LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 10/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.march10.18.htm

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

Putin's Video Superweapons and Virtual Reality
James Stavridis/Bloomberg View/March 09/18
I always admired the way Steve Jobs could enrapture the world about a new product. His briefings of Apple breakthroughs over the years were legendary, and featured huge visuals behind him as he paced the stage. He was not just an innovator but also a master communicator. When I had to give addresses back in my military days, I would dive into Carmine Gallo’s “The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs” for inspiration.
Watching Russian President Vladimir Putin roll out a similar display of fearsome new weapons at his state of the federation speech the other day had the distinct feeling of watching a Steve Jobs-style brief put together by "Q," the gadget-loving quartermaster from MI6, in a twisted James Bond movie. But this bag of tricks is neither a new iPhone nor an Aston Martin with machine guns, or even an exploding pen. Putin was talking about nuclear weapons moving toward the US on a variety of new platforms. How seriously should we take this?
Let’s put aside that the video's special effects seemed straight from a 1990s video game, and start with the purported weapons themselves. In each case, US intelligence has been tracking the development of these systems over the past decade. There is a nuclear-tipped and nuclear-powered torpedo; a new generation intercontinental ballistic missile with longer ranges; a nuclear-powered cruise missile that could theoretically fly more or less forever and attack the US from any location; an air-launched high-speed cruise missile; and a hypersonic glide missile capable of flying 20 times the speed of sound. He also mentioned new laser systems to deploy against US weapons. He described several of the weapons as “invincible.”
His motivation in hyping these systems is threefold. First, in the “all politics is local” category, he has an election coming up on March 18. While he is predictably and comfortably in the lead in all the polls, he still wants to play to his base, as the saying goes. Russians, like people everywhere, enjoy nothing so much as a big spectacle on a huge stage. Add to that a good bashing of Russia’s enemy No. 1, and you have a sure winner.
Second, Putin is communicating with his circle of allies and partners around the world. His message to Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Kim Jung Un in North Korea, and the ayatollahs in Iran (can you spell “axis of evil”?) is one of reassurance that someone can stand up to the US in terms of global deterrence and high-end military technology. The demonstration is also a good way to enhance the sales of Russian weapons systems globally -- its producers are currently the second-largest supplier of weapons in the world and would love to surpass the US. Indeed, Russia exports as much as Germany, France and the UK combined, and triple what China sells globally.
Finally, Putin is sending a very direct signal to Washington. He hates US and Western interference with Russia at any level, from the sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea to the Olympic punishments meted out after the massive doping scandal. The intent here is simple and brutal: We are a nuclear power and can destroy your nation. The fact that the US can do the same to Russia is not lost on Putin, but he will never miss a chance to remind the US that Russia has an equally lethal nuclear arsenal.
In terms of serious military capability, last week's demonstration was a mixed bag. Nothing he displayed represented either a shock to the US intelligence community or a significant change in the existing balance of nuclear and conventional power. Several of the systems have not been demonstrated publically, nor put into serious production. The most worrisome over time is probably the nuclear torpedo, but the idea of a Russian first-strike remains extremely remote. And it is hard to envision a scenario in which the US decides to strike Russia. The odds are extremely high that we will continue along with the same deterrent regime that has kept the nuclear peace since the end of World War II: mutual assured destruction.
In terms of policy issues, Putin's display of braggadocio underscores several important points. First is that stepping up the US conventional force posture in Europe is going to be critical to deterring Russia from using these kinds of weapons to threaten the Europeans. For a start, this means having a full four US brigade combat teams in place and permanently stationed in Europe. We also must continue to push NATO allies to up their game in terms of forces that are combat-ready.
It also emphasizes the importance of avoiding an escalation on both sides, in terms of producing and deploying low-yield nuclear weapons, which could very quickly intensify in a tense scenario and cause Russia to use one of these strategic weapons -- what analysts refer to as the "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine. Finally, it will require the Pentagon to develop comparable systems to maintain deterrence, particularly hyper-sonic nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, where Russian progress is outstripping out own.

Iran: The French Souffle Fails to Rise
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/March 09/18
According to those in the know in Paris, France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian is a smart soft-soaper capable of persuading a mule out of its hind legs.
A provincial politician, Le Drian emerged from relative obscurity towards the end of President Francois Hollande’s much maligned presidency. As Defense Minister in Hollande’s government, Le Drian was quickly established as the star of a moribund administration.
