LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
May 20/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.may20.18.htm

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

Iran missed its window to attract investment
Camelia Entekhabifard/Arab News/May 19,/18
Despite opposition in the US Congress to the Iran nuclear deal, former president Barack Obama managed to secure the support needed from the Senate to protect it. With it, he had wanted to give Iran the opportunity it had been looking for since the revolution in 1979 to boost to its economy and to normalize its cold relations with West.
With the deal, this window of opportunity opened to Iran in July 2015, when the heavy sanctions on the economy, especially the oil embargo, were lifted. OPEC also excluded Iran from last year’s agreement, which asked members to cut production in order to manage the oil market. It made the exception for Iran in order to give it a chance to reach its pre-sanctions capacity.
Iran enjoyed many of the benefits of sanctions relief up until last week, when President Donald Trump announced the United States was leaving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Hearing that countries continuing their business with Iran would be punished, the French company Total, the biggest and most prestigious investor in Iran’s oil industry, announced it would pull out of Iran if it is not excluded from the sanctions.
Iran’s oil minister, Bijan Namdar Zangeneh, quickly responded to Total’s decision, saying the Iranian company Petro Pars and the Chinese are ready to fill the gaps left by the oil giant’s absence.
Tehran signed a contract with Total in 2017, but failed to attract other energy investors when the window of opportunity was open. Hassan Rouhani’s government was too slow to unveil its new Iran Petroleum Contract (IPC), and when it did, potential investors complained that the terms were unattractive.
Oil companies with significant US exposure, such as BP, Total and others, were deterred from seriously investing unless Trump got engaged with a new round of talks with Tehran, which currently is very unlikely.
Hassan Rouhani’s government was too slow to unveil its new Iran Petroleum Contract, and when it did, potential investors complained that the terms were unattractive.
Iran’s oil minister should be reminded that in 2012, the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation was expelled from its South Pars project for non-performance. But in maintaining its oil imports and picking up cheap Iranian barrels, this time China will act to secure its profits from US sanctions on Iran.
Russia, under US and EU financial sanctions, is short of cash and has previously offered Iran oil swaps as a way of evacuating Iranian crude.
The position of Russia is ambiguous, because it will not wish to end its deal with OPEC over the crude exchange in Iran. But it is obvious that, as a major oil exporter, it stands to benefit from higher prices and a reduction in Iranian competition.
It is also a stroke of luck for Russia that Iran’s large-scale entry onto the world gas market is delayed again and has no one but itself to blame. Moscow had gained valuable leverage over high oil prices and the agreement with Gulf Arab states agreement on a non-OPEC partnership.
But a sharp loss of Iranian production could lead to a collapse of the OPEC framework. Saudi Arabia and others would have to increase their production capacity again to prevent prices from skyrocketing, with oil already at $80 per barrel.
At the OPEC ministerial meeting in June, it will be interesting to see if Iraq and Saudi Arabia will fill the gap left by Iran’s possible absence from the market.
An Iranian journalist tweeted that he asked Iran’s oil minister: What is your reaction to those OPEC ministers who have said that OPEC would be able to meet the market demands in case of the reimposition of sanctions?
Zangeneh responded: "We will never forget that."
**Camelia Entekhabifard is an Iranian-American journalist, political commentator and author of Camelia: Save Yourself By Telling the Truth (Seven Stories Press, 2008). Twitter: @CameliaFard

North Korea-US summit has high stakes for many players
Cornelia Meyer/Arab News/May 19,/18
On June 12 US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un are scheduled to hold a summit in Singapore. The smart money is on the meeting taking place on schedule, despite the recent North Korean rhetoric suggesting it could be off. This will be a historic meeting of truly epic proportions, as it will be the first time that a US president sits down with a North Korean leader. At stake is nothing less than the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
The run-up to proposing this meeting was dramatic, as most things are with the US president. Trump and Kim called each other names for about a year. The latter busied himself carrying out nuclear tests and sending missiles in the direction of the Sea of Japan, while the former instated economic sanctions and threatened the nuclear obliteration of North Korea. Northeast Asian countries beyond the two Koreas were deeply concerned. China did not want to see a failed state on its borders and Japan feared for its security as did Taiwan.
