LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
May 02/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.may02.18.htm

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

Ukraine: Is Russia Planning A New Invasion?
Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/May 01/2018
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12228/ukraine-russia-invasion
Russia's aggression into Ukraine came in direct violation of its obligations under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
"After four years of war, Russia has at least 260,000 troops deployed along the Ukrainian border," ready to advance. — Oleksandr Turchynov, Chairman of Ukraine's National Defense and Security Council, April 13, 2018.
The First Deputy Head of the Ukrainian Security Service, Viktor Kononenko, recently reported that Russia might be planning another attempt to destabilize Ukraine in the fall "under the pretext of protecting the Russian-speaking population".
This April marks the fourth year of the ongoing war in Ukraine between the Ukrainian military and Russian backed separatists in the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics in eastern Ukraine, also known as the Donbas region. Prior to the beginning of the war in eastern Ukraine in April 2014, Russia annexed Crimea.
Russia's aggression into Ukraine came in direct violation of its obligations under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Under the memorandum, in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, Russia reaffirmed its "obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine" and promised that none of its weapons would ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Now, the question of further Russian or Russian-backed military operations in Ukraine has surfaced. In March, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko asserted that Russia has been strengthening its military presence on the border of Ukraine. According to Poroshenko:
"For more than one year, we have been repelling Russia's military aggression on the front line... In his latest report General Zabrodsky reported in detail on the strengthening of the military presence of the Russian Federation along our border and continued stay of Russia's regular troops in the occupied territories".
Poroshenko explained that the Russians have, since 2014, deployed and reorganized their forces in a way that will be able to support a rapid invasion both from the north and from east of Ukraine. "Several mechanized divisions are fully prepared for intervention," he said.
In April, Ukrainian Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak also claimed that Russia "has massed 19 battalion tactical groups of the combat echelon and reserve forces with over 77,000 troops," adding that they have almost 1,000 tanks, 2,300 combat vehicles, over 1,100 artillery systems and about 400 multiple rocket launchers. According to Poltorak, 40,000 Russian troops, which he detailed as an integral part of the Southern Military District of the Russian Armed Forces, are stationed in the Donbas. Also according to Poltorak, in 2017 Russia's military forces shelled Ukrainian army positions in Donbas more than 15,000 times.
There appears to be some internal disagreement on the exact number of Russian forces amassing on Ukraine. At the Kyiv Security Forum, on April 13, the chairman of Ukraine's National Defense and Security Council Oleksandr Turchynov noted:
"After four years of war, Russia has at least 260,000 troops deployed along the Ukrainian border, in addition to another 35,000 troops in the Donbas and 30,000 in Crimea, who could be used to conduct a large-scale continental war... The Russian aggressor is preparing a powerful force in Crimea -- and not only to protect its presence there. And the two occupation army corps in the Donbas have been positioned to provide cover and buy time for the main force to deploy at the borderline."
Turchynov also warned that the 260,000 Russian troops near the Ukrainian border are ready to advance with 3,500 tanks, 11,000 soft-skin vehicles, 4,000 artillery units, and over 1,000 multiple launch rocket systems. Russia, according to Tuchynov, has also fielded four guided-missile brigades in the region. The brigades, he says, are armed with Iskander-K cruise missile systems, which have a range of up to 2,500 kilometers. Apart from investing in conventional arms, Russia is also enhancing its hybrid warfare capabilities, "including terror attacks and subversive actions," in Ukraine, Turchynov said.
First Deputy Head of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), Viktor Kononenko, also recently reported that Russia might be planning another attempt to destabilize Ukraine in the fall. He said that the SBU has information on Russia's plans, including "the existence of a group in Putin's entourage, which has as goal to create prerequisites for the introduction of Russian troops to Ukraine in autumn under the pretext of protecting the Russian-speaking population". He added that Moscow allegedly plans to use criminals and other criminal-related structures "for beating participants of pro-Russian events and religious processions."
The war in Ukraine has already exacted a steep price. On April 21, UN representative to Ukraine, Neal Walker, announced that, "After four years of conflict, 3.4 million people in Ukraine are struggling to cope with the impact of the humanitarian crisis and urgently require humanitarian assistance and protection". More than 2,500 civilian men, women and children have been killed, and more than 9,000 injured in the past four years, according to the UN. Landmines in eastern Ukraine are affecting1.9 million people. "Last week," Walker said, "landmines killed a family of four in eastern Ukraine. In 2017, over 235 civilians were killed or injured by landmines and other explosive remnants of war."
In December 2017, humanitarian agencies launched a US$187 million appeal to reach more than 2.3 million of the most vulnerable people in Ukraine with assistance. 97% of this funding appeal remains unfunded. The world at large has forgotten the war in Ukraine.
Despite the humanitarian toll on the region, the United States for the first four years of the war, refused to supply the Ukrainian government with lethal weapons. The Obama administration reportedly feared that sending lethal weapons to Ukraine might escalate the conflict with Russia.
Arguably, this lack of forceful response to Russian aggression against its "near abroad" only emboldened Russia further. So much so, apparently, that Russia felt confident launching airstrikes in 2015 on behalf of Syria's President Bashar Assad against the people opposing him in the Syrian civil war. Undeterred by the US in both Ukraine and Syria, Russia had returned as a substantial military and political actor, not only in what has become known as the "post-Soviet space" -- the area inhabited by the former republics of the Soviet Union, such as Ukraine -- but in the Middle East, as well.
The Trump administration, in a timely departure from the Obama administration's refusal to grant Ukraine lethal weapons with which to defend its territory, approved the sale of defensive weapons -- 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 37 launchers worth $47 million -- in December 2017. In March, the US administration made the sale official "This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of Ukraine," the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency said. "The Javelin system will help Ukraine build its long-term defense capacity to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity in order to meet its national defense requirements".
Russia, however, has warned the weapons sale will "force" a conflict in the region. "Americans, in fact, directly push Ukrainian forces to war", Frantz Klintsevich, a member of the Russian parliament said. Grigory Karasin, Russia's deputy foreign minister said that the sale "raises the danger of derailing the process of peaceful settlement in Ukraine".
Administration officials have dismissed such arguments. "Defensive weapons are not provocative unless you're an aggressor, and clearly, Ukraine is not an aggressor, since it's their own territory where the fighting is happening," Defense Secretary James Mattis said last year during a trip to Kiev.
Russia, for its part, claims that it is not the aggressor. After the Ukrainian parliament, in January 2018, adopted a new law, which described the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk as "temporarily occupied" by Russia, and classified Russia as an "aggressor country", Russia refused to accept any responsibility for the ongoing war in Donbas. "Russia is neither a side nor a party to this conflict. This is stated in [the] Minsk agreements [which established a ceasefire and a 13 point-plan for resolving the conflict], and Minsk agreements are signed by President of Ukraine Poroshenko" said Dmitry Peskov, Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman in January. The Russian foreign ministry also said that the January 2018 law constituted "preparation for a new war," and warned that the move "risked a dangerous escalation in Ukraine with unpredictable consequences for world peace and security."
*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.