While other ministers turned round vacuous illusions, Le Drian won a reputation as a “doer” (in French faiseur) by winning huge contracts for the sale of the latest French combat aircraft, le Raffale, to a number of countries including Brazil, Egypt and India, thus providing some good news for Hollande’s bad-news tenure.
Le Drian was Socialist enough to survive several Cabinet reshuffles but not too Socialist to remain on board as the party’s sinking ship.
Knowing when to abandon ship, Le Drian was the first senior politician to jump on Emanuel Macron’s presidential bandwagon at a time few rated the young aspirant’s chances above that of a snowflake in June.
When Macron won against all odds, Le Drian was upgraded to Foreign Minister with the understanding that, as the new regime’s elder statesman, he would have a say in other aspects of domestic and foreign policies.
So, this week as Le Drian headed for Tehran for what some described as “crucial talks”, the consensus in Paris was that if anyone can persuade the mullahs to temper their ardor it would be the Breton miracle-worker.
According to sources in Paris and Tehran, in talks with Iranian officials, Le Drian used his hitherto successful method of “give-and-take”.
The method is simple.
The Frenchman asks his interlocutors what is it exactly that they want.
Once that has become clear he would raise the question of how much of what they want is achievable, how and when? The trick is to keep the interlocutors focused on real, tangible things rather than chimeras and abstractions. The next step is to link what the interlocutors want to what the French want and show a high measure of compatibility, leading to a deal that gives both sides most, if not all, of what they want.
By all accounts Le Drian’s recipe failed in Tehran.
The soufflé that had risen in so many countries across the globe failed to rise.
Le Drian’s failure is the latest in a string of such forlorn bids by big, medium and small powers trying, in the words of former US President Barack Obama, to “bring Iran into the dance.”
There are many reasons for such failures.
The first is the fact that we have two Irans: one is Iran as a nation-state with the normal interests, fears and aspirations of any typical nation-state, and the other is Iran as a revolution with the irrational dreams and ambitions of all revolutions.
This duality means that Iran cannot develop a coherent policy on any issue, domestic or foreign as the interests and aspiration of the two Irans, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, do not always coincide.
Because Iran has a problem with itself it is bound to have problems with everyone else.
When Le Drian asks Tehran officials: What is it that they want, they are unable to provide a clear answer. And because they cannot answer, they behave as if they want everything, rather any identifiable desiderata.
The classical demands of a nation-state behaving as such are not legion.
A nation state wants, respect, security, demarcated borders, trade, access to natural resources, share of markets, economic cooperation, cultural exchanges etc. All those demands can be and in the case of almost all 198 members of the United Nations are routinely fulfilled. The Islamic Republic is one of the few exceptions along with North Korea, Venezuela and Zimbabwe until the fall of Robert Mugabe.
A revolution, however, feeds on its messianic pretensions.
It cannot seek to become part of a grey status quo which would extinguish whatever is left of its embers. It has to remain defiant, clenched fist and all, claiming a purity it never had but always boasted about.
The second mistake Le Drian made, as countless others did before him, was to believe that he was negotiating with authentic decision-makers. However, the fact is that in the Islamic Republic the President and his ministers are essentially actors playing such roles in an ever-revised script.
It is clear that in the Khomeinist system Iran is ruled by a “deep state” headed by the “Supreme Guide” and a handful of military and civilian advisers forming a parallel government in “The House of the Leader” (Beit-e-Rahbar).
If you hope for results you ought to talk directly, and exclusively, to Ali Khamenei. This is what Russian President Vladimir Putin did when he flew to Tehran, drove directly from the airport to Khamenei’s house, and spent several hours with him before driving back to the airport for a return flight to Moscow. Putin wasted no time with his nominal counterpart President Hassan Rouhani let alone the actors playing ministers.
If our information is correct Le Drian wanted two things.
The first was a pledge by Iran not to develop long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads- a demand advanced by US President Donald Trump and backed by Macron. The fact is that neither Rouhani nor his Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif know much about the missile project, let alone being in a position to agree to a “freezing phase.”
The puppeteer has ordered them to respond to such demands with a firm “no”. End of discussions.
Le Drian’s second demand was for Iran to reduce its footprint in Syria and Yemen.
Again, this is something above the pay-grade of either Rouhani or Zarif, who don’t even know how much money Iran is spending on maintaining the Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad in his Damascene hideout. There are no figures for that in the official budget presented by Rouhani. The reason is that funds for “exporting revolution” come from the Special Account of the “House of the Leader”. Money poured into that account comes from a variety of sources including a one percent ring-fenced tariff on all imported cars.
