LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 25/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.march25.18.htm

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

Jack Wilshere: Wenger Just Said if you Can Get a Contract Elsewhere you Can Go
London - Dominic Fifield/Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 23 March, 2018/It was in early August, with the new Premier League season primed, when Arsène Wenger delivered the news Jack Wilshere dreaded. The midfielder had been working up a sweat on an exercise bike in the gym at Arsenal’s training ground when the manager ambled over and left the spin session stalled. “It was an honest conversation,” Wilshere recalls. “It had been boiling up for a while. Everybody knew I had a year left on my deal and had been out on loan, got injured and wasn’t really in his plans. He just said: ‘At the moment we are not going to be offering you a contract so, if you can get one somewhere else, you can go.’”Almost eight months on and, as he sits in the Futsal hall at St. George’s Park, it is easier for Wilshere to reflect on such a painful memory even though, in essence, not much has changed. Arsenal’s stance may have shifted to the extent they have made a contract offer, albeit on a reduced basic wage of around £80,000 a week with significant incentives for a player whose body had proved so brittle. But, while Wilshere’s priority is to stay, he will not do so on those terms, leaving discussions at an impasse. With interest from Everton, West Ham and Juventus, the possibility remains that he could this summer leave the club he joined at the age of nine. Yet, around the issue of his long-term future, the landscape has shifted dramatically. Wilshere, for one, is clad in England training gear as he talks and is preparing to earn a first cap since Iceland and the national team’s humiliating departure from Euro 2016. His fitness has held and he has amassed more club appearances this season – 31 – than in any campaign since 2013-14, despite remaining among the Europa League and Carabao Cup fringe contingent until late November. He has even worn the captain’s armband, with his heavy involvement over the last few months and recall to the England set-up the reward for bold choices: whether that loan move to Bournemouth last season or his determination to prove he warranted a role at Arsenal this time round.
“Obviously I wasn’t happy with what the manager had said but, at the same time, part of me knew all this already,” he says. “All I needed was some clarity on where I stood at the football club. How did I feel after? It did make me think. He’d said I could fight for my position and, if I performed well in the Carabao Cup and Europa League, I’d have a chance. I had three or four weeks left in the transfer window but I didn’t find anything I wanted and at the same time I wasn’t really fit. So I decided to build up my fitness. I always had confidence I could get back into the midfield, and keep my place, if I was fit.
“I’d been in a similar situation the previous year. I’d come back from the Euros and picked up an injury in pre-season and, for the first few games, I was not in the team. I knew I had to play at that stage of my career because, the year before, I had missed a lot of football [an ankle injury had restricted him to three appearances for Arsenal]. I couldn’t just be coming on from the bench, so I went to Bournemouth. A lot of people disagreed with that decision but I played a lot of games and proved to myself I still could.
“So when the boss said I could leave, I wasn’t still thinking: ‘I need to get out and play games.’ It was more of a case of getting fully fit and showing what I could do. When I was at Bournemouth, getting back here was always the aim. This is where I wanted to be.”That sense of satisfaction stems from his restoration with club and country. Arsenal have leaned on their long-serving midfielder through the trauma of recent weeks, his displays offering encouragement as another campaign fizzles out prematurely on all but a European front and earning praise from such as Milan’s Gennaro Gattuso. For Gareth Southgate, a manager juggling midfield options, the 26-year-old’s return to fitness is timely. England have four friendlies before they confront Tunisia in Volgograd. Wilshere will have a chance to prove he warrants significant involvement. “I’ve always loved representing my country and it’s something I’ve missed,” he says. “But I never gave up hope I’d do it again. I’ve always felt this is somewhere I belong. Now it’s down to me to stake my claim. I’m not doing much different from in the past but, if I do not feel quite up to it, maybe I’ll miss a day rather than think I can get through it now. Also, I’m not going in for stupid tackles, which helps. That’s part of growing up and maturing.”The national set-up will welcome his class back into the fold, though he could yet depart for Russia with his club future unresolved. “I don’t think it would be a distraction,” adds Wilshere. “This is one of the most important years of my career and, if I’d worried about the contract, I would have probably ended up leaving in January. I just wanted to focus on getting back in the Arsenal team and then, hopefully, getting back here with England. “Ideally, yes, I’d want it sorted as soon as possible. I want to go to the World Cup and enjoy it. But we have three months till then and a lot can happen. Let’s finish the season strongly. We’ve got a big competition that we need to win with Arsenal and I want to be involved in that. Hopefully, going into the World Cup, I’ll be fit and, if selected, confident.”
The Guardian Sport

Libyan Official Holds Sarraj Responsible for Failing to Unite Army at Cairo Talks
Cairo - Khaled Mahmoud//Asharq Al Awsat/March 24/18/An official source in the Libyan National Army accused head of the Government of National Accord (GNA) Fayez al-Sarraj of prolonging the Egypt sponsored negotiations aimed at uniting the Libyan military. A senior official in the Libyan parliament, meanwhile, doubted that UN envoy to Libya, Ghassan Salameh, would be successful in his mission to hold presidential and parliamentary elections before the end of the year. The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the delegation, representing Sarraj at the Egypt talks, had resorted to stalling whenever discussions turned to determining the relationship between the Libyan army, in case it was unified, and the executive authorities in the country. “Sarraj took advantage of these negotiations to form the command of the army in western Libya, and now he has acquired staff and heads of branches through a series of recent military appointments," the source, who is close to Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, said. "Sarraj has a formal command structure on paper only, but he not have any professional forces on ground,” the source noted, saying that this marks a precedent where “you have an army without any real soldiers.” The final communique of the Cairo meetings did not include any sign that an agreement would be reached over the army. It did however, say that meetings will be held in the Egyptian capital during the coming period in order to complete the four technical committees, which have been formed during the previous six rounds. Friday’s statement said that uniting the military will help push forward political efforts during this critical time. For his part, President of the Tobruk-based House of Representatives' National Defense and Security Committee, Talal al-Mayhoub expressed pessimism over Salameh’s efforts to amend the Skheirat agreement and hold elections by September. Mahyoub told Asharq Al-Awsat that there will be no elections before an agreement is reached on a consensual constitution in the country.

Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on March 24-25/18
Trump rattles White House with Bolton shake-up
Jonathan Easley and Jordan Fabian/TheHill/March 24/18
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/380019-trump-shake-ups-rattle-white-house
President Trump is moving aggressively to reshape his team, and the unexpected moves are causing turmoil within his embattled staff.
The president’s supporters are cheering his decision to replace national security adviser H.R. McMaster with former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, whose views are more in line with those of the president.
That sudden move comes after Trump replaced his secretary of State and national economic adviser in recent weeks — long-anticipated changes that nonetheless happened abruptly and sent shockwaves through Washington.
The staff shake-up reveals the president’s frustration with members of his old team who encouraged him to back away from or delay key policy decisions, which he frequently makes based on gut instinct.
Bolton, the hawkish former Bush administration official, has pledged to implement Trump’s agenda, even on matters in which they might disagree.
The president’s allies had grown frustrated with McMaster, believing he slow-walked the president’s agenda or sought to implement his own.
“Bolton is coming in to prosecute the president’s agenda, which sets him apart from McMaster who tried to advance his own policies and beliefs,” said a former White House official. “If Bolton sticks to that plan, he will be a success. The president wants people in the administration who, when he makes a decision, will follow through on it.”
Bolton will be Trump’s third national security adviser in just 14 months, adding to a level of turnover the White House not seen in decades.
The reshuffle is far from over.
The National Security Council is now bracing for a shake-up under Bolton’s leadership. There is hope among Trump's allies that Bolton will put an end to the damaging leaks from the National Security Council and rid the council of Obama-era holdovers — or anyone viewed as insufficiently loyal to the president.
Sources close to the council say spokesman Michael Anton and deputy national security adviser Nadia Schadlow could be among those on the way out.
One of Bolton’s top advisers, Richard Grenell, will not be joining Bolton in the White House. Trump has tapped Grenell to be ambassador to Germany, although Grenell is still waiting on his Senate confirmation.
But Bolton has other advisers who could be in line for key posts, including Sarah Tinsley, a longtime ally who is currently at Bolton’s super PAC, and Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst.
“Obviously, you have some folks on the [National Security Council] who are completely against this,” said one administration official. “They are bracing for a shake-up when he comes because we know he’ll want to bring in his own people. But he’s also bringing a much different worldview than what they’ve had there. It could be a tenuous situation early on.”
Bolton is not in lockstep with Trump on all national security matters. He has a strong personality and could clash with Defense Secretary James Mattis and chief of staff John Kelly, both of whom eventually soured on McMaster.
Bolton is said not to be the favored pick of Kelly or Mattis.
But his choice was cheered by Trump allies, who predicted he would find more success than McMaster, who also had ideological differences with Trump.
“It is a good move,” said Walid Phares, who was one of Trump’s national security advisers during the campaign.
“The White House and Congress both need him there at this particular junction,” Phares said.
In addition to serving as George W. Bush’s U.N. ambassador, Bolton also held key roles in the George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan administrations.
His critics have cast him as a "warmonger" whose impulse is always for military intervention.
Bolton has been vocal about ripping up the Obama administration’s deal with Iran — a position that the president shares. But he has also advocated for a military strike on North Korea at a time when the administration is pushing sanctions and potential talks between the countries.
Bolton’s allies say his reputation as a “warmonger” is overblown and that, at the end of the day, he and Trump both prescribe to Reagan’s “peace through strength” maxim.
“John understands that people view him as a warmonger but he’s really not,” said one person close to him. “He’s never worked in military planning or the Pentagon. He’s a diplomat who understands there’s no better reinforcement for American diplomacy than having the credible threat of military action behind you, and he uses that to gain a diplomatic edge. You need hard-edged diplomats like that to avoid wars. You get into wars with weak diplomacy.”
Trump’s abrupt personnel changes are still reverberating throughout the White House.
Trump’s move to replace McMaster with Bolton caught Kelly and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders by surprise. Less than a week ago, Sanders insisted there were no changes coming.
The Bolton episode highlighted Trump’s volatile decisionmaking process, which has frustrated some members of his team. 

Rumors of McMaster’s exit had swirled for months, and Kelly worked behind the scenes to craft a transition plan that would allow McMaster to land on his feet. 


After Trump axed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson last week, speculation mounted that McMaster would be the next to go. But White House officials, including Sanders, publicly batted down the speculation after huddling with the president. 


Bolton himself seemed to be taken by surprise by the offer, which followed a Thursday afternoon meeting in the West Wing.
“Obviously it caught us off guard,” said an administration official.
But Trump’s allies say White House staff understand Trump’s volatile nature and will get over it. In the long run, they believe Bolton gives the administration a well-regarded establishment figure with broad support in the conservative foreign policy sphere.
“Bolton is a hard-nosed guy. He is not a wallflower,” the official said. “He also knows how to operate the levers of power. He is not a rookie at this, so he will be a force to be reckoned with.”

UK: Islamization Full Speed Ahead
Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/March 24/2018
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12011/britain-islamization
This is how Islamization occurs and is made permanent: Other schools will think carefully of the risks before they even attempt to "limit the Islamization process".
It is virtually impossible for "Islamophobia" to be "underreported" in London. The UK is nothing, if not clinically obsessed with "Islamophobia". In 2016, London mayor Sadiq Khan's Office for Policing and Crime announced it was spending £1.7 million taxpayer money policing speech online.
British police have even been taking lessons about Islam and "Islamophobia" from radical Islamist groups such as Mend. One of the most active Mend figures, Azad Ali, has said that he has "love" for Anwar Al-Awlaki, an influential US-born Islamic terrorist, who was killed by a US drone strike in Yemen in 2011.
The UK is accelerating its Islamization at an ever-increasing speed. The desire of the British establishment to submit to Islam appears to be overwhelming.
In a recent report, the Henry Jackson society exposed how the UK used taxpayer funds to support Islamist charities working against British society to the tune of more than six million pounds in 2017 alone. According to the report, "As the case studies in this report are illustrative rather than comprehensive, it is likely that this sum represents only the tip of the iceberg". The report concludes, "Until more comprehensive action is taken, a network of Islamist extremists operating in the UK will continue to use charities and taxpayer money to fund the spread of divisive, illiberal and intolerant views within our communities".
