LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
April 16/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.april16.18.htm

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

What happens after the limited US strike on Syria?
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/April 15/18
Prior to the US, France and Britain strikes, there were rumors circulating that the Syrian regime and Russian government offered to get Iran and its militias out of Syria as part of reaching a proposed settlement, in return for refraining from attacking, and engaging in a new political process.
If we assumed that this offer was proposed, would it be acceptable? Certainly, it is better than a limited strike. But the problem is that these three parties are used to promoting lies. Even the Russians have lost their credibility due to their supporting of the claims of Damascus and Tehran. In the chemical weapon attack on Douma, they went back to creating the same old stories, that the opposition were the ones who executed the attack against themselves and that the UN should pursue field investigations. That’s how they waste time and minimize the crisis. It is obvious that the genocide and revenge mentality is dominant in Damascus and Tehran, or else there would have been no compelling reasons to make them use chlorine gas and the nerve agent Sarin against civilians in Douma
The evil axis
Without credibility, there is no way to engage with the evil axis in finding political solutions or projects, as they are probably just going to be like medical drugs. The Syrian regime survived the military sanctions imposed on it when the Russians suggested, on September 2013, that the regime hand over their chemical weapon stocks to UN inspectors. Thus it was moved and the regime claimed that this was all it had, but wehave come to find now that there are more in their hideouts. What is more dangerous than the fakeness, is that the regime is ready to go to extremes without considering the consequences. These are the old characteristics of the regime that the world thought may have changed and became more flexible due to the civil war circumstances. It is obvious that the genocide and revenge mentality is dominant in Damascus and Tehran, or else there would have been no compelling reasons to make them use chlorine gas and Sarin nerve agent against civilians in Douma. The role of the Revolutionary Guard’s generals is important in this war, as they have been leading several battles in Syria for the past three years, and they have a reputation for being brutal. They have also become famous for performing horrifying revenge operations with their militias.
What next?
Let’s go back to talking about the coming few days, considering that the military response against using chemical weapons was executed and achieved its goal, which did not weaken the regime or its forces. US President Donald Trump wanted to deliver a message; that he means what he says and the message was understood. So what’s next? We are facing two interrelated cases, American sanctions against Iran, a fight that did not begin yet, and the second one is wanting to end the civilian war in Syria whether peacefully or not, or reach a solution in accordance with the regime, or create a new reality on the ground through military reserves, like the US project in eastern Syria in an area from which forces surveil and move when needed to fight ISIS or others. US sanctions against Iran will certainly weaken the regime in Tehran, create a better environment for a solution in Syria, and ease Iran’s control over Iraq and Lebanon.
Without the sanctions Tehran would continue to cause unrest in the region, and Syria might be the Achilles heel of Waliyat-al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), which started to feel as if it is an invincible power there. One of the signs of overconfidence is that it turned Syria into a confrontational country against the Kurds and Israel, and from where it threatens the security of Lebanon and Iraq. According to the Iranian project, Syria will turn into a country of militias, all of which follow Iran, and it will also be used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a launching base targeting neighboring areas.
Can we believe that the regime in Damascus is capable of expelling the Revolutionary Guards and its militias out of Syria? It is very difficult. Chaos makes Syria a source of unrest, which perfectly suits Iran and Russia, who are looking for more reasons to be part of the regional issues and to ignite or extinguish battles.

