Detailed Lebanese & Lebanese Related LCCC English New Bulletin For August 31/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.august31.18.htm

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

Iran and the Misleading Internet Propaganda
Salman Al-dossary//Asharq Al-Awsat/August, 30/18
Not only have the US sanctions besieged the Iranian regime, as Internet giants interfered to stop Tehran’s illegal attempts to influence Internet users around the world, after Reuters revealed Wednesday a wide platform of Iranian anonymous websites and accounts on social media in 11 different languages, where the network publishes information in several languages including English, French, Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Pashto, Russian, Hindi, Azerbaijani, Turkish and Spanish.
Ten websites have been discovered, along with hundreds of fake Iranian accounts on various sites such as YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. Iran’s International Union of Virtual Media (IUVM) uses its network of sites, including YouTube, the breaking news service, the mobile phone application store and the network of satirical images in order to disseminate information from the Iranian television, the government news agency (FARS), and Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV network. This information goes to fictitious pages that appear to be reliable news sites from the United States or the United Kingdom. Then, these sites publish their news on the network without the readers being able to know the source of the information and whether it is correct.
The disclosure of the network comes as Facebook and other companies say many social networking accounts and websites are part of an Iranian project to secretly influence public opinion in other countries.
Iran’s misleading propaganda is a simple part of a major strategy through which the public opinion of any country is manipulated and guided so that it appears to be emanating from within, while the magnitude of the negative impact coming from outside is devastating. This strategy has not only exploited the great chaos of social media, but also the reliable sites on the Internet, to give great credibility to the false information when promoted on social networking platforms.
This has led a number of technology companies to launch a war against the Iranian government, after accusing it of being behind operations of “misleading propaganda” over the internet, which have targeted users in many countries of the world, beginning with the United States, the United Kingdom and some countries in the Middle East.
Facebook and Twitter have both announced that they have deleted hundreds of accounts, most of which are located in Iran, when they turned out to be adopting a coordinated “misleading behavior.” The two companies have received information from FireEyes for electronic security, confirming that the accounts promote Iranian propaganda including a discussion on issues that are against several countries in the Middle East, mainly Saudi Arabia. Google then announced the removal of 39 channels on YouTube linked to state-run Islamic Republic of Iranian Broadcasting (IRIB).
Without strict international laws to combat misinformation coming from the internet, it would be impossible to control the social networks that have become the spearhead through which billions of people exchange false information.
Without clear mechanisms by the internet giants - Google and Twitter – that help to speed up the closure of accounts that mislead and spread extremism and fabricated news, misinformation and deception will continue on a large scale. Unfortunately, misleading propaganda cannot be discovered until it has falsified facts and published thousands of false news among billions of people.
As much as the internet provides great positive services to more than three billion people in the world, it has become at the same time a threat to internet users because it is now manipulated for purposes far from the goals of British Inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who says he is "concerned" about his invention 29 years after he presented the original proposal for the Web that the world needs every day.

Italy: Interior Minister Accused of Kidnapping Migrants
"Being investigated for defending the rights of Italians is a disgrace."
Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute/August 30/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12936/italy-interior-minister-kidnapping
"The investigation notice sent to [Interior Minister Matteo] Salvini could in fact be seen as a direct attempt to prevent a minister from carrying out his political activity in accordance with the vote expressed by the majority of Italians on the basis of precise electoral commitments." — Gianni Alemanno, former Mayor of Rome, denouncing the investigation into Salvini as unconstitutional.
"I am amazed at the astonishment of a political left that now exists only to challenge others and believes that Milan should not host the president of a European power, as if the left has the authority to decide who has the right to speak and who does not — and then they wonder why no one votes for them anymore." — Matteo Salvini, Italian Interior Minister.
Opinion polls show that Salvini's anti-immigration stance has boosted his League party's approval rating.
Italy's Interior Minister Matteo Salvini is under formal investigation for "kidnapping" after he refused to allow illegal migrants to disembark from a ship at a Sicilian port. The investigation, a political move aimed at blunting the government's hardline stance on illegal immigration, has threatened to plunge Italy into a constitutional crisis over the separation of powers.
Sicilian Prosecutor Luigi Patronaggio said that the investigation into Salvini, the head of the anti-immigration League party, would focus on "kidnapping, illegal arrest and the abuse of power."
Salvini responded:
"If he wants to interrogate me or even arrest me because I defend the borders and security of my country, I am proud and I look forward to it with open arms. Being investigated for defending the rights of Italians is a disgrace."
