LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
May 26/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.may26.18.htm

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.may26.18.htm

Saudi Arabia Hits the Brakes on Reforms
Simon Henderson/Atlantic/May 25/18
Arresting feminists doesn’t inspire faith in the crown prince’s much-hyped reform agenda.
For months, Saudi Arabia had been enjoying a public-relations windfall. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or MbS, the kingdom’s charismatic future leader, seduced the world with his vision for a new, modern nation. There have been live concerts, and cinemas are opening, with many more planned. Women can attend soccer games. Last September, MbS announced a bold promise to overturn the country’s ban on women driving, a change that is set to go into effect on June 24.
Then, late on Friday, it all came crashing down: Reports emerged that the women activists who pressed for the policy change had been arrested and imprisoned. As of this morning, 13 are reported to have been arrested; most are women. Apart from the driving issue, they have campaigned against so-called guardianship rules which require Saudi women to receive permission from a male relative before making many life decisions, like traveling. One of those detained was Loujain al-Hathloul, who was photographed at the 2016 One Young World Summit with none other than Meghan Markle, who married Britain’s Prince Harry on Saturday.
What is happening in the kingdom? MbS may want to discourage any popular protests seeking additional social or political changes. (Over the weekend, one American official told me that the arrests reflected the prince’s personal style, even if his name was not publicly linked to them.) His reforms were always likely to provoke opposition from within Saudi Arabia’s male-dominated, hierarchical society, which follows a strict interpretation of Islam. The apparent need to arrest women activists suggests that MbS is having to rethink his grand plans.
In Saudi Arabia, MbS is sometimes likened to Saddam Hussein, the executed former dictator of Iraq. Most often, they’re referring to the “good” Saddam, who, as vice president, was a driving force for modernization in the 1970s. That Saddam, though ruthless, was respected. Only later, in the 1980s and 1990s, did he come to engender widespread fear. I have spoken to Saudis who fear MbS will turn out the same way.
One anecdote about MbS that seemingly every ambassador in Riyadh tells is the “bullet story.” When MbS was 22 (roughly 10 years ago), he wanted to build a business career. On one occasion, he needed a Saudi judge to sign off on a deal. But there was a problem with the contract, so the judge declined. MbS, the story goes, pulled a bullet out of his pocket and put it on the man’s desk. “You will sign or this is for you,” he said. The man signed the contract, but complained to then-King Abdullah, who banned MbS from the royal court.
Such stories and fears about MbS suggest a rising royal with a short fuse, bent on reshaping the kingdom in a hurry. Maybe the crown prince now believes that the reform movement he kicked off has spun out of his control. Or maybe he sees that he moved too fast, unsettling the old elites who now need soothing. Or perhaps his father advised him—or was told to advise him—that he needs to slow down.
The possibility that MbS may be facing powerful opposition emerged last month at the Arab summit hosted by King Salman in the Gulf city of Dhahran. The gathering focused on President Donald Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; the meeting’s final communique repeated many of the usual lines about support for the Palestinians. This was hardly surprising, perhaps except for the fact that MbS (who attended the summit, but in a supporting role to his father) had just returned from a three-week tour of the United States, where he had reportedly captivated both the business community as well as leaders of the American Jewish community. MbS reportedly told the latter group that the question of the fate of the Palestinians did not rank among the top 100 issues for ordinary Saudis—a line that reportedly caused some people to literally fall off their chairs.
Those who have met MbS say he is Bill Clinton-like in his knack for engaging with even those whom he disagrees with. Yet he rarely seems to change his mind. That’s a pity, because he’s also gaining a reputation for making bad decisions. Those include the detention of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, Saudi Arabia’s ongoing war in Yemen against Iran-supported Houthi tribesmen, the diplomatic rift with Qatar, and the arrest of nearly 400 princes and businessmen accused of corruption. In addition, Vision 2030, the kingdom’s economic transformation plan, is proceeding at a snail’s pace. The centerpiece of the plan is the partial sell-off of the state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco. But this has been delayed. Meanwhile, embarrassing revelations of MbS’s tacky extravagance continue to emerge.
