LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 04/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.august04.18.htm

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

Analysis/UN Peacekeeping Commander: It's Time for Israel and Lebanon to Take Courageous Steps
عاموس هاريل من الهآررتس: قائد قوات اليونيفل الجنرال ميشال باري يعتبر ان الوقت قد حان للبنان وإسرائيل لإتخاذ خطوات شجاعة
Amos Harel/Haartz/August 03/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66487/amos-harel-haartz-un-peacekeeping-commander-its-time-for-israel-and-lebanon-to-take-courageous-steps-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B3-%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%84-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87/
'Peace-keeping forces cannot substitute a diplomatic solution,' outgoing UNIFIL commander Maj.Gen. Michael Beary tells Haaretz ■ Israel's plan to buff up its defenses gets mired in politics.
Twelve years ago this month, the north was being barraged by Hezbollah rockets and the government was debating how deep to send soldiers into Lebanon to stop the rocket fire. Although the war was badly managed, at every level, since then the north has known unprecedented quiet. There are various reasons for this, including mutual deterrence between Israel and Hezbollah, as well as the influence of Iran, which preferred to channel its huge investment in Hezbollah ($700 million-$1 billion annually) towards other purposes.
Hezbollah’s power was built (and is maintained) to threaten Israel with a harsh reprisal blow should it attack the Iranian nuclear sites. While Syria fell apart and Gaza periodically ignited, Lebanon, the front with the greatest destructive potential, has remained surprisingly quiet.
* Maj.-Gen. Michael Beary, the Irishman who commanded the UNIFIL forces for the past four years, will soon complete his tour. Speaking with Haaretz in Jerusalem last month, Beary said the calm had been sustained due to concerted efforts by the governments of Israel and Lebanon, with the aid of UNIFIL. This continued, he noted, throughout the last year, during which Israel began building a new barrier along certain sections of the border. The barrier, 11 kilometers long in total, is being erected in two areas – from Misgav Am to Metulla in the north, and by Rosh Hanikra in the west. There was concern about what would happen during the construction since the planned barrier overlaps with some of the 13 points where the precise location of the international border is a matter of dispute. Over the past year, the joint committee has held close to 30 meetings, three times the number of meetings in the previous year. The general thinks this helped contain tensions along the border, mainly regarding the new Israeli barrier. He talks about “good dynamics” in the negotiations and attributes the increased calm during the last two years to these talks. And he has considerable perspective: This is his fourth tour of duty with UNIFIL. His first was as a battalion commander during the First Lebanon War in 1982.
* 10,500 soldiers and 850 civilians from 42 countries serve in UNIFIL. The general describes Lebanese use of beaches in Nakura, north of Rosh Hanikra, as a sign of normality that would have been unheard of in previous periods. “This is not a war atmosphere,” he says. He suggests that both countries should look forward to the next stage. “Peacekeeping forces cannot substitute for a diplomatic solution. UNIFIL is 40 years old. It is time to proceed to a long-term ceasefire. It would require courage on both sides. The last thing they need now is war.”
* In Israeli eyes, UNIFIL’s main shortcoming has been its failure to halt Hezbollah’s military buildup in the area between the border fence and the Litani River. Last year, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley personally accused the general of turning a blind eye to Hezbollah’s moves in the south. The general says UNIFIL has increased its presence. Each month its soldiers carry out approximately 14,000 operations (patrols, checkpoints and so on) in its area of jurisdiction. But it does not carry out any searches inside buildings in south Lebanese villages, because UNIFIL needs a legal search warrant to enter them. Consequently, in Israel’s view, it is not addressing the real problem. Beary cites IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot: “The goal, as your chief of staff said, should be preventing war from breaking out by mistake.”
Beary says UNIFIL is aware of Israeli concerns and feels an obligation to maintain security along the Blue Line, which equally benefits the northern Israeli residents. As of next month, this will be the job of his replacement, Major-General Stefano Del Col from Italy.
Assad regime regains control of Syrian Golan
The Syrian regime of Bashar Assad announced in the middle of the week that it had regained control of the Syrian Golan Heights. A few days earlier the Syrian flag was raised over the Quneitra pass and the first Syrian flags appeared in the Druze townships on the Israeli side.
On Syria’s southwest corner, near the borders with Israel and Jordan, the regime is subduing the last villages that had been under Islamic State-affiliated rebel groups.
The first rebels emerged in the Golan Heights in the winter of 2011-2012, a few months after the rebellion broke out in Daraa. Gradually, they pushed the Syrian army units out of the region.
In the summer of 2014, when the Islamic State set up its caliphates in east Syria, other rebel organizations fled, including those identified with Al-Qaida. Some of them reached the Golan and in a matter of weeks had driven the Assad regime out completely, but for a small enclave on the Hermon. In the following years Israel wove a web of contacts with local rebel militias, which was exposed two years ago when Israel revealed the scope of its humanitarian aid to Syria, as part of the operation code-named “Good Neighborliness.”
The winding down of the battles reduces the immediate danger of escalation of hostilities against Israel. In the absence of fighting, there is no “spillage” of fire into Israeli territory and no reason to send drones to the border area. The IDF can shift its concerns to long-term issues, such as reinstating the 1974 disengagement agreement and the resumption of The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force’s activity.
Meanwhile, Russia said it has agreed with Iran to keep the Revolutionary Guards and Shi’ite militias at least 85 kilometers from the Israeli border. Can Putin’s word be trusted? That rather depends on whether one believes Moscow’s denials of poisoning former Russian military officer and spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Britain, and of meddling with the United States’ last presidential elections.