Salvini added that we could not be "cowed" and that he would not reserve his right to immunity from prosecution: "I only did my job as minister and I am ready to do it again."
The investigation was initiated after Salvini, who is also deputy prime minister, prevented 150 mostly Eritrean migrants from leaving the Italian Coast Guard ship Diciotti unless other European Union member states agreed to take some of them in.
On August 15, the Diciotti rescued approximately 190 migrants from the Mediterranean Sea, and on August 20, the ship docked in Catania, Sicily. Roughly 30 unaccompanied minors were allowed to disembark, and subsequently another 13 women and men were allowed to leave the ship for medical reasons.
Salvini refused to allow the remaining passengers to disembark, arguing that other EU member states should share the burden of mass migration. More than 600,000 migrants arrived in Italy over the past four years. Under EU rules — known as the Dublin Regulation — migrants must seek asylum in their country of arrival, which, for reasons of geography, places an inordinate burden on Italy.
On August 22, Deputy Prime Minister Luigi Di Maio tweeted:
"Italy is no longer the refugee camp of Europe. On my orders, no one disembarks from the Diciotti."
On August 23, Di Maio threatened to withhold Italian payments to the European Union if a top-level EU meeting in Brussels scheduled for August 24 failed to find a long-term solution to the issue of migrant rescues. In an interview on Italian TV, which he also posted on his Facebook account, Di Maio said:
"If tomorrow nothing comes out of the European Commission meeting, if they decide nothing regarding the Diciotti and the redistribution of the migrants, the whole Five Star Movement [Di Maio's party] and I will no longer be prepared to give €20 billion euros ($23 billion) to the European Union every year."
On August 24, after the EU meeting failed — predictably — to produce a solution for the Diciotti migrants, Di Maio wrote on Facebook:
"Today the European Union has decided to turn its back on Italy once again. At this point, Italy must take unilateral measures. We are ready to cut the funds we give to the European Union. They want €20 billion paid by Italian citizens? Let them demonstrate that they deserve it by taking charge of a problem that we can no longer tackle alone. The borders of Italy are the borders of Europe."
European Commission spokesman Alexander Winterstein responded:
"Let's not engage in finger-pointing. Unconstructive comments, let alone threats, are not helpful and they will not get us any closer to a solution. The EU is a community of rules and it operates on the basis of rules, not threats."
In a subsequent interview with the public broadcaster RAI, De Maio said:
"The EU was born of principles like solidarity. If it is not capable of redistributing 170 people, it has serious problems with its founding principles."
On August 26, the Italian government announced that the remaining 150 migrants would be allowed to disembark after a deal was struck with the Roman Catholic Church, Albania and Ireland. Under the agreement, Italian bishops pledged to take most of the migrants under their care. The migrants will go to a Catholic center at Rocca di Papa near Rome. Albania, which is not an EU member, and Ireland, which is an EU member, would each take 20 people.
Speaking to League supporters, Salvini said:
"Do you know where some of the migrants will end up as they disembark in the next few hours? In a miraculous result, unseen for the last 20 years, some of the migrants will go to Albania.
"In this instance, the Albanian government showed to be better than the French government.
"I say thank you to Albania and shame on you to France as well as all of the others that couldn't be bothered to care.
"A lot of talk but very little action from them."
The former Mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, denounced the investigation into Salvini as unconstitutional:
"As Secretary of the National Movement for Sovereignty, I have asked our legal department to verify the possibility of denouncing Prosecutor Patronaggio pursuant to Article 294 of the Penal Code, which sanctions 'attacks against political rights of the citizens.' Why such a move? This article states: 'Anyone who violates, threatens or deceives completely or partially and prevents the exercise of a political right is punished with imprisonment from one to five years in application of Articles 48 and 49 of the Constitution."
"The investigation notice sent to Salvini could in fact be seen as a direct attempt to prevent a minister from carrying out his political activity in accordance with the vote expressed by the majority of Italians on the basis of precise electoral commitments."
Alemanno added that the national interest is not to suffer "the invasion of illegal immigrants in the complete indifference of Europe." This is why "the courageous and difficult choices of Salvini," which are "connected to these objectives," are the consequence of an "explicit mandate given by the voters in the exercise of their political rights." Therefore, Alemanno said, Salvini must not be prosecuted.
European Parliament President Antonio Tajani, an Italian, said that it was unwise criminally to prosecute a policy like Salvini's hardline stance on immigration:
"You cannot try a political stance. In the end, Salvini will be acquitted by the ministerial court and then it becomes only a propaganda clash that does not solve the real problem: neither the immigration problem nor the that of the separation of powers."