What happened then was astounding. Since March the North Korean leader has paid two visits to China for discussions. There was also the historic summit between the North Korean president and his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in. Then on March 8 the White House announced that the US president was to meet the North Korean leader.
In between a lot happened: there was the historic Kim-Moon summit, which resulted in the “Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula,” and there were two visits of the US secretary of state to North Korea. Both sides made all the right noises when it came to denuclearization. However, their statements lacked specificity. China said it was willing to pour billions of dollars into the economic development of North Korea, if it denuclearized. The US also promised to be generous. On his part, Kim blew up parts of a nuclear test site, which brought him rich praise from the US president.
But we would not be dealing with Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un if there was not at least one curve ball along the way. Kim used the joint US-South Korean two-week military exercise, which started earlier last week, to call off the summit. In that context it was certainly not helpful that US National Security Adviser John Bolton had likened the US North Korea talks to Libya.
Kim certainly remembers what had happened to the Libyan dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, after he handed over his nuclear arsenal to the Americans. This must have brought on his worst fears. Libya’s subsequent descent into a failed state must also have rung the alarm bells. Trump went out of his way to dissuade the world from the Libya comparison. The US still prepares for the summit and South Korea has offered to mediate. Moon will meet Trump this coming week.
High-stakes politics tends to bring with it high drama. We should look beyond that, at what we can realistically expect from the Trump-Kim summit.
High-stakes politics tends to bring with it high drama. We should look beyond that, at what we can realistically expect from the Trump-Kim summit.
For one, it is unclear if and how the two definitions of denuclearization match. The US and the Republic of Korea (ROK) will have more stringent criteria than the North. Former US secretary of defence, William Perry, made a good point at last week’s Asian Leadership Summit in Seoul, which was organised by the Korean media conglomerate Chosun-Ilbo: He argued that during the six-party talks the situation was much different. The negotiations were held between 2003 and 2007 and involved senior civil servants from North and South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the US. Whereas North Korea did not yet possess nuclear weapons, which meant it only had to give up the ability to develop them, it now needs to give up an actual nuclear arsenal. That will doubtlessly result in a very different negotiation position. True, the North is economically on its knees, but we are dealing with a country and a leader who take great pride in military prowess.
The six-party talks were structurally onto something that Trump would do well to remember. The stakeholders go beyond North and South Korea, China and the US: Russia, Japan and Taiwan are also affected.
The military presence of the US in South Korea is what enabled the ROK to become the world’s 12th largest economy and a member of the G20. The world’s third largest economy, Japan, also has a huge stake in the game. It needs political and economic stability in Northeast Asia. Ever since the end of the Second World War, Japan has been one of the United States’ staunchest and most reliable allies. In other words, stability in the region depends in large parts on a continued US military presence in Korea.
North Korea and China have a very different view on this subject, as may Russia. China’s extraordinary economic rise has brought about a more aggressive military stance, especially in the South China Sea. This worries both Japan and Taiwan a lot. President Trump must not bargain away the US military presence on the Peninsula under any circumstances, because his allies, the Republic of Korea and Japan, depend on it for their national security, which underpins their economic success.
*Cornelia Meyer is a business consultant, macroeconomist and energy expert. Twitter: @MeyerResources

The benefits of Iraqi protest movements
Adnan Hussein/Al Arabiya/May 19/18
I once wrote about protest movements that had erupted in Iraq towards the end of July 2015, which had spread to several governorates including the capital Baghdad. Historically and politically, these were comparable to Al-Wathbah uprising in January in 1948 and to the November 1952 Intifada, which are considered the most important protest movements in Iraq’s modern history as they sought to restore freedoms and national sovereignty and independence.
Impact of protest movements
I do not think that observers who have a modicum of objectivity and fairness can underestimate the significance of the July 31, 2015 and February 25, 2011 protests - the latter complements the former - and treat them like they’re demonstrations of a bunch of people. The February 25 protests, which involved tens of thousands of people and spread from the cities of Mosul up to Basra while being organized for weeks, forced then-prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, who panicked in their wake, to impose a curfew before the movement even started and ordered shooting protestors. Many were killed or injured while several others were arrested.
This is like what happened during the 1948 Al-Wathbah uprising and the Intifada in 1952. The July 31, 2015 movement was far more powerful and lasted for more than two years and a half. It gave rise to strong uprisings including incursion into the Green Zone, sit-ins at its entrance for days and storming of parliamentary buildings and government headquarters.