Veteran intelligence officers in Israel, who have been keeping tabs on Iran’s ties with Hezbollah since the 1980s, voiced doubts this week over the possibility of enforcing the agreement. They said the Iranians specialize in the long game; that is, their strategy is aimed at achieving goals years ahead, with the intention of increasing Iran’s influence in the Middle East and creating a threat on Israel from a new direction.
The Iranians are hardly likely to abandon their aspirations due to merely temporary obstacles, even if in this round Israel appears to have come out on top.

Opinion/The Real Oslo Criminals
جدعون ليفي من الهآررتس: حقيقة المجرمين في اتفاقية اوسلو بين إسرائيل ومنظمة التحرير الفلسطينية
Gideon Levy/Haaretz/August 03/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66495/gideon-levy-haaretz-the-real-oslo-criminals-%D8%AC%D8%AF%D8%B9%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A2%D8%B1%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B3-%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%82%D8%A9/
A new documentary shows quite well how Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres were the heroes of Oslo but also its criminals: Their missed opportunity, rooted chiefly in their cowardice, is unforgivable.
We should adopt the conceit of the right: the Oslo criminals. The pejorative should be attached, of course, to Benjamin Netanyahu and the savage incitement that he and the settlers perpetrate; but the heroes of the peace, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, are also worthy of the title. Their missed opportunity, rooted chiefly in their cowardice, is unforgivable.
A new documentary shows this quite well. “The Oslo Diaries,” directed by Mor Loushy and Daniel Sivan, which was screened at the Jerusalem Film Festival, is a moving and important film that many Israelis will see.
When it was over, a woman sitting in front of me got up and tried in vain to hold back her tears. It was the chairwoman of Meretz, MK Tamar Zandberg. It was touching to see a politician crying over a missed opportunity, but a similar discomfort, to heavy to bear, filled the entire hall. The film proves how, despite all the wariness toward the Oslo Accords, they still represented an opportunity — and this is what Rabin and Peres missed. This missed opportunity was not only fateful, it was also irreparable.
“The Oslo Diaries” reflects the spirit of the times. Netanyahu, still with his unkempt hair, looks like a crazy man at the right-wing rallies, his eyes spinning round, different from his relatively level-headed image of today, and the fascist and violent atmosphere of the street as never seen before in Israel. But the film deals with the peacemakers, and the picture that arises from them too is worrying. They are the explanation for the failure, most of which can be placed on their shoulders.
Faltering from the beginning: Yair Hirschfeld preaches morality with characteristic haughtiness and threatens Ahmed Qureia for daring to mention the Nazi occupation of Norway and to compare it to the Israeli occupation, which has lasted 10 times longer and exacted many more victims. A few of the other members of the Israeli delegation are tainted by the same arrogance toward the Palestinians — particularly legal adviser Joel Singer, who is exposed in the film as an especially repulsive and arrogant individual.
Standing out from them is the innocent and benevolent figure of Ron Pundak, and above all of them shines Yossi Beilin, one of a rare breed of diplomats who can set his ego aside, always behind the scenes and focused on the goal rather than on getting credit. Beilin has never received his due honor: Oslo is Beilin, Beilin is Oslo. The missed opportunity belongs to those above him, Rabin and Peres. They are the heroes of Oslo, and its criminals.
They began the negotiations with the intention of manipulating the Palestinians as far as possible. There is not a moment of equality or fairness in the negotiations. When agreement is reached on an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank in the second stage, they insisted on only 2 percent. Only they had “misgivings” about sitting with the PLO. They, who never shed a drop of blood, found it so difficult to speak with the bloodthirsty terrorists from Tunis. They, who did not exile hundreds of thousands in 1948 and did not establish the occupation enterprise in 1967, suffered so much from speaking with terrorists.
The theatrical feeling of disgust they showed, and Rabin in particular, from shaking hands with Yasser Arafat demonstrated their true attitude toward the Palestinians. Rabin of the expulsion of Ramle and the massacre in Lod, Rabin of “break their bones,” recoiled so much from defiling his pure hands with Arafat’s bloody hands. And he took the trouble to show it, too. This is not how you make peace. If anyone should have recoiled it was Arafat, who was forced to shake the hand of someone who occupied and disinherited him. Arafat wanted to start a new chapter more than Rabin did.
But the main guilt is in the missed opportunity. There were at least two, one for Rabin and one for Peres. Rabin, who gave Beilin the impression that he was about to remove the Jewish community of Hebron after the Baruch Goldstein massacre, became frightened and did not keep his word, and in doing so determined the future of the relations, possibly forever.
At the end of the 40 days of mourning, the suicide bombing attacks began. It is not difficult to imagine what would have happened had Rabin removed the obstacle of the settlement in Hebron. Peres, who in the movie is seen giving one of his peace speeches, one of the most courageous and hair-raising ever heard here, rejected as prime minister the draft of the permanent agreement reached by Beilin and Mahmoud Abbas, out of fear of the coming elections. This was the second moment of missed opportunity. Everyone knows what happened next, and it makes one despair.

Chomsky Calls Russian Interference a Joke - Blames Guess Who?
Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/August 03/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12799/noam-chomsky-russian-interference
Transparency and public accountability are the cornerstones of democracy. Prime Minister Netanyahu's very public opposition to Obama's Iran Deal -- a deal opposed by most members of Congress and most Americans -- was just as consistent with democracy as Winston Churchill's public demands for the United States to help Great Britain fight the Nazis.