Former President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies Pier Ferdinando Casini said that the investigation was a purely political move:
"The Public Prosecutor of Agrigento [Sicily], Luigi Patronaggio, yesterday kicked off the campaign for the European elections [to be held in May 2019]. This has happened and will always happen every time the policies of politics and justice are confused."
Accusations that Patronaggio's investigation into Salvini is motivated by politics appears to be confirmed by a September 2017 interview with La Stampa, in which the prosecutor shared Salvini's position on illegal immigration:
"The reasons why migrants arrive in Italy may not only be linked to economic needs. There are people who do not want to be identified, people already expelled from Italy in the past or just released with amnesty from Tunisian prisons or maybe that took part in the 2011 riots [Tunisian Revolution in January 2011]
"Among them there may also be people linked to international terrorism, which is why I think we are facing a dangerous immigration."
Opinion polls show that Salvini's anti-immigration stance has boosted his League party's approval rating to around 30% — more than a 10 point jump from its showing in the March 2018 election — and is now level with the Five Star Movement with which it has governed Italy since early June.
Almost 60% of Italians favor closing the country's ports to migrant ships, according to the polling firm, Ipsos Italia, in a recent survey published by Corriere della Sera.
*Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.
© 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.

Is Canada Prepared for the Threat of Returning Jihadists?
هل كندا جاهزة لمواجهة خطر عودة الجهاديين
A. Z. Mohamed/Gatestone Institute/August 30/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/67106/a-z-mohamed-gatestone-institute-is-canada-prepared-for-the-threat-of-returning-jihadists-%D9%87%D9%84-%D9%83%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7-%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%B2%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D8%A7/
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12921/canada-returning-jihadists
Canada's intelligence service stated that some 60 "returnees" -- fighters who had returned to Canada -- "have the potential to pose a significant threat to our national security." In other words, there are dozens of jihadis roaming free in Canada, without being apprehended or charged by authorities.
The noise surrounding the debate over jihadist returnees has been drowning out the country's intelligence service assessment about the threat they pose to Canada's national security -- a threat that the Trudeau government is ill-prepared, ill-equipped and ideologically ill-suited to confront.
Prevention, investigation and prosecution of terrorists should be the top priority, ahead of rehabilitation and reintegration.
According to the website of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), under the section "National Security Threats - Terrorism":
"Terrorism, including terrorist travel and the radicalization of Canadians, is the most prominent threat to Canadian interests and our national security. The intelligence community has never before faced a terrorist threat of this scope, scale, and complexity."
The CSIS text, last modified on January 27, 2017, also notes that, despite ISIS's huge losses, "its ideology continues to hold global appeal, including among susceptible Canadians," and Canadians with extremist Muslim views "continue to engage in a range of terrorist activity, in Canada and abroad."
By January 2017, CSIS was aware of:
"approximately 180 individuals with a nexus to Canada who are engaged in terrorist activity abroad, approximately half believed to be in Syria or Iraq.
"The activities of these extremist travellers vary widely, ranging from planning operations, training, and logistical support, to fundraising and studying at extremist institutions."
The number of "people suspected of travelling overseas to engage in terrorist activity" increased to about 250 by November 2017, according to Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale.
CSIS also stated that some 60 "returnees" -- fighters who had returned to Canada -- "have the potential to pose a significant threat to our national security." In other words, there are dozens of jihadis roaming free in Canada, without being apprehended or charged by authorities.
CSIS noted that returnees may behave in a number of different ways, "from returning to normality, to radicalizing others, to financing or facilitating the travel of others, or to engage in attack planning." Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party government and its supporters in academia and the media, however, seem to focus mainly on a wish that the returnees' resume normal lives, and promote the argument that such people are open to rehabilitation. The government has thus chosen to welcome the returnees with open arms, and to aim, seemingly by wishing, for their rehabilitation and re-integration; it also has an array of flawed excuses to support its choice.
Goodale, however, although he says that the chance of reintegrating returning ISIS fighters is "pretty remote."
"Goodale admits pursuing charges against these people is difficult. So far charges have been brought in two cases since the Liberals came to power. The challenge, Goodale said, is in translating intelligence that Canadian security agencies have on these people into evidence that will stick in court."
Meanwhile, Lorne Dawson, project director for the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society (TSAS) -- which receives money for research through a fund administered by the Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence, established by the federal government -- claims that returnees can be rehabilitated.
"Dawson said that many terrorist travellers are disillusioned by the time they return home, and others suffer from trauma. Others, he said, may be focused on returning to a more normal life after feeling they have fought for their cause overseas.