MbS, it seems, isn’t really interested in change. Arresting the activists is the way that Saudi Arabia would and did behave in the past: In 1990, several dozen women were arrested for driving through Riyadh. But today’s Saudi Arabia is meant to be different, and MbS is supposed to be a different kind of royal. The world’s hopes are on him to create a modern Saudi Arabia, able to detach itself from its conservative theocratic underpinnings. After these latest arrests, his ability to satisfy those hopes is in doubt.
*Simon Henderson is the Baker Fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at The Washington Institute.

Trump Says Kim Summit Could Still Go Ahead on June 12
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 25/18/
U.S. President Donald Trump, a day after his cancellation of a high-stakes summit with North Korea, said Friday that the meeting with Kim Jong Un could still go ahead. "We're going to see what happens," Trump told reporters at the White House, after welcoming Pyongyang's latest statement on the talks as "very good news." "It could even be the 12th," he said in a reference to the original June 12 date set for the meeting in Singapore. "We're talking to them now," Trump said of the North Koreans. "They very much want to do it. We'd like to do it. We'll see what happens."North Korea, responding to Trump's abrupt cancellation of the meeting over "hostility" from Pyongyang, said Friday that it is willing to talk to the United States "at any time." Trump welcomed the statement as "warm and productive." "We will soon see where it will lead, hopefully to long and enduring prosperity and peace. Only time (and talent) will tell!" the US president said in a tweet. In a letter to Kim, Trump said Thursday he would not go ahead with the summit in Singapore, following what the White House called a "trail of broken promises" by the North. Trump blamed "open hostility" from Kim's regime for his decision to call off the talks, and warned North Korea against committing any "foolish or reckless acts." But Pyongyang's reaction to the sudden U-turn has so far been conciliatory. First Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan called Trump's decision "unexpected" and "regrettable." But he left the door open for talks, saying officials were willing "to sit face-to-face at any time."
Just before Trump announced the cancellation of the meeting, North Korea declared it had "completely" dismantled its nuclear test site in the country's far northeast, in a carefully choreographed goodwill gesture ahead of the summit. But the chances of success for the unprecedented face-to-face had recently been thrown into doubt as threats were traded by both sides.
'Shocking'
The U.S. summit cancellation blindsided treaty ally South Korea, which until now had brokered a remarkable detente between Washington and Pyongyang, with President Moon Jae-in calling the move "shocking and very regrettable." Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said however he respected and supported the U.S. president's move.
China, Pyongyang's sole major ally, urged the two foes to "show goodwill," while UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on the parties to keep talking, as did host Singapore, and Russia's President Vladimir Putin held out hope the talks would eventually take place. Trump's announcement came a day after Pyongyang hardened its rhetoric, calling comments by Vice President Mike Pence "ignorant and stupid."
"Sadly, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting," read Trump's letter to Kim. But he said talks could still go ahead "at a later date."
Politically, Trump had invested heavily in the success of the planned summit.
As the date drew nearer, however, the gulf in expectations between the two sides became apparent. Washington has made it clear it wants to see the "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization" of the North. But Pyongyang has vowed it will never give up its nuclear deterrent until it feels safe from what it terms U.S. aggression.
U.S. aides stood up
A senior White House official said Pyongyang had demonstrated a "profound lack of good faith" in the run-up to the summit -- including standing up the White House's deputy chief of staff, who had traveled to Singapore for preparatory talks.
The White House viewed North Korea's objections to the latest US-South Korean joint military exercise -- and its recent cancellation of a meeting with the South Koreans -- as a breach of its commitments leading up to the summit. It also was unhappy about the North's failure to allow international observers to verify the dismantling of the Punggye-ri test site, the staging ground for all six of its nuclear tests which was buried inside a mountain near the border with China. But the North's Kim Kye Gwan countered that Pyongyang's angry statements were "just a backlash in response to harsh words from the US side that has been pushing for a unilateral denuclearization."
Both Pence and Trump's hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton had raised the specter of Libyan leader Moamer Khadafi, who gave up atomic weapons only to die years later at the hands of US-backed rebels. Experts warned that cancelling the meeting could have knock-on effects, especially among allies already rattled by Trump's unpredictability. "In a contest of who can be the most erratic leader, President Trump beats Kim Jong Un hands-down," Joel Wit, founder of the respected 38 North website which monitors North Korea, wrote on Twitter. "His unsteady hand has left everyone scratching their heads, including our ROK (South Korean) allies." But others said Trump's willingness to walk away could extract further concessions from Pyongyang.