Flooding the Voter Rolls in US and Greece
Maria Polizoidou/Gatestone Institute/May 01/2018
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12227/voter-rolls-greece
In principle, the idea is no different from George Soros's 220-page guide seemingly to create a permanent voting majority for the Democratic Party by "enlarge[ing] the U.S. electorate by 10 million voters by 2018."
Greece's ruling Syriza coalition appears to be adopting a strategy of garnering votes from immigrants by expediting their naturalization process. It will be easier to obtain Greek citizenship than a fishing license.
A total of 800,000 immigrants -- almost one-tenth of the native Greek population -- will soon become citizens. Transposed to the United States, that would be the equivalent of 32,000,000 new voters.
As Greece struggles with accelerating economic decline and an increasing lack of public faith in the political leadership, the ruling Syriza coalition appears to be adopting a strategy of garnering votes from immigrants by expediting their naturalization process.
According to a recent report in the Greek daily Parapolitika, Interior Minister Panos Skourletis is laying the groundwork to enable hundreds of thousands of immigrants to become citizens and vote in the next elections. Although the mandate of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras ends in September 2019, some analysts have been predicting a call for elections by the end of 2018.
Until now, candidates for Greek citizenship had to be vetted by a committee. Under the new system, applicants will be granted citizenship automatically if they correctly answer 20 out of 30 questions online. In addition, the government is planning to allow immigrants over the age of 65 to obtain Greek IDs, without testing their knowledge of the Greek language. In other words, it will be easier to obtain Greek citizenship than a Greek fishing license. As a result, a total of 800,000 immigrants -- almost one-tenth of the native Greek population -- will soon become citizens. Transposed to the United States, that would be the equivalent of 32,000,000 new voters.
In principle, the idea is no different from George Soros's 220-page guide, released by DC Leaks, seemingly to create a permanent voting majority for the Democratic Party by "enlarge[ing] the U.S. electorate by 10 million voters by 2018."
Easing citizenship requirements may be a calculated electoral ploy, but it is also in keeping with an overall European multiculturalism. The current leadership is not interested in the origins of the country's illegal immigrants, many of whom hail from Afghanistan, Pakistan and sub-Saharan Africa and do not respect the Judeo-Christian roots and culture of modern Greek civilization. Nor does the government appear to concern itself with the danger involved in allowing huge numbers of migrants from terrorist-ridden Muslim-majority countries to become citizens, without vetting them.
Meanwhile, as its immigrant population increases, Greece is simultaneously undergoing a brain-drain. Over the past 8 years, for example, 500,000 skilled and educated young people left the country and have chosen to remain abroad rather than return home and contribute to the economy, the culture and society in general.
According to recent opinion polls, if elections were held in Greece today, the opposition party, New Democracy, would win. It is likely for this reason that the incumbent Syriza coalition has been stepping up its efforts to stay in power. Let us hope that its maneuver to do so by hastily granting voting rights to immigrants will fail. If not, the future of Greece and other countries where there are visible efforts to undermine democratic processes -- as in America's politicized, seemingly criminalized Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation and the efforts of U.S. Democrats to try to prevent the president from forming a government -- could be dangerously bleak.
**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.