"'No credible expert in the world thinks you arrest your way out of jihadist radicalization -- it's a social movement,' Dawson told the Canadian Press. 'You can't possibly arrest all the people who are engaged with this ideology.'"
It is not clear whether Dawson's statements are based solely on "talking with" returnees. He seems to be misinforming Canadians by blurring the distinction between jihadist ideology and mainstream Islam, and between jihadist ideology and operational or actual jihad. It is notable that, while touting rehabilitation, Dawson also skillfully avoids taking responsibility for his position, by saying: "You could rehabilitate them... but only with a very careful effort, which we're not well-equipped for in Canada right now."
The noise surrounding the debate over jihadist returnees has been drowning out the country's intelligence service assessment about the threat they pose to Canada's national security -- a threat that the Trudeau government is ill-prepared, ill-equipped and ideologically ill-suited to confront.
This is not to say that there should be no debate or discussion. On the contrary, containing the threat posed by jihadist returnees should not be one-dimensional. However, prevention, investigation and prosecution of terrorists should be the top priority, ahead of rehabilitation and reintegration. The appointment of a special prosecutor to handle terrorism-related trials and the development of precise rules and guidance in the collection and use of secret intelligence in court cases are urgently recommended.
**A.Z. Mohamed is a Muslim born and raised in the Middle East.
© 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.

Does an organized opposition to Tehran regime exist?
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/August 30/18
When it comes to Iran’s opposition and dissidents, the regime has long been investing significant political and financial capital in running covert disinformation campaigns, propagating fake news, and misleading the public, both domestically and globally.
The Iranian regime and its loyalists have capitalized on disseminating several key arguments and narratives. Some of these arguments include: There exists no opposition against the Islamic Republic; if there are any oppositional groups, they are scattered, trivial, weak and unorganized; those who oppose the Islamic Republic are “monafeghin” — hypocrites, or betrayers.
Mastering the skill of creating inflammatory mantras, the regime has also coined slogans against the opposition, such as “marg bar monafeghin,” meaning “death to the hypocrites.”
There are several objectives behind such efforts by the ruling mullahs. The theocratic establishment is trying to delegitimize its opposition, to divide and conquer, as well as to project to the international community that no credible and legitimate alternative to the Islamic Republic exists.
As a result, the regime seeks to illustrate that the only option for the Iranian people and the international community is to accept the current political rule. To debunk the regime’s fallacy, one issue ought to be addressed adequately: Is there an organized and robust Iranian opposition?
In order for an oppositional group, or any political organization or social movement, to be considered formidable and legitimate, it ought to meet several critical characteristics. These include: Having strong leadership; sociopolitical and socioeconomic influence; clear objectives; written rules; transparency; inclusiveness and accountability; enjoying considerable support from various sectors; launching effective and dynamic campaigns; having dedicated and active followers; being organized into clear organizational divisions; and being politically and financially independent from outside influence and interests.
Regardless of whether some may agree or disagree with the mission of a particular political organization, if the party has these qualities then it is undoubtedly strong and influential.
After the extensive research I have conducted based on the aforementioned factors, when it comes to Iran’s opposition, one group appears to meet these characteristics: The National Council for Resistance of Iran (NCRI). In other words, the Iranian regime’s argument that there exists no organized opposition is totally inaccurate.  In terms of sociopolitical and socioeconomic influence, as well as organizational qualities and support from people, the NCRI does wield a noticeable amount of power. Every year, the NCRI organizes the world’s largest gathering of those who advocate freedom and democracy in Iran. The mass “Free Iran” rally is held in Paris every year.
The event attracts tens of thousands of people, who come together from all around the world in order to make their voices heard, and in the hope of freeing and liberating their homeland. They rally and demand regime change in Iran, advocating for a democratic, non-extremist, pluralistic, and non-fundamentalist government. Despite the Iranian regime’s efforts to portray a sham picture that there is no organized opposition to its rule, the NCRI is a robust group with influence, strong leadership and a clear mission.
The oppositional group enjoys support from ordinary people and also from hundreds of prominent international personalities, notable politicians, dozens of Nobel laureates, and important lawmakers from the US (from both the Democratic and Republican parties), France, other European countries (both liberals and conservatives), Canada, Australia and large delegations from Arab and Middle Eastern nations.
The opposition group also frequently organizes other campaigns and rallies, such as in Washington and in front of the UN in New York, to raise awareness and protest against the Iranian regime’s human rights violations.
