LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
April 01/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.april01.18.htm

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

Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on April 01/18
Who benefits from calls for withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq?
Adnan Hussein/Al Arabiya/March 31/18
As the countdown to parliamentary elections in May begins, some Iraqi politicians are calling for the withdrawal of foreign forces (mainly US troops) from the country on the pretext that there is no need for them.
However, is there actually no need for these forces? We had witnessed a similar situation in 2011, when politicians raised the slogan of restoring state sovereignty and did not calm down until foreign troops (which were also mostly American) were withdrawn while Iraq was still facing a vicious war against Al-Qaeda.
Advocates of withdrawal
At that time, the advocates of withdrawing foreign troops achieved their aim, but the move only helped Al-Qaeda which continued to strike wherever it wanted until things got worse when ISIS occupied one third of the country’s territory. There were plenty of atrocities committed against six million Iraqis, almost half of whom are still living in camps for the internally displaced, while tens of thousands were killed, wounded or held hostage.The advocates of sovereignty regained it for a while from the Americans, but then they handed it over to Al-Qaeda and then to its heir ISIS on a silver platter. If this renewed call for withdrawal of foreign troops is implemented, it would come as a free gift for ISIS, which has recently started to reassert itself in several locations and districts it has occupied since 2014.
ISIS’ resumption of its terrorist activities synchronized with Turkey’s military operations in Iraq and which will not end with expelling or eliminating Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) fighters
Acting upon Iraqi interests
In fact, ISIS’ resumption of its terrorist activities synchronized with Turkey’s military operations in Iraq and which will not end with expelling or eliminating Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) fighters. Experience has shown that Turkish troops rarely leave an area they occupy, Cyprus and Syria being a clear proof of this fact. The military posts established by Turkey in Iraqi Kurdistan in the 1980s, in agreement with Saddam’s regime, are still extant and have in fact been reinforced with more troops and equipment.
Iran does not like to leave one soldier in Iraq. This is part of its own interests. But Iraqi interest lies in not repeating the mistake of 2011. The withdrawal of international forces, especially US troops, would not just benefit Iran, but it would also benefit ISIS and Turkey.
The right course of action would be to leave the issue and fate of foreign forces to the Iraqi government, as it is the right authority that can decide if there is or is not any need for foreign forces.

The fatwa is not new, but the climate is
Mashari Althaydi/Al Arabiya/March 31/18
These days one often hears the argument: Where were these tolerant religious views and flexible doctrinal interpretations hidden earlier? Why have they come out in the open all at once? The implicit and at times explicit inference in these remarks is that moderate religious views that are becoming popular these days are part of a major conspiracy against Islam!For example, there is controversy and debate over details regarding women, the arts and entertainment and the relationship of Muslims with those belonging to a different religion, sect or doctrinal denomination. Those who are raising fingers of accusation against moderate religious teachings have not immersed themselves in the study of orthodox ‘fiqh’ (Islamic jurisprudence), which is replete with ‘fatwas’ and opinions which the ignorant deem as heresy today.  Those raising fingers of accusation against moderate religious teachings have not immersed themselves in the study of orthodox ‘fiqh’
In his interviews to the press, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said that Islam is being hijacked by a faction that wants to attain power, the faction of Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Khomeini regime (the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist) or the Sururist Movement, a wretched branch of the Muslim Brotherhood; but Islam is not the private property of these elements. Marking a departure from the culture of these groups regarding women, he has stated that the general Muslim conscience supports the ideals of decency and good manners without discrimination of color and strictures of the Abaya or the dress worn by Muslim women. This is absolutely true. Clothing is the manifestation of local cultural norms and setting. Take a look at the clothes of women of Mauritania or Sudan and compare them with the clothes of women from Chechnya, or Iranian women or Kurdish women. All of them have distinctive features that reflect their respective indigenous culture. The underlying idea behind all of them is the emphasis on decency.
Thus, I would like to emphasize that there is nothing new about the moderate religious discourse and it is not the reflection of a modern trend. The fact is that closed mindset has been opened and a gush of fresh air has started flowing.