Analysis Israel's Double Front Against Iran: Military Strike in the Morning, Press Conference at Night
هآرتس: جبهة إسرائيلية مزدوجة ضد إيران: ضربة عسكرية في الصباح ومؤتمر صحفي ليلا
Amos Harel/Haaretz/May 01/2018
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/64286/amos-harel-haaretz-israels-double-front-against-iran-military-strike-in-the-morning-press-conference-at-night-%D9%87%D8%A2%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B3-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A9-%D8%A5%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7/
As Netanyahu urges Trump to quit the nuclear deal, Israel acts freely in Syria's sky, assuming Iran would be afraid to react. But what happens if it miscalculates?
The conflict between Israel and Iran entered a new phase on Monday, which combines a number of dimensions – military and intelligence, diplomacy and public diplomacy. In the evening Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed the “Iranian nuclear archive,” tens of thousands of secret documents that reached Israeli hands by covert means. Less than 24 hours earlier, Iranian military sites in Syria were bombed from the air, in an attack once again attributed to Israel
Netanyahu is conducting a campaign to achieve two different goals. In the international arena, it seems as if he wants to give U.S. President Donald Trump another little push toward an American decision to abandon the Iran nuclear agreement. And in Syria, Israel looks more determined than ever to prevent Iranian military entrenchment. There is a certain connection between the two tracks. Israel apparently believes that the pressure the Iranians are under as Trump’s announcement gets closer, together with economic distress and increasing protest at home will make it difficult for Tehran to respond immediately and forcefully to the bombings.
In the hours that passed between the attack and the prime minister’s press conference there was a certain fear among the public, which was fanned by fake news reports spreading on WhatsApp that a war with Iran was imminent. That concern proved to be exaggerated, and in the evening Netanyahu put on the performance of the year. One can assume that displaying the binders from the Iranian archives on live TV left no small impression on at least some Israeli viewers.
Beyond the impressive intelligence achievement, there remains the question of the significance of the revelations. In short, Israel is saying that it has new, persuasive proof of its old claim that the Iranians were lying through the negotiations process with the large powers and was operating a secret military program all along. These documents, Netanyahu said, had been shown to the Americans and would soon be submitted to other countries.
The debate from here on in becomes interpretive: Is there a smoking gun that proves that the Iranians continued their development efforts after 2015? Retired senior Military Intelligence officials who watched the press conference couldn’t discern any such proof at this point. In an interview with Haaretz in early April, Chief of General Staff Gadi Eisenkot argued that the Iranian nuclear agreement, despite its flaws, “Is working now.” One can imagine that his assessment was not greeted with great enthusiasm in Netanyahu’s office.
The army is with him
After the attack on Syria attributed to Israel on Sunday night, at least the fifth since September, there seems to be little room for doubt. Israel is determined to uproot the Iranian military presence from Syria.
Following the previous attack at the T4 airbase by Homs on April 9, in which 14 people died including seven members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran threatened severe retaliation. Israel's defense establishment braced accordingly, but nothing has happened so far. Instead, now there has been another belligerent move against Iran's interests in Syria.
Based on Syrian reports, the raid on military targets between Hama and Aleppo in Syria's north caused powerful explosions – one media outlet reported that the intensity was akin to a small earthquake. Some were killed, apparently Syrian soldiers and pro-Iranian Shiite militia people.
Last week the TV network CNN reported that American and Israeli espionage are closely watching the movement of Iranian arms into Syria that could be used to "close accounts" with Israel. The attack on Sunday night – at this time, with such force – could attest that a major weapons cache was hit. In turn, that could attest to an attempt to foil a potential Iranian reaction.
The confrontation with Iran in Israel's north is direct: Israel drew a line in the sand, and is prepared to enforce it with force. Since the Iranians object to both Israel's prohibition on its presence and the means Israel is employing, and in the absence of a mediator between the sides, this conflict could yet escalate. The week is young.
Afraid of provoking Trump
Over the last year, two trends have become evident in the Middle East: Syrian President Bashar Assad camp won the bloody civil war in Syria, and the U.S. is scaling back its presence in the region. Even its recent punitive attack against the Assad regime felt like a symbolic gesture of farewell. Meanwhile, two other trends are taking shape: Israel's effort to expel Iran from Syria, and Washington preparing for a resolution to ditch the nuclear agreement between Iran and the powers, which should happen around May 12.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government seems to tie between these last two trends. The thinking is that Iran is restraining itself from reacting against Israel for its latest alleged moves in Syria, because it's afraid of making a mistake that would provoke U.S. rage. According to that view, U.S. President Donald Trump could respond to escalation between Iran and Israel by abandoning the nuclear agreement even earlier, and later, it might even attack the Iranian nuclear sites itself (which would be incalculably more painful than a theoretical Israeli attack). The authorities in Tehran are also worried about various threats at home, from financial crisis to stormy protests. The requisite ostensible conclusion is that Israel can continue to flail at Iranians in Syria as it pleases.
Indeed the U.S. is behaving very differently than during the Obama days. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came to Israel upon taking the job and took off for Jordan just before the first reports came in about the Israeli attacks in Syria. Concurrently, Trump and Netanyahu talked by phone, reportedly also discussing Iran. That is a clear back-wind from Washington for the winds of war blowing in Jerusalem. One might think that if Pompeo could only have stayed in Israel a few more hours, they'd have suggested he clamber into a cockpit and fire some missiles himself.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu, as we wrote some weeks ago, is in a particularly Trumpian mood, quite different from his normal behavior. His interest in security incidents has trumped even his preoccupation with political infighting within the coalition. He is prepared to undertake uncharacteristic risks, bordering on gambling. Unusually, the defense establishment is with him. In contrast to the dramatic argument over bombing nuclear sites in Iran at the start of the decade, this time Israel's defense chiefs are leading a hard, aggressive line regarding Iran's presence in Syria.
The annoying but necessary question this morning is what happens if an Israeli move fails.
True, Iran doesn't want to annoy the U.S. right now. It is invested in protecting its nuclear program from yet more pressures, and is concerned about exposing its forces to harm in Syria. A fight in Syria wouldn't suit the Russians either as they set about stabilizing Assad's regime.
But Israel's calculations could go completely haywire if the flames in Syria blaze out of control, and if Iran decides, in contrast to assessments, to toss Hezbollah into the conflagration, for example after the Lebanese elections scheduled for May 6. Hezbollah has gained extensive operational experience in Syria. It has an arsenal of more than 100,000 missiles and rockets. Hezbollah certainly isn't stronger than the Israel Defense Forces, but in the event of war, it could wreak real damage on the Israeli home front, and ground fighting in Lebanon would cost the Israeli army dearly.
A conflict like that could drag in Hamas in Gaza, as Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman has warned time and again (there seems to be a discrepancy between the confident tones emanating from Jerusalem, including Lieberman's, in public, and their actual fears). So far Israel has managed to establish and maintain coordination with the Russian air force to prevent friction in the Syrian skies. But couldn't Moscow decide at some point that it's sick of receiving diktats from Jerusalem?
Israel has a justifiable purpose in Syria. Iran's presence is developing into dangerous potential that could weigh on the IDF in the future. Even so, this morning, questions beg to be asked. Is the blanket goal of expelling all Iranian forces from Syria even attainable, as the prime minister, defense minister and chief of staff seem to think? Are they taking into account that things can go wrong, to the point of a broader conflict that will exact a far heavier price? There has been no real public discussion on this so far, nor has dispute surfaced over the policy taking shape in the north – not in government, and not among the top security brass.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-s-double-front-against-iran-1.6045686?utm_campaign=newsletter-daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=smartfocus&utm_content=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.haaretz.com%2Fisrael-news%2Fisrael-s-double-front-against-iran-1.6045686

