, mistakenly presuming lawmakers would support him. Instead, opinion polls and constituent opposition turned Congress against intervention. Yet “we didn’t have a Plan B,” Samantha Power, then-U.S. ambassador to the UN, tells Warrick. (p.109) All that saved the policy from unraveling was the Russian president’s unexpected offer to have Assad turn over his arsenal.
A pleasure to read, Red Line also comprises a valuable addition to the growing literature on the war in Syria. In addition to recounting the unlikely stories of Ayman the chemist as well as Tim Blades and the Margarita Machine, the book includes equally compelling accounts with characters ranging from UN weapons inspectors and Syrian doctors to Islamic State operatives planning their own chemical attacks. In Warrick’s hands, their experiences come alive.
*David Adesnik is FDD’s Director of Research and their senior fellow on Syria. Follow David on Twitter @adesnik. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

Putin and Erdogan: Two Men Race to the Bottom
Aykan Erdemir/The Globalist/March 05/2021
Russia’s and Turkey’s lack of a solid economic performance is what motivates their two leaders’ steady resorting to domestic oppression.
The ongoing plight of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny and his supporters has demonstrated yet again the brutality of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s iron-fisted rule. Weeks of pro-Navalny rallies from Moscow to Vladivostok left some 11,000 protesters, many badly beaten, detained across the country. And sent Navalny to Penal Colony No. 2 — known for its abusive treatment of inmates.
Two autocrats and their batons
Meanwhile, across the Black Sea, Putin’s soulmate, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has engaged in a crackdown against students protesting his appointment of an unqualified crony with a history of plagiarism as the rector of Istanbul’s top public university.
Erdogan is desperately trying trying to divert the Turkish public’s attention away from the country’s crippling economic crisis and rampant unemployment.
Racing to the bottom of the Democracy Index
Nothing demonstrates Putin and Erdogan’s race down to the bottom better than the Democracy Index. Russia currently ranks in 124th place among the 167 countries tracked by The Economist Intelligence Unit in its annual survey. It lists Russia as an “authoritarian regime.”
Turkey ranks 104th, catagorized by the index as a “hybrid regime” — a type defined by substantial election irregularities and government pressure on the opposition. That is by far the lowest ranking of any NATO country, with Montenegro (in 81th place) the next worst.
Turkey’s democratic traditions
When compared to Russia, Turkey has had a much longer and deeper experience with multi-party democracy and civil society activism. For example, during the 1970s, while internal repression was growing in the Soviet Union, Turkey had some 45,000 civil society organizations.
Following the crackdown brought on by the 1980 coup d’état, the number of Turkish NGOs tripled again within two decades. A new generation of associations flourished, advocating wide spectrum of issues ranging from minority rights to gender rights.
It speaks to the resilience and vitality of Turkey’s civil society that Turkish political parties, labor unions, civic associations and media outlets managed to bounce back in the past — even after military regimes or authoritarian leaders had shuttered them.
Erdogan’s oppression machine
While always claiming to have been the victim of a military coup, Erdogan — much like Putin — is hyper-busy jailing anybody whom he deems any kind of threat to his increasingly despotic rule.
Turkey’s Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), the latest incarnation of a long line of pro-Kurdish parties, is one such target. Purely at Erdogan’s whim, increasingly the popular, personally appealing and politically skilled former HDP co-leader and presidential candidate Selahattin Demirtas has been in prison since 2016. He could be sentenced to 142 years. Meanwhile, he continues to fight from his cell via tweets, letters and books.
The one difference between Erdogan and Putin
The one thing that Erdogan can argue in his own favor is that he stays away from Putin’s signature use of nerve agents and radioactive isotopes to eliminate dissidents. However, the Turkish president has perfected non-lethal strategies to stymie his opponents. To see how that works, consider the fate of Turkey’s leading philanthropist and minority rights activist, Osman Kavala. A personal target of Erdogan’s, Kavala has been rotting in solitary confinement at the maximum-security Silivri prison on the outskirts of Istanbul for over three years.