The Dhahran Summit and Tehran
Mohammed Al-Hammadi/Al Arabiya/April 15/18
Arab kings and presidents will convene in Dhahran for the 29th Arab League Summit on Sunday. They meet in a very critical and difficult time, which is not new to our region; however, this time they meet when Arab countries are more divided and have become different now more than ever as they now disagree over some major issues which they’ve never disagreed about before. There are three important files that cannot be ignored: The Israeli occupation, Iranian ambitions and terrorism. The first Arab League summit was held in 1946 in Cairo with the invitation of King Farouq. The main topic was Palestine. And today, after 70 years of the declaration “the state of Israel,” Arabs meet again only a few weeks before the US transfers its embassy to Jerusalem
The Palestinian file
The first Arab League summit was held in 1946 in Cairo with the invitation of King Farouq. The main topic was Palestine. And today, after 70 years of the declaration “the state of Israel,” Arabs meet again only a few weeks before the US transfers its embassy to Jerusalem after it recognized it as the capital of Israel. This means that Arabs should do something in the Palestinian file that is still open since the very first summit and until this 29th summit which has to handle several thorny issues that require clear and practical Arab stances and not just statements or emotional and dreamy positions! What is needed here is stances that help Palestinians make gains instead of further increasing their losses.
Iran
The more dangerous file is regarding Iranian interferences in the region and different Arab stances when dealing with Tehran. Arabs should agree that Iran is a lurking and ambitious enemy that must be confronted. Clear stances must be taken in this regard especially after it was confirmed that the ballistic missiles launched from Yemen against Saudi Arabia were of Iranian origin. It’s not unlikely that these missiles were launched by Iranian officers. An attack against any Arab country is supposed to be tantamount to an attack against Arabs. This is in addition to the blatant Iranian interference in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq. There is no doubt that holding the Arab summit in Dhahran is a message to Tehran that Arabs are convening in the nearest Saudi city on the other bank of the Arabian Gulf opposite to Iran.
Actions, not words
During this summit, Arabs must realize that they have to proceed to taking actions and not making reactions or emotionally interacting with what’s happening. The scene around Arabs is extremely unfortunate or rather shameful as Iran is tampering with the region. Meanwhile, foreign countries meet and look for solutions for the crises in Syria and Yemen and there isn’t a single Arab party that represents Arabs and their stances present at these meetings. This international neglect is normal since Arabs themselves do not have an agreement on these matters and they don’t even stand with their fellow Arab brothers who decide to take action. It is unfortunately clear that some Arabs await foreign stances and do not act alongside their Arab brothers who take practical stances. Therefore, if we want to be present in the decision-making forums regarding what concerns us, we must prove to the world that we are capable of making decisions and adopting practical action.

Zuckerberg congressional hearing: Much more than a trial for Facebook
Mashari Althaydi/Al Arabiya/April 15/18
The congressional hearing, or rather investigation, of Mark Zuckerberg, the symbol of the global Facebook company which is the most famous social network in the world, is in fact the first revealing session for this whole idea of social media. The young billionaire is an American, and his massive company Facebook is also American. So is Twitter, Google and the rest of the leading platforms of this new world that controls people’s sentiments, circumstances and passions. I have been always certain that these platforms – which have been haphazardly designed under the pretext of free flow of information, making communication available between all people and protecting users’ personal information – or so they promise – are in fact anomalous, dangerous and destructive
Dubious justifications
I have been always certain that these platforms – which have been haphazardly designed under the pretext of free flow of information, making communication available between all people and protecting users’ personal information – or so they promise – are in fact anomalous, dangerous and destructive. However, the western mindset has always tended to say that this is a usual disposition of the third world, especially Arab Islamic countries as their people are not saturated with democratic values and regulations. Okay, so what about the western reproaching cries, from the very bastions of western democracy, against the threat of social media on the stability, security and even identity of western countries? During his congressional testimony, the ‘digital’ billionaire reportedly apologized several times and was “bored” of the congress members’ political questions. He perhaps hid his cynicism towards these old men’s ignorance of the digital world, its modern applications and manipulative advances. The charges leveled against Facebook by the United States as well as some European countries pertained to the company’s sale of its users’ information thus violating their privacy - which the leaders of these companies claim they protect against governments. Facebook is accused of selling this information to other “parties” including both political and non-political parties.