Are the wars in Sinai and Yemen necessary?
Mashari Althaydi/Al Arabiya/May 01/18
It is easy to criticize anything, especially complex political, security and military operations that affect the lives of people.
This is what some has been doing toward the operations in Yemen against Houthi-Iranian militias and in Egypt where the Egyptian army and police have launched an operation against ISIS fighters in Sinai, specifically in north Sinai.
It is quite easy to ask: Then what? How long will we stay the course? Where are we going? When will the roar of cannons, the whizzing of airplanes, the firing of the machine guns and the costly bills of war come to an end?
However what is difficult is to answer such questions: Can one living in the southern Saudi border with its mountain ranges and plains coexist with the Houthi gangs which are an organ of the Khomeini body which has taken it upon itself to destroy the Saudi state as we’ve seen since 1979?
Is it “normal” for Saudi Arabia to remain silent and ignore the Houthis until the damage is done?
Is the Egyptian state required to ignore the existence of ISIS, al-Qaeda and Brotherhood gangs that explicitly announce that their goal is to destroy the Egyptian state, demolish the borders for the sake of their parent organization and dive with the country’s fate into the sea of darkness?
Are the Egyptian state and its army required to be paralyzed regarding this situation?
The war to liberate Yemen from the gangs of Khomeini and Egypt from the gangs of ISIS is a war of necessity
Mistakes committed
Have mistakes been committed? Yes. Mistakes were made, but this is the nature of work and the characteristic of activity.
Last Saturday, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi vowed that the military operation, which has been carried out by the army in cooperation with the police in Sinai since February, will be finalized as soon as possible.
In a gathering organized by the Egyptian army, Sisi told the people of Sinai that a development plan is currently being implemented in Sinai and will complete by 2022.
He then stressed: “We will finish the mission as soon as possible.” Sisi was keen on venerating the people of Sinai, saying: “Terrorism is present in all the governorates of Egypt,” adding: “If we had not taken these measures (in Sinai), we will have lost Sinai.”
The Egyptian president made these statements to respond to intimidation campaigns, not the ones emanating from the Muslim Brotherhood through its Turkish or Qatari channels, but from certain international human rights organizations that one does not know not what they exactly want! What do they want? For Egypt to hand over Sinai to ISIS?
Egyptian Army spokesman Tamer Rifai has criticized a Human Rights Watch report about a “looming humanitarian crisis” in Sinai due to the anti-terrorism operation conducted by the military.
The report included massive exaggerations about the situation of the people in North Sinai. Of course, their situation is not good and it’s certainly difficult as a war is being fought!
The war to liberate Yemen from the gangs of Khomeini and Egypt from the gangs of ISIS is a war of necessity, even if it angers sensitive groups and the new Hashishin.