"North Korea will have to propose more detailed plans for denuclearization if it wants to talk in the future," said Go Myong-hyun, an analyst at the Asan Institute of Policy Studies.

The world according to Iran’s Supreme Leader is a cartoon
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Asharq Al Awsat/May 25/18
The simplicity of the argument expressed by Iran’s Supreme Leader expresses his vision of the conflict in the region quite well. Responding to the American sanctions, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei likened the Iranians and the Americans to the famous cartoon Tom and Jerry. The Americans are Tom, the big foolish cat who spends his time in vain chasing the mouse Jerry but failing at catching him. It’s a correct depiction. This is actually what happening now, and what’s been happening between America and Iran for 40 years. The JCPOA agreement is only one of the games Iran used to escape from the sanctions which Washington imposed on it during the first few years of Obama’s presidency. By signing the agreement without stopping Iran, the mouse escaped from the trap once again. This chase has been going on for a long time with Iran which succeeded in evading its responsibilities in terms of harming its people and the region and the massive destruction it has inflicted upon us all. The question is, will it be able to escape again this time?
The chase and Iran's escape
The Supreme Leader views the destruction happening as a game and believes his country’s role is to escape and play tricks. He thinks that this time he will survive Donald Trump’s chase just like he survived every time, although Trump has set a plan that seems well-devised to besiege the Iranian mouse.
This chase has been going on for a long time with Iran which succeeded in evading its responsibilities in terms of harming its people and the region and the massive destruction it has inflicted upon us all. The question is, will it be able to escape again this time?
Conflict is a complicated game and it’s not as simple as a chase as the Supreme Leader put it. Iran invokes religion, culture and history in its battles and plays on the region’s axes and conflicts. It convinces the Iraqis that they are Shiites who are targeted on the sectarian level, the Sunnis that they are targeted in an infidel Christian world, the Arabs that they are threatened by Israel and the East that it’s being looted by the West.
It hires organizations like Hamas, allies with its enemies like al-Qaeda, establishes arms of militias and organizations, like the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthi militia.
It uses opposition groups in their countries regardless of their sect and ethnicity, allies with Russia and blackmails superpowers including China and Europe by threatening it’s capable of swaying terror groups in their countries. Iran is not a small mouse but a large regional state that harnessed all its energy for evil and did not build anything fruitful, not even for its citizens, and did not allow the people in the region to peacefully fulfill their dreams.
Is it game over for Iran?
I think Iran exhausted all its games and has no way to escape except by confronting what’s decisive. It played for a long time and the last of its victims was Obama. It deluded him that it learnt its lesson and promised him of what he wanted to hear so it got all it wanted from him and more, and then betrayed him.
During Iran’s confrontations throughout the years, I have not seen such realization and understanding of the regime like I see today, as not only the Americans realize its truth but also most Arabs and Muslims who were deceived by it for four decades and stood with it after it got them to defend its causes against the West and Israel. The majority now sees it for what it is: Iran is an evil giant in every cause and area. It’s true that it managed to deceive most people most of the time, but I hope its time is up.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s speech last week is the best of what’s been said as it stripped the Supreme Leader’s regime. The 12 conditions he announced are difficult dictations in exchange of lifting the sanctions. If the Iranian regime implements them, it will not be the regime we know, and if it does not, it will fall apart.

Reasons behind US-EU rift over Iran nuclear deal
Shehab Al-Makahleh/Asharq Al Awsat/May 25/18
US President Donald Trump’s pullout declaration from the multilateral nuclear deal with Iran is tantamount to a declaration of war in the Middle East, which would lead to the change of the regime in Tehran. However, the EU-American rift over the deal would weaken the sanctions on Iran if imposed.
But why are American allies in the EU opposing deal pulling? It can be attributed to changing political alignments in the Middle East region after the 2011 Arab Spring, and the Western drive to reach a deal that serves EU interests as many of the European states have been undergoing rigid economic conditions. These factors prompted the EU to sign the deal alongside China and Russia in 2015.
However, the agreement has not changed Iran’s behavior and that former US President Barrack Obama’s administration was pathetic in signing such a deal along with the UK, Russia, China, France, and Germany.