Holocaust denial is quintessentially anti-Semitic, because it falsely accuses the Jews of fabricating stories of the murder of six million Jews.
Noam Chomsky may be intelligent when it comes to linguistics, but his statements regarding Israel, Russia, and the Holocaust are simply counter-factual. There is no other word for his bizarre views, if he actually believes them. If he does not, then there is another word that aptly describes his statements: bigotry.
Noam Chomsky has gone off the deep end once again. This time he claims that in "most of the world" the issue of Russian interference in U.S. elections is "almost a joke." The real villain, according to him, is, of course, Israel -- as it almost always is with Chomsky. According to the world's "top public intellectual," Israeli intervention in U.S. elections, "vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done." His proof of this absurd and false charge is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech in front of Congress "with overwhelming applause." Only on Planet Chomsky would it be worse for the Prime Minister of an American ally openly to accept an invitation from the Speaker of the House to address Congress about an issue of mutual concern, than for Russian agents surreptitiously to try to manipulate voters by false social media campaigns, hacking emails, and other illegal actions.
Chomsky simply fails to understand how democracy is supposed to work. Transparency and public accountability are the cornerstones of democracy. Prime Minister Netanyahu's very public opposition to Obama's Iran Deal -- a deal opposed by most members of Congress and most Americans -- was just as consistent with democracy as Winston Churchill's public demands for the United States to help Great Britain fight the Nazis.
Pictured at left: British Prime Minister Winston Churchill addresses a joint session of the US Congress on December 27, 1941 (Image source: Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images). Pictured at right: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of the US Congress on March 3, 2015 (Image source: US House of Representatives/Wikimedia Commons).
American presidents, as well as Israeli prime ministers, seek to influence the policies and electoral choices made by their allies. That, too, is part of democracy. The United States has pressured Israel to stop building settlements, Israel has pressured the United States to be more aggressive in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal. This, too, is part of democracy.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is an American organization that lobbies on behalf of American support for Israel. Lobbying is as American as apple pie.
What is un-American, and what is undemocratic, is for secret agents working surreptitiously on behalf of Vladimir Putin's Russia to commit numerous crimes, for which several of its agents have been indicted, in an effort to influence American elections without transparency or public accountability.
Chomsky is smart enough to understand this, but his willful blindness toward anything involving Israel leads him to make the kind of false comparative statement that no intellectual should ever make. Again, only on Planet Chomsky would Russia's continuous efforts improperly to intervene in American elections would be characterized as "almost a joke." Only on Planet Chomsky would Israel's open, transparent and democratic efforts to have America support its security be deemed worse than Russia's crimes. But such blindness is to be expected from Chomsky when it comes to anything regarding Israel, Jews, or anti-Semitism.
Remember this is the same man who defended the so-called "research" of the notorious Holocaust-denier, Robert Faurisson. Not only did Chomsky defend Faurisson's phony research, but he denied that Faurisson -- who is a notorious Jew-hater -- had said anything that qualifies as anti-Semitic. Here is what Chomsky wrote:
"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work..."
Chomsky, who is a prominent linguist, knows nothing of the meaning of language in context. Holocaust denial is quintessentially anti-Semitic, because it falsely accuses the Jews of fabricating stories of the murder of six million Jews.
Experts understand that there are different kinds of intelligence. Chomsky may be intelligent when it comes to linguistics, but his statements regarding Israel, Russia, and the Holocaust are simply counter-factual. There is no other word for his bizarre views, if he actually believes them. If he does not, then there is another word that aptly describes his statements: bigotry.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of "The Case Against Impeaching Trump," Skyhorse publishing, 2018.
© 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.

Arab Spring' Yesterday and Today: The Tunisian Template
Tommaso Virgili/Gatestone Institute/August 02/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12793/arab-spring-yesterday-and-today-the-tunisian
A crucial recommendation of the report by Tunisia's Individual Freedoms and Equality Committee (COLIBE) is a call explicitly to define the country's vague criminal clauses that refer to 'public order' and 'morals.'
The calls to decriminalize homosexuality and blasphemy, and to equalize the inheritance rights of women with men, are opposed by political parties that claim to be post-Islamist but in practice kowtow to Islamic fundamentalists.
Now it is time for hesitant secular forces in Tunisia's parliament to embrace and implement COLIBE's recommendations.
And in the rest of the Muslim world?
As the world begins to understand what happened in the 'Arab Spring' that began in December 2010—and its ramifications today—the place where it was sparked is both a map and compass. Where did the movement come from and where is it going?
Of all the countries that took part in the Arab Spring, Tunisia is the one that most deserves the appellation 'free.'
But it is not quite there yet. This North African nation still has a long way to go. Its entrenched cultural and religious taboos are making the transition to true freedom a complicated process.
One indication of the challenges faced by the inheritors of Arab Spring is a recent report by the Individual Freedoms and Equality Committee, known by the acronym COLIBE.
Established in August 2017 by Tunisian President Béji Caïd Essebsi, the purpose of COLIBE is "the preparation of a reform project in accordance with the requirements of the Tunisian Constitution of 2014 and international human rights standards".
Tunisian President Béji Caïd Essebsi established the Individual Freedoms and Equality
The extent of Tunisia's proposed reforms, unprecedented in the Arab world, is fueling significant political controversy. The apparent purpose of the reforms is to bring to fruition the Kemalist path that inspired the founder of independent Tunisia, Habib Bourguiba.
Among the recommendations in COLIBE's report that have created the greatest sensation are the decriminalization of homosexuality and blasphemy (including affirmation of atheists' rights), and equality between men and women in rights of inheritance.