Killing of Saleh al-Sammad, the beginning of the end of our war in Yemen
Mohammed Al Shaikh/Al Arabiya/May 01/18
The death of Saleh al-Sammad the president of the so-called Supreme Political Council of the Houthis in Yemen is, in my opinion, considered as the beginning of the Houthis’ end in Yemen. Killing this agent will weaken the Houthi fighters in the raging fronts, especially that the civil war there has recently witnessed several victories in favor of the legitimate forces and their allies on almost all fronts.
Houthis’ fall, an inevitable destiny
I have known since the beginning of the war that the Houthis’ inevitable destiny would be a huge defeat and a terrible fall as all rational and objective signs clearly indicate this. The long duration of the war does not mean that it is in favor of the Houthis, as some believe, as it has rather drained their resistance and limited their ability to resist falling and defy legitimacy which has all the reasons and justifications to achieve political and military victories as it has the power and the international community and the UN resolutions support it.
Only the mullahs of Iran support the Houthis, and they are now facing international negative circumstances that exhausted them, specifically economic ones, and especially after American President Donald Trump voiced his intention to withdraw from the nuclear agreement.
These mullahs know well that in the end they cannot defy the US and all of the Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia. Therefore, they are employing the Houthis, standing with them and using them as a card to exert political pressure – a card they will dispose of whenever they realize that it achieved its purposes of which the most important one today is to be a price to keep the nuclear agreement as it is.
Iran’s blackmail plans
It seems that things did not go as planned by Iran’s blackmail schemes. The Houthis are currently going through rough times and their militias have been retreating and weakening by the day. Killing al-Sammad is a powerful sign that indicates the Houthis’ continuous defeats in most fighting fronts. Given the Houthis’ exhausted situation, Iran will not be able to bet on them or use them as a bargaining chip in regional disputes as it had hoped.
Needless to say that the Houthis are mere pawns in the conflict, and the Iranians will not hesitate to sacrifice them whenever they achieve even part of their goals. Iran will simply dump them in the bin of history once it realizes that sacrificing them will serve the interests of its regional battles, especially that there are other pawns that are more important than the Houthis, like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq.
Betting on the Houthis and supporting them after al-Sammad’s death, the deterioration of the Houthis’ situation and the increase of news about defections in their camps, in addition to the fact that the Iranians will not stand with them forever due to the international pressures they are facing because of their expansions are all factors that will eventually come together and force the Houthis to look for a way out to preserve at least a small part of what they had achieved in the political arena.