The Americans have sought to ignite fire under Iranian feet by pushing the government into new negotiations with new rules and conditions while Europeans have sought to keep the agreement and to add some amendments to the deal. The EU has repeatedly declared support for the deal, rejecting American pugnaciousness and confrontational attitude.
The EU advocacy for the deal stems from economic and commercial factors as Europeans fear unexpected hindrances and obstacles to affect their penetration to the Iranian market. Thus, the EU states give priority to economic interests in the Iranian market to secure more commercial contracts. However, political, security and human rights files, are less important to them compared to Americans.
If there is no win-win formula for the EU, it is not expected that the EU would ever accept any amendments to the deal
Geopolitical factor
While Washington focuses on keeping the geopolitical factor in the Middle East unchanged, rejecting Iranian expansionist policies, opposing Iranian hiking influence in the region which threatens stability of the Middle East, and countering Tehran’s support for armed movements and militias in Arab countries, the EU turns deaf ear to this risk.
Thus, Trump’s administration calls on Tehran to set aside its expansionist agendas before talking about any economic openness. At the same time, the US urges the EU to follow the American approach when opening dialogue with the Iranian government; in other words, not to prioritise their economic and commercial requirements to political and military ones.
The EU sounds not interested in the Middle East issues and concerns are only restricted to economic regardless of the repercussions and ramifications to the Middle East region.
To date, Trump seems to have achieved a partial victory; however, this can be a double edge weapon that can backfire against American interests any moment. He has been able to move the European rhetoric machine against Iran at some point vis-à-vis Tehran’s political and military interventions in the Middle East and with regard to Iranian ballistic missiles.
The question remains whether American pullout of the nuclear agreement cause rift between the US and the EU? It has been clear that since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's presentation of documents related to Iranian nuclear program about Tehran’s breach of the nuclear agreement, Trump and his hawkish administration have taken their decision to cancel the deal and started to discuss scenarios of imposing sanctions on Iran.
Some experts believe that Trump has given a precious gift to the Supreme Leader of Iran and the hawks of the Iranian government because he ended the power of the reformers and the Iranian opposition. Both the hawks and the hardliners in Iran have been awarded a golden opportunity and would have in the near future the upper hand to Hassan Rouhani and his reformist wing.
Trump’s decision was not a surprise as he previously announced that the multilateral deal was an unmitigated disaster which has not taken into consideration the Iranian ballistic missile and its other military capabilities.
The rift between the EU and the US over the deal is that any sanctions on the Iranian economy will harm the European markets, which have won many contracts in Iran after the 2015 deal. Thus, Trump's declaration could harm investor’s confidence in Iran and freak out larger businesses to get out of Iranian volatile market.
Apparently, Tehran and Washington have no economic or commercial ties at present; however, this is not the case with the European partners as they seek to maintain Iranian economy vibrant and buoyant.
Why the EU, China and Russia support the deal?
Trump has pulled out of the deal leaving the EU, Russia, China and the UK at stake to negotiate a new deal that better serves their interests in Iran. Statistics show that trade exchange between the EU and Iran reached $9.5 billion in 2015, hiked to $17 billion in 2016. In 2017, trade exchange recorded $25 billion.
The major companies benefitting from Iran are French, Dutch and German including Total, Airbus, Renault and Shell amongst others. China, on the other hand, is deemed the largest trade partner to Iran. In 2017, trade turnover between Iran and China stood at US$38 billion, accounting 23 per cent of Iran’s total trade. Russian Iranian total trade amounted to US$1.8 billion in 2017.
If there is no win-win formula for the EU, it is not expected that the EU would ever accept any amendments to the deal.
However, China and Russia will gain more from the pullout of the Americans from the multilateral nuclear deal as this will give both Moscow and Beijing diplomatic leverage over Washington’s as both capitals would present themselves as the credible mediator to fill the vacuum of the US in the Middle East.

Chasm between realities and EU’s daydreaming over Iran
Hamid Bahrami/Asharq Al Awsat/May 25/18
One could predict that the Iranian regime would announce “it will stay in the nuclear deal or the JCPOA”, contrary to its blustering to pull out if the US did so.