It’s all about running away from the economy
Ultimately, Russia’s and Turkey’s lack of a solid economic performance is what motivates their two leaders’ steady resorting to domestic oppression. Russia remains a rentier state with an economy heavily dependent on hydrocarbons. According to the OECD, the share of oil and gas revenues approached 40% of Russia’s GDP in 2018 — and fossil fuels constitute over 60% of exports.
Putin’s abuses
And even though Putin has built a rainy-day fund worth nearly $570 billion in gold and foreign exchange to isolate his regime from external shocks and pressure, outside the glitziness of Moscow’s skyscrapers, Putin has not managed to improve the economic lot of everyday Russians one bit.
For that, the daily pilfering of Russia’s riches by Putin’s cronies just takes too large a bite out of the economic apple.
Erdogan’s self-defeatism
Erdogan’s misfortune – and, ironically Turkey’s fortune — is that the country is not blessed by fossil fuel reserves. Turkey imports 92% of its crude oil, 99% of its natural gas and 40% of its coal. Given its dearth of raw material riches, Turkish governments traditionally rely on taxation and on capital inflows from the West. In that regard, Erdogan is cutting off his own legs — as foreign investors tend to shy away from countries ruthlessly ruled by autocrats. As Turkey approaches its next big elections — to be held by 2023 — the country remains at a tipping point.
If Erdogan — despite the lowest support for his party since 2002 in public opinion surveys — ultimately manages to rob the opposition bloc of its likely election victory, the West will have to make up its mind. Neither the United States nor the European Union can afford to lose more time and energy by repeating appeasement strategies that have failed them too many times. One thing is for sure: An effective push against Putin also requires reaching out to Turkey’s pro-democracy forces. The clock is ticking on that.
*Aykan Erdemir is the senior director of the Turkey Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former member of the Turkish Parliament. Follow Aykan on Twitter @aykan_erdemir. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

Biden Can’t Bring Peace to Yemen While Iran Keeps Sending Weapons/The latest round of U.S. diplomacy will fail without additional leverage.
Bradley Bowman and Katherine Zimmerman/Foreign Policy/March 05/2021
On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced the United States will provide $191 million in additional aid to the Yemeni people, who suffer from what he called “the largest and most urgent” humanitarian crisis in the world. Blinken said the United States has now given more than $3.4 billion in humanitarian assistance to Yemen since the conflict began in 2015.
This assistance will save many lives, but the sad truth is that no amount of aid will dramatically or durably improve conditions until Yemen’s conflict ends. Blinken recognized as much: “We can only end the humanitarian crisis in Yemen by ending the war in Yemen.” The United States, he said, is therefore “reinvigorating our diplomatic efforts to end the war.” But diplomacy will fail without additional leverage. By ending support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, U.S. President Joe Biden has sought to put pressure on Riyadh. But pressuring only one side in a conflict—while failing to apply real pressure on the other—simply leaves the latter emboldened. That is exactly what we have seen in recent weeks. The Houthis have launched a massive offensive against Yemeni government forces supported by Saudi Arabia, seeking to break a multi-year stalemate in fighting on the ground. The Houthis control most of northwestern Yemen and have consolidated their rule from Yemen’s capital, Sana’a. Why should we expect anything else from the Houthis? They see tremendous pressure on Riyadh while Washington recently removed the terror group’s designation as a foreign terrorist organization. Meanwhile, they continue to enjoy a reliable supply of weapons from Tehran. That allows the Houthis to continue fighting while refusing to negotiate in good faith.
The Biden team might point to Tuesday’s announcement of U.S. Treasury Department sanctions against the two Houthi military leaders as evidence to the contrary. The sanctions intend to hold the Houthis accountable for ongoing “malign and aggressive actions” made possible by Iran’s provision of weapons and training. Sanctions, though a good step, do little when targeted individuals are outside the U.S. financial system and see stigmatization by Washington as a badge of honor.
Applying real pressure only on Riyadh is a recipe for failure—and an invitation to the other side to redouble its fight.