Among the charities detailed in the report, are several Islamic charities involved in dawa [outreach, proselytization], such as the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA), as well as several charities connected to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the Muslim Charities Forum (MCF) and Islamic Relief.
Deploying taxpayer money to support Islamic charities is not the only way in which the UK embraces Islamization.
St. Stephen's Primary School in Newham, London, was recently forced to change its ban on hijabs for girls under the age of eight, even though, in Islam, girls are not obliged to cover themselves before they reach puberty.
This reversal happened after a massive coordinated backlash by Islamic organizations, such as the Muslim Council of Britain -- which the UK government believes to be linked to the Muslim Brotherhood -- and MEND. The campaign against the ban included a petition, signed by more than 19,000 people as well as local councilors. Ten Newham councilors protested that, "To attack an article of faith and clothing in this manner is an outrage and is simply wrong. The argument against allowing school children of whatever age, to wear a hijab actually goes against our fundamental values as a progressive, tolerant and inclusive society. We therefore call upon the school to overturn this decision immediately..." During the coordinated campaign against the hijab ban at the school, teachers were subjected to bullying and abuse, and the head teacher responsible for introducing the ban was compared to Hitler.
The school's chair of governors, Arif Qawi, who had written in a social media post that he was trying to "limit the Islamisation process, and turn these beautiful children into modern, British citizens", also had to resign. Miqdaad Versi, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said his organization welcomed Qawi's resignation, because of his "appalling" statements in support of the ban. "Yet serious questions remain unanswered as to the school leadership's attitude towards Muslims, which are potentially discriminatory...We hope that future decisions are made carefully and with full consultation with local communities." Versi said.
This is how Islamization occurs and is made permanent: Other schools will think carefully of the risks before they even attempt to "limit the Islamization process". According to the former head of the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted), Sir Michael Wilshaw, the lack of a national policy on wearing hijabs in schools is due to political correctness, which leaves teachers "alone, isolated and vulnerable".
"There's something like 150 schools... which in short make it compulsory for youngsters to wear a hijab -- so what's happening about those schools?", Sir Michael asked recently , "The country has enormously changed. When heads want to change things, they have now to take into account deep-seated and sincere feeling of communities, some of whom who have conservative views".
The British state evidently cares less about Islamization -- and the oppression of little girls -- than about political correctness.
The clerical establishment is also pressing Britons to accept and accommodate the ongoing Islamization more readily. Archbishop Welby cautiously admitted in November 2016 that dealing with the religiously motivated violence in Europe "requires a move away from the argument that has become increasingly popular, which is to say that ISIS is 'nothing to do with Islam'... Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution."
Since then, however, he appears dutifully to have returned to the submissive fold and in February 2018, he was once more preaching the politically correct gospel of "Welcoming strangers to our country and integrating them into our culture... We must be generous and allow ourselves to change with the newcomers and create a deeper, richer way of life". One year ago, in February 2017, Welby suggested that Brexit and the election of Trump were both "in the fascist tradition".
Britain's security establishment also seems longing to submit to Islam. Scotland Yard recently warned that hate crimes ("Islamophobia", in other words, as no other hate crime is taken as seriously) are "hugely underreported". Chief Superintendent Dave Stringer, Scotland Yard's head of community engagement said: "The Met has seen a steady increase in the reporting of all hate crime, particularly racist and religious hate crime. Despite this rise, hate crime is hugely underreported and no one should suffer in silence."
It is virtually impossible for "Islamophobia" to be "underreported" in London. The UK is nothing, if not clinically obsessed with "Islamophobia". In 2016, London mayor Sadiq Khan's Office for Policing and Crime announced it was spending £1.7 million of taxpayer money policing speech online. Less than six months ago, London police teamed up with Transport for London authorities to encourage people to report hate crimes during "National Hate Crime Awareness Week", which ran from October 14-21. The events were mainly targeted at Muslims, with officers visiting the East London Mosque to encourage reporting hate crimes. British police have even been taking lessons about Islam and "Islamophobia" from radical Islamist groups such as Mend. One of the most active Mend figures, Azad Ali, has said that he has "love" for Anwar Al-Awlaki, an influential US-born Islamic terrorist, who was killed by a US drone strike in Yemen in 2011.
Meantime, while the police obsess over "Islamophobia", regular crime in London is exploding. The latest statistics from the London Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime show that in the past year, homicides have increased 27.1%, knife crimes have increased 31.3%, and there were 2,551 incidents of gun crime, representing a rise of 16.3%. Police recorded 7,613 rapes in the 12 months through January 2018 compared with 6,392 for the previous year, a rise of almost 20%. As reported by the Evening Standard, the figures also show an 8% increase in other sexual offences in the past year, bringing the total number of reported rapes and sexual assaults in London to almost 20,000. Campaigners have suggested the real figure could be "significantly higher" once unreported attacks are taken into account. British police, meanwhile, say they are at a loss to explain what is causing the rise in rapes.
The Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Sir Craig Mackey was recently asked if he had any idea what was behind the surge. His answer: "No, is the honest answer... there is something going on with sexual offending in London that we don't fully understand, the causes of it. We see the end of it, [but] we don't understand the causes."
Meanwhile, 65,000 cases of child sex abuse reached a record high in 2017, or 177 every day: up 15% from 2016.
In Rotherham alone, after 16 years of dismissing the problem, the number of child abuse cases rose to 1,510. The National Crime Agency (NCA) inquiry, "the biggest of its kind in the UK, has identified 110 suspects, of whom 80% are of Pakistani heritage", officers said.
In its seeming eagerness to submit to Islam, the security establishment even appears to be willing to compare people responding to Islamization and Islamic terrorism with the Islamic terrorists themselves. In a recent lecture, one of the UK's top counterterrorism officials, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, outgoing head of counter-terrorism policing, compared Tommy Robinson, an anti-Islamist activist, often described as "far-right," to Anjem Choudary, a radical terrorist-linked Islamist cleric who has advocated sharia in the UK and is now serving a prison sentence for urging support for ISIS.
"Robinson also became a regular fixture in our media, giving him the platform to attack the whole religion of Islam by conflating acts of terrorism with the faith, often citing spurious claims, which inevitably stirred up tensions" Rowe said, "Each side feeds into each other's extremist rhetoric with the common goal of increasing tensions and divisions in communities".