The government and the parliament were forced to adopt reform bills that included the demands of protestors. However, they did not fulfill their commitments. Both movements demanded reforming the political process by abolishing the sectarian and national quota system, combating administrative and financial corruption, providing public services (electricity, water, health, education, transportation and sanitation), developing national economy to create employment opportunities, bringing down the alarming increase in poverty and unemployment levels, combating terrorism and providing security.
Demonstrations on standby
Now, the Iraqis have started to benefit from the results of these historical protest movements. The recent parliamentary elections gave a strong blow to the influential political class which is highly involved in administrative and financial corruption. A lot of the symbols of corruption, quotas and hate speech were completely wiped out in this election and those who managed to stay did so with great difficulty. This time, we did not see 700,000 or 400,000 or 200,000 votes in favor of the “leader,” whereas the rest had their power diminished as they received less than 100,000 votes.
What is important now is to maintain the strength of the movement by keeping it in standby mode, in case it is needed to rise again. The need might occur at the beginning of the process of forming the new government. If the formation includes the quota system, if the government does not include the appropriate programs for reforms to fulfill the demands of the protest movements and if there are no specific deadlines for achieving these demands, it would then be necessary for the public to take to the streets and to liberation squares, so that the government does what the people want, or quit.

Two-face traders exploiting Palestinian bloodshed
Salman al-Dosary/Al Arabiya/May 19/18
Washington’s decision to transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem, without any concessions from the Israeli government in exchange was an unfair move and a huge mistake. The embassy move happened without Israel offering anything in return—not even showing the slightest sign of advancing the peace process—is in serious violation of international law and UN resolutions that declare Jerusalem an occupied territory since 1967. States transferring their embassies to the debated territory is prohibited. Saudi Arabia has already warned of the “grave consequences” of such an unjustified move and how it “infringes the feelings of Muslims worldwide.”The embassy transfer serves as a major gift to Israel, emboldening its arrogance. Palestinians suffering isolation and brutality at the hand of occupied forces is not unheard of and has been in practice since the occupation’s onset in 1948.
Exploiting Palestinian blood in political trades and propaganda is also practiced by many countries, parties and groups. The Palestinian cause has always has been molded and shaped differently at different times, at some points it was defined as a source for formative resistance and an inspiration to popular movements and at other times it was seen as a bargaining chip politicians can trade over in a deal. However, times have changed in ways that now the public is less prone to buying into cheap political talk and see past lies and deceit weaved by exploiters. Selling out Palestinian rights for personal gains is no longer acceptable.
'Stubborn things'
Doubts and opportunism headline many countries taking advantage of the Palestinian cause. However, as former US President Ronald Reagan put it: “Facts are stubborn things.”Even though Qatar champions Palestinian rights, it is the first Gulf state to have a deal with Tel Aviv on normalizing ties—a move which goes against Arab consensus. The peninsula is also the first Gulf state to raise an Israeli flag in its capital’s skies. On one hand, Doha outspokenly supports Palestinian rights, but then moves closer to grotesquely normalizing ties under the table with Tel Aviv. In February, Qatari diplomat Mohammed Al-Emadi was kicked out during a hospital tour in Gaza by a rally of angered Palestinians. Fury took over after Emadi trumpeted visiting Israel and signs of ties being established. The senior diplomat said he has visited Israel twenty times over the last four years-- all these trips were made covertly. What about Turkey's close political and economic relationship with Israel ?! After recent IDF –Gaza violence, Ankara asked the Israeli ambassador to leave Turkey ‘temporarily’. But ruling party AKP deputies objected to a draft resolution presented by the opposition bloc to parliament stipulating the cancellation of all political, commercial and military agreements with Israel.
Turkish-Israeli trade exchange amounted to about $5 billion in 2017 alone.
Countries nurturing ties with Israel are clearly the first to sell out on Palestinian blood in order to preserve personal political and commercial interests, unlike other countries working both secretly and openly to unite Palestinian ranks and find a real solution to their cause. It goes without saying that the Palestinian cause is the first and foremost affected by other states playing on their cause. Chanting anti-Israel slogans and adopting heated rhetoric is easy, but upholding firm and decisive positions is difficult. Passing in its darkest moment in the upshot of Arab Spring protests, the Palestinian cause, now more than ever, needs to bring the exploitation misleading Arab peoples’ positions and lowering their sympathy to an end. Without a unified Arab front corroborating the true interests of the Palestinian people, there will never be peace with Israel. At the April 15 Arab league summit hosted by Saudi Arabia and dubbed the “Jerusalem Summit,” Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz affirmed that “the Palestinian cause is a priority and will remain so until Palestinians obtain their legitimate rights.” History will only remember facts.