Currently, the Tunisian criminal code calls for three years of imprisonment for homosexuality, for both men and women. Male homosexuality is normally 'proven' by forced anal exams. COLIBE is calling for decriminalization of homosexuality and for a ban on the cruelty of anal exams, even if homosexuality remains illegal.
The calls to decriminalize homosexuality and blasphemy, and to equalize the inheritance rights of women with men, are opposed by political parties that claim to be post-Islamist but in practice kowtow to Islamic fundamentalists.
As for blasphemy, there is no law in Tunisia explicitly criminalizing contempt of the sacred. In practice, however, anything considered 'provocative' or 'nonconformist' is prosecuted as an attack on 'decency' and 'public morals'.
The nation's inequality in inheritance rights is the fruit of a clear Quranic injunction in Surah 4:11: 'Allah commands you as regards your children's (inheritance); to the male, a portion equal to that of two females....'
Tunisia's current law enforcing this command is one of the few tributes paid to Islam by the otherwise progressive Code of Personal Status, the civil code promulgated by the country's first leader after independence in 1956, Habib Bourguiba. The code is known, among other things, for explicitly banning polygamy.
For many in Tunisia, any attacks, real or imagined, against Islam and its decrees on sexual norms, are still considered unacceptable wounds inflicted on the culture and its values.
No surprise, then, that the progressive proposal by COLIBE has infuriated Tunisia's Islamist circles to the point of explicit threats against COLIBE's president, Bochra Bel Haj Hmida.
Even so-called secular parties have expressed no more than tepid support for the report and the proposed reforms.
The so-called "post-Islamist" party, Ennahda — a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot — has expressed its opposition to the COLIBE recommendations, although in a way that often reinforces ambiguous Muslim Brotherhood positions.
This form of ambiguity was witnessed during a public exchange with Ennahda's leader, Rached Ghannouchi, at the 2016 Mediterranean Dialogues in Rome. When asked by this author about his party's stance on the decriminalization of homosexuality, inheritance equality and the right of a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man, Ghannouchi avoided answering. The essence of his rhetorical dodge was a claim that he lacked religious credentials and that the constitution bestows 'freedom of conscience' on all members of Parliament.
In a written communiqué, the Ennahda party condemned the COLIBE report as a 'threat to the family's structure and society's cohesion,' but failed to specify the particular issues to which it was referring. The same communiqué further stressed that Tunisia is a civil state with a Muslim people, and that therefore it is necessary to find a compromise between freedom and Islamic identity, and to shy away from any 'exaggeration and extremism.' It also warned about the risk of stirring up issues that promote 'polarization and division.'
Such language is typical of radical Islamists, such as that used by Yusuf al-Qaradawi -- the Egyptian-born head of the Qatar-based International Union of Muslim Scholars -- on 'secular extremism'.
Such language is also part of Islamist rhetoric to characterize individual freedoms as an 'insult' to Muslim identity, that provoke the risk of fitna (impious division, rebellion, sedition) within society.
While Tunisia's Ennahda party has avoided using the loaded term fitna, the country's former Minister of Religious Affairs, Noureddine Khadmi, has not exhibited the same self-restraint, explicitly calling for a fatwa against the fitna that adopting COLIBE's report would provoke.
The significance of this fundamentalist Islamic position cannot be stressed enough. In Tunisia, as elsewhere in the Muslim world, "public morals", "sedition", "extremism", and the "religious sensitivities of the majority" are the very bases upon which criminal prosecutions are pursued against homosexuals and atheists.
For this very reason, another crucial recommendation of the COLIBE report is a call explicitly to define the country's vague criminal clauses that refer to "public order" and "morals."
While the COLIBE report is paving the way for a real liberal democracy in Tunisia, the legislative enactment of its recommendations is an uphill fight.
Still, it is a fight that must be fought.
Democracy is not defined by how the will of the majority is implemented. Democracy is defined by how the rights of the minority are guaranteed.
The recommendations put forth by the COLIBE are a necessary first step. Now it is time for hesitant secular forces in Tunisia's parliament to embrace and implement those recommendations.
Tunisia's strong and brave civil society, which has shown the power of its voice since the 2010 Arab Spring revolution in repelling the Islamist backlash, will not back down in this endeavor.
And in the rest of the Muslim world?
*Tommaso Virgili, who holds a Ph.D. in Comparative Constitutional Law, is based in Europe.
© 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.

Trump, Iran and the New Guns of August
James Stavridis/Bloomberg/August 03/18
In the hot summer of 1987, I was a young Navy officer sailing into the Arabian Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz onboard the Valley Forge, a brand new and heavily armed Aegis Cruiser. Our mission, code-named Ernest Will, was to escort merchant ships in and out of the Gulf, protecting them from the threat of Iranian cruise missiles and air attack. It was the midst of the Iran-Iraq War — which lasted eight years and cost more than half a million lives — and our job was to keep the global shipping lanes open while Iran sought to control the vital strait through which flows some 35 percent of the world's seaborne oil.
It was exciting and dangerous work. Over the next year, the US Navy would eventually attack the Iranian Navy, retaliating after one of our frigates was nearly sunk by an Iranian mine in Operation Praying Mantis. Eventually, Iraq and Iran settled their differences and an uneasy peace reigned between Arabs and Persians in the flat, hot, shallow waters of the Gulf, despite occasional flare-ups, for the next three decades.