Violation of privacy
The testimony began with a single question as to whether Zuckerberg would be willing to disclose the name of the hotel in which he stayed a fortnight ago, to which Zuckerberg objected. Congress members pointed out that the question was asked to prove the importance of people’s privacy and their reluctance to disclose anything about it to others. It was striking to see Zuckerberg turned up at the hearing in full suit and tie, which is quite a rarity for him. Senator Harris commented on Zuckerberg’s evasive answers saying: “During the course of this hearing … you’ve been asked several critical questions for which you don’t have answers.” What was also notable is how much he apologized. Senator John Thune commented on this and cited a Wired story about Zuckerberg’s “14-year history of apologizing”, asking “how is today’s apology different?” Today accountability began. This is the beginning as the operation of these giant online platforms which have billions of users, without regulations and outside the law reaps blood, destruction and vanity. For the umpteenth time, I am saying that the West is the reason behind the production of the demon of social media, and as the proverb says: “He who summons the demon must dismiss it.”

Europe, Trump and the Iran nuclear deal
Amir Taheri/Al Arabiya/April 15/18
The so-called Iran nuclear deal, a witches’ brew concocted by that most deserving of Nobel peace laureates Barack Obama, has furnished the theme of many bizarre diplomatic twists and turns. The latest is an attempt by sections of the European Union to persuade President Donald Trump to renege on his campaign promise to improve or scrap the “deal.”
During the past year, the EU’s foreign policy point-woman, Federica Mogherini has been collecting air-miles calling on world capitals, including Washington and Rangoon, to demand “commitment” to the “deal” as if this were an article of faith in an as-yet undefined religion.
The retiring British Ambassador to Washington Sir Peter Westmacott has been granting interviews to Iranian media demanding kudos for having spent “much time and energy” trying to persuade the US to stick by the “deal”.
Outgoing German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel also boasts about having spent much energy in his final months in office “defending the deal” as a Crusading knight protecting a holy relic.
And now is the turn of the French Ambassador to Washington, Gerard Araud, to launch a Twitter campaign to persuade the Trump administration to “honor” that most questionable item in Obama’s legacy.
Basically, the Europeans advance four arguments. The first, advanced by Westmacott, is that discarding the “deal” could damage the credibility of “major powers”, that is to say Britain, France, Germany and the US that signed it along with China and Russia.
There are two troubles with that argument. The first is that it assumes that any diplomatic deal should be treated like a Catholic marriage that one abides “till death do us part”. Such an assumption would mean the end of diplomacy as the art of responding to changing realities.
If we were to go by Mogherini’s or Westmacott’s “commitment” to an unchangeable “deal”, Britain and France should have never denounced the “peace accord” that Chamberlain signed in Munich in 1939.
Right now, Tehran has difficulty bankrolling Lebanese “Hezbollah” and paying the salaries of Bashar al-Assad’s regime forces and civil service
‘Respecting signatures’
However, the EU argument about “respecting signatures” has another problem because nobody signed anything. The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is no more than a press release stating a set of desirable moves by Iran and the P5+1 which, incidentally, didn’t include the EU as such.
Moreover, there are significant differences between the JCPOA’s English and Persian versions, making various imaginative re-readings, a la Roland Barthes or Jacques Derrida, possible. Mogherini cannot claim respect for “signatures” which never happened and that, had they happened, would not have included the EU. The second argument is that the “deal” is working and, thus, the dictum “if it ain’t broken why fix it” applies. That assumption is not borne out by facts. Iran and the P5+1 have either tried to circumvent or have brazenly broken their promises.
Sir Peter, the retired UK diplomat, certainly knows that his government, in violation of the “deal” still refuses to allow the Iranian Embassy to open a bank account in London. Nor has the UK government unfrozen more than $600 million in Iranian assets.
The Germans and the French still refuse to issues export guarantees to firms seeking trade with Iran. Huge memorandums of understanding are signed but put on the back-burner as Iran remains subject to sanctions by the United Nations, the EU and US. As for Russia, during an official visit to Iran last week, Chairman of Russia Duma Vyacheslav Volodin heard an avalanche of complaints.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown what he thinks of Iran, a supposed ally notably in Syria, by his recent treatment of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in Ankara. At the end of a “summit” with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Rouhani demanded a two-some with Putin.