In addition, the group is the oldest Iranian opposition group, with its origins dating back to the 1960s. An organization that has survived more than 50 years and two political establishments — the theocratic rule of the Islamic Republic and the autocratic establishment of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi — cannot be considered an unimportant political party.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the group’s goals, it should be given credit for abiding by the same mission for over five decades: Setting up a democratic, inclusive and pluralistic system of governance in Iran. This mission meant advocating for regime change under the Shah and later under the ayatollahs.
When it comes to influence and having connections inside Iran, the NCRI has shown its political clout to the international community. It was this oppositional group, not the International Atomic Energy Agency or the US, which first revealed Iran’s clandestine nuclear activities at two major sites, Natanz and Arak, in 2002. The group has continued to reveal significant intelligence about Iran’s covert activities in connection with its ballistic missile and nuclear programs. Due to the NCRI’s connections in Iran, its information is said to have a high level of credibility. Frank Pabian, an adviser on nuclear non-proliferation matters at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, previously told the New York Times that the NCRI is “right 90 percent of the time.”
In sum, despite the Iranian regime’s efforts to portray a sham picture that there is no organized or legitimate oppositional group against its rule, a robust opposition with influence, strong leadership and clear mission does exist.
* 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

Iranian expansionism likely to be first victim of US sanctions
Ellen R. Wald/Arab News/August 30/18
The new sanctions against Iran are technically imposed by only one country: The US. However, because Washington has threatened to impose secondary sanctions on countries that do not abide by them, most other countries will likely comply. As a result, the effect of the sanctions is a global denial of economic activity with Iran. Nevertheless, it is vital to understand that these sanctions are actually the work of just one country and as such are intended to pursue the interests of that country.
The primary interest of the US vis-a-vis Iran is to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power. It is now abundantly clear that Iran has desired nuclear weapons technology for some time. The US considers this possibility to be a direct threat to the safety of the country and its people, as well as a threat to America’s Middle East allies. There is the fear that this technology, in the hands of a revolutionary Iranian regime, would be used to further destabilize the region, impose Iran’s will, and possibly empower terrorist organizations. However, Iran has proven committed to its nuclear ambitions and it may take a while for the new sanctions to work in this regard.
Another important goal of the US sanctions is to compel Iran to return American citizens who are being held hostage by the regime in Evin Prison on bogus charges. Unlike the previous American administration, the Trump White House has made it clear that it considers the return of American hostages vital. Also, in a shift from its predecessor, the Trump administration seems unwilling to pay ransoms for the hostages currently held by Iran. Rather, the US is using pressure and threats against Iran in the hope of securing the release of Americans. It is a tactic that the US recently used successfully to free three Americans from North Korea and is currently using to try to free an American pastor being held in Turkey. However, Iran has recently used its hostages as bargaining chips so it may not free Americans until it is absolutely forced to or is given something substantial in return.
The poor state of Iran’s economy means the regime’s terrorism and paramilitary support just might be its first rogue policy to be hit by the strength of US sanctions.
On the other hand, the sanctions may ultimately prove most successful in the short term at effectuating a third goal, even more than they may be effective in preventing nuclear proliferation and securing the freedom of captive Americans. That is, the sanctions may be most successful at reducing Iran’s deleterious interference in other countries regionally and even beyond. Iranian support of terrorist groups, as well as direct influence by its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, threatens regional and international stability. Iran supports terrorist or paramilitary groups in Gaza, Yemen and Lebanon. It sends its own forces into Syria and Iraq. From an American perspective, recent revelations that Iran assisted Al-Qaeda, allegedly planned a bomb attack in Paris and has sent agents to scope out buildings in the US brought home the need to restrict its militant activities on the international scene.
It seems possible that the US sanctions could actually have the greatest and most immediate impact on Iran’s international expansionist actions. Over the past year, even before the new US sanctions were announced, Iran has been experiencing widespread economic protests, strikes and demonstrations. A major theme coming out of many of these protests is anger over the amount of money and effort the regime spends abroad, while the Iranian economy struggles. These protests have blamed the Iranian government for failing to provide clean water and for the massive currency devaluations that are harming Iranian businesses and sapping the savings and purchasing power of Iranian citizens. Protesters have called out the Iranian regime for focusing on activities in Syria and Gaza while ignoring the plight of its people at home.
If the protests in Iran are any indication, the regime may be forced to cut back or perhaps halt its international expansionist activities as a result of pressure from its people, who are struggling under an already poor economy. Iran might no longer be able to afford its support of terrorism and military expansionism while its people suffer. Now, the US-imposed economic sanctions will only exacerbate the economic problems, and it is clear that at least a segment of Iranian society sees those economic problems in comparison to the fortunes being spent to destabilize the region and the world.