The JCPOA was in fact between the world powers and the theocratic regime in Iran, however, without the US, the agreement is like a human body without a head.
President Trump believes the deal is catastrophic and one-sided in favor of Tehran. In the meantime, America’s European allies benefit economically with no care whatsoever about its catastrophic flaws and disastrous results.
Fortunately, the EU lobbies could not persuade President Trump to stay in the deal but they egocentrically insist on maintaining and carrying on with a dead deal.
The US National Security Adviser John Bolton warned over President Trump’s determination to impose sanctions on the EU companies engaging in trades with Iran.
In contrast, during a summit in Sofia, the President of the EU Commission Jean-Claude Juncker said, “we look for a legal process to prohibit our companies from complying with the American sanctions”.
EU leaders should understand by now that if they stand in the way of President Trump’s strategy to have a perfect deal with Iran, he has a less expensive option, supporting regime change by the Iranian people
Respecting international laws
If the EU persuaded the Iranian regime to respect international laws and fulfill President Trump’s concerns regarding its unacceptable regional behavior or the JCPOA’s sunset clauses, which would eventually bring a real agreement, with the same resolve that it lobbied President Trump to stay in the deal, major and multinational European companies would be more satisfied than any risky process to protect them.
As the EU leaders are discussing and misleading the member states over trade with the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism, its companies are already leaving the Iranian market one after another.
The reality in the free market is that traders understandably are skeptical to invest in a faltering economy in a corrupt country. Thus, regardless of what politicians say, traders favor markets where they can earn more money or at least markets were the risks are significantly lower.
French energy giant Total’s preparation to pull out of a billion dollar gas project in Iran due to facing of US sanctions proves this argument.
The current US strategy toward Iran has two parts:
• Force the Iranian regime to return to the negotiating table for sincere talks by scrapping the JCPOA and imposing paralyzing sanctions. This was reiterated recently by Brian Hook, a senior adviser to the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as he said, “the goal of abandonment of the nuclear deal is to achieve a ‘better’ and more ‘comprehensive’ deal than the 2015 nuclear pact.”
• Pursue a policy of regime change if the first part fails.
The EU leaders themselves have no plan to address the major threats from Tehran but oddly, they are trying to do everything in their power to maintain the status quo. The UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson naively parrots the theocracy’s propaganda by insisting that “regime change in Iran will descend the Middle East into chaos”.
EU leaders should understand by now that if they stand in the way of President Trump’s strategy to have a perfect deal with Iran, he has a less expensive option, namely supporting regime change by the Iranian people and their resistance, which means the current EU leaders will lose face.
On the latter option, the US Secretary of State Pompeo tweeted on Friday, “We support the Iranian people who are demonstrating against an oppressive government”.

Bitterness, confusion among Saudi Arabia’s foes
Abdullah bin Bijad Al-Otaibi/Asharq Al Awsat/May 25/18
I am a Saudi citizen and I say: Saudi Arabia first. This is what every Saudi, whether a leader or a citizen, says. Saudi Arabia comes first because it’s the nation and is the collective identity; the history and the geography; the memory and the sense of belonging, the present and the future.
This is what citizens say about their countries, such as Americans like US President Donald Trump says America First. The same applies to Russians, Turks, Iranians and others.
Enemies are upset and confused and the world is recalibrating its power equations so that each knows its place and capabilities. Also, so that each country can reflect on its policies and alliances through the power of politics, diplomacy, boycott and sanctions, as well as with the power of armies and weapons
Saudi Arabia, UAE leading Arab front
In this context, it is noteworthy that patriotism is strengthened through victories, achievements and successes. People become hostile to countries if their leaders guide them as cattle and if they ideologically control their ideas, be they leftists, nationalists or Islamist ideas. In such instances, people become enemies of their states.
This is what the herd of traitors and conspirators — who work for Iran, Turkey, Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups — do.
The Arab alliance led by the Saudi kingdom and the UAE, of which Egypt and Bahrain are part of, is leading the Arab front today to secure Arab states and interests.
This alliance is the real savior against all the new colonizers — which include Iran in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, Turkey in Syria and other areas and the Muslim Brotherhood in the region and the world. This alliance led by Prince Mohammed bin Salman managed to help the US safeguard its interests under the Trump administration.