Rowe also said, "The right-wing threat was not previously organized. Every now and then there's been an individual motivated by that rhetoric who has committed a terrorist act, but we've not had an organized right-wing threat like we do now".
Perhaps Rowley might stop to consider why there is now an organized right-wing threat. The British establishment -- people such as Rowley -- have categorically embraced the "Islam is peace" narrative. The establishment has even let itself and its police be lectured by radical Islamist organizations such as Mend on what Islam is -- and has doggedly refused to listen to any dissident voices. Large parts of the British population, therefore, have nowhere to turn with their frustrations at the rapid Islamization of British society, apart from anti-establishment or far-right organizations. No other organizations appear willing to have an open discussion about the ongoing Islamization. Rowley and other establishment figures, especially political ones, continue to evade responsibility for this upheaval -- a situation that seems bound to continue, unless or until the British establishment -- political, security, educational, clerical and cultural -- begins to address, openly and honestly, the rapidly increasing speed of Islamization into British society.
Unfortunately, that enquiry appears unlikely to happen.
**Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.
© 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.

Why Palestinians Need an Israel Victory
Daniel Pipes/Australian/March 24/2018
Dear Reader:
I am pleased to note that this article marks precisely 50 years since my first publication. It was a book review of André Fontaine, History of the Cold War that appeared in the Boston Globe on Mar. 24, 1968. The original can be seen here; an easy-to-read version is available here.
That review appeared when I was a freshman in college and it started my writing career. For some reflections on writing as a career, see here.
[Australian title: "Israeli victory essential for Middle East peace"]
The moment is right for fresh thinking in order to dispatch the old and stale Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
With Arabs focused on other issues – the Iranian nuclear weapon build-up, civil wars in Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, Turkey going rogue, the Islamist surge, and the water drought – hoary anti-Zionist taboos have lost much of their pungency. A prosperous and strong Israel has lost hope in decades' worth of "peace process." The cowboy in the White House likes breaking with precedent. And the global Left's turn toward antisemitism, exemplified by Jeremy Corbyn of the British Labour Party, adds further reason for urgency; when it eventually holds power, the implications for Israel will be dire.
Conventional wisdom holds that the Arab-Israeli conflict will end only when the Palestinians' grievances are sufficiently satisfied so that they accept the Jewish state of Israel. This paradigm has reigned almost unchallenged since the Oslo Accords of September 1993; yet, that 25-year period has also made clear that Palestinians in overwhelming numbers (I estimate 80 percent based on scholarship and polling data going back a century) seek not peaceful co-existence with Israel but the brutal elimination of the "Zionist entity." With such attitudes, it comes as no surprise that every round of much-hyped negotiations has eventually failed.
Vladimir Jabotinsky.
I shall propose an entirely different approach to resolve the conflict, a reversion to the strategy of deterrence and victory associated with Zionism's great strategist, Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940): Israel should aim not to please its enemies but to defeat them. Counterintuitively, I shall show why Palestinians need precisely such an Israel Victory to slough off their current oppression, extremism, and violence, and to become a successful people.
An understanding of today's situation requires going back to the aftermath of World War I and the emergence of Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the first modern Palestinian leader. He initiated a policy of rejectionism, of absolute refusal to accept any aspect of Jewish presence in what was then the British Mandate of Palestine. A century later, that rejectionism remains the dominant strain of Palestinian life. Political differences tend to be tactical: Better to eliminate Israel by negotiating with the Israelis and winning benefits from them, or stick to the consistency of pure rejectionism? The Palestinian Authority (PA) deploys the first tactic, Hamas the second.
Over a 75-year period, 1918-93, the Jewish community in what is now Israel responded to rejectionism with deterrence, the policy of dissuading its enemies from aggression by threatening painful retaliation. However imperfectly applied, deterrence helped Israel evolve from the prospective prey of 1948 into the military powerhouse of 1993. Yes, even as Israel became a democratic, innovative, affluent, and mighty country, the basics stayed in place. Ideologies, tactics, strategies, and personnel changed, wars and treaties came and went, but Palestinian rejectionism stayed stagnantly constant.
By 1993, frustrated with the slow-moving and passive nature of deterrence, Israel's impatient citizenry opted for an immediate resolution with the Palestinians. In the Oslo Accords, each of the two parties promised the other what it most wanted: recognition and security for Israelis, dignity and autonomy for Palestinians.
In their haste to end the conflict, however, Israelis made three profound mistakes that summer morning on the White House lawn: (1) Granting Yasir Arafat, leader of an unofficial, dictatorial, and murderous organization, diplomatic parity with Yitzhak Rabin, prime minister of a democratic and sovereign state. (2) Believing Arafat when he claimed to recognize Israel, when in fact he (and his successors) still sought Israel's elimination, now enhanced by his controlling two adjoining pieces of territory, the West Bank and Gaza. (3) Making concessions under the illusion that wars conclude through goodwill, when concessions actually had the contrary effect of signaling weakness and thereby amplified Palestinian hostility. These mistakes, tragically, turned a would-be "peace process" into a counterproductive "war process."
How to escape this 25-year dead end?
The study of history shows that wars typically conclude not through negotiations but through defeat and victory. According to the military historian Victor Hanson, "Conflicts throughout history become serial when an enemy is not utterly defeated and is not forced to submit to the political conditions of the victor." Defeat means giving up war ambitions. Victory means successfully imposing one's will on the enemy.
It's a simple, universal truth that Palestinians well understand. In July 2017, Fatah declared that the "campaign for Jerusalem has effectively begun and will not stop until a Palestinian victory and the release of the holy sites from Israeli occupation." Nor are they alone; thinkers and warriors in all eras concur on victory as the goal of warfare. For example, the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu wrote "Let your great object be victory." U.S. general Douglas MacArthur stated that "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it." Victory is an intuitive human goal that only overly-sophisticated moderns could lose sight of.
Therefore, to gain Palestinian acceptance, Israel must return to its old policy of deterrence, of punishing Palestinians severely when they aggress. One example: When three family members were murdered in July 2017 while sitting down to Sabbath dinner in the Israeli West Bank town of Halamish, the Israeli response should have been to construct new buildings in Halamish and extend its boundaries.