Qatar: Is the wheel of compromise turning?
Mohammed Al Shaikh/Al Arabiya/March 31/18
Qataris have for the first time released a terror list, which includes the names of individuals and groups whom Doha had funded and issued passports and documents to in order to ease their movements when they were charged with causing mayhem in various places during the so-called Arab Spring. The list has come as a surprise to many people, including the people of Qatar. It consists of names and organizations that were being funded and backed by the Qatari government. This has led the Qatari people to feel, what they had not felt before, that the wheel of compromise and concession has started to turn, as from relenting and conceding comes the first drop of rain and blessings.
Bid to please the US
It is most likely that Qatar’s issuance of this list is an attempt to please the United States, since the Emir of Qatar is scheduled to visit the US in April. The Qatari regime wanted this list to serve as a goodwill gesture as perhaps the US would help the country come out of its suffocating isolation that has sapped the country’s vitality all levels, especially economically over the past nine months. During this time, the rulers of Qatar had insisted that their income from “natural gas” was so huge that they would not feel the need to yield, and they also promoted this via their media outlets. Qatar should start handling its geopolitical stature wisely and abandon mad ambitions
However, it seems that Qatar’s rulers have begun to realize that the region’s orientations have changed and that Qatar is actually confronting a strong quartet of Arab states that have the power, influence and international sway that make the conflict with them a losing proposition from the start. Even if the US, on which Qatar relies heavily, wanted to dictate to the Arab quartet to adopt a conciliatory position, it would have to come at a meaningful price, such as the banishment of the Muslim Brotherhood and the extradition of the group’s wanted members to Egypt. Add to the fact that all the signs point that Qatar is involved, either directly or indirectly, in cases related to terrorism and has protected people whom there is clear evidence that proves their involvement in terrorist activities. This makes defending Qatar similar to defending the devil. An example is the terrorist Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Mufti of suicide bombers as he is commonly known!
Don’t punch above one’s weight
In the interest of the GCC, we want Qatar to return to its senses, to tend to its developmental projects and to give up its speculative games, which eventually led it to miserable ends. All the signs and evidence confirm that the only way to get out of this predicament, which Doha has put itself and its people in, is by handling its geopolitical stature wisely and abandoning the mad ambitions which the elder Emir, the father, once had, and which was the main reason that made the Arab quartet sever relations with Qatar. Obstinacy and being unrealistic is one of the most glaring flaws that led to the inglorious end of many heads of state in history. Leading the pack was Muammar Gaddafi. Many confirm that Gaddafi and Hamad bin Khalifa have a lot in common; chiefly the obstinacy, the tendency to challenge reality and making dreams take control of political conduct.
**Hamad bin Khalifa had a golden opportunity after we were tolerant with him following his confession of conspiring against the kingdom. However, he misunderstood this forgiveness and continued to conspire thus leading up to this boycott that I do not think will be revoked unless Qatar agrees to make serious concessions that will then make it much weaker than even Somalia.

Will US Bring Back Carrot And Stick Approach To Iran?
Camelia Entekhabifard/Arab News/March 2018
Not a day that goes by when, via private messages or on social media, Iranians don’t express their anxieties and concerns over the future of the nuclear deal and ask me if I know what President Donald Trump will do with the agreement in mid-May. This is an important question but the answer is not easy as the speculation is harder than ever to separate from the fact that Trump is keen not only to fix the deal, but also to discipline the political rulers in Tehran.
To discipline, there’s a need to implement some harsh punishments, while also offering some rewards as well. This same carrot and stick policy was pursued by President Barack Obama as he entered into negotiations with Tehran. I remember well the Iranian Foreign Ministry calling that carrot and stick diplomacy offensive, and the phrase somehow has not been heard since.
But Iran has not just been fed a carrot with this nuclear deal, rather the icing part of a carrot cake thanks to the great opportunities offered when the country’s blocked assets were released in cash by Obama and the sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program were lifted. The region was thus left with an aggressive Iranian regime, whose leadership frequently repeated it had no desire to hold regional talks or change its attitude and behavior.
Now, with John Bolton set to become National Security Advisor and Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, could the US use the deal as a stick to correct the path of Iranian aggression in the region?
The foreign ministers of the three major European countries involved in the deal — France, Germany and the UK — on Wednesday met their EU counterparts and proposed new sanctions over Iran’s ballistic missile program and its role in the Syria war in order to satisfy Trump. But Spain, Italy and Austria opposed the move and claimed that such sanctions would be ineffective in convincing Trump to remain committed to the deal, while also hurting their relations with Iran.
This EU package sounds like it is offering carrots to Trump and the stick to the Iranian people, who are desperately seeking changes and no longer care for the deal itself.
The questions Iranians have been raising on social media are not about the future of the nuclear deal, but rather the future of the world’s relations with this regime when the basic rights of its citizens are denied and their money is spent everywhere except on them.
The questions Iranians have been raising on social media are not about the future of the nuclear deal, but rather the future of the world’s relations with this regime when the basic rights of its citizens are denied and their money is spent everywhere except on them. They have been humiliated and offended in every possible way over the last 40 years. What is this deal good for if doesn’t serve the Iranian people first?
Someone asked me recently if the Islamic Republic would ever give up its presence in the region and the support it gives to Hezbollah, Hamas and the Shia militias? Well, to my knowledge, not as long as they feel the regime change threat is on the table. Iran’s foreign policy strategy has been built around its regional presence and, through access to foreign-based militias, engaging in proxy wars.
Simply put, while not impossible, it would be very hard for any agreement to reach the goal of wrapping up the Iranian presence in the region and stopping its support for militias in the short term.
The nuclear deal was a good start but not good enough to convince the political leaders in Tehran that they are safe from any regime change plan. And the world’s patience is not enough to tolerate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps for another decade.
As long as there is no common ground between the West and Iran, neither the nuclear deal nor any other agreement could bring them together. Iran is suspicious of the aims of the Western nations, especially the US, and this trust will never be built if Washington and Tehran don’t deal with each other directly.
For the Iranians, the nuclear deal was not only meant to improve the economy, but also the country’s relations with the West, so that Iran could gain the same prestige and value it had before the revolution in 1979. But, for the regime in Tehran, the deal meant a guarantee for the continuation of its corrupt, abusive system, along with some economic improvements to satisfy the angry people who suffer most.
Maybe the time has come for a proper correction of the mutual understanding between the regime and the Iranian people.
**Camelia Entekhabifard is an Iranian-American journalist, political commentator and author of “Camelia: Save Yourself By Telling the Truth” (Seven Stories Press, 2008). Twitter: ​@CameliaFard

Socialized Medicine: A Dose of Reality
Ileana Johnson/Gatestone Institute/March 31/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12102/socialized-medicine
Although Britons do have affordable access to primary-care doctors, and everyone in the UK is covered through high taxes, they are subjected to extensive waiting periods for specialists, surgeries and hospitalization. The fact is that many patients die waiting for treatment.
Rather than rejecting the basic free-market principles of the US economy -- as a 2016 Harvard University survey found that most do -- young Americans would do well to ask themselves why it is that so many people from countries with socialized medicine flock to the United States for treatment.
According to a recent Pew poll, support for universal health care, provided and paid for by the federal government, is higher among American millennials than among older generations. Young Americans seem to believe that socialized medicine is a "cure-all" for health-care ills in the United States, as it ostensibly is elsewhere, such as Canada and Britain.
Unfortunately, there are facts that would appear to put this fantasy to rest by the facts -- for instance, the tragic and untimely death of a 20-year-old British woman in her dorm room last March. Victoria Hills, a first-year student, died of an ear infection, after "postpon[ing] visiting her campus general practitioner because her student loan had not come through and she couldn't afford the prescription."
There seems to be a myth that all medical care, procedures and drugs are free under a socialized system. Although Britons do have affordable access to primary-care doctors, and everyone in the UK is covered through high taxes, they are subjected to extensive waiting periods for specialists, surgeries and hospitalization. The fact is that in the West, as the ability of physicians to provide services becomes stretched, many patients die waiting for treatment.
In communist – and former communist -- countries, the situation is even worse, as the 2005 award-winning dark comedy, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, tries to illustrate. The film portrays the medical tribulations of an elderly man in Romania, transported by ambulance from hospital to hospital for an entire night, while doctors at each location refuse to treat him and send him away. By the time he is finally admitted to a fourth hospital, he needs surgery to remove a blood clot from his brain. In a particularly poignant scene, one doctor comments: "They have saved him so he can die from an incurable liver neoplasm."
The sad reality about the field of medicine in a former communist country such as Romania is that old habits die hard. Having grown up in communist Romania, I remember, after feeling ill, being taken to the polyclinic, to a room full of other sick people, all entitled to "free" care. Some were there to receive permission slips to miss work due to their ailments. Others were there for injections. Still others were so ill that they could barely stand.
The system was "first come, first served." Everyone received a number and waited, as at a food counter, to see a medical professional. Sitting on the floor was forbidden; sometimes we would be forced to stand for an entire day – occasionally until nightfall – before being examined by an overworked doctor, who supplemented his "egalitarian" income with monetary or material bribes from patients seeking quicker access and better care. After performing a perfunctory examination, the doctor would give us a prescription and send us away. The trouble was that the pharmacy in the nearby shopping complex had as little stock on its shelves as every other store in the country. The pharmacist, who had no ingredients with which to prepare the antibiotic the doctor had prescribed, would simply shrug, and continue to earn his state income for doing nothing.
When my mother and I would return home empty-handed, my father would go out to find the medication on the black market, paying at least ten times the official price to obtain it. In spite of the harsh sentences presented to sellers and buyers on the black market, many were willing to take the risk -- and extremely grateful. It was the only way to fill the prescription, which was supposed to be free in the communist "paradise."
After the triumph of obtaining the antibiotic, one found oneself in possession of a mixed blessing. The cardboard capsules were the size of horse pills, so large that even adults had difficulty swallowing them; for children, it was nearly impossible. All attempts at getting down the huge pill without having bitter powder fill my mouth were unsuccessful.
Moving to the United States, where doctors were paid on the basis of merit and hard work, not according to a bogus ideological "equality" imposed by a central, omnipotent government and its bureaucrats, was a blessing. American millennials, a majority of whom seem to believe in ideological social experiments that may have failed broadly elsewhere, have no clue about the literal and figurative bitter pill that people living under socialist and communist regimes are forced to swallow -- not only where health care is concerned.
Rather than rejecting the basic free-market principles of the US economy -- as a 2016 Harvard University survey found that most do -- these young Americans would do well to ask themselves why it is that so many people from countries with socialized medicine flock to the United States for treatment.
According to a recent Pew poll, support for universal health care, provided and paid for by the federal government, is higher among American millennials than among older generations. (Image source: Mark Dixon/Blue Lens/Flickr)
**Dr. Ileana Johnson is a Romanian-American writer, speaker, radio commentator and author of Echoes of Communism (Lessons from an American by Choice).
© 2018 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.