The ”House of the Leader” also owns some of the 32 companies that trade in Iranian oil and petroleum products at home and abroad and, being classed as private sector, avoid public scrutiny.
Le Drian wanted things from those who don’t have them, ignoring those who could deliver the goods but won’t because of a traditional carpet bazaar scenario in which you start by asking a small discount on a carpet you like but end up buying at twice the price a carpet you don’t want.

Israel and Iran Back on Collision Course in the North
إسرائيل وإيران يعودان إلى مسار التصادم في الشمال
Amos Harel/Haaretz/March 09/19
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/63065
Two powerful yet contradictory trends are all but fated to collide: Iran’s insistence on establishing a military presence in Syria, and Israel’s insistence on preventing it
Almost a month has passed since the drama in the skies of Israel and Syria, when Israel knocked down an Iranian drone that had penetrated its airspace and bombed Iranian targets in Syrian territory, and Israel lost a fighter jet to Syrian anti-aircraft artillery. In this time Syria hasn’t reported a single Israeli aerial attack on arms convoys, missile warehouses or army bases, reports that have been quite frequent in the last five years.
This hiatus will probably be transient. The underlying conditions on Israel’s northern front remain unchanged, even after that extraordinary exchange of firerpower. The decided advantage of the pro-Assad axis in the Syrian civil war gives its forces security and bolsters their drive to win, in compensation for their efforts invested in saving the Syrian tyrant back when his chances looked slim.
In a review that army intelligence delivered to the political echelon, the Israeli and Iranian moves were described as two powerful strategic trends that were all but fated to collide: the Iranian insistence on establishing a military presence in Syria, and the Israeli insistence on preventing it, stated time and again by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his AIPAC speech this week: “We must stop Iran. We will stop Iran.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds what he claims is part of an Iranian drone shot down in Israeli airspace at the Munich Security Conference on February 18, 2018.
Why didn’t the shoot-out on that Shabbat descend into war? Because both Israel and Iran are being very careful and trying not to go there. It’s the early days for the Iranian project in the region and Tehran doesn’t seem to want a direct military confrontation with Israel at this time. Watching the Iranian moves in recent years shows it can change direction, sometimes halt entirely, following Israeli threats or attacks linked to the air force.
From Israel’s perspective, even though the stated intention is to foil Iran’s plans in Syria and Lebanon, neither Netanyahu nor Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman nor the top military brass aspire to a broad confrontation whose end cannot be foretold. Most Israeli deterrence moves are under the radar, sometimes barely gaining mention in the press. Israel would probably prefer things to go on without direct clashes.
Both Israel and Iran have to factor Russia into the equation. Moscow is the big winner of the civil war in Syria, and the only world power still in touch with all parties involved. The last thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants is for an Iranian-Israeli war to imperil his No. 1 strategic triumph in the region in recent years: saving the Assad regime. That seems to have been the message delivered to Jerusalem and Tehran as that day of fighting up north wore on. The belligerents conducted themselves accordingly.
Amos Yadlin, head of the Institute for National Security Studies, tells Haaretz that Iran is building up its forces and increasing its influence in Syria using three combined models: those of Hezbollah, Iraq and North Korea. In 2014 and 2015, Hezbollah and the Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard set up terror cells based on local Druze units in the Syrian Golan Heights and Palestinian organizations. When activists in these networks were killed in actions ascribed to Israel, Iran abandoned the attempt to implement a Hezbollah-type model in Syria.
The second model, based on a test run that went very well in Iraq, touches on deploying Shi’ite militias obedient to Iran throughout Syria. The militias, which rely on recruits from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, helped tilt the war in Assad’s favor. But the number of their people in Syria is not large, some counting it below 10,000.
Lately the third approach, which Yadlin called the North Korea model, was added. It is reminiscent of the Pyongyang missile threats against Seoul. Iran seems to want to renew Assad’s arsenal of long-range missiles, most of which were used or destroyed during the civil war. It also wants to build missile assembly lines on Israel’s border. This turning point is happening during the quiet years assured by the Vienna agreement of 2015, which put off the Iranian nuclear threat by at least seven to 10 years.
Even optimistically assuming that Tehran keeps its word, when the agreement expires Iran will be in a better position: It will be able to continue pursuing its nuclear ambitions and create a double missile threat, from Syria and Lebanon, making Israel think two or three times before attacking the Iranian nuclear sites.
The arsenal of missiles is supposed to grow and be deployed over more fronts, and in part to become more accurate. Speaking at the Munich security conference in late February, Netanyahu gave his view of the Iranian goal: to equip Hezbollah with guided missiles whose accuracy (“probable circular error”) is tens of meters.