If Trump brokers peace in Korea, he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize
Dr. Azeem Ibrahim/Al Arabiya/May 01/18
US Presidents have a higher probability of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize than any other political leader in the world. Four have received the Prize to date along with one Vice President. The first was Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 who successfully mediated the end to the Russo-Japanese war.
This was followed shortly after by Woodrow Wilson in 1919 who founded the League of Nations – the precursor to the United Nations. Jimmy Carter’s lifelong commitment to find solutions to intractable international conflicts earned him his Prize in 2002.
Al Gore was the only Vice President to receive the Prize in 2007 for his efforts to educate the world on climate change. Obama, ironically, was the most controversial recipient having received his for “strengthening international diplomacy” but was really awarded it for not being George Bush.
Unlike Obama who still enjoys huge popularity around the globe, Donald Trump’s brashness has been hard to swallow by world opinion. Any Prize, irrespective of it’s merit, will therefore be a hard sell by the Norwegians.
And unlike the Prize for say chemistry or medicine, where a handful of global experts can validate the distinction of the discovery or contribution, the Peace Prize is significantly more subjective.
Controversy has surrounded almost every recipient from Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat to Aung San Suu Kyi – who in an unprecedented move has been condemned by a dozen of her fellow Laureates for her role in Myanmar’s genocidal policies. Add to this the recent sexual abuse allegation against the Committee for the Nobel Prize for Literature and you have a situation that does not lend itself to making unpopular choices.
Despite many wanting to see Trump fall flat, it would be criminal not to want him to succeed. Particularly, when the alternative is so perilous
Denuclearize and secure peace
But if Trump manages to convince Comrade Kim to denuclearize and secures peace in the Korean peninsula, he will undoubtedly be more deserving than any recipient in living memory.
He will have neutralized the world’s most dangerous situation, solidified his legacy, even if he only serves one term, and will rightly go down in presidential history as the “greatest deal maker” – a label he has always craved. He will have proven all his critics wrong and his army of supporters right.
Despite many wanting to see President Trump fall flat, it would be criminal not to want him to succeed. Particularly, when the alternative is so perilous. But what are the chances of seeing The Donald in Oslo?
The answer to that depends on whether Kim Jong-Un is sincere when he says he really is open to give up his nuclear weapons if a suitable deal can be struck. Unfortunately, we have seen this movie before and it seems quite unlikely.
Kim Jong-un may be an unpleasant character, but he is by no account crazy. And, it seems, he has learnt from history. Saddam gave up his nuclear and other WMD programmes in the Oil for Food programme, and less than ten years later he was hanged by a US-installed Iraqi government.
Qaddafi gave up his nuclear programme in order to trade oil with the West, and again, less than ten years later he was killed in a Western-supported uprising. Ukraine voluntarily gave up the the nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union by 1996, and not two decades later, Russia, the recipient of those missiles, invaded and annexed Crimea.
Repeating history
There is nothing to suggest that Kim intends to repeat this history. In fact, the reason he has pushed on with the nuclear program in recent years despite unprecedented pressure from the West and his neighbours, including the North’s longstanding ally, China, is because Kim and his regime are convinced that nukes are the only thing that can sustain their regime. And it is difficult to argue against their case: every regime which has given up their nuclear programme under pressure from the West has suffered the consequences; while now that Kim’s nuclear programme is on its feet and largely successful, “the most isolated regime in the world” gets to meet face-to-face with the leader of the free world. But the optics for Trump are much worse that that. It’s not just that Trump’s administration is rewarding Kim with a visit for decades of defiance and for breaking international rules on nuclear proliferation. The details of the meeting will also be hugely relevant. Any meeting will be an unbelievable propaganda coup for the regime: after decades of delirious and fantasist news coverage in the North about how powerful the regime is to stand along against all the world’s great powers, now the American president comes to Korean to “seek terms” with Supreme Leader Kim. Never in their life would the officials at the propaganda ministry would have expected such a prize to land in their lap.
So best case scenario, the meeting between Trump and Kim will result in the North giving up it’s nuclear weapons and thawing relations with their neighbours which means we are likely to see both Kim and Donald in Oslo soon. Worst case scenario is a humiliating set back for Trump meaning there are no longer any further cards to play.