The Russian consented to a brief standing encounter which lasted around eight minutes. The Tsar Vladimir had no time to sit down with the Iranian mullah for a cup of tea. As for China, it says Iran could use its frozen assets, piled up through oil exports to the People’s Republic, only by buying Chinese goods.
Beijing even refuses to let the 3,000 or so Iranian students in China to receive their stipends through banks, forcing the embassy to send people around to distribute cash among the budding scholars.
Mafia-style smuggling
Ironically, the only P5+1 member that has partially complied with the “deal” is the US, including by Mafia-style smuggling of $1.7 billion cash to Tehran and the transfer of $700 million a month since August 2015.
Iran, for its part, asserts that there has been no change in its nuclear project. Earlier this month, spokesman for Iran Atomic Energy Agency Behruz Kamalvand told a press conference in Tehran that the Iran’s nuclear project was “going full speed ahead” with “new and more ambitious plans under preparation.”
More importantly, Iran has managed to block international inspection of key research and development centers by claiming they are military sites and thus off limits. Less than half of Iran’s enriched uranium stocks have been shipped abroad, along with 10 percent of plutonium accumulated at the Arak plant.
Last week, marking National Nuclear Day, Rouhani unveiled what he called “83 new nuclear projects” as slaps in the face of the American “Great Satan.” Why should Mogherini or Araud beat their chests about a “deal” not honored by either side?
The ambassador advances one last argument: If you scrap the “deal” how could you be sure Iran will not go “full speed ahead” with its nuclear ambitions? This is a casuistic argument: accept the bad for fear of getting the worse.
Since the JCPOA was unveiled Iran’s national currency has fallen by some 40 percent to an all-time low against foreign currencies, including the Iraqi dinar and the UAE dirham.
The Tehran government cannot regularly pay the salaries of its employees. Had it not been for the cash smuggled and funneled by Obama, the mullahs would have been unable to pay their military either. Right now, Tehran has difficulty bankrolling the Lebanese “Hezbollah” and paying the salaries of Bashar al-Assad’s regime forces and civil service.
So the Obama “deal”, as Trump said during his campaign, is a bad deal. What Trump didn’t say was that the “deal” was bad, both for Iran and the rest of the world.
Araud would do well to re-read what Laurent Fabius, then France’s Foreign Minister, said in 2015: “France will not accept a deal if it is not clear that inspections can be done at all Iranian installations ... We’ll accept a deal, but not any deal.”
It was partly because of France’s refusal to give the JCPOA legal status by signing that the Obama “deal” was launched as an informal initiative. Interestingly, Araud who now campaigns for the “deal” was appointed by Fabius, who took care to have a pinch of salt about it.

Time for region’s leaders to put Arab interests first
Baria Alamuddin/Arab News/April 15/18
With the Middle Eastern policies of Western nations more fickle, uncommitted and unreliable than ever before, the Dhahran Arab League summit was an opportunity for Arab states to stand up and display strategic regional leadership.
Iranian meddling is the common denominator straddling the perfect storm of geopolitical crises the region faces. Tehran should not be feared or placated — combined Arab League GDP, at over $3.2 trillion, is nearly 10 times that of Iran. Tehran boasts third-rate military capabilities and only constitutes a threat because it spent decades mobilizing Arab militants against their own countrymen. Should we pity or despise those who sold their souls for pennies from Tehran, when the Arab world boasts such immense capacities and riches? If only we could come together to deploy these resources effectively and wisely.
The Tehran regime cannibalized its own economy to bankroll overseas terrorism and militancy. Iran furthermore invests billions in media, educational and theological institutions that sow seeds of sectarian hatred throughout the Arab world. We should not demonize the Iranian people, or resort to vacuous rhetoric while failing to take action. Our end goal should be a peaceable administration in Tehran, which the Arab world looks to as a neighbor and friend. For Arab League decision-makers pursuing this objective within a holistic vision for enhancing regional security, the principle cornerstones are straightforward.