The rationale of history must dominate, the exigencies of reality must be addressed and an exact balance of power must be achieved. This can be realized through deep insight, knowledge, planning and a sharp vision.
Confusion in enemy ranks
Enemies are upset and confused and the world is recalibrating its power equations so that each knows its place and capabilities and reflects on its policies and alliances through the power of politics, diplomacy, boycott and sanctions, as well as with the power of armies and weapons. This can be seen by observing changes in relations of European countries with the US and among Middle East countries.
The US has declared Lebanese Hezbollah a terrorist group and has put both its military and political wings in this category, as they are both terrorists no matter how much they exploit the Jerusalem issue and raise its slogans or seek to use Palestine as a bargaining chip. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain are on the same path and have the same orientation and they know how the region is being harmed. They know the region’s peoples well and are most capable of influencing them. Saudi Arabia and the UAE saved Bahrain once and also saved Egypt twice. This alliance of victory and salvation has proven itself as a daunting entity in all international and regional equations on all fronts.
Iran is begging for a European savior that may provide it with guarantees but no one has responded yet. Big European companies are fleeing Iran at a fast pace and everyone who has dealt with Iran, whether banks or companies, are looking for a safe way out of any ties they have with Iran, its parties, militias and ideology. Everyone now accepts the facts about Iran’s crimes such as its sponsoring of terrorism, drug dealing and money laundering in the region and the world.
Exploiting Palestinian cause
The world now knows about Turkey’s relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Nusra Front and about its ties with ISIS. What was happening in South Turkey in the past few years, and which resembled hosting Afghan-Arabs in Pakistan during the 1980's, is now being highlighted by think tanks and media outlets. The Qatari role in all of this and its complete support for terrorism and its groups are under scrutiny. An example is the interview which Al-Arabiya television channel aired last week.
So what are the foes stirring up an uproar against? What are they holding onto? How are they distorting this salvation alliance? The answer is easy. They have done so through the Palestinian cause which they have, from Iran, Turkey, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood, managed to exploit to serve their interests and fulfill their ambitions.
It’s easy for an observer to know that there’s no difference between Lebanese Hezbollah Party, which is Iran’s agent, and Hamas, which is also Iran’s agent, when it comes to the aims and goals. Just like the slogan of “resistance” did not cleanse Hezbollah, the slogan of Palestine, Jerusalem and “the cause” will not cleanse Hamas, as the traitor is a traitor and an agent is an agent. Facts and data are what provide evidence and are what have the final word.
Free men have fulfilled what they promised. The salvation alliance has fulfilled its promises in Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon. This is what Trump is also doing as he seeks to fulfill the promises he made to his voters. This can be seen in every decision and policy he had promised to adopt. The ball is now in the court of enemies who are now looking for ways and seeking the help of international powers for protection.
In politics, there is nothing better than patience when you besiege your enemy and boycott him and inflict continuous losses on him, thus leading him to use his bargaining chips. There’s nothing better than letting your enemy feel confused as to which path to take and which direction to go as you break his will and strength and get rid of his evil.
I do not have exact numbers but it’s very easy to know that the Arab salvation alliance is heading towards ascendance on the political, developmental, cultural and military fronts. Meanwhile, enemies are suffering evident losses. All this allows us to analyze and foresee the future.
Hezbollah’s terrorist tag
Saudi citizens are now happier and their loyalty to their country is increasing while Iranian citizens are protesting and revolting against the regime.
Given these two opposite paths, the future must be clear for observers, whether in the region or outside it. These observers include countries, organizations, media outlets and research centers. They must take this into consideration if not for the sake of professionalism at work then to avoid scandals when the conflict ends and it’s revealed who the losers and winners are.
This salvation alliance which consists of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain in alliance with the US began with imposing strict sanctions against Hezbollah and its leaders and its branding as a terrorist organization. Other movements, organizations and militias will suffer the same fate.
The US has begun the building of an international alliance against Iran, as part of Trump’s strategy against the regime. Meanwhile, Iraq’s elections have begun to head in the direction of rejecting Iran’s agents and embracing national symbols and movements. More is yet to come.