When Washington announced it would be reinstating sanctions unilaterally in May, much of the global debate was whether the sanctions could be effective if led by only one country. Now that so many countries and businesses have already halted or begun winding down business with Iran, it appears clear that the sanctions will, in fact, be felt by the Iranian regime. Today, the debate is what change to look for from Iran as a result. Because Iranian citizens have already connected a bad economy with their government’s international expansionism, Iran’s terrorism and paramilitary support just might be its first rogue policy to be hit by the strength of these sanctions.
**Ellen R. Wald, Ph.D. is a historian and author of “Saudi, Inc.” She is the president of Transversal Consulting and also teaches Middle East history and policy at Jacksonville University. Twitter: @EnergzdEconomy

Iran’s Response to Sanctions? Ignore Them
باترك كلوسون من معهد واشنطن: إيران تتعامل مع العقوبات ةبتجاهلها
Patrick Clawson/The Washington Institute/August 30/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/67124/patrick-clawson-the-washington-institute-irans-response-to-sanctions-ignore-them-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d8%aa%d8%b1%d9%83-%d9%83%d9%84%d9%88%d8%b3%d9%88%d9%86-%d9%85%d9%86-%d9%85%d8%b9%d9%87%d8%af/
The current Iranian narrative—that economic problems stem from domestic mistakes rather than foreign pressure—complicates the U.S. policy of using sanctions to force change.
On August 28, President Hassan Rouhani answered questions before the Majlis about Iran’s economic problems, only the second time in the Islamic Republic’s history that a president has come before the parliament. He was asked about unemployment, slow economic growth, the fall of the rial, cross-border smuggling, and the fact that Iranian banks still lack access to global financial services. The Majlis formally voted to reject his explanations on most of these issues; only his answers about bank access were accepted.
This came on the heels of the parliament’s August 26 vote booting out Finance Minister Masoud Karbasian. In fact, the president is under pressure to change his entire economic team: he already sacked the Central Bank governor, while the Majlis threw out the labor minister and is now considering a motion against the minister of industry, mine, and trade.
U.S. officials may argue that most of Iran’s economic problems are due to renewed American sanctions, and they are largely correct—but that is not the central complaint being voiced in Tehran. In an August 16 speech, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei spoke at length on the theme, concluding that “although sanctions have played a role, the main source of the current economic problems can be traced back to internal mismanagement and actions.” Indeed, for all the Western focus on the problems that Iran’s banks have had connecting to the world financial system, that was the one issue on which Rouhani could satisfy the Majlis. If U.S. officials aim to increase public pressure on the regime, they will need to address a domestic narrative in which perception is rapidly becoming reality.
CORRUPTION GETS THE BLAME
One of the key arguments in Khamenei’s speech is essentially correct: “Economic experts and many officials agree that today’s livelihood problems do not emerge from foreign sanctions; rather, they are tracked down to our internal issues.” Domestic commentators are nearly unanimous on this point even though it understates the impact that sanctions have had.
State television is giving ample coverage to the country’s many corruption scandals, airing trials for the first time in decades. For example, three mobile phone importers are being prosecuted for acquiring handsets at a favorable official exchange rate and selling them at inflated prices. In one case, a dead person’s name was used to import thousands of phones.
Indeed, many Iranians blame the recent currency collapse on corrupt manipulation of the gaps between official and free market rates. Khamenei voiced this widely heard complaint in his speech: “The foreign currencies provided were either used by a small group or sold to smugglers who took it abroad or sold it to those who hoarded it, to sell it later for two or three times the value and gain an overnight fortune.” Ahmad Araqchi, the Central Bank deputy governor in charge of foreign currency affairs, was arrested on exactly this charge.
When judiciary chief Sadeq Larijani wrote to the Supreme Leader earlier this month asking for new anti-corruption courts, Khamenei not only approved the proposal, he directed the courts to impose maximum sentences on those “disrupting and corrupting the economy.” On August 12, the judiciary announced that 67 people had been arrested on charges of corruption, and 100 government employees have been restricted from leaving Iran.
The anti-corruption campaign has resonated well with the public—not surprising given that Transparency International’s 2017 Corruption Perception Index ranked Iran 130th out of 180 countries. Many Iranians have also been using the social media campaign “Where is your kid?” to complain that the children of government officials lead lavish lifestyles far out of touch with those of everyday people.