Until now. The tension in the Gulf — and especially in the Strait of Hormuz — is rising again, and the echoes of those conflicts 30 years ago are getting louder. The presidents of Iran and the US this week exchanged harshly worded tweets (in 1987, a tweet was something a bird did on a spring morning) and oil markets are keeping a wary eye on developments. Israel released another cache of stolen Iranian documents showing the perfidy and determination of its nuclear program.
What would a conflict centered on the Strait of Hormuz look like? How long would it last? And above all, what is the best strategy the US could take toward Iran?
The uber-conflict in the region remains the religious and geopolitical tension between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran, each of whom has long-standing historical enmity toward the other. Iran is pushing hard, diplomatically and militarily, into a several Arab nations around the region: Iraq, Syria, Qatar, Lebanon and Yemen. Saudi Arabia, under the dynamic leadership of young, capable Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman, is determined to stop further Persian encroachment into the Arab world. The two nations share long coastlines of the Gulf, where they have fought for centuries. And the key to the entire area is the narrow sea entrance: the 30-mile wide Strait of Hormuz.
We know that Iran has detailed plans to close the strait. It would use a variety of means including widespread mining; swarms of small, ultrafast patrol boats; shore-based cruise missiles; manned aircraft; and diesel submarines. Iran would employ a “layered offense,” stationing diesels in the Arabian Sea on the other side of the strait to harass incoming merchant ships; swarming US and allied warships in the narrow confines of the strait itself; and mining sections of the shipping lanes.
All of this, of course, is illegal under international law, but would have the intended consequence of challenging the US and the Gulf Arabs while driving up oil prices exponentially. (Iran is able to export some oil from its southern coast, bypassing the strait, so its economy might suffer less than the Arabs'.)
When Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani talk about shutting down the strait, they mean it. They could accomplish it in just 48 to 72 hours, as commercial shipping, out of prudence and under pressure from insurers, would opt not to take the risk of passing through the waters.
In terms of a response, the US and its allies and coalition partners would certainly react strongly. Our Navy would attack Iranian ships attempting to lay mines; strike land-based air and cruise missile sites within range of the strait; sink Iranian diesel subs at their piers; and potentially launch punishing strikes against broader targets inside Iran (although initial responses would probably target only weapons and systems used in the strait closure in order to observe rules of war pertaining to proportionality).
In other words, just as Iran has detailed plans to close the strait, the U.S. has contingency plans to respond and reopen it. This would be a longer process than many people suspect, especially if Iran had the opportunity to put a significant number of mines into the water. Clearing mines is a laborious and time-consuming process, and could take weeks if not a month or two to accomplish.
President Donald Trump, who has long-held antipathy for Iran and hated the Obama administration's nuclear deal, reacted harshly when Khamenei made a thinly veiled reference to playing the Strait of Hormuz card if the US imposes additional sanctions. In doing so, Trump is taking a page from the US playbook for North Korea, betting that Khamenei and the hard-liners in Tehran will back down and choose a diplomatic path instead of war.
Unfortunately, the Iranians are far more ideological than Kim Jong Un. Kim is a gangster leader who will respond to monetary incentives; the ayatollahs are religious zealots, many of whom are willing to die to defy the Great Satan.
A better strategy for the US than angry tweets would be to craft an aggressive but sensible overall strategy toward Iran. The key components would include enhanced surveillance and intelligence-gathering; stronger missile defenses for key US bases in the region; more use of offensive cyber to preempt Iranian options; larger naval forces in the region, especially in the North Arabian Sea; and — above all — getting our European allies “on side” in the tougher sanctions regime.
The latter task will immeasurably harder following the debacles of the G-7 and NATO summits, where Trump went out of his way to offend allied leaders. The residual hard feelings in Europe are real, and will continue to cause significant division between the US administration and our best pool of partners in Europe. One hopes that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, two highly capable leaders, are working to bring our allies on board while crafting a thoughtful strategy to deal with the threat of Iran.
We have been here before, and managed to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and the global economy chugging along. But doing so this time will require a deft mix of hard and soft power and a coherent strategy for dealing with the very real Iranian threat.

What Trump Could Do For Iran
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/August 03/18
“To resist or not to resist?” In Tehran’s political circles these days that is the question. The prospect of fresh sanctions to be imposed by the United States and its allies has helped intensify the debate which has marked Iranian politics since the mullahs seized power in 1979.
At first glance the most common answer seems to be in favor of “resisting”, whatever form it might take. Over the past four decades the Khomeinist ruling elite has been divided between those called “the accommodationists” who have been prepared to seek a deal with the United States and those who refuse even talking to the “Great Satan”. The mullahs’ first Cabinet, headed by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, included five US citizens of Iranian origin and was thus dominated by the “accommodationists”. It contemplated a strategy of partnership with the United States to face the Soviet threat in the context of the Cold War. That strategy ever got off the ground as Bazargan and his pro-US group were swept away in the political tsunami triggered by the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran. Then began almost a decade of war and tension in which the pure revolutionists ran the show and marginalized the accommodationists. The sinking by the US navy of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard navy, followed by Khomeini’s abject retreat and subsequent death, closed that parenthesis as the “resistance” policy proved to be futile.
Then followed almost a decade of domination by the accommodationists who went to the extremes to befriend the ”Great Satan” on the sly. However, a decade of secret and later overt “dialogue” with the Great Satan proved equally fruitless, leading to a “resistance backlash” symbolized by the emergence of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President. As we know, that attempt at “resistance” also failed, doing possibly long-term damage to Iran’s economy and the nation’s social fabric.