Modi-Putin informal summit and Eurasian geo-politics
C Uday Bhaskar/Asharq Al Awsat/May 25/18
India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has shown a noticeable preference for the “informal” short-notice summit with his peers and held a day-long meeting (on May 21) with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi.
This is Modi’s second such informal summit and follows the end April meeting with the Chinese President Xi Jinping in Wuhan. On both occasions, it was a case of seeking to press the reset button and re-arrange the wrinkles in the bi-lateral relationship.
Whatever be the outcome of these informal summits, it is evident that Eurasian geo-politics, as they are unfolding now in the post-Trump tempest and over the next two decades, will be shaped considerably by the nature of the complex, imbalanced and contradictory Russia-India-China relationship.
Both Sochi and Wuhan also testify to India’s centrality as a distinctive swing-state in the geo-politics of the first half of the 21st century.
Informal summits do not have joint statements and neither is the focus on a single issue – as was the case during the Cold War decades when the “summit” usually meant a highly structured meeting between the US and Soviet leaders at the apex level.
More often than not the objective was on the reduction of strategic arms (nuclear weapons and missiles) and it is a reflection of the changes that have taken place in international relations, that the word “strategic” is now used very often and the informal summit is the latest variant in the diplomatic lexicon.
Both Sochi and Wuhan testify to India’s centrality as a distinctive swing-state in the geo-politics of the first half of the 21st century
Complex historical inheritance
The Russia-India-China relationship is tangled, for these three nations have a complex historical inheritance and certain major reversals have taken place over the last three decades. Moscow is the inheritor of the Soviet legacy, though the geographical area of modern Russia is considerably smaller than that of the former USSR.
At the time, Moscow was a superpower capital and both China and India were subalterns in the Cold War strategic framework. While Beijing was formally allied with its communist big brother, Delhi remained neutral.
Beijing played its cards deftly and in the latter phase of the Cold War, moved from the Soviet orbit to align itself with the USA, which in turn led to Moscow entering into a treaty of friendship with non-aligned India.
The Cold War ended in December 1991 and in the intervening decades, the shift in national power is indicative of the imbalance in this triangular relationship. The current Russia-India-China GDP is in the ratio 1: 2: 9 with the Russian economic index being the least at $1.5 trillion (2017).
However Russian trans-border military power and the manner in which President Putin has used it, accord Moscow a very visible profile in Eurasia – whether it is in Syria or Afghanistan – and thus the GDP metric alone can be misleading about the strategic relevance of these three nations.
The India-Russia relationship has been going through an uneven and discordant patch in recent years. Moscow’s dismay over a growing post 2008 proximity between India and the US is matched by Delhi’s disquiet over Russia’s overtures to Pakistan and the tacit endorsement of the Taliban in Afghanistan; as also the deepening Sino-Russian relationship, which has the US as the catalyst.
Satisfactory review
It would appear that Sochi has led to a reasonably satisfactory review and reset of the India-Russia bi-lateral.
The brief Indian official statement noted that both leaders “shared the view that India and Russia have an important role to play in contributing to an open and equitable world order. In this regard, they recognized each other’s respective roles as major powers with common responsibilities for maintaining global peace and stability.”
From the Indian perspective, the agreement on the importance of a “multipolar world order” and the decision to “to intensify consultation and coordination with each other, including on the Indo-Pacific Region” is significant.
A multipolar world order has been the post-Cold War Holy Grail for Delhi and this reiteration is a signal to Washington, while the Indo-Pacific reference has a sub-text for Beijing. Harmonization of policies over the Afghan quagmire is evidently on the cards.
Paradoxically, both Moscow and Delhi have their own anxieties about an over-bearing Beijing. Geography imposes certain geo-political constraints and all of China’s neighbors have to arrive at some kind of modus-vivendi among themselves about how best to deal with this creeping assertiveness of a muscular Beijing. While the Cold War geo-politics were binary and zero-sum, the current Trump-led US orientation has led to considerable uncertainty and anxiety about how major power relations will unfold over the next two years. Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and the Korean peninsula are all indicators of the potential for greater instability. In the Eurasian framework, China and Russia, wary of each other and the US will be jostling to advance their long-term interests and will be cognizant of India’s distinctive swing status. An unaligned India that remains engaged with the major powers may be the most prudent geo-political permutation for the prickly Russia-China-US triangle.