These problems have been exacerbated by just plain bad policymaking. The Central Bank’s failure to stabilize the banking system or prop up the falling rial largely resulted from a series of stunningly stupid policy decisions, such as the short-lived effort to outlaw ubiquitous free market exchange dealers. Meanwhile, crucial bank structural reforms have yet to step up their glacial pace.
In contrast, Iranian politicians and television programs have little to say these days about U.S. sanctions. On August 27, the International Court of Justice began hearing Tehran’s complaint against the United States for allegedly violating their 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (yes the treaty is still in force; no, it does not prohibit sanctions). Blaming the United States for economic problems was also an element of the August 16 Qom clerics rally. Yet this line of complaint is now the exception rather than the rule—and even then, the focus is on blaming the president for trusting the United States. For his part, Rouhani often brings up U.S. pressure when he defends his economic policies, but that excuse does not resonate well, as evidenced by this week’s Majlis votes against him.
THE RIAL STORY
Meanwhile, the free market rate for the rial stabilized this month, but the damage was already done—the currency has plummeted from 38,000 per dollar a year ago to 107,000. The regime still maintains a special official exchange rate of 42,000 rials per dollar, but this is available only to the politically well connected. It also offers an intermediate rate for exporters of non-oil goods. Almost to a person, Iranians view the rial’s collapse as a barometer of the economy’s health, and they blame the Rouhani government for this development.
The irony is that depreciating the currency is good economic medicine for problems that likely stem from lower export earnings. The classic prescription for a country in that situation is to devalue, which makes imports more expensive and exports more attractive. This effect is clearly happening in Iran, with consumers cutting back on foreign travel and purchases of foreign goods.
The depreciation also means that the government gets more rials from each dollar of oil revenue. As measured in rials, government revenue from oil exports will be up in 2018/19 compared to the budget; the revenue would go even higher if Tehran allowed its official exchange rate to approach the free market rate. So far, though, the government has stuck with the special rate and eschewed any increase in wages.
The downside of the depreciation is that it drives prices up. The monthly inflation rate announced by the Central Bank for July 22-August 21 was 5.2 percent, and if that pace is sustained for a year, the resultant annual rate would be 84 percent. Bringing inflation down to single digits was the proudest achievement of Rouhani’s first term, and in theory he could do it again by following a strict monetary policy. Yet the shaky banking system is in no position to implement that measure even if he were willing to take such a big political gamble.
In short, the rial’s collapse has been good for macroeconomic stability: the budget may run a surplus, and the trade balance will improve. But it is risky for political stability: the real incomes of wage earners are plummeting at a time of sporadic public protests.
THE CLOCK TICKS ON
Senior Iranian officials seem relaxed about the renewed U.S. sanctions, despite the apparent failure of their initial response. When Washington withdrew from the nuclear deal earlier this year, Tehran’s mantra was that the other parties (Europe, Russia, and China) would have to provide benefits as recompense. That seems less and less likely, as major firms from those countries—even government-owned ones—have announced their withdrawal from Iran. For instance, the regime seemed sure that the China National Petroleum Corporation would take over Phase 11 of the South Pars gas project after Total pulled out, but the Wall Street Journal reported on August 21 that Beijing has shown little interest. And on August 8, the Journal noted that the Chinese oil firm Sinopec “is now struggling to find appropriate banking channels” for its planned $3 billion investment in the Yadavaran oil field.
As for Iran’s next response to renewed sanctions, the regime’s thinking is unclear. One approach would be to wait out President Trump in the expectation that he will not be reelected, but there are few signs that Iran is consciously pursuing this strategy.
Whatever the case, the sharp drop in the rial’s value has convinced the Trump administration that the president’s May 8 prediction was correct: “Iran’s leaders will naturally say that they refuse to negotiate a new deal...But the fact is they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal, one that benefits all of Iran and the Iranian people.” Maybe U.S. pressure will bring Iran to that point, but at least so far, Tehran is insisting that its economic problems are homegrown. The challenge for Washington is how to turn the heat up fast and far enough that Khamenei admits these problems are rooted in his confrontational foreign policy. The most likely scenario is that each side tries to get the other to blink: Washington by increasing pressure, and Tehran by waiting until Trump leaves office.
**Patrick Clawson is the Morningstar Senior Fellow and director of research at The Washington Institute.

The Arab wave in US Congress
Walid Jawad/Al Arabiya/August 30/18
Can the swell of Arab-American candidates create a wave in this 2018 election cycle?
At least 75 Arabs are running for public office in local and national races this November according to the Arab-American Institute.