Active measures are needed to ensure that no Arab state hosts paramilitary forces whose primary loyalty is to foreign powers. Such principles, for example, are in harmony with Iraq’s own laws. The problem is meaningful enforcement, perhaps through an Arab League task force that assists states in extending control over ungoverned spaces and reining in non-state militias. Saudi Arabia’s impressive $1.5bn in pledges for reconstruction should be beefed up with an Arab League role for restoring Baghdad’s central position within its Arab heartland, away from malignant influences.
The Arab League summit can be a first step toward the restoration of an assertive Arab position on the world stage.
The Arab League must play the principal role in substantive negotiations concerning member states. For Syria, this means ensuring that no future status issues conflict with Arab interests. A handful of rockets fired at Syrian chemical weapons installations will not alter the situation on the ground. With Donald Trump tweeting mixed messages about his desire to cut and run, a joint Arab role is required to obstruct the consolidation of enemy forces in Syrian territory toward a solution that allows Syrians to be free of violence and tyranny. In Libya and Yemen, a broadened Arab role is required to bring these conflicts to a quick end, ensuring a stable Yemen that doesn’t host hostile forces.
Pro-Iranian narratives are propagated through a plethora of media outlets, while the Arab world either remains silent or deploys its media outlets against each other. This doesn’t mean replicating the deranged propaganda of Al-Manar TV: Rather, a sophisticated, evidence-based communications strategy is needed to actively promote Arab interests around the world, raising awareness about the consequences of Iranian meddling and other challenges. To counter hostile ideologies and internal divisions, the Arab world requires a cultural revival: A reassertion of what it means to be Arab, through the arts, literature and educational activity; along with collective action against poverty and social grievances — promoting Arab unity, banishing sectarian divisions, and ostracizing those serving malicious ideologies.
Our enemies gloat at our divisions. The Arab League and Gulf Cooperation Council must jointly act to compel Doha to implement necessary concessions, thus restoring our Qatari brothers and sisters to the Arab fold. This bitter experience demonstrates the need for Arab institutions to efficiently address disputes. An enforceable set of principles for acceptable behavior by organizations and the media would ensure that the Arab world doesn’t host entities serving hostile agendas. The infestation of hostile media and political offices in “Hezbollah-land” is a reminder that Doha is only the tip of the iceberg.
Finally, we must grasp the roots of this pestilence with both hands. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic never missed one opportunity to destabilize the Arab world, and the Arab world hardly lifted a finger in response. Right-minded Iranians consistently vote, protest and act against their theocratic, totalitarian leadership. A multi-faceted strategy against misrule in Tehran would support Iranians in realizing their potential. This strategy, nevertheless, wouldn’t resort to even one percent of the vicious and malicious tactics that this regime wielded against Arab states over the years.
Certain states will predictably baulk at such principles. Yet much of the above is simply implementing what has long existed as ink on paper. Rather than squandering our energies confronting one another, it is time for the Arab world to unify and demonstrate what it is capable of. For all its past failings, the Arab League remains the institutional heart of the Arab world and will remain the forum for coordinating joint Arab action. The Palestinian question has held the region back for too long, providing a pretext for Tehran, Hezbollah and others to meddle. The Saudi-based 2007 Arab League summit reaffirmed the Arab Peace Initiative. The Arab League should act to restore this initiative to the top of the world’s agenda. Benjamin Netanyahu must be forced to understand that stealing Palestinian land has consequences. A shared solution for Jerusalem is required so that Israelis and Palestinians alike can reap the benefits of peace.
Progress on all these issues is achievable if members act together to promote regional security and put Arab interests first. The Dhahran summit can constitute a first step toward the restoration of an assertive Arab position on the world stage — an aspiration that every proud and nationalist Arab would share. Let us pray that our leaderships rise to the challenge.
**Baria Alamuddin is an award-winning journalist and broadcaster in the Middle East and the UK. She is editor of the Media Services Syndicate and has interviewed numerous heads of state.