Wake up Europe! Why nobody should trust the Iranian regime
Najah Alotaibi/Al Arabiya/May 19/18
If you were born and raised in Saudi Arabia in the 1980’s like I was it was palpably clear what the hardliners in Iran were; a malevolent force orchestrating some of the world’s most egregious terrorist acts who would stop at nothing to reach their religious and political goals.
More recently European leaders may have bought Tehran’s ‘undertakings’ about its nuclear program, and turned a blind eye to where all the freed up millions from its sanctions free economy were going, but fortunately for us Donald Trump saw through it.
Dispatched by Theresa May to try and turn the President away from his campaign pledge Boris Johnson did his best. But fortunately nothing was going to sway the Donald. Whatever your views about the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the one positive outcome is that there finally seems to be broad acceptance that Iran is a supporter and enabler of terrorism and a malign global force. By all means we should stop the spread of nuclear weapons. But don't throw the rest of the region under a bus to get it.
Lest we forget the truck bombings and kidnappings which defined the Middle East during the 1980s never really went away. Even if after 9/11 the spotlight of the world’s media focused on terrorism inspired by a false interpretation of Sunni Islam. But when Iran’s actions abroad and political system at home are put under the spotlight, any notion that the country is a rules-based member of the international community appears completely fanciful.
There has been no meaningful reform in Iran. Hardliners used JCPOA as cover to strengthen the economy and their own position, while increasing their sponsorship for armed proxies and terrorists in the region.
Inspired by revolution
The political Islam that drove the Iranian 1979 revolution still inspires its paramilitary action in Yemen, Syria and other conflict zones today. As a child I grew up in the conservative shadow it cast across the Middle East – my family and friends increasingly aware of Tehran’s ever increasing determination to meddle and destabilize. As the mullahs and revolutionary guards burned US flags and its newspapers screamed “death to America”, Iran’s real ruling power was evident: The theocratic Wilayat al-Faqih model that enshrines the Iranian clerics’ power, hatred of the West and desire to dominate and defeat their enemies using religious justification. The founding revolutionary constitution of post 1979 Iran declares that Iran’s army and Revolutionary Guards Corps “will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world.”
The real power
Scratch the surface today – and nothing has changed. The victory of President Hassan Rouhani was hugely misleading. Sure he is more telegenic, and a friendlier face than the populist hardliner Ahmadinejad, though that is no great achievement. Rouhani may have sought improved international relations and economic development but behind this so-called “moderate” lies the real power with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Institutions report to him, not the president. And the advice he provides isn’t general religious counsel or polite suggestions imploring peace and worldly happiness.
A glance at his prayer companions gives the game away. Qassem Soleimani, the leader of the Quds – the paramilitary wing of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps worships with the Supreme Leader then seeks his orders. Soleimani’s remit – to spread chaos and instability throughout the region to advance the regime’s agenda.
And Iran has been doing this stealthily since 1979, exporting its politicized version of Shiite Islam regionally and globally, driving violence and instability across the Middle East. And up until now the world has just watched. Militias like Hezbollah operate largely unhindered with Iranian support in Syria, Iraq where it supports to tens armed groups, Yemen, and elsewhere. “But they are so helpful running the hospitals and airports in Lebanon” says many a dewy eyed European traveller when they arrive back from partying in Beirut. A more astute observer would ask why Iran has such a foothold in a sovereign state.
So the message to European leaders seeking to breathe new life into a dead deal is simple. Do what you can to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. But don’t at the time sleepwalk into an alliance with a country whose primary foreign policy aim is to spread a domineering religio-political ideology through terrorism.Iran didn’t use its rapprochement with the West to improve its society, a theocracy where women have to disguise themselves as men just to watch a game of football. No the petrodollars released by the freeing up of sanctions went directly into the militias promoting Iran’s global ambitions.
Anyone could have told you that from the start. Well done Mr President.