Five of those candidates are fighting to keep their seats as members of Congress: Justin Amash, Ralph Abraham, Garret Graves, Darin LaHood, Charlie Crist. Arab-Americans are a fixture in American political life since the great wave of the 1970s when six won seats to the US House of Representatives. The possibility of a second wave, come this November, is palpable with 23 candidates winning their primary races so far ahead of the general elections. While equal number have lost their primary races, the rest of the candidates are still fighting for the chance to represent their party on Election Day less than ten weeks away. This is a very strong showing. Each one of these candidates has an impressive story to tell. They have endured trials and tribulations just to make it this far along the process on the road to winning public office.
One such race is the return of Donna Shalala to the national spotlight after winning the Democratic House of Representatives Florida primary seat. Shalala, the former Health and Human Services secretary under President Clinton, prevailed in a crowded field of Democratic candidates on Tuesday.
More Arab-American and other independent, patriotic Americans winning legislative seats will lead to better chances for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict peacefully
Rashida Tlaib
The name Rashida Tlaib has been reverberating in mainstream media over the past few weeks. Rashida, this Palestinian-American-Women, has secured the Democratic party nomination to run unopposed for Detroit's 13th District.
Once she assumes her responsibilities in January as the first Muslim-American female Congresswoman, Palestinians will have a strong voice in the hallowed chambers on Capitol Hill. Tlaib’s winning her Democratic Party’s nomination is groundbreaking. In addition to her being a woman, she is a first generation Arab-American born to a Muslim Palestinian immigrant. J Street, the liberal-leaning Jewish organization, endorsed Tlaib, helping her secure her election bid. But shortly thereafter, the organization withdrew its endorsement citing concerns over news reports confirming her belief in a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Herein lies the disconnect. The one state solution is neither the goal of J Street nor the official position of the Palestinian government.Rashida Tlaib will not be the only Palestinian voice in Congress if Ammar Campo-Najjar unseats Duncan Hunter. But will their voices along with other Arab-American legislators advance the Palestinian cause?
The one-state solution is not an option in the current political climate. But with her in Congress and with more people supporting her vision, the Palestinians themselves might find it beneficial to consider her vision. Seeing that the two-state solution is not a workable option, a different goal must be put in place.
The immediate goal must be ending the unjust situation of suffering for many decades and multiple generations as soon as practically possible. A state of Israel with equal rights for its Palestinian citizens, including those in Gaza and the West Bank and displaced refugees.
Although her win is one more victory for the Arab American community, this multifaceted community is not effective in advancing the Palestinian cause as other ethnic American communities are effective in advancing theirs.
Arab-Americans might be lifted by the Blue Wave that will probably tip the political balance in favor of the Democrats.
Most observers are confident the American electorates will hand Democratic candidates a big win this November allowing the party to regain control of the House of Representatives and possibly, with much slimmer odds, the Senate. Such an outcome will allow Congress to play a balancing role to that of President Donald Trump.
The multidimensional Ammar
As for Ammar, he holds a complex identity as the grandson of a Palestinian who participated in the terrorist attack on the Israeli Olympic team in 1972.
His grandfather, Muhammad Yusuf al-Najjar, was a member of the “Black September” organization. He has been expending a significant amount of energy and resources fighting accusation of terrorism in both English and Spanish.
His mother is from Mexico allowing him to connect with the Spanish speaking citizenry of California’s 50th district, which includes San Diego. Although he was trailing Rep. Hunter earlier in the race by a significant margin, Ammar’s chances became much better in light of the latest campaign fund indictment of Hunter.
Ammar takes a defensive posture against accusations related to his Arab lineage. “This is another ploy from out-of-touch forces, who play identity politics and don’t want to talk about the issues,” said the 29-year-old candidate defending himself.
“Obviously, people make a lot of assumptions about me that are not accurate,” he stated before going on the attack. Last night, Ammar proclaimed that his opponent is not worthy of representing the people of his electoral district,” We don’t have a lawmaker anymore. We have a lawbreaker.”
Arab schism
Justice for Palestinians will be achieved in the US. More Arab-American and other independent, patriotic Americans winning legislative seats will lead to better chances for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict peacefully.
The drawback for Palestinians is the “Made in USA” nature of any proposed solution. These Arab-American politicians might have Arab roots or recognizable surnames, but they are Americans first and foremost. It is not a criticism; it is a fact that is built in the American political system. A system that advances equality and the rights of its citizens. A self-correcting system that protects minorities when injustice befalls them.
In part, Islamophobia, anti-Arabism, and America’s policies toward the Middle East all inspired Arab-American candidates to run in this unjust cultural and political environment. Their Arab roots inspired them to run for office, but its American patriotism that wins them votes.