That's deterrence; it's more than tough tactics, which Israeli governments already pursue; it means developing consistent policies to break rejectionism and encourage Palestinian acceptance of Israel. It implies a strategy to crush irredentist Palestinian ambitions so as finally to end the demonizing of Jews and Israel, recognize historic Jewish ties to Jerusalem, "normalize" relations with Israelis, close the suicide factories, and shutter the entire machinery of warfare. This process will be neither easy nor quick: it requires Palestinians to suffer the bitter crucible of defeat, with its attendant deprivation, destruction, and despair. Unfortunately, there is no shortcut.
A change of heart implies, not just a permanent absence of violence against Israelis but shutting down completely, everywhere from the United Nations to the university campus, the Palestinian-driven campaign of delegitimizing Israel.
If Palestinian defeat is good for Israel, it is ironically even better for Palestinians, who will finally be liberated from ugly ambitions, revolutionary rhetoric, and genocidal fantasies. An educated and skilled people can then improve its life by building its polity, economy, society, and culture. Think of this as a miniature version of post-1945 Germany. And if diplomacy is now premature, issues such as Jerusalem, borders, and resources can be fruitfully discussed after a Palestinian defeat. The two-state solution, an absurdity at present (it means asking Israel to strengthen its mortal enemy) will make good sense after a Palestinian defeat.
Like all outsiders to the conflict, Australians face a stark choice: either to endorse the Palestinian goal (explicit in the case of Hamas, implicit in that of the PA) of eliminating Israel or to support Israel's goal of winning its neighbors' acceptance. To state this choice makes clear there is no real choice – the first is aggressive, the second defensive; one is barbaric, the other civilized. No decent person can sanction the Palestinian goal of destroying a flourishing country.
Every prime minister since Ben Chifley and every parliamentary resolution and vote since his time has confirmed that Australian governments stand with Israel's drive to win acceptance (even if they disagree how this is to be achieved).
Western powers should support an Israel acting within legal, moral, and practical boundaries to take the steps necessary to win. They should move their Israel embassies to Jerusalem, reject the Palestinians' claim of Jerusalem as their capital, stand by the Israel Defense Forces when it punishes savagery, and join U.S. ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley in denouncing the "Palestine refugee" farce whereby some children born today are deemed refugees.
Starting about a year ago, the organization I head, the Middle East Forum, has not only promoted the idea of Israel Victory but organized Israel Victory caucuses in both the Israeli parliament (26 members from 7 political parties) and the U.S. House of Representatives (a bipartisan group of 33 members). In both bodies, caucus members agree that Palestinian-Israeli negotiations are premature until Palestinians accept the permanent existence of the Jewish state; and that Israel Victory is the best way forward. Our goal is for Western leaders to urge Israel to seek victory.
Even opponents of this idea recognize its impact. Writing about Amb. Haley, Palestinian commentator Daoud Kuttab wrote that she "seems to repeat verbatim the Israeli and pro-Israeli lines of people like Daniel Pipes." The Guardian newspaper, among others, suggested that Donald Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem under the influence of the Israel Victory Project.
Following a visit to Australia earlier this month, when I discussed this idea in private conversations, public talks, and in the media, I am now hoping for the start of an Australian movement and parliamentary caucus.
* Mr. Pipes (Pipes@MEForum.org, DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. He recently visited Australia as a guest of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council. © 2018 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Trump's War Cabinet … Against Whom?
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al Awsat/March 24/18
At an Iranian opposition event, John Bolton stood and told the thousands who had gathered: “We will celebrate with you in Tehran in 2019.” The words resonated with those inside the hall but did not receive much attention outside because the speaker was just a former ambassador.
His serious statement was not merely an interaction with the Iranian opposition's enthusiasm, but rather reflected his convictions, and this was clearly expressed three years ago in The New York Times when he wrote an article that triggered a storm of responses: “Bomb Iran!”
Bolton is the new national security adviser (NSA) appointed by US President Donald Trump as successor to H.R. McMaster. Reacting to his joining the White House team, opponents of the Trump administration have called it a “war cabinet,” because it includes such a large number of generals and conservatives.
The NSA is an important post. It was established at the beginning of the Cold War, and the holder chairs sessions covering important cases in the presence of key ministers such as the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. His office is in the presidential suite of the White House, and he is the one who briefs the president on many issues.
Bolton himself is well known for his hard-line positions, and he represents a school that believes in a strong America, at a time when Russia and China are escalating at the expense of the US, and small powers such as Iran and North Korea are threatening US security, interests and allies.
Because they do not want to discuss issues they cannot win with him, such as Iran and North Korea, Bolton’s opponents resort to throwing personal accusations at him, such as “he is racist,” and “he is against Muslims.” In fact, such descriptions are used in the media for character assassination.
Bolton certainly wants to get rid of Muslims such as those who are part of ISIS and al-Qaeda, and he wants to overthrow the clerical regime in Iran. He is against Hezbollah and the North Korean government led by Kim Jong-un.
Accordingly, let any Muslim reader who contradicts the opinion of Bolton in these cases raise a hand. I believe the majority of the 350 million Arab and Iranian Muslims are like Bolton: They share the same opinions. Even if my estimates are wrong, Bolton’s positions are the same as those of a large segment of the Middle East’s population. All of us are against extremism and extremists, both Muslim and non-Muslim. Those who accuse Bolton of racism are Khomeinists, Muslim Brotherhood supporters and Western leftists.
As for Bolton’s promise to celebrate in Tehran in 2019, he is not likely to be celebrated on time by overthrowing the clerical regime. But the government of Tehran has been in a state of anxiety for the past two days, since Trump’s announcement in a tweet on the appointment of Bolton. And now the Iranians realize that their trick of bending a little to the Europeans by offering small concessions will not succeed in stopping the “bulldozer” of President Trump in his march on Tehran.
For those of us in the Middle East, and despite chaos and destruction, toppling the Iranian regime in a well-ordered way is an ideal solution to end the era of chaos that was started by Khomeini in 1979. He, the extremist Islamic groups and other regional regimes collaborating with them led the region to a series of crises, wars and a state of terror that have lasted for 40 years and made the entire world live in fear.