The disastrous end of Ahmadinejad’s presidency gave the accommodationists a fresh chance to try their old and several times failed stratagems. The joint effort by US President Barack Obama and his Islamic counterpart Hassan Rouhani to dupe their respective audiences with the so-called “nuke deal” was hailed by many as an end of the vicious circle of accommodation-resistance. Now, however, we know that that chapter, too, has closed. Even the Islamic Foreign Minister Muhammad-Javad Zarif now admits that much. In a talk in Tehran last Sunday he claimed that even Obama, a “polite and friendly man”, had not been quite straight with his Khomeinist partners in duping the world.
Today, the Islamic Republic looks like a two-trick pony both of whose tricks have been exposed as sham and inefficient. It is, of course, not in the gift of a journalist to predict the future. But it seems to me that the Khomeinist regime will no longer be able to rely on either of its two tricks in the context of the usual cheat-and-retreat strategy to get itself off the hook at least for a while longer.
The reason for that failure is the regime’s inability to clearly spell out its case and tell the Iranians, and the world beyond them, why it is addicted to policies that have produced nothing but grief for all concerned.
It would be a good thing if the “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei were to appear on national television and tell Iranians precisely why it is in Iran’s interest to help Bashar al-Assad kill Syrians or what could be gained for prolonging the war in Yemen by supporting a rebel group that, regardless of the justice or injustice of their cause, have no chance of winning and, even if they won, would in no way contribute to Iran’s security and prosperity.
Until recently, one argument advanced by Khomeinists was that though the current policies, including a real or feigned enmity for the United States, may harm Iran’s interests as a nation they still serve the interests of ran as a vehicle for “Islamic Revolution.” In other words, sacrificing Iran’s national interests to the interests of the dominant ideology may have some rational explanation.
However, even that argument no longer holds. Thousands of deaths and billions spent in Syria have not only harmed Iran’s national interest but have also failed to secure any advancement for the Khomeinist ideology.
Having found a new and stronger protector in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Assad and his cohorts now regard the Islamic Republic as something of an embarrassment. It is no surprise that Assad has vetoed an Iranian plan to set up “cultural centers” in the so-called “newly liberated” areas of Syria, that is to say chunks of territory abandoned by the regime’s opponents. Iranian mullahs and their military associates are no longer flowing into Syria at will and when they arrive there, they are no longer treated with the deference they enjoyed five years ago.
Even in chunks of Yemen held by the Houthis, Iran is being pushed to the sidelines. In fact, the bulk of Iranian diplomatic and military personnel fanning the war in Yemen are now located in neighboring Oman.
Even in Lebanon, as a prominent pro-Tehran Lebanese newspaper editor noted recently, the Islamic Republic risks losing its influence because of the increasing difficulties it faces in paying its allies and mercenaries.
The daily Kayhan, believed to reflect Khamenei’s views, still boasts about the Islamic Republic’s success in having Gen. Michel Aoun elected President of Lebanon. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that, while trying not to ruffle the mullahs’ feathers, Aoun is so full of himself as not to be a mere puppet for Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
The looming crisis in Iran may be an opportunity for Iranians, both in the regime and those opposed to it, to decide whether they wish Iran to behave like a vehicle for a bankrupt ideology or like a nation-state with the legitimate, quantifiable and rationally analyzable interests of a nation-state.
I am not a fan of historic comparisons. But the dilemma that Iran faces today has been faced by other nations that experienced a revolution. President Richard Nixon helped the People’s Republic of China face that dilemma and choose translating itself into a nation-state. President Ronald Reagan played a similar role in the case of the Soviet Union, helping the rebirth of Russia, and 14 other republics, as nation-states. Today, President Donald Trump has a similar opportunity with Iran by encouraging its transformation from the vehicle of a sick ideology into a regular member of the community of nations. This is not about a strategy of sanctions and/or war as an end in itself. Nor is it about playing a new version of Obama’s diplomatic chicanery. Trump must show the leadership in Tehran that it can no longer play the old tricks either of cheat-and-retreat or of ersatz resistance.
The aim is to help Iran cure itself of the disease of Khomeinism and regain its health as a nation.

Who invaded Kuwait in the summer of 1990?
Mashari Althaydi/Al Arabiya/August 03/18
It’s the 28th anniversary of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait which happened on August 2, 1990. It’s certainly a fresh wound in the Kuwaiti sentiment or rather in the Saudi or the people of the Gulf or the Arab sentiment. What proves that this wound still suffers pain is the loud controversy caused by the comments of the Iraqi envoy in Kuwait when he called on the Kuwaiti government to adopt the term “the Saddam invasion,” in reference to Saddam Hussein, instead of the “Iraqi invasion” in the country’s educational curricula. This suggestion aims to limit the incident – which is one of the events the times – of Kuwait’s invasion by the Iraqi army and that was led by Saddam Hussein to one person or perhaps to one family or tribe or even to the glorious Baathist Party of the solemn Saddam Hussein. According to the Kuwaiti news agency (KUNA), the current Iraqi government spokesperson Saad al-Hadithi said within the context of a report that combines maintaining the memory and the desire to work with today’s Iraq: “The normal situation of the two countries is what was before 1990, i.e. before it was contaminated by the former regime’s invasion of Kuwait.”However, modern history stipulates that the former regime, the buried regime, according to the principles of the current Iraqi media, which is the Saddam Hussein regime, is not the first to revive Iraq’s big dream of restoring the branch to the original, ever since the days of Ghazi of Iraq till the days of “comrade” Abd al-Karim Qasim. The insistence of Kuwait and its people, and Saudi Arabia’s embracement, mainly, and the international shield protected Kuwait from these political whims and this should continue to be the case when these whims wake up again. Burying history means repeating mistakes and misleading subsequent generations from specifying people’s real interests at moments of destructive danger
Intellectual shabbiness
Vigilance today must be double the vigilance before because the culture that governs “influential” parties, militias and parties in Iraq has enough intellectual shabbiness, political immaturity and Soleimani (in reference to Qassem Soleimani) ideological myths which are much more than Saddam Hussein’s myths and his lectures about Arabism. The aim of keeping the memory alive is not to nurture grudges but to read what happened accurately and carefully because history, as we know, is a book that’s always open to more discoveries. The aim of this analysis is to learn by example, as in the name of the book “Sermons and Learning by Example” by great Egyptian historian Al-Maqrizi who died in 1442. Burying history means repeating mistakes and misleading subsequent generations from specifying people’s real interests at moments of destructive danger. The Iraqi authorities’ invasion of Kuwait in 1990 is something which specifically Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must examine well and enrich themselves about, not to satisfy the heat of anger but to enrich the mind. Wise remembrance turns the old wound into a live historical witness.