Talking with U.S. President Donald Trump this week, Netanyahu again pressed him to declare that America would abandon the nuclear agreement in May. Meanwhile the EU wants to lead an initiative enforcing monitoring in Iran and restrictions on its missile program, as wells as its dissemination of technology among terrorist and guerrilla groups in the region. These are goals marked for the years to come, based on the understanding that the battle with Iran will slog on for years and that the Vienna agreement provided, at best, a hiatus, not a comprehensive solution.

Is Greece about to Recognize Jerusalem as Israel's Capital?
Maria Polizoidou/Gatestone Institute./March 09/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12009/greece-jerusalem-israel
Two distinguished members of Greece's parliament, whose party has a good chance of defeating the current leadership, are breathing new life into the political system and reinvigorating crucial partnerships with Israel and the United States.
"The positions of the Palestinians are maximalist and dangerous, since they actually propose the Islamization of the city. Palestinian Islamist organizations, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have repeatedly launched threats against the non-Muslim population of Jerusalem. Islamists visualize a Jerusalem without churches and synagogues. On the other hand, the Israeli Knesset has recognized since 1980 the multi-religious character of Jerusalem and is committed to the unimpeded access of all believers to places of worship..." — MP Makis Voridis, a former minister from the New Democracy party, writing in the Greek daily Kathimerini.
On his return from a recent two-day trip to Israel -- where he met with high-level officials -- Adonis Georgiadis, the vice president of Greece's opposition party, New Democracy, declared his support for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
In an interview with Skai Radio on March 7, Georgiadis called it "almost funny to discuss whether Jerusalem is a Jewish city or not."
"[It] was founded by the Jews... in ancient times. You can read Flavius Josephus or read Diodoros Siceliotis and see the references to the city of Jerusalem, where there was the High Priest of Solomon's Temple and that it was the city of the Jews. This is the reality."
When challenged by the interviewer, who said, "But as time went by, many things happened in the city's history," Georgiadis, a historian, replied: "I don't disagree, but this city is from the beginning a Jewish city. They [Jews] made it; they founded it; it's theirs... Now, President Trump's decision to transfer the US Embassy to Jerusalem is a little bit provocative... But I have to say... that I am in favor of this decision rather than against it."
Two days earlier, on March 5, MP Makis Voridis, a former minister from the New Democracy party, expressed a similar position in an op-ed in the Greek daily Kathimerini:
"President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is right and fair. The country [Israel] deserves the full support of the US and Europe, because it is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. Israel is neighboring states with authoritarian regimes that do not sufficiently safeguard human rights. Despite numerous external threats, this small country still retains its liberal and pluralistic character. Individual freedoms are constitutionally guaranteed; women's rights are fully respected; and Arab-Israeli citizens (20% of the population) have a high standard of living."
He continued: "The Palestinian side has not shown any intention to negotiate seriously with the Jerusalem government. The positions of the Palestinians are maximalist and dangerous, since they actually propose the Islamization of the city. Palestinian Islamist organizations, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have repeatedly launched threats against the non-Muslim population of Jerusalem. Islamists visualize a Jerusalem without churches and synagogues. On the other hand, the Israeli Knesset has recognized since 1980 the multi-religious character of Jerusalem and is committed to the unimpeded access of all believers to places of worship (Basic Law 5740)."
Both Georgiadis and Voridis entered the New Democracy party at the behest of former Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, who is reported to be a personal friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. During his term as prime minister, from 2012 to 2015, Samaras worked hard to enhance the Greece-Israel relationship, which had been stagnant for decades. Judging by the polls -- according to which the New Democracy party is almost certain to beat the ruling Syriza party, headed by Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras -- strengthening ties with Jerusalem and Washington is supported by a majority of the Greek public.
Many political analysts are predicting that by autumn 2018, the Tsipras government will announce new elections; it has lost a large share of its base, due to exorbitant taxation, on the one hand, and a loss of voter confidence in the government's foreign policy and domestic security on the other.
It is very encouraging for the future of Greece that two distinguished parliament members, whose party has a good chance of defeating the current leadership, are breathing new life into the political system and reinvigorating crucial partnerships with Israel and the United States.
*Maria Polizoidou, a reporter, broadcast journalist, and consultant on international and foreign affairs, is based in Greece. She has a post-graduate degree in "Geopolitics and Security Issues in the Islamic complex of Turkey and Middle East" from the University of Athens.
© 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.