However, to avoid raising expectations too far, and to prevent my article from being misunderstood, the possibility of Trump and his hawkish government waging a direct war on Iran is unlikely, according to current crisis standards.
But this US administration might clash with Tehran if the Iranian regime dares to do what it did against the former administration, when it seized American sailors and humiliated them on television before the world. A foolish step like this could lead to war, and we know that the foxes of Tehran, despite their many adventures, fear the mighty. Germany and France would not succeed in softening the position of Trump, nor the positions of the rest of his Cabinet ministers: His adviser Bolton, his new Secretary of State, the new CIA director, or his Defense Secretary.
Trump’s enormous pressure on Iran will increase, as will the pressure on its allied forces and organizations in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan and Yemen. It is more likely that the administration will increase its efforts to rid the Iraqi government of Iranian infiltration into its institutions, forces, and its security and financial apparatuses.
The pressure could reach Lebanon to weaken “Hezbollah,” and could increase pressure on organizational groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. It could also end the adolescent behavior of Qatar, which lost almost everything because of its policies against the Anti-Terror Quartet and because of its alliance with Iran and Turkey against them. What I thought was far, I can see now quite close.

Is Qatar waking up from its stupor of stubbornness?
Mashari Althaydi/Al Arabiya/March 24/18
The picture is clearer now that Qatar, following months of obduracy and procrastination, issued a terror blacklist, similar to one issued by the anti-terror quartet — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt. The Qatari list included 19 people in all: 11 Qataris, one Saudi, four Egyptians and two Jordanians. A number of organizations which the anti-terror quartet had blacklisted were also included in the Qatari list, such as Yemen’s Ihsan Charity Association, Egypt’s Wilayat Sinai and six Qatari entities, including the Al-Karama organization.
The UAE’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash commented on Qatar’s move on Twitter: “The Qatari Interior Ministry issued a terror list that includes 19 people and 8 entities. The list includes 10 people whom the boycotting countries previously included in three of the terror lists they issued. Overcoming pride, Qatar has confirmed the evidence against it, and that its support of extremism and terrorism lies at the core of its crisis.”
In June 2017, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Bahrain decided to ‘boycott’ Qatar diplomatically, closed all land, air and sea routes to it (barring a few exceptions), and declared that Qatar’s authorities support destructive groups, armed Islamist militias, both Sunni and Shiite, and other organizations that seek to spread tension and strife through Arab and foreign media platforms, either in the name of democracy or in the name of jihad and the Islamic revolution.
An audacious approach
To address this Qatari role, which has been destructive since 1996 at the political, media, social and security fronts, the Arab quartet issued terror lists naming individuals, groups and institutions in Bahrain, the UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and in Qatar itself.
The Qatari media – or rather the propaganda wing of the Muslim Brotherhood –adopted an audacious approach through European organizations which were infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood activists along with some “leftist groups” who stoked hatred against Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the UAE long before the crisis with Qatar erupted. Iranian networks across the globe invested in this problem with Qatar out of their sense of enmity towards Saudi Arabia and not out of their love for Doha.
Quartet officials bided their time as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said that the quartet is not in any hurry over the Qatari issue and that nothing will change unless the reasons for severing ties are resolved. One of these most important reasons is Doha’s support for groups and individuals that harm both itself and the quartet and undermine the security of all Arabs. Does Qatar’s change of tack as regards those groups whom the Arab quartet categorizes as terrorists mark the first sign of Qatar’s awakening from its stupor of blind stubbornness? This would be a good omen and the first step towards restoring sensibility. Who could disapprove of Qatar from healing from this ailment?

The new Cold War between Russia and Britain
Abdullah bin Bijad Al-Otaibi/Al Arabiya/March 24/18
The attempted assassination of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in London through the use of the dangerous nerve gas Novichok that was created by Russia during the Cold War constitutes the most recent chapter of the new Cold War. Russian scientist Vil Mirzayanov, who led the team which invented the nerve agent and who currently lives in the United States after seeking asylum there, had strongly expressed remorse over his invention after the incident. The great inventor Alfred Nobel had many patents, the most notable one being the invention of dynamite and other deadly materials. After his brother died, the French press mistakenly printed his obituary calling him a murderer and other cruel names. He read his own obituary and started taking extra care of his reputation, so he decided to establish the Nobel Foundation with his own money to atone for his deadly inventions. The Nobel Awards are considered one of the most prestigious international awards today.
Iran’s regional ‘Cold War’
At the age of 90 and without a fortune to pass on like Alfred Nobel, Mirzayanov apologized for inventing the Novichok gas that almost killed Skripal and his daughter in Britain. As stated by the BBC's Arabic website, he apologized by saying: “Neither I nor any of the scientists who worked on producing and experimenting this poison thought it would be used for terrorism. It is a military weapon, a weapon of mass destruction.” Meanwhile, Iran intentionally and boldly started a Cold War in our region for decades. It has escalated this war since the outbreak of the ominous ‘Arab Spring’. The danger is that by not addressing this Cold War in the region, the problem might create a Cold World War. The Russian assassination attempt of the former Russian spy is a dangerous sign in this regard. A Western front quickly assembled to support Britain in its firm position against Moscow in light of this case. The front is composed of Britain, the United States, Germany and France. It became clear that Moscow is seriously seeking to initiate a new Cold War. Its alliance with North Korea and Iran, its annexation of Crimea, intervention in Ukraine, establishment of military bases in Syria and its rising use of vetoes in the Security Council are a clear illustration of this Russian desire.
Moscow seeks to revive Soviet era
The classic spy wars, carried out by conducting assassinations appear to be reviving. The war using leaked documents, such as WikiLeaks, is part of an old tactic that has been renewed. Electronic piracy and influencing state elections and decisions represent a new approach that has surfaced in the past few years. This is topped by Moscow’s exhibition of new sophisticated weaponry, which confirms its lack of commitment in recent years to international conventions. Moscow's greatest motivation for reviving the Cold War is its desires, as successor of the Soviet Union, and its eagerness to return as an international player on the Western stage and to establish a new bipolar international order. The vision adopted by the former American administration characterized by withdrawal from the world and isolationism greatly helped Moscow and its allies andThe ascendance of the mighty Trump to the presidency in the United States, and his recovery of his country's leading role in the world were supposed to have pushed others to reconsider their calculations. Other future scenarios remain open.