Pressuring Riyadh while essentially giving the Houthis a free pass has created an asymmetry that no amount of shrewd shuttle diplomacy can overcome. Any successful effort to end the conflict—and thereby address the humanitarian crisis—must create new pressure on all parties. In particular, a more serious effort to interdict Tehran’s arms shipments would put greater pressure on the Houthis.
In the continuing conflict, Tehran has happily accommodated the Houthi demand for weapons. Consistent with its regional strategy, Iran seeks to establish a Hezbollah-styled proxy relationship with the Houthis, who are perched next to the Red Sea and on Saudi Arabia’s southern border. Characteristically unphased by the notion of violating United Nations Security Council resolutions, Tehran has undertaken a major arms smuggling effort.
U.S. naval interdictions in November 2019 and February 2020 uncovered Iranian weapons shipments that contained land-attack cruise missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and anti-ship cruise missiles. Last month, an interdiction uncovered weapons similar to those found in other Iranian shipments. Iranian security assistance to the Houthis is nothing new. In 2015, then-Secretary of State John Kerry expressed concern regarding Iranian supplies arriving in Yemen “every single week.”
Those inclined to question such assertions by Washington should consider the Jan. 22 report by the Panel of Experts on Yemen to the U.N. Security Council. A “growing body of evidence,” the panel wrote, “shows that individuals or entities within the Islamic Republic of Iran are engaged in sending weapons and weapons components to the Houthis.” The report even depicts the maritime smuggling routes from Iran. The panel’s previous annual report identified a main weapon smuggling route as traveling overland from Oman.
The Houthis have not been shy in employing these weapons, repeatedly targeting civilian and military infrastructure in Saudi Arabia with alarming effectiveness. This includes, for example, a June 2019 attack on Abha International Airport that killed one civilian and injured several others. Saudi officials claim to have intercepted a Houthi missile and bomb-laden drones on Feb. 27. And the United States should not forget that Houthis fired anti-ship cruise missiles at a U.S. Navy destroyer, the USS Mason, in 2016 while it was operating in international waters near Yemen.
Meanwhile, the Yemeni people’s suffering only continues. Yemenis are dying because food, water, and medicine are scarce and have often been wielded as weapons in the war. Almost half the population faces severe food shortages, with millions of people teetering on the edge of starvation. Cholera, dengue fever, and diphtheria have ravaged the population; polio has returned; and the health care system has all but shut down. Yet even as the crisis has worsened, donor money is drying up. And once assistance gets to Yemen, humanitarians face significant war-related obstacles to get life-saving support to those in need. Blinken appointed a special envoy to the Yemen conflict, Timothy Lenderking, who has led a renewed push for peace. The Saudis and the Yemeni government have been eager to engage. But talk of peace will not bring the Houthis to the table. Blocking access to key weapons and technology from Iran, however, might increase the incentives for the Houthis to come to the negotiating table in good faith. At a minimum, reducing the flow of Iranian weapons to the Houthis could reduce casualties in the conflict.
To accomplish this, the U.S. Defense Department should position sufficient military resources in the region and provide commanders with clear instructions to prioritize the interdiction effort. The U.S. Congress should press the Biden administration on what it is currently doing to interdict Iranian weapons shipments—and ask what more can be done. The newly confirmed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, should actively press the U.N. Security Council to do more to enforce its resolutions and raise the costs Tehran bears for its arms shipments to Yemen. If Beijing and Moscow obstruct, Washington should not mince words about what their obstruction will do to the Yemeni people.
If Beijing and Moscow obstruct, Washington should not mince words about what their obstruction will do to the Yemeni people.
If the U.N. Security Council cannot muster the ability to enforce its own resolutions, the Biden administration should work to build a coalition of countries to contribute military assets to detect and interdict weapons shipments from Iran to Yemen. The United States and like-minded partners should also press and help Oman to do more to stop overland weapons trafficking though its territory to Yemen.
Blinken is right that ending the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen will first require ending the war. But applying real pressure to only one side is a recipe for failure and an invitation to the other side to redouble its fight. The best hope for applying productive pressure to the Houthis is a genuine U.S.-led international effort to reduce the flow of advanced Iranian weapons to Yemen. This can be done in a way that does not significantly impede humanitarian assistance.
Such an approach would serve regional security interests and create the best opportunity for ending a conflict that has created one of, if not the world’s worst, humanitarian crisis. That is a policy around which both hawks and humanitarians should be able to unite.
*Bradley Bowman is the senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former advisor to members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees. Follow Bradley on Twitter @Brad_L_Bowman. Katherine Zimmerman is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

Iran Conducts Major Wave of Executions and Shootings of Ethnic Minorities
Brenda Shaffer/ Policy Brief-FDD/March 05/2021
Tehran has killed dozens of members of Iran’s ethnic minorities in recent weeks, especially among Iran’s Baluch and Ahwazi Arab communities. Ethnic minorities are increasingly conducting anti-regime activity, and the wave of demonstrations over the last three years has been centered in provinces where minorities are numerous.
Iran is an ethnically diverse country, with over 50 percent of its population composed of non-Persians. The latest wave of ethnic protests first erupted in the Sistan-Baluchistan province on February 22 after Iranian forces fired on dozens of Baluch smugglers on the Pakistani border, killing several and injuring dozens.
After the incident, violent demonstrations broke out in the province, including an attack on an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) base and a crowd storming the governor’s office in the city of Saravan. In response, Tehran has shut down the internet in the province.
To the west, the regime recently executed four Ahwazi Arab youths. Among them was Jasem Heydari, who had returned to Iran from Austria after failing to receive asylum. Tehran convicted the four for the crime of “waging war against God.” In addition to the killings of Baluch and the execution of Arabs, Tehran has arrested several ethnic Azerbaijani activists. One was arrested for writing on a wall on International Mother Tongue Day calling for Tehran to allow the use of other languages in addition to Persian.
Ironically, Iran’s secretary of the High Council of Human Rights, Ali Baqeri Kani, said this week that Iran’s ethnic minorities face no discrimination and are very proud Iranians.
The clerical regime is well-aware that ethnic troubles overlap with greater degrees of poverty and lower levels of government services and infrastructure. Iran’s ethnic minorities inhabit the state’s poorest provinces and have lower levels of education and health than Iran’s Persian heartland.
For example, Sistan-Baluchistan is Iran’s poorest province and has the worst unemployment and literacy rates. The country’s growing environmental challenges, including extreme water shortages, affect the minority provinces more acutely than the Persian center.
Most of Iran’s border provinces are populated by ethnic minorities who also live in the neighboring states. Ethnic troubles, including insurgencies, can cross the borders. For example, Baluch in Pakistan have given assistance and refuge to Iranian Baluch. Iranian border guards have been abducted and held in Pakistan. Iranian forces have crossed into Pakistan in attempts to subdue, kill, and capture Iranian Baluch militants.
Ahwazi Arabs and Baluch also inhabit several strategically important locations in Iran. Ahwazis are the majority in Khuzestan province, which is the center of Iran’s oil production, with major ports and pipeline junctions. The strategic Chabahar port is located in Sistan-Baluchistan province.
Tehran’s recent actions are likely to spur a new wave of anti-regime activity in Sistan-Baluchistan and Khuzestan and may potentially ignite new anti-regime activity in the Kurdish border regions with Iraq and Turkey. However, the wave is unlikely to spread to the main Persian cities, including Tehran, since Iran’s main opposition groups have shown little sympathy for the struggles of Iran’s minorities and tend to support the regime’s efforts to rein the groups in.
Still, the regime is not likely to succeed in fully suppressing the anti-regime activity of its ethnic minorities. The Kurds and Baluch have long-running insurgencies, and Ahwazi Arabs, despite increasing crackdowns, are carrying out frequent attacks against Iranian military and IRGC units.
*Brenda Shaffer is a senior advisor for energy at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where she also contributes to FDD’s Iran Program. She is also a faculty member at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. For more analysis from Brenda and the Iran Program, please subscribe HERE. Follow Brenda on Twitter @ProfBShaffer. Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD and @FDD_Iran. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

Australian Imams Stand up for Shariah
Mark Durie/ME Forum Quadrant/February 25, 2021
A new guide on fostering, adoption and guardianship published by the Australian National Imams Council has been met with public outrage.
The Australian National Imams Council (ANIC) attracted trenchant public criticism when on December 5 it released a guide on fostering, adoption and guardianship. The Islamic Position on Foster Care, Adoption and Guardianship was intended to provide Muslims with a summary of sharia requirements for these aspects of family life, and to inform foster care agencies about Islamic requirements.
The Australian ran the story on December 8, reporting outrage from the New South Wales Families Minister, Gareth Ward; from the federal Assistant Minister for Children and Families, Michelle Landry; and from Pru Goward, a former sex discrimination commissioner. What attracted the heaviest initial criticism was the guide's statements that circumcision was an "obligation" (that is, religiously compulsory) for boys, but there was "no obligation for the circumcision of a girl." This seemed to imply that it could be religiously acceptable to circumcise girls.
In response to an ensuing barrage of criticism, the imams amended their guide to say, "It is impermissible and forbidden to circumcise girls in Islam." However, there were thirteen other points of guidance in the statement, many of which could give cause for concern, so Michelle Landry instructed ANIC that it "must recognise that child safety and permanency is subject to Australian state and territory laws."
On December 10, The Australian reported an "extraordinary attack" by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) on the ANIC guide. The AFIC said that it would refer the ANIC document to its own National Sharia Board, which is also composed of Islamic scholars.
In essence this is a public confrontation between Islamic sharia and the laws of Australia.
In essence this is a public confrontation between Islamic sharia and the laws of Australia, something which many in the Muslim community would wish to avoid, as it can only harm the Muslim community's public standing.
In those aspects where the ANIC document most offends, the fundamental issue is not the imams or their intentions, but the fact that irreconcilable inconsistencies exist between the requirements of Islamic family law and Australian legal standards and community expectations. These inconsistencies need to be carefully noted and understood, but they cannot be resolved by denouncing the imams or the guidance they have issued. Government officials cannot expect Muslim scholars to provide religious guidance which is inconsistent with the requirements of sharia.
Irreconcilable inconsistencies exist between Islamic family law and Australian legal standards and community expectations.
Islamic law, known as sharia or "the path" for Muslims to follow, has a great deal to say about how family life should be regulated. By Islam's own self-understanding, human beings are weak and easily led astray. To address this weakness, Islam teaches that God has provided guidance to help human beings keep to the right path. For example, this perspective is reflected in the ANIC statement that "Islam sees attraction between the sexes as very powerful and at times overpowering," therefore, the statement explains, sexual relations are limited to within marriage.
Islam's system of guidance was mediated to humanity through Muhammad's life and teaching, as well as through the words of the Koran. A core function of an imam, and of Muslim religious scholars in general, is to communicate this guidance to Muslims in a form they can understand and live out for themselves. This was the purpose of the ANIC's guidance: to provide an overview of sharia requirements for fostering, adoption and guardianship, to encourage foster care by Muslim families.
Pru Goward
In the light of this, some of the outrage at the ANIC statement is misplaced. The imams' role is to deliver Islamic guidance to Muslims. The imams had accurately reported a sharia requirement that, if a young person lacks legal guardians, for example due to being orphaned, an imam is to assume the role of guardian, or appoint someone else as guardian. In response, Pru Goward objected that "There is no legal process which would give an imam parental rights and responsibilities over a foster child in Australia." Indeed! But the role of an imam is to teach Islam, not Australian law.