US, Europe Must Convince Each Other To Pursue The Right Goals In Iran
Dr.Walid Phares/Daily Caller site/May 01/18
د.وليد فارس: من الضرورة ان تكون القناعة متبادلة بين اوروبا وأميركا للوصل لنفس الأهداف بما يتعلق بإيران
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/64296/dr-walid-phares-us-europe-must-convince-each-other-to-pursue-the-right-goals-in-iran-%d8%af-%d9%88%d9%84%d9%8a%d8%af-%d9%81%d8%a7%d8%b1%d8%b3-%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b6%d8%b1%d9%88%d8%b1%d8%a9/
French President Emmanuel Macron held talks with his American counterpart last week in Washington. He was followed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel as the Europeans make a last ditch effort to convince President Trump to step back from his possible withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement.
It’s not surprising that the world is closely watching this issue as that deadline, May 12, ticks closer. But we should all be deeply concerned if the spectacle of the nuclear issue distracts attention away from broader concerns regarding Iran’s conduct in the region and around the globe. This is something that both Macron and Trump have clearly been taking seriously throughout their respective tenures.
In other words, we should all hope that the Western leaders would address the Iranian activities that threaten the world not just five or ten years from now, but right at this moment.
Among European leaders, Macron has been bringing attention to the need for constraints on Iran’s ballistic missile program, which contributes to regional instability. Macron has also been decidedly vocal about the danger that the Iranian regime poses in Syria, where it is the most loyal and longstanding backer of Bashar al-Assad and his collective violence against the Syrian people.
It bears mentioning that Trump’s aversion to the nuclear deal and Macron’s commitment to countering Iranian influence in Syria are clearly based on the same correct understanding of the Islamic Republic. That is to say, both men seem to recognize that Iran’s behavior will not change in any meaningful way until it undergoes a change of government. So while nuclear negotiations might limit the current government’s ability to develop the most destructive weapons, the nuclear issue will never be fully resolved as long as that government continues to set policy for the nation.
Meanwhile, the persistence of Iran’s regional intransigence serves to safeguard the theocratic regime, complete with its belligerent, nuclear ambitions. By contrast, multilateral efforts to push Iran out of Syria and other regional conflict zones would weaken the regime and force it to face domestic problems, which include a restive population and a protest movement that quite possibly poses a greater challenge to the regime than it has ever faced before.
Iran’s domestic uprising is of particular significance to Macron in light of the fact that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called him on January 2 and urged the French government to crack down on the main Iranian opposition movement, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), which has a presence in France and is reported to be a significant player in the proliferation of Iran’s anti-government protests in recent months.
A week after that call, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei delivered a speech in which he explicitly blamed the MEK, for planning and initiating the protests that spanned every major Iranian town and city in December and January, leading to explicit calls for regime change.
Macron naturally rebuffed Rouhani’s appeal, and this speaks to the common ground that the French and American presidents are establishing as they work together on charting the future course for Western policy toward Iran.
Multilateral sanctions are the first and most natural option for supporting and promoting those voices, especially as they continue to speak out loud on the streets of cities like Isfahan, Kazerun, and Ahvaz, where protesters recently clashed with security forces even three months after the violent suppression of the January uprising. With their collective tools of economic and diplomatic pressure, the US and Europe share a responsibility to keep international attention focused on the human rights abuses that often meet such protests, and to hold the perpetrators of those abuses to account.
And now more than ever, it is incumbent upon American and European leaders to establish a plan of action. Many experts on the Middle East have suggested that a resurgent uprising by the Iranian people may be just around the corner.
In March, on the occasion of the Iranian New Year celebration Nowruz, the Iranian opposition leader, Maryam Rajavi delivered a speech in which she urged the Iranian activist community to turn the year ahead into “a year full of uprisings.” The latest protests show that that progress is already being made toward that goal, which Rajavi predicted to lead to ultimate victory over the widely despised clerical regime.
When that victory comes to pass, and only then, the issue of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions will finally be resolved. This is something the Europeans must keep in mind as they fret over the future of the nuclear agreement. But at the same time, the Trump administration must be encouraged to recognize that complete disengagement from the Middle East in the face of the Iranian regime imperialism would only strengthen the regime and mitigate the threat it faces at this moment.
In this sense, it is clear that the Trump administration and its European counterparts have important lessons to learn from each other.
*Dr. Walid Phares is a professor of international relations and served as a foreign policy advisor to Donald Trump in 2016. He is the author of many books including The Lost Spring: US Policy in the Middle East and Catastrophes to Avoid @walidphares