China’s espionage scandal blow for ties with Africa
Huda al-Husseini/Al Arabiya/March 24/18/
The war of spies between countries never ends; a notable example being recent developments between the UK and Russia. It’s true there is little cordiality between the two countries at present, but even spying on friendly states is a necessity of “national security.” Countries always deny accusations of espionage even when there is clear evidence.
Chinese shame
For instance, African Union (AU) countries learnt quite a lesson last year but they may not fully comprehend it because the other involved party is China. Last month, a detailed report revealed that China has been downloading sensitive information from the AU’s database for over a period of five years. The expose has led to a tense and embarrassing phase in China-Africa relations because both parties have often claimed that their political and economic partnership is based on mutual respect and trust. The recent incident in which Chinese agents are accused of infiltrating the African Union’s headquarters raises plenty of questions about the future of relations between China and some African countries.
China has strongly denied these claims while initial media reports voiced some African leaders’ anger. However, the AU’s official response has so far been in line with China’s. The Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement that the report about its alleged espionage is an attempt by Western powers to sow discord, adding that this will not affect the strong ties it has with Africa. China’s ambassador to the African Union dismissed the “absurd” spying claims but acknowledged they will create problems for African-Chinese relations.
The AU’s stance clarifies deep-rooted issues in its commercial and economic ties with the global power, China, as this scandal threatens to undermine the economic power and performance of the AU and Africa as a whole.
This political turmoil regarding China’s alleged spying surfaced in January 2018 when the French Le Monde newspaper published a report about China stealing secret data from the AU Headquarters. According to the report, AU officials discovered a year ago that sensitive information was being downloaded from the AU’s computers and transferred to Beijing every night, ever since the headquarters was built. Although surveillance bugs and microphones were found hidden in desks and the walls, the AU had kept silent until Le Monde’s report was published.
Impact of the expose
China built the AU’s headquarters in 2012 in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa for $200 million and actually brought construction material for that purpose from China. Many observers believe these developments mean China-Africa relations will decline, but economic and political partnership will continue.
There has been increased economic interdependence between China and Africa, so if any party decides to weaken ties, the economic performance of both sides will be affected adversely. For instance, China has made massive investments in Africa over the past decade. During the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation in South Africa in 2015, China pledged to allocate $60 billion for development projects across Africa. Bilateral trade estimates reached $149 billion in 2016.
China has also made security contributions in some trouble-hit areas like South Sudan. Natural resources are the main reason China sought to establish stronger political and economic ties with Africa. Therefore, losing access to these resources or even facing obstructions may hinder China’s role as the largest manufacturer in the world. Getting access to oil in Nigeria and Angola and to cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo makes it important for China to have strong ties with Africa so it maintains its status as an economic power. However, it’s worrisome that China provided everything which the African Union needs, from cement to furniture, and used these “gifts” to spy, especially as it seeks to support construction projects across Eurasia for its One Belt One Road Initiative.
African leaders opened their doors to China’s generosity mainly because of their suspicion of Western powers which colonized them and meddled in their affairs. African countries benefitted from China’s foreign policy which does not interfere in their affairs and from China’s low-interest loans. Therefore, these leaders may think the ties deserve this price, i.e. a little Chinese surveillance in exchange. Such a position, however, shows that the partnership between China and Africa is afflicted with an imbalance of power.
AU grows wary of China
China realizes this fact so it has reiterated its respect for the AU’s sovereignty and has expressed hope that it will resume its investments. Behind closed doors, Chinese officials made promises to their African counterparts to increase investment and not to intervene in their affairs. This is simply the “behind closed doors” policy which China adopts. However, it’s not possible to deny that the recent report has embarrassed some African Union members and has sown seeds of mistrust.
Although this development will not undermine relations between China and its most prominent African partners, like Rwanda and Nigeria, Botswana used what the report revealed to discourage excessive reliance on China. Relations between Botswana and China became tense after the latter pressured the former to cancel a visit the Dali Lama wanted to make. This made Botswana have second thoughts about its relations with China. However, the Botswana case is an exception and not the norm here. Accusations of espionage may lead to more adverse consequences for China if similar developments continued to happen. The African Union headquarters is not the only building which can be infiltrated as China has sealed deals to build and fund parliament buildings in Zimbabwe and Congo and to finalize parliament construction in Malawi, Seychelles, Guinea-Bissau and Lesotho.
This is in addition to construction works in Egypt’s new administrative capital. African countries will thus be more cautious when using Chinese construction companies for their future projects, especially projects related to security. They may even begin to rely on their own resources, particularly their own human resources. China has had its eyes on Africa for decades. Former US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s recent visit to Africa aimed to stop this Chinese tide. It’s too late for the US as Africa cannot do without Chinese largesse. However, since China’s flagrant violation is an unacceptable result of Chinese and African foreign policies, both parties (China and Africa) will probably blame Western media for trying to undermine Chinese-African relations. The defamation campaign against the West will allow all concerned parties to circumvent the uncomfortable facts surrounding the dynamics of relations between China and different African countries.
Secret cost of tying up with China
This will be the AU’s official policy. African leaders may remember this Chinese spying incident and take measures to monitor the activity of their biggest commercial partner, at least its activity within governmental buildings which Chinese companies constructed. In the long run, relations will not be tense as a result of these spying accusations because despite African countries’ suspicions, they will not find more trustworthy partners.
What these spying accusations revealed has raised questions about the “secret costs” for allowing China to build governmental buildings and sensitive infrastructure in Africa and other places. The Silk Road is very long and it passes through many countries, most of whom desire to work with China, as it is more stable than others and more generous in terms of constructing governmental buildings, bridges, ports and connecting railways. So do these countries think they will grow and develop at China’s expense without paying a price that harms their sovereignty?
It’s China whom great leaders once said “It is a sleeping giant. Let her sleep.” This giant is now awake.

Trump's North Korea Talks Need to Address Syrian and Iranian Proliferation
Jay Solomon/The Washington Institute/March 24/18
When Pyongyang was able to cooperate freely with Middle Eastern regimes in the past, it built a clandestine nuclear reactor in Syria, so Washington cannot afford to turn a blind eye to such activity again.
As President Trump prepares for direct negotiations with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in the coming months, one of the administration's goals for this historic dialogue should be to permanently halt Pyongyang's arms sales to the Middle East. Since the 1990s, successive U.S. administrations have held exhaustive talks with the regime aimed at ending its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, with very limited success. But Washington has never placed a high priority on shutting down North Korea's foreign proliferation networks, according to current and former U.S. officials. The result is that Pyongyang continues to export dangerous military technologies to countries such as Iran, Syria, and Egypt, despite facing draconian international sanctions.
SYRIAN PROLIFERATION, THEN AND NOW
Evidence of North Korea's clandestine role in building a plutonium-producing reactor in Syria emerged in 2007, just as the Bush administration was negotiating a disarmament deal with Pyongyang. At the time, construction of the reactor at al-Kibar was viewed as one of the worst cases of nuclear proliferation in history. Yet Washington nevertheless refrained from punishing North Korea severely in the hope of securing a diplomatic victory on the disarmament issue, according to former U.S. officials involved in the talks; the administration never demanded a full accounting of Pyongyang's activities in Syria either. That round of negotiations collapsed, however, and North Korea's nuclear arsenal grew dramatically in the ensuing years.
Although Israeli jets ultimately destroyed Syria's reactor in September 2007, killing a number of North Koreans working at the site, the United States cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the regional proliferation threat in the next round of talks. "Syria set a terrible precedent for the cause of nonproliferation," said Elliott Abrams, who served as a senior National Security Council official in the Bush administration. "North Korea basically got away scot-free with the sale."
Experts are also concerned that Pyongyang may have helped Syria develop other nuclear assets. On March 21, the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security released a report calling for UN inspectors to visit a site near the western Syrian town of al-Qusayr, noting that the Assad regime may have built a uranium-enrichment facility there with Pyongyang's assistance.
Whatever the case, both Washington and South Korea say they will retain sanctions on the North during the next talks, despite Kim Jong-un's reported pledge to freeze all ballistic missile tests. "At this point, we have offered them nothing," South Korean foreign minister Kang Kyung-wha told Face the Nation on March 18. "There will be no reward for dialogue."
This approach seems prudent given that Pyongyang's willingness to export sensitive technologies to Syria has once again been laid bare. In a confidential report, UN inspectors describe how North Korean trade companies smuggled tons of industrial equipment into Syria in recent years for what appeared to be the construction of a new chemical weapons production facility. The shipments, which were tracked by several UN member states, included acid-resistant tiles, stainless steel pipes, and other materials associated with such facilities. The UN also identified forty previously undisclosed North Korean shipments to Syria's Scientific Studies and Research Center, the body that oversees chemical weapons production, between 2012 and 2017.
In addition, the UN found that Pyongyang has been deploying engineers to Syrian chemical weapons and missile plants in recent months. According to one member state, North Korean personnel were found at such facilities in Hama, Adra, and Barzah. The presumed purpose of their presence was to aid the Syrian military in its operations against rebels. Yet U.S. defense officials are also worried that the North Koreans are learning from the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons, perhaps in case they need to resort to chemical attacks if conflict breaks out on the Korean peninsula. Washington believes that Pyongyang is more than willing to use such weapons, claiming that VX nerve agent was the instrument of choice when Kim Jong-un ordered the assassination of his half-brother last year in Malaysia.
MISSILE COOPERATION WITH IRAN, AND NUCLEAR TOO?
UN, U.S., and Middle Eastern officials continue to express concerns about North Korea's suspected missile cooperation with Iran. Last September, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps displayed a new ballistic missile called the Khoramshahr at an annual parade in Tehran. Technical analysts say the weapon bears a sharp resemblance to North Korea's BM-25, which has a range of 3,500 kilometers—a capability that would allow Tehran to hit European capitals and Israel.
North Korea and Iran have been cooperating on missile development since the 1980s, according to U.S. and Israeli officials. Earlier versions of Iran's Shahab missiles were almost exact replicas of North Korea's Nodong series, and Western intelligence agencies tracked regular bilateral exchanges of scientists and engineers. Today, officials are trying to determine whether this cooperation remains close—and if it has extended to the nuclear field. North Korea's second-ranked political official, Kim Yong-nam, visited Tehran for ten days last August, setting off alarm bells in Western capitals. He had previously inked a scientific cooperation agreement with Iran in 2012, similar to the one he signed with Syria a decade earlier. At the time, Washington worried that the Iran agreement could presage nuclear cooperation, and such concerns persist.
To date, however, U.S., European, and UN officials say there is no smoking-gun evidence of nuclear cooperation between the two countries. And on missile development, North Korea and Iran appear to have grown largely self-sufficient, though the technical ties remain. "It doesn't seem like they need each other as much anymore," stated Uzi Rubin, an expert at Israel's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. "The North Koreans are forging ahead of the Iranians in many ways."
Moreover, even U.S. allies in the Middle East have made arms deals with North Korea, say U.S. officials. Last year, the Trump administration withheld military aid from Egypt due in part to concerns that it was purchasing weapons from Pyongyang. These included 30,000 rocket-propelled grenades seized in Egyptian waters in 2016, a transaction that may have netted North Korea more than $20 million.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Trump administration has stated that negotiations with Kim Jong-un will focus on dismantling the regime's nuclear arsenal and shuttering its proliferation networks—no surprise given that North Korea's recent advances on these fronts have caused growing unease in Washington. According to current and former U.S. officials, however, it is unclear what the administration could offer Pyongyang in return for cutting off one of the country's primary revenue sources. To be sure, North Korea is eager to roll back the punishing international sanctions, particularly those targeting its mineral and agricultural exports. But much like his father and grandfather before him, Kim Jong-un has shown no inclination to seriously modernize the country's economy or allow significant foreign investment, since any such steps could threaten his hold on the isolated state. Instead, the suspected depths of North Korea's economic ills mean that he will likely continue marketing his wares to bad actors in the Middle East, unless President Trump proves willing or able to offer him a sufficiently enticing alternative.
**Jay Solomon is the Segal Distinguished Visiting Fellow at The Washington Institute.