Islam makes fundamental claims about right and wrong, which it testifies have been handed down from God. Furthermore, many Muslims believe—and Islam itself teaches—that non-Muslim ways, such as the laws of a secular state like Australia, will not be equal to sharia. The imams' purpose in writing this document was to inform Muslims about sharia, in the context of Australian conditions. Yes, Australian Muslims have an obligation to obey the laws of Australia, but if they are pious, they will also feel an obligation to obey the laws of God. The imams' religious duty is to communicate God's laws to Muslims, and the fact that a body representing over 200 Australian imams has issued such a statement means that it can be assumed to reflect mainstream teachings of Islam, all loud objections notwithstanding.
ANIC wants non-Muslim foster care and adoption agencies to make allowances for Islamic beliefs and practices.
In addition to guiding Muslims, the ANIC also wants non-Muslim foster care and adoption agencies to understand and make allowances for Islamic beliefs and practices. Most Australian Muslims want good relations with other groups in Australian society, so it is hardly surprising that they are seeking recognition and toleration from the mainstream for their beliefs and practices. As the ANIC document states, they wish "to promote harmony, cooperation and successful integration within mainstream society." Yet what the ANIC is certainly not interested in is assimilation.
The problem is that sharia is in many respects fundamentally inconsistent with Australian community standards and laws. The outrage that political leaders have expressed over the ANIC's document on fostering, adoption and guardianship is in reality outrage at Islam itself, and a rejection of its divine status.
What are the core features of the imams' guidance on fostering, adoption and guardianship, and what could be objectionable about them?
In Islam, adoption is forbidden. Fostering is permitted, and highly respected.
In Islam, adoption is forbidden, based on the example of Muhammad. What is permitted, and indeed highly respected, is fostering.
In Islam a very important practical distinction exists between closely related individuals and those outside the family group. Within the family a close relative of the opposite sex whom one is forbidden to marry is known as a mahram (from the root h-r-m meaning "forbidden"). A woman's mahram relatives include her brothers, sons, father, grandfathers and uncles, and also father-in-law, sons-in-law, step­father, and stepsons. An implication of this distinction is that once a girl has reached puberty she is required to cover herself in the presence of men, but not in the presence of mahram relatives: in the privacy of her own home she can be uncovered, as long as all the men who live in the household are her mahram relatives. (Also, according to one of the controversial provisions of sharia, a woman travelling outside the home must be accompanied by a mahram male.)
This distinction impacts significantly upon fostering, because the default for a fostered child is that he or she is not a mahram of the fostering family. Thus, for example, a Muslim man can marry his foster daughter or foster sister: Muhammad himself set a precedent for such marriages by marrying his foster son's wife, Zainab.
Inside the home Muslim women do not normally wear the hijab, and this is religiously acceptable as long as all the males who live in the home are in a mahram relationship with the woman. What becomes awkward is when a non-mahram foster child reaches puberty. If the child is a male and living at home, Islam requires the women of the household to start covering themselves in the home. On the other hand, if the child is a female, she will have to cover herself at all times in the presence of the men of the household. Either way, it will be extremely inconvenient to the point of being unworkable for the women.
The ANIC document acknowledges the difficulties a lack of mahram status presents for foster children, and it suggests that older girls be placed in families with only daughters, and older boys be fostered by families with only sons. This would help to avoid at least some, but not all of the domestic difficulties posed by non-mahram status. The statement also reports that "in some cases foster carers ask that the child leave their home at the onset of puberty," and sometimes Muslim families avoid fostering altogether, to prevent the eventual trauma of separation.
There is an exception to the mahram rule for fostering, which applies if a woman has breastfed someone from infancy. In this case, for the purposes of the mahram rules, the child is treated as a biological child of the woman. However, according to the imams, for this exemption to apply, breastfeeding must have taken place before the child turns two.
The issue of naming is also important in relation to Islamic fostering. According to the Koran, children must be named after their biological fathers: "call them by their fathers' names." Furthermore, biological parents have certain inalienable rights over a child, so they can reassert custody at any time, if they are capable of caring for the child, and they have enduring rights to visit. This cuts across Australian legal understandings of parental rights.
The imams assert that foster parents must encourage children from the age of seven to do Islamic prayers.
The imams' document also discusses "prayer obligations." Muslim parents have an obligation to make their children perform compulsory daily prayers. The imams assert that foster parents must encourage children from the age of seven to pray Islamic prayers—no exemption is mentioned for non-Muslim foster children—and for this they must be "disciplined from the age of ten." This guidance appears to be based on a saying of Muhammad, not cited by the imams, which states, "Command your children to pray when they are seven years old, and beat them for it [if they do not pray] when they are ten years old, and separate them in their beds." Most Australians would find it problematic that Muslims parents are advised to use discipline to compel their children to pray.
The reference to "separate them in their beds" means that children of opposite sexes should be sleeping in different bedrooms from the age of ten. This too is discussed in the ANIC statement.
The statement goes on to discuss "marriage rights over foster children." This is a reference to the role of the wali or male guardian in relation to marriage of a woman. The Koran states that men are the guardians of women (Sura 4:34).
In Islamic law, a marriage is technically a contract between a groom and the bride's wali, by virtue of which guardianship of the woman is transferred from the wali to the groom, and, in return, the groom hands over a bride-price. If a father is not available to act as guardian, the guardian's role passes to the paternal grandfather, and failing that to another male relative, such as a brother.
Not mentioned in the ANIC statement is the fact that in Islamic law a father or grandfather is called a wali mujbir or "forcing guardian," because he can compel an unmarried daughter to marry, without her permission. However, the ANIC statement explains that foster parents do not have such "marriage rights" over a foster child, and points out that if a biologically related guardian is not available, the imam can act as the child's wali.
The imams' statement also addresses the issue of circumcision. The imams commend circumcision of boys, preferably within seven days of birth, but in any case before puberty, but only if the biological parents have given permission. As noted above, in response to public criticism they replaced the statement that there is "no obligation" to circumcise a girl, with guidance that it is "impermissible and forbidden to circumcise girls in Islam."
Pru Goward asserted, "The word circumcision should not apply to girls—it is female genital mutilation and it is illegal." However, the imams would have been working with Arabic categories familiar to them from Islamic jurisprudence, which treats circumcision of boys and girls under the same cover term, khitan or khatnah. (There is also a distinctive term for female circumcision, khifadh, from a verb which means "to lower" or "to make gentle, calm or submissive.")
Although the imams' later disavowal of female genital mutilation (FGM) is commendable, there is in fact a link between Islam and this practice. Circumcision of girls has been conventionally regarded as obligatory in the Shafi'i school of sharia; was commended in the Hanbali school; and in none of the four Sunni schools was it actually prohibited. For example, the Shafi'i manual of Islamic law, Umdat al-Salik ("The Reliance of the Traveller"), states that circumcision of girls is obligatory by "cutting out the clitoris." FGM is widely practised in regions where Shafi'i Islam predominates, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Kurdistan, Bahrain, parts of southern Arabia, Somalia and Sudan. Of all the countries where FGM is commonly practised, around 90 per cent are members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.
It is only in recent decades that the practice of FGM has become controversial and disputed among Muslims: there have been eminent Muslim authorities who have spoken for it and others who have rejected it. Arguments for and against FGM have even been debated by Muslim scholars on Arab television.
In the light of this controversy, and the long history of FGM as a widely accepted and indeed established religious practice within Islam, this aspect of the imams' statement can be welcomed as a helpful clarification for the purpose of encouraging Australian Muslims to conform to Australia law, but it is hardly the last word on the topic.
The imams' guidance says that "court orders must be taken into consideration."
The ANIC imams want Australian Muslims to conform to sharia, and they also want organisations devoted to the care of children to be aware of and sensitive to Islamic requirements. At this stage in the establishment of Islam in Australia they are seeking toleration and acceptance from the wider Australian community, including freedom to observe sharia law, which they consider to be Allah's perfect decree for all humankind. At the same time, they understand that Muslims must follow the laws of the land. For example, in their guidance they point out that, Islamic law notwithstanding, when considering custody rights, "court orders must be taken into consideration." They also commend certain behaviours which most Australians would agree with, such as stipulating, as a matter of religious principle, that money received from the government for a foster child must be spent on that child. At the same time, they also want sharia to be acknowledged, understood and respected by the authorities.
ANIC guidance reflects the shariah principle that male guardians can exercise "marriage rights" over their female charges.
Yet, major difficulties arise where sharia conflicts with Australian law, such as the imams' assertion that an imam has the right to act as guardian for a girl who lacks a biological male guardian. There are other aspects of sharia, reflected in the ANIC guidance, which will be rejected by most Australians, such as the idea that male guardians can exercise "marriage rights" over their female charges. In contrast, since the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, Western marriage laws have supported the principle that two people can be married only on the basis of their freely exercised choice, and Australian marriage laws uphold this principle.
Another concern is the damaging implications of mahram rules, which mean that religiously observant Muslim parents may prefer to terminate foster arrangements for children when they reach puberty, or avoid fostering altogether.
It will also seem objectionable to most Australians that Muslim parents have been told by the ANIC to use "discipline" to compel their child or foster child to perform Islamic prayers, once they reach the age of ten, apparently irrespective of the actual faith and beliefs held by the child, for the ANIC guidance commends fostering of both Muslim and non-Muslim children in Muslim families.
There is a strand of thought in Australian society that Muslims are a vulnerable minority, subjected to racism. It is believed that Australians should respond to this fact by expressing positive regard for Islam and its followers. However, the agenda of social embrace through cultivating positive regard for Islam founders on the gap between sharia and the values of the Australian mainstream. While some Muslim leaders may prefer not to draw attention to this gap, it exists, and it needs to be acknowledged.
It is not inconsistent to affirm the human rights of Muslims, while rejecting objectionable Islamic religious practices.
To put it bluntly, either Islam is true and sharia is perfect, or Islam is not true and sharia is a flawed human construct subject to examination and critique, not least for its discriminatory treatment of women in the wali system. It is not inconsistent for Australia to affirm the inherent human dignity, worth and human rights of Muslims, while at the same time firmly rejecting objectionable aspects of Islamic religious practices.
The ANIC reported on its Facebook page that the New South Wales Department of Justice had "recognised" their statement, and that it was finalised only after consultation with government and non-government agencies. Moreover, a representative of the department had attended the launch, as did representatives of the charities Settlement Services International and Creating Links. This was a mistake. It is wrong of government departments and non-Islamic charities to appear to be endorsing the submission of human beings under sharia conditions.
On the other hand, strident denunciations of the Australian imams for promoting sharia principles are worse than pointless. Imams will promote Islam. They must do so. The question is, will Australian law-makers intervene to disrupt and limit the damage caused by some of the provisions of sharia, including their impact on women and children? Should government agencies turn a blind eye to institutions like male guardianship, even to the extent of showing up to the launch of a document which promotes this inequality?
The global rise of sharia is one of the big faith stories of the past half-century. Sharia is challenging Western legal systems and social structures in many ways, but we should be surprised by none of this. The passing of time and the onward march of history inevitably challenge cultural traditions. The mainstream's response should not be to fulminate, for that is pointless, but to provide firm clarity when saying "No" to certain specific sharia agendas, but to do this effectively requires understanding.
Australian authorities must reject the ANIC statement and seek to limit the application of sharia.
Australian authorities must reject the ANIC statement, not because the imams that drafted it are reprehensible or ignorant: they were simply following the script of their faith. The long-term challenge for Australian authorities is how to limit the application of sharia, while promoting respect for Muslims as humans with human rights like anyone else. A lamentable outcome would be to make special concessions to Islam, of the kinds that the ANIC has requested through the guidance it has delivered.
*Mark Durie is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum, founding director of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness, and a senior research fellow of the Arthur Jeffery Centre for the Study of Islam at the Melbourne School of Theology.