All what’s been written above is about Iraq’s rulers and not about its people.

Will the UK reintroduce treason laws?
Dr. Azeem Ibrahim/Al Arabiya/August 03/18
With ISIS in Syria and Iraq almost fully defeated, western nations now have to contend what to do with hundreds of fighters who left their shores to make the long journey to establish the caliphate but now wish to return.
Different countries it seems have adopted different strategies. For example, the Dutch and some other European countries have a de-radicalization program already in place, awaiting the returnees. At the other end of the spectrum, the US will simply arrest them and put them through an aggressive domestic legal system. There are also reports of a major European country having dispatched their special forces to work with the Iraqis to “retire” ISIS fighters ensuring none of them ever have the chance to come back. The UK on the other hand has embraced a shrewder approach. The have simply stripped identified ISIS members of their nationality and passport ensuring they are no longer the problem of the UK government. This has caused much consternation with civil rights activists with many arguing that the UK must not abandon basic legal principles and in fact what is needed is new legislation to deal with this new threat as it is clear that current laws are insufficient. I believe that if there is strong evidence, that someone has been an active and willing member of ISIS, the state should come down on them with its full force. I also believe that the traditional offences, which Britain charges potential terrorists with are not enough.
British subjects who plot to destroy the fabric of British life, destroy government buildings, transport or businesses, who sow fear into the seam of the daily life, who seek to rupture the day-to-day workings of the British economy or the business of state, or who act to spread disorder and fear, should be considered not just terrorists, but traitors. They should be charged with treason. This would not be so new – it used to be used against Irish insurgents. Treason, after all, essentially means betraying one’s nation. All British nationals owe allegiance to the Queen, wherever they are. If you have the privilege to have a British passport, you should not be plotting violence against her subjects. If there is strong evidence, that someone has been active and willing member of ISIS, the state should come down on them with full force
Counterargument
The main counterargument would probably be that such terrorists have not committed treason. Arson, murder, terrorism or other violent crimes, perhaps; but treason – no. But I would argue that although these latter offences might speak to the specific physical characteristics of the crime, they don’t address the mental one – those of the intention of the crime – at all. A terrorist is not the same as someone trying to cause physical damage who does not know why. They are seeking very specifically to rupture British security as a nation, damage our institutions, and disrupt the quality of British daily life. And here’s the point. They do not want to do these things to damage a building or cause injuries in a crowd. They want to do them because these things are British. That deserves its own form of recognition in law, and ‘treason’ is the offence which best captures it. The offence of treason would also bring with it other benefits, first and foremost automatic heavy punishments. Britain has abolished the death penalty, and so the old institutional punishment for treason is not available. But it seems logical that this modern form of treason be automatically punishable by the nearest equivalent – a life sentence. This should not be the kind of life sentence, which, after time off for good behaviour, means a few years. It should mean life, without parole, or the possibility of parole. This would be the start of making a link, which should be fundamental to our national life. If you are British, you do not plot against Britain. If you want the protections, security, services, and yes, freedoms which this country has fought to be able to give its citizens over centuries, then you do not respond with violence. In short, it is high time we brought the offence of treason back. These terrorists are not just criminals – they are traitors. The legal system should acknowledge it. I would wager it would make us all safer as well.

Iraq’s minister of electricity: A Scapegoat
Adnan Hussein/Al Arabiya/August 03/18
The motives and aims of suspending Iraq’s electricity minister, cannot deceive anyone, even the credulous. It is a ‘trick’ that has often been used in Iraq in particular as well as in the Middle East and in other countries. Those who resort to this trick the most are the most pious rulers and who actually only appear pious, like our current rulers. The prime minister should have “played” a game other than this scapegoat goat. The current electricity minister whom Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has suspended, is not the only person responsible for the ongoing electricity crisis facing the country.
The electricity ministry is not the only ministry that should bear responsibility for this crisis, which has been ongoing for 15 years now.
In fact, Abadi and his government are responsible for this problem, along with previous governments and their premiers, especially Nuri al-Maliki whose term covered over half of the 15-year period since the fall of Saddam.