Iran should learn lessons of Korean peace talks
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/May 02/18
A few months ago, peace on the Korean Peninsula was unthinkable, with many experts, scholars and policy-makers projecting that any diplomatic rapprochement between North Korea and South Korea was idealistic.
But the political landscape appears to have altered drastically in a short period of time. Now it is not an overstatement to argue that the recent political breakthrough between the two old rivals could be recorded among the world’s most significant historic events.
This is an instructive moment for Iran, which enjoys a friendly relationship with North Korea, to draw several comparative and critical conclusions from Pyongyang’s moves; lessons that could steer the Middle East drastically toward a positive path.
By making a political analogy and developing an analytical strategy, four lessons become apparent should the Islamic Republic genuinely want to promote peace.
If Iran makes peace with its neighbors and the Gulf states, as well as scales back its nuclear ambitions, it would be respected as a rational and instructive regional power by the Arab world and the international community as a whole
The first lesson is to de-escalate regional conflicts and tensions. In order to accomplish such an objective, Iran needs to make peace with its neighbors and other countries in the region by taking several steps. Tehran should give heed to other nations’ security concerns and people’s fear, which emanates from its foreign policy, behavior, expansionist policies, military adventurism, and threatening and incendiary rhetoric.
It follows that Iran should assure other countries in the region that it will cease its interference in their domestic affairs. For example, in Bahrain, Tehran must put aside its sectarian agenda of pitting the Sunnis against the Shiites. Media outlets that are controlled by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, such as Fars News, ought not to spread sectarian messages in order to divide and provoke the Bahraini people against each other.
Iran can take steps to improve its relationships with Saudi Arabia and Yemen if it puts an end to its military adventurism and support for the Houthis, including delivering weapons to the militia in violation of a UN resolution, and training as well as financially and politically assisting the Houthis. With respect to Kuwait, encroaching on its sovereignty, such as with the establishment of a “terror and spying cell,” has become a source of major tension between the two nations, which used to enjoy a friendly relationship.
Tehran can also promote peace by pulling its IRGC and Quds Force from other countries, specifically Iraq and Syria, and stopping its sponsorship of militias, proxies and terrorist groups. Infiltrating and dominating the Iraqi and Syrian security and political establishments, and creating Shiite militias and incorporating them into these states’ political apparatuses — such as the Popular Mobilization Forces —are strategies detrimental to peace and stability in the region.
The second lesson that the Islamic Republic can draw from the Korean peace talks is to curtail its nuclear ambitions by totally shutting down its controversial nuclear sites and taking robust steps to demonstrate denuclearization. Iranian leaders should be cognizant of the fact that their clandestine nuclear sites and activities are a major cause of tension, insecurity and instability in the region. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said he would additionally “invite experts of South Korea and the US, as well as journalists, to disclose the process to the international community with transparency,” according to Seoul’s presidential spokesman Yoon Young-chan. Tehran could take similar steps to build trust, promote transparency and avoid triggering a nuclear arms race in the region.
The third lesson for the Islamic Republic is anchored in the fact that making peace with other countries in the region is not a complex process. As we are witnessing in the case of North Korea, it just requires a political will. In the last few days, the world has observed how swiftly the regional and international dynamic can potentially shift toward a better world once Pyongyang demonstrated the political will to do so.
The fourth lesson is that the benefits of pursuing such measures are numerous for Iran and the region. If Iran makes peace with its neighbors and the Gulf states, as well as scales back its nuclear ambitions, it would be respected as a rational and instructive regional power by the Arab world and the international community as a whole.
In addition, a move that promotes stability, security and peace in the region would help resolve Tehran’s economic crisis, which has become a major source of discontent, and improve the lives of its citizens. Resolving tensions with other nations will bring about more trade, business deals and investments for Iran. With its rich and deep-rooted culture, grand cultural vestiges and ancient civilization, Iran could once again become a major tourist destination. A booming tourism industry is a valuable source of income to revitalize the economy, create jobs, and address the ordinary people’s concerns.
To conclude, Iran can draw significant lessons from the latest developments on the Korean Peninsula. If Tehran truly curtails its nuclear ambitions, and makes peace with other nations in the region, it would lead to what could be a major historic event. It would drastically alter the balance of power in the region. It would also address Iran’s economic crisis, improve the living standard of Iranian citizens, and promote stability and security in the region.
More importantly, it will make the region and the rest of the world a safer, more secure and more peaceful place for everyone.
• 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

Analysis Israel's Double Front Against Iran: Military Strike in the Morning, Press Conference at Night
هآرتس: جبهة إسرائيلية مزدوجة ضد إيران: ضربة عسكرية في الصباح ومؤتمر صحفي ليلا
Amos Harel/Haaretz/May 01/2018
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/64286/amos-harel-haaretz-israels-double-front-against-iran-military-strike-in-the-morning-press-conference-at-night-%D9%87%D8%A2%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B3-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A9-%D8%A5%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7/

Six Reports addressing the Loming Israeli-Iranian War in Syria /تقارير بالإنكليزية 6 تتناول الحرب الوشيكة بين إيران وإسرائيل في سوريا ومواقف البلدين
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/64289/six-reports-addressing-the-loming-israeli-iranian-war-in-syria%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%83%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%A9-6-%D8%AA%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84/

Iranian Defense Chief Warns Israel: Stop Your Dangerous Behavior, Response Will Surprise You
وزير الدفاع الإسرائيلي لإسرائيل: اوقفوا تصرفاتكم الخطيرة والرد سيفاجئكم
Haaretz/May 01, 2018

Analysis Israel Braces for Iranian Retaliation for Syria Strike – but War Isn’t Inevitable
إسرائيل تستعد للرد الإيراني على خلفية هجماتها على الإيرانيين في سوريا - لكن الحرب الشاملة ليست حتمية
Amos Harel/ May 01/2018

Iranian-Israeli War Looming on Horizon
الحرب الإيرانية -الإسرائيلية تحوف في الأفق
Tel Aviv, Washington, London/Asharq Al-Awsat/Tuesday, 1 May, 2018

U.S. Officials: Israeli F-15s Struck Syrian Base Storing Iranian Anti-aircraft Missiles
رسميون أميركيين: إسرائيل هاجمت قواعد إيرانية في سوريا لتخزين الصواريخ
Haaretz/May 01/2018

U.S. Officials: Israeli F-15s Struck Syrian Base Storing Iranian Anti-aircraft Missiles
رسميون أميركيين: إسرائيل هاجمت قواعد إيرانية في سوريا لتخزين الصواريخ
Haaretz/May 01/2018

France: Israel’s Iran Intelligence Shows Need for Longer-Term Assurances on Nuclear Program
فرنس: المخاربات الإسرائيلية بما يخص إيران تظهر الحاجة إلى تطمينات طويلة الأمد بما يخص البرنامج الإيراني النووي
Asharq Al-Awsat/Tuesday, 1 May, 2018