His two governments held more than three-quarters of the state’s foreign currency revenues, most of them emanating from oil exports. Iraq’s central bank announced recently that the receipts of the Ministry of Finance from foreign currency from 2005 to 2017 totaled $706.23 billion, which is huge amount. However, we do not find any visible impact of this wealth on Iraq’s economy. We do not find the construction of any dam, international freeway, large power station, a big strategic industrial or agricultural project nor even a cultural center or an art house or public library being made with this money!At the heart of this complex crisis is administrative and financial corruption which has siphoned off billions of dollars from public development to the personal accounts of state officials
Wider problem
In addition, the Iraqis’ ordeal is not limited to electricity generation issues. It is a much bigger and wider problem and covers issues related to water, security, judiciary, agriculture, industry, health, environment, transportation, education, communication and municipal services.
At the heart of this complex crisis is administrative and financial corruption which has siphoned off billions of dollars from public development to the personal accounts of state officials, such as prime ministers, presidents, speakers of parliament and their deputies, their consultants and office employees as well as ministers, MPs, deputy ministers, heads and members of the councils of “independent” commissions, general managers, governors, heads of the provincial councils and the ones reporting to them — in other words the entire government from its head to all parts of its body is steeped in corruption, except for a few, small departments. This administrative and financial corruption is rampant in the state and the society like a cancer in its final stages. It is entrenched in the quota system, which in turn is a problem caused by a deficient constitution, unfair laws and improper work norms that were willingly adhered to by the leaders of influential parties. Neither suspending the minister of electricity nor the suspension of agriculture, industry, health or education ministers etc., would revive the collapsing state. Another road map should be drawn to get out the country out of this crisis and overcome this ordeal. This map is very simple and it’s been accurately and clearly drawn by the demands of the recent protest movement and those preceding it since 2011. Just look at what the protesters enunciate to realize the map.

Iranian protesters blame Tehran, not Washington, for their woes
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/August 03/18
Large-scale protests erupted in several Iranian cities on Tuesday and continue to grow, in what Iranian activists describe as a continuation of a nationwide anti-government movement that began in late December.
The latest unrest broke out in the major cities of Isfahan, Karaj, Shiraz, Rasht and Tabriz. Many of the protesters initially took to the streets to express their outrage over the ongoing crisis caused by unemployment and currency devaluation, but the demonstrations quickly took on a political tone, with calls for the ouster of the Iranian government.
On Monday, the value of the Iranian rial fell to record lows, trading at a rate of more than 120,000 to the dollar. The protests, which began the following day, made it clear that the Iranian people place the blame for their economic hardships squarely on the mismanagement and corruption of the ruling regime.
“The enemy is here; they are lying when they say it is America,” protesters in Isfahan chanted, according to the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), which is credited with playing a leading role in the ongoing nationwide protests. There were no slogans targeting the Americans or the imminent return of US-led sanctions, which are due to be reimposed on Aug. 6. The regime is bracing itself for the return of these economic sanctions, which were suspended in 2015 under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal. Their reintroduction comes after US President Donald Trump pulled out of the agreement in May. In addition, secondary sanctions on foreign entities that continue to do business in Iran will come back into effect in November, placing even greater pressure on the Iranian economy.
Washington has indicated that its goal is to cut off Iran’s oil exports entirely, and the mere threat of such assertive measures appears to be exacerbating a crisis in the Iranian economy that began even while the JCPOA was still in full effect.
The White House and Trump have issued statements expressing support for the protesters, whose slogans similarly emphasize that the conflict is between the Iranian government and its people. They taunted the country’s two political factions: “Reformists, hard-liners: The game is over.” This, along with equally provocative chants such as “Death to the Dictator,” leave little room for doubt that the string of protests, including those that broke out this week, are largely driven by a demand for regime change.
The current protests are a continuation of a nationwide anti-government movement that began in late December. The predictable crackdowns by the state began in early 2018. According to MEK, about 8,000 peaceful protesters were arrested, many of whom were threatened with death sentences. Fifty demonstrators were shot dead in the streets, and more than a dozen died while being tortured in the custody of Iranian authorities.
Similarly repressive efforts have, of course, emerged in the wake of subsequent protests, including those that broke out on Tuesday. But a number of video clips provided by MEK activists show the demonstrators pushing back against riot police and agents of the clerical regime. In some cases, this civilian resistance appears to have compelled government forces to retreat or withdraw. In Isfahan and elsewhere, the government’s failure to disperse the protesters allowed the demonstrations to continue into a second day, at which point further clashes between activists and government authorities were reported.
Tuesday’s political protests coincided with the 11th consecutive day of a nationwide strike by Iranian truck drivers. A previous strike broke up following serious clashes with regime authorities, but the demonstrations resumed and gave rise to new clashes on July 23, before spreading to 130 locations in Iran.
Anti-government protests also resumed in Karaj for the third night. Demonstrators chanted “Down with the Dictator” and “Guns, tanks, get lost mullahs.” The security forces charged toward the protesters but they held firm. As the government forces retreated, and then fled, the demonstrators set fire to police motorbikes. Emboldened by their successful defiance of the police, the protesters began to chant, “Beware the day we take up arms.”
“As long as the dictator (Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei) stands,” they shouted, “the uprising will continue.” That sentiment was echoed by Iranian opposition leader Maryam Rajavi, who wrote: “The Iranian people’s nationwide uprising is growing by the day...threatening the mullahs’ religious dictatorship.”
“Today,” Rajavi wrote in her response on Twitter to the latest protests, “the world can see that the voice of Iranians cannot be silenced despite massive repression, and their uprisings are carrying on until victory.”
These protests are a continuation of a nationwide anti-government movement that began in late December. They are of a political and economic nature, and more than likely will continue to grow, potentially endangering the hold on power of the Iranian regime.
• Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman and president of the International American Council.
Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh