Detailed Lebanese & Lebanese Related LCCC English New Bulletin For October 23/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.october22.18.htm

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

Opinion/Why We Should Go Easy on the Saudi Crown Prince
Tzvia Greenfield /Haaretz/October 22/18
For 50 years we’ve prayed for a key Arab leader who agrees to sign a significant pact with Israel. Such a leader has finally arrived.
Turkey, a human rights champion under Erdogan, is accusing Saudi Arabia, another human rights champion, of the abhorrent murder of a Saudi journalist who entered the lion’s den in Istanbul and, as befits horror stories typical of places like Syria China, Iran, Russia and North Korea, disappeared from sight. Now we have recordings and videotapes, allegedly from the Saudi consulate, suggesting that his body was chopped into pieces. The underlying reason for this gruesome act, that evokes something conjured up by the Coen brothers, is not completely clear. One shouldn’t treat any death lightly, particularly not a murder committed by an evil government. However, because of the political ramifications involved, it’s worth contemplating this episode a bit more.
It’s possible that just like Putin, the Saudi royal house cannot tolerate any criticism, which is why it decided to eliminate the rogue journalist in an acid bath (a no less likely possibility that has not yet been suggested by the authorities in Ankara). It’s possible that Recep Tayyip Erdogan is gnashing his teeth over Saudi Arabia’s bolstered global status, particularly vis-à-vis U.S. President Donald Trump, and over the central role played by Mohammed bin Salman in a regional coalition meant to block Iranian influence in the Middle East — which is why Erdogan is bent on deflating the Crown Prince’s image.
Erdogan may want to humiliate the Saudis, but his main goal is foiling the plan apparently devised by Trump and Mohammed to forge a regional alliance under the aegis of the United States, an alliance that includes Israel, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt (and possibly Iraq). These countries will jointly try to block Iran, which endangers all of them. Turkey, which is struggling to find an as-yet-undetermined place within the Arab Muslim world, does not strive merely to lead the Sunni world. It also wants to depict Israel as a foreign colonialist implant in the Middle East. Any legitimization afforded Israel thanks to an alliance with Arab states has negative implications for Erdogan.
But fate obviously has a sense of humor. It has embroiled the Turkish rivalry with Saudi Arabia in the U.S. midterm elections. Since Mohammed is currently Trump’s most important international ally, mainly for economic reasons, the campaign advocating a “liberal order,” espoused by international media assailing the Saudi leader, is buzzing with excitement. Its main objective is not the brushing aside of Saudi Arabia, but the delivery of a humiliating knockout blow to Trump and his economic plans.
According to Time magazine, the level of public support for Trump remains stable at 43 percent, similar to that of Obama, Clinton and Reagan at comparative phases in their terms. It’s no wonder that after the failed attacks on Trump, who immerged unscathed from the intimidation of migrant children, the Stormy Daniels saga and the attempt to prevent the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, the left is eager to pounce on the Saudi murder case as if it has found a treasure trove.
However, this time it’s necessary to treat the suspect with kid gloves. Trump’s peace initiative, if it is ever put on the table, is apparently the direct result of pressure by Mohammed bin Salman, who wishes to legitimize Israel before embarking on open cooperation with it. For 50 years we’ve prayed for a key Arab leader who agrees to sign a significant pact with Israel. Such a leader has finally arrived, and calls to depose him, such as those by former U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro in an op-ed in Haaretz (October 21) are destructive and in keeping with the best Obama tradition. Anyone waiting for a world of the purely just will have to struggle all his life with the purely evil.

Britain's Grooming Gangs: Part 2
Denis MacEoin/Gatestone Institute/October 22/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13161/grooming-gangs-britain
As often cruelty to women happens not only behind closed doors, but in the public square, we can only guess how this display affects both women and men. Sons see how their mothers are treated; this too doubtless informs their behaviour.
It is important not to assume that the members of British grooming gangs consider themselves jihadis entitled to capture non-Muslim girls. They do not even appear at all pious. But knowledge of such practices is likely to have some impact on Muslims coming from countries where some form of slavery or indentured servitude still exists. Sadly, in the case of Britain's grooming gangs, religious ideology does not play a role in forbidding child sexual grooming. It is important to examine just how crucial a factor this seems to have been in community silence about them.
In the West, women's dress, behaviour, and rights to autonomy have been freed from religious control only in the 20th and 21st centuries, with the rise of the suffragettes, feminism and the availability of safe contraception. Pictured: Suffragettes on way to Boston, sometime between 1910 and 1915. (Image source: George Grantham Bain Collection, Library of Congress)
Men, after a certain age -- as nature seems to have intended to preserve the human race -- are often sexually attracted to women. Women, similarly, are often sexually attracted to men, even if many cultures try to keep that proclivity a closely-guarded secret.
Different cultures handle human sexuality in different ways, presumably to avoid the potential social disruption it could create. This control has traditionally been affected by religious doctrines, laws, and patriarchal priests, ministers, rabbis, muftis and other clergy. In the West, women's dress, behaviour, and rights to autonomy have been freed from religious control only in the 20th and 21st centuries, with the rise of the suffragettes, feminism and the availability of safe contraception. Judaeo-Christian culture has involved restrictions of this kind, with monogamy enforced, adultery condemned, divorce often hard or sometimes impossible to obtain even for women suffering physical and psychological abuse, a lifetime of childbirth and nurturing, often while turning a blind eye to men's sexual independence. Changes that have taken place in Western culture for the past century are unlikely to undergo much reversal in the years to come. Most women today in the West dress as they choose, some modestly, others in inviting ways. Women insist on civil rights, play increasingly important roles in politics, business, the military, education, and all professions, and there are even female members of the clergy in many churches, such as the Anglican Church and the synagogues and temples of the Jewish Reform and Conservative movements. This is the new, Western world in which immigrants from other cultures now live, some with relief, others too bewildered to find safe pathways through which to negotiate their way between our freedoms and their inherited assumptions about women, their place in society, and their sexuality. Nowhere is this dilemma sharper than between Muslim immigrants in the West and the democratic values they encounter.
In part, this is because traditional and current Islamic culture with regard to sexuality differs markedly from that of the West. As in the Judaeo-Christian universe, women are restricted and men are given superior rights, but Islam, both as a religion and a culture, has a very different set of rules and legal codes for relations between the sexes, both in the obvious ways (burqas, niqabs, and hijabs) and in less familiar concepts. It is possible that these differences that go far to explain why child sexual grooming gangs and the collective sexual harassment of women have taken hold in some places.
Here are a few of those differences. Shari'a law allows a man up to four wives, but women only one husband. Shari'a law also allows a man the right to have sexual relations with as many slave girls or concubines as he can afford (hence the sometimes massive harems kept by Muslim rulers, officials, and wealthy men). Shari'a law also allows a man the freedom to divorce a wife sometimes by as little as saying three times "I divorce you". The practice was outlawed in India only this year, and rights for divorce are much harder for a woman to exercise.
Shari'a law allows a man in Shi'i Islam the liberty of taking a temporary wife in mut'a ("pleasure") marriage in a contract for as short as an hour; and, in some places in Sunni Islam, to have a "traveller's wife" or wives in misyar marriage when travelling from home. To add to all this, men are granted houris (beautiful virgin companions) when they pass into eternal life, with some 70 reserved for martyrs. In one famous statement by a religious scholar, "the erection is eternal".[1]
To a certain type of Western man, this might seem to be sexual heaven: almost as many women as you want on a flexible basis. No alimony in case of divorce, automatic custody of children once they turn seven, no guilt. The 19th-century ruler of Iran, Fath-'Ali Shah (1769-1834), was famous for his long beard, his more than 1,000 wives, his 60 sons, his 55 daughters, and his royal family of over ten thousand by the mid-century.
Although Muslim men are, of course, no different from the rest of us, nevertheless, all the rules governing sexuality may be easily found in the learned tomes of Shari'a law, enforced by fatwas from jurisprudents, and enshrined in the judicial systems of more than one Islamic country in the present day. The result is the perpetuation of attitudes towards women that often appear to debase them and allow men to treat them with contempt. The most painful modern examples of this contempt may be found in Muslim countries that carry out public floggings (see here, here and here) for offences such as "standing too close" to a man or for running away from husbands who beat them and stoning women to death, even for being raped (for example, here and here). These take place in Sudan, Indonesia, Iran, in some Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, in parts of Pakistan, the Maldives, and, of course, in areas controlled by the Islamic State. As often cruelty to women happens not only behind closed doors, but in the public square, one can only guess how this display affects both women and men. Sons see how their mothers are treated; this too doubtless informs their behaviour.
In Iran, the use of sexual torture on women in prisons is the subject of a full-length study. Shadi Sadr and Shadi Amin's book, Crime and Impunity: Sexual Torture of Women in Islamic Republic Prisons details topics such as "Raping of Virgins before Execution", "Prison Marriages", "Rape of Prisoners" -- all backed by witness testimonies and case studies.
One cannot rule out the likelihood that even knowing of -- let alone witnessing -- such humiliation may have, in a way, energised Britain's child sexual grooming gangs.
A congruent practice found in some Arab states, notably Egypt, is another public spectacle that involves men watching women being chased, sexually abused, and raped. This is known as taharrush (harassment) or taharrush jama'i (mass harassment). Here is one description of what happens:
A group of Muslim men target a (non-Muslim) woman who is not wearing Hijab in a crowd, encircle her, sometimes singing, dancing and/or chanting, and push her companions, if any, out of the circle. The woman is caught off guard and at first thinks the Muslim men just want to sing and dance with her, until the circle closes around her, at which point more Muslim men join to form three layers that render the circle virtually impenetrable.
At that point, those in the inner layer rip off the woman's clothes, grope, beat, sexually assault and rape her while those in the second layer watch the assault take place, and those in the outer layer, who are too far away or too short to watch the assault, dissuade or fight off would-be rescuers, even telling them that they are just helping a woman in need.
It should be added that the woman need not be a non-Muslim. Many Muslim women are chased and handled in this way. The online journal Jadaliyya, published by the Beirut-based Arab Studies Institute, studied this activity as far back as 2013. The journal stated that, "In Egypt, sexual harassment is widespread and touches the lives of the majority of women whether on the streets, in public transportation, or at the work place, the super market, or political protests." The same article later declares:
"... one key argument in the victim-blaming that is salient in our everyday narratives is the common and vulgar perception that sexual harassment occurs when women dress 'provocatively.' In fact, the only thing that Egyptians who face sexual harassment have in common is that over ninety-nine percent of them are females."It should not be surprising, then, that the sight of non-Muslim girls and women walking freely on European streets even in winter clothes has provoked large numbers of male refugees and migrants to engage in taharrush jama'i, starting with the assaults in Cologne and other German cities on New Year's Eve 2016. Cologne's police chief, Jürgen Mathies, declared:
"Many of the alleged attackers were from countries where this behaviour, where women are hemmed in and then abused by a large number of men at once. I must say that this phenomenon was not known to me in Germany before." [For his full statement in German, see here.]
By January 7, Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt) had already identified the assaults as a form of taharrush jama'i, and on June 7 their full report on the incidents made the same link.
At this point it is necessary, however painfully, to note that the common denominator in all these forms of harassment and abuse of women is that the men involved are all members of the same religious and cultural group. There are, of course, variations between countries and even parts of countries, specific groups, and many individuals. It would be totally inaccurate, wrong and invidious to say that all Muslim men share these characteristics, but it remains clear that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, (out of 1.8 billion) do. The problem has been exacerbated since the late 1970s and the Iranian Revolution by the shift away from secularism back towards religiosity. Even Turkey, which, under Atatürk and his successors, had been the most secular Muslim state, has now reverted to pious and radical Islamism.
Turkey's educational system now rears children and young people to become obedient Muslims instead of thinking adults. One aspect of Shari'a law exists, however, that may well have a bearing on attitudes towards non-Muslim girls and women of all ages. This is the ruling that "captive women" (who are invariably non-Muslims: Jews, Christians, Yazidis, Hindus or others) taken in jihad wars may be made sex slaves, forcibly married, used as concubines, and bought and sold in the marketplace.[2]
It is important not to assume that the members of British grooming gangs consider themselves jihadis entitled to capture non-Muslim girls. They do not even appear at all pious. But knowledge of such practices (for example here, here, and here) is likely to have some impact on Muslims coming from countries where some form of slavery or indentured servitude still exists. In December 2014, Daniel Pipes identified Afghanistan, Mali, Mauritania, Oman, rural Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen as Muslim-majority states holding on to enslavement, even despite some laws to ban the practice. World Atlas adds Iran and South Sudan to its list of countries with the highest prevalence of slaves in our era.
Sadly, in the case of Britain's grooming gangs, religious ideology does not play a role in forbidding child sexual grooming. It is important to examine, as we shall do in Part 3, just how crucial a factor this seems to have been in community silence about them.
Denis MacEoin PhD is a specialist in Islamic Studies who has contributed to the multi-volume Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd. Ed.), the vast Encyclopedia Iranica, the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam in the Modern World, journals, books, and Festschrifts. He is a Senior Distinguished Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.
[1] Denis MacEoin writing as Daniel Easterman, "The Erection is Eternal", New Statesman and Society, UK, 12th Feb. 1993, pp. 26-27.
[2] For recent scholarly studies of slave women in Islam, see Matthew S. Gordon and Kathryn Hain (eds.), Concubines and Courtesans: Women and Slavery in Islamic History, Oxford University Press, 2017.
© 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.

North Korea's Toxic Space Program
Debalina Ghoshal/Gatestone Institute/October 22/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13157/north-korea-space-program
"Even though the US and its allies try to block our space development, our aerospace scientists will conquer space." — Hyon Kwang-il, director of the scientific research department of North Korea's National Aerospace Development Administration.
Such statements made all the more chilling North Korea's 2016 launch of the Unha-3 rocket, with the capability of carrying satellites into space, its July 4 and July 28, 2017 test-launches of the Hwasong-14 ICBM and its November 28, 2017 test-launch of the Hwasong-15 ICBM, which reportedly has a maximum range that would allow it to hit anywhere in the United States.
If North Korea were able to develop the capability to damage or destroy US satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), it would be a major achievement for the country and pose a debilitating threat to space security.
The November 28, 2017 test-launch of North Korea's Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile. Although North Korea, like other countries, claims that its space program is for civilian, rather than military, purposes, there is good reason to suspect that this is not quite what is going on, and that its government will simply use these capabilities to continue developing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of carrying nuclear warheads, to continue threatening global security. North Korea, like other countries, is probably planning to use its space program to militarize and weaponize the realm of space itself.
It is in this context that North Korea's Kwangmyongsong-5 satellite, whose imminent launch was first reported in December 2017, needs to be viewed. The report did not come as a surprise, particularly as two months earlier, North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Kim In-Ryong, told the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space about his country's five-year plan, from 2016 through 2020, to develop "practical satellites that can contribute to the economic development and improvement of the people's living." As Fox News reported, however, "...many U.N. members, including the U.S., fear that North Korea's space program is actually a cover for its weapons program."
According to an article in the Asia Times in January:
"The Kwangmyongsong-5 Earth-exploration satellite, likely to be packaged with a separate communications satellite, will technically allow North Korea to transmit data down to the ground for the first time, thus offering real-time intelligence for potential ballistic-missile strikes.
"This is well short of the technological capacity needed to deploy orbital weapon systems, but will cause some unease among Asian power-brokers China, Japan and India as they pour money into the last strategic frontier of outer space."
In an exclusive interview with The Guardian in 2016, Hyon Kwang-il, director of the scientific research department of North Korea's National Aerospace Development Administration, denied that Pyongyang's satellite research has military aims. He did state, however, that "Even though the US and its allies try to block our space development, our aerospace scientists will conquer space." Hyon also said, "All of this work will be the basis for the flight to the moon," which he hopes will happen "within 10 years."
Such statements made all the more chilling North Korea's 2016 launch of the Unha-3 rocket, with the capability of carrying satellites into space, its July 4 and July 28, 2017 test-launches of the Hwasong-14 ICBM and its November 28, 2017 test-launch of the Hwasong-15 ICBM, which reportedly has a maximum range that would allow it to hit anywhere in the United States.
So far, there has been no specific reports of North Korea developing anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities, which are used to destroy enemy satellites in space. With Russia and China developing such capabilities, however -- and give North Korea's relations with both countries – it is not far-fetched to assume that Pyongyang could acquire the know-how to develop anti-satellite weaponry.
If North Korea were able to develop the capability to damage or destroy US satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), it would be a major achievement for the country and pose a debilitating threat to space security. This capability is something that one hopes the Trump administration is taking into account in any negotiations with Kim Jong-un's regime.
Debalina Ghoshal, an independent consultant specializing in nuclear and missile issues, is based in India.
© 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.

What Does Khashoggi’s Murder Tell Us About the Saudi Power Structure?
Simon Henderson/The Washington Institute/October 22/18
The prospect of MbS ruling for decades was once thought to portend stability for the kingdom, but that judgment now seems premature. The traditional way of looking at Saudi Arabia has been that the royal family rules by consensus and with caution, choosing leaders based on experience and seniority. That template has been increasingly invalidated since the accession of King Salman in January 2015 and the emergence of his thirty-three-year-old son Muhammad bin Salman, who has been crown prince and heir apparent since June 2017.
Under MbS, now the kingdom’s de facto day-to-day leader, Saudi Arabia has begun transforming its economy (in the form of his “Vision 2030” plan), its society (e.g., opening cinemas and giving women the right to drive), and its religion (a supposed reversion to a more “moderate Islam”). Yet he has not opened the political sphere to ordinary Saudis; he also appears to have sharply reduced the role of the wider al-Saud family, sidelining thousands of princes.
The kingdom’s once-broad power structure now appears to rest on the shoulders of two men. King Salman, age eighty-two and in declining health, is increasingly a mere figurehead, albeit a diplomatically convenient one for Riyadh during the Jamal Khashoggi crisis. The fiction of his rule was preserved most recently by a telephone call from President Trump and a short visit with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The royal orders sacking a key media advisor to MbS and four intelligence officials were issued in the king’s name, though it is unclear how involved he was in the decision.
Meanwhile, MbS has become the most powerful crown prince in Saudi history. Since replacing his father as defense minister nearly four years ago, he has steadily concentrated all of the kingdom’s disparate military forces under his control. When he orchestrated the resignation of former crown prince Muhammad bin Nayef last year, he transferred leadership of the Interior Ministry to MbN’s young nephew while emaciating the institution’s past dominance in security affairs. Likewise, when the crown prince’s last obvious rival, Mitab bin Abdullah, was accused of corruption and locked up in the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton last November, he was stripped of his post atop the powerful Saudi Arabian National Guard and replaced by a peripheral family member.
The few princes who have managed to retain their prominence are either too old or too young to rival MbS, who has methodically sidelined a swath of royals in their fifties and sixties who likely once regarded themselves as future contenders for the throne. They include:
Surviving brothers of King Salman. Whether directly or via their eldest sons, these princes notionally dominate the Allegiance Council, the body tasked with confirming the selection of crown princes. Former interior minister Prince Ahmed, the king’s last surviving full brother, reappeared in the news recently when he was involved in an altercation with demonstrators in London, but he plays no obvious role in palace politics. The king’s youngest half-brother, Prince Muqrin, has a formidable resume—including time as an F-15 pilot, provincial governor, intelligence chief, and, briefly, crown prince—but was pushed aside because King Salman saw him as too much a protege of the late King Abdullah. The fact that his mother was a concubine rather than a wife of the kingdom’s founder, Ibn Saud, likely stunted his succession potential as well.
Sons of the late King Faisal. Mecca provincial governor Prince Khalid al-Faisal was dispatched to Turkey this month as the king’s envoy to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Yet at seventy-seven years old, he is seen as merely an advisor, not a realistic candidate for the throne. His half-brother Prince Turki—formerly an intelligence chief and ambassador to Washington and London—has been an unofficial mouthpiece for Riyadh in recent years. He has yet to speak publicly on the current crisis, however, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that he employed Khashoggi as a media advisor during his postings abroad. The preeminent member of this sub-clan was veteran foreign minister Saud al-Faisal, who died in 2015. Their father was respected as king, but he won the throne by deposing his predecessor and was himself assassinated by a nephew—two abrupt transitions that traumatized the royal family.
Junior princes. These include sons of King Salman or previous kings and crown princes. The only one of any prominence is Khalid bin Salman, the younger brother of MbS and former F-15 pilot who was appointed ambassador to the United States last year at the age of twenty-nine. He is currently back in Riyadh for consultations. Some of his cousins have been given second-tier roles in ministries and provincial governments, including Khalid bin Bandar, who is son to former U.S. envoy Bandar bin Sultan and currently serves as ambassador to Germany, where he recently returned after a months-long diplomatic rift. Such moves have been interpreted as efforts to bolster the crown prince’s perceived youthful new approach to governance, not as precursors to power for the appointees.
CONCLUSION
The Khashoggi affair has sparked speculation that the royal family may want to sideline or remove MbS because of his authoritarian style and perceived excesses. As yet, however, there is no visible evidence of this. For all intents and purposes, he remains the kingdom’s future—which also means that if he were to drop out of contention for the throne anytime soon, it would create a clear void. The prospect of MbS ruling for decades was once thought to portend stability for the kingdom, but that judgment now seems premature.
**Simon Henderson is the Baker Fellow and director of the Bernstein Program on Gulf and Energy Policy at The Washington Institute, where he authored two landmark studies on Saudi succession, After King Abdullah and After King Fahd.

The Painful Incident and The Choice of Accountability
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al Awsat/October 22/18
In the life of states, as in the life of individuals, there are days that carry difficult or painful news. Experience shows that the best way to deal with this kind of days is to confront them with courage, responsibility and transparency. The only option is to deal with painful news very seriously… to know the circumstances and reasons that led to their occurrence, identify the causes and liabilities, and hold those involved accountable. At the same time, it is important to learn lessons from what has happened to ensure that the same incident is not repeated.
Anyone, who reads through experiences of individuals and states, knows that errors can occur and can be particularly dangerous. Individuals make mistakes because they misjudge, exaggerate, surpass the authority, or think they can escape accountability. Members of an organ or an institution sometimes commit an act of misconduct or misjudgment, disregarding the limits of authority and ignoring the restrictions that are supposed to govern the behavior of persons in a body or group.
Talking about mistakes does not mean justifying them; on the contrary, it is a way to stress that mechanisms must be put in place to prevent them from happening again, and to minimize the emergence of difficult or painful news due to violations of laws, norms and powers.
Those, who know Saudi Arabia, are aware that the news of the disappearance of colleague Jamal Khashoggi was extremely painful for his family, friends and country. Jamal, before being a journalist and holder of critical and opposing stances, is a Saudi citizen. It is not Saudi Arabia’s habit to wash its hands of the fate of any of its citizens, regardless of their position on this or that issue. Broad-mindedness is part of the Kingdom’s policy at home and abroad.
Those, who follow-up on developments in Saudi Arabia in the last two decades, certainly know that opponents have returned from abroad, resumed their normal lives in their own country, and that some of those who practiced excessive violence at home have reintegrated into their society after a rehabilitation process. It is clear that the Saudi internal and external policy is based on dialogue, narrowing the scope of disagreement, and searching for common grounds.
Following the painful incident at its consulate in Istanbul, Saudi Arabia took a series of steps to clarify the fate of Khashoggi and to reveal the truth behind what has happened. The Kingdom dispatched a security team to cooperate with the Turkish side in the investigations and opened the doors of the consulate and the consul’s house to the Turkish investigators. In parallel, it launched an internal investigation, asserting that it had nothing to hide and would act in the light of facts and information. Based on these steps, Riyadh announced the death of Khashoggi, the discharge of senior officials and the arrest of 18 persons under investigation.
Among those dismissed are senior officers from the intelligence service. A Saudi official statement indicated that those involved in the incident have “tried to cover up what happened.” This was accompanied by the announcement that the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques has ordered the formation of a ministerial committee under the chairmanship of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to restructure the general intelligence in the Kingdom. This means dealing with the painful incident on the basis of justice and accountability and the adoption of transparency in informing public opinion on the findings of the investigations. In parallel, the restructuring of the presidency of the intelligence body allows the establishment of strict controls that would prevent the recurrence of such painful incidents in the future.
In the period between the incident and the release of the Saudi statement, screens, sites and newspapers were crowded with news, rumors and scenarios. Attention to the incident was natural because of the person concerned and where it happened. It was easy to distinguish between two groups: the first is really concerned about Jamal Khashoggi and his fate; while the second considered the painful incident a golden opportunity to target Saudi Arabia based on accounts that have nothing to do with what happened at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
With the actions undertaken by Riyadh, the first team is supposed to have attained its demands, namely dealing transparently with the painful incident and revealing the circumstances and facts to the public opinion. As for those, who targeted the Kingdom, hoping to weaken it, accountability alarms them because they wanted to see a deep crisis in Saudi Arabia’s international relations.
The second team’s problem is that it deliberately merges two files together. They want at any price Khashoggi’s disappearance to contribute to a clash between Saudi Arabia and major powers, with whom it has alliances, cooperation and a wide network of interests. The team forgets that Saudi Arabia had passed tough tests in its international relations, including, for example, attempts to exploit the September 11 attacks to harm the Kingdom. At the same time, they forget that Jamal Khashoggi himself would not have accepted to use his name or what he was subjected to, to harm his own country.
By adopting the choice of justice and accountability, Riyadh re-directed the painful incident to its legal and judicial context. It is the logic of the state, responsibility, rule of institutions, learning of lessons and restructuring of bodies under the umbrella of law.

The Fed’s 1 Million Lost Jobs
Karl W. Smith/Bloomberg/October 22/18
Over the past two and half years, the Federal Reserve has consistently underestimated how low unemployment could fall before sparking an increase in inflation. As a result, the Fed began raising interest rates sooner than was necessary — leading to slower economic growth and fewer jobs.
How many fewer? Research by Adam Ozimek, senior economist for Moody’s Analytics Inc., suggests that the economy would have created up to 1 million more jobs in the last few years.
Before getting into the details, it may be helpful to look at the big picture. Even in the best of times, some unemployment is inevitable. In a dynamic economy, there will always be some companies laying off workers as others are struggling to hire more. This churn in employment, combined with the entrance of new workers into the labor force, means that at any given time some percentage of workers will be looking for a job but won’t have one.
Macroeconomists call this percentage the long-term natural rate of unemployment. Standard economic theory suggests that unemployment can fall below this level only temporarily: The shrinking pool of workers means growing companies will have to raise wages. As the competition for workers intensifies, wages will increase faster than productivity growth. Profit margins will shrink, and businesses will raise prices to make up the difference. This will cause the rate of inflation to rise, eroding the initial wage gains. What had initially seemed like good news for workers will turn into a Red Queen’s race between wages and prices. People are no better off as either workers or consumers.
To prevent all this from happening, the Federal Reserve strives to slow down the economy as unemployment falls close to its long-term natural rate. Which is certainly a sensible goal, but for one problem: Economists don’t know exactly what that rate is.
Now back to the matter at hand. In March 2015, when the Fed first began raising rates, the unemployment rate was 5 percent. At the time, the Fed’s estimate of the natural rate of unemployment was 4.9 percent. Even if the rate dipped a little below this, the bank said, it would be OK because inflation was also below its 2 percent target. So Fed settled on a gradual series of rate increases to slow the economy enough so that inflation would wind around the target.
Since that time, however, unemployment has continued to fall — and inflation has remained low. There are various theories as to why. I have suggested that the Great Recession was so severe it caused millions of workers to give up looking for jobs. As a result, they were not counted as unemployed. Thus the potential pool of workers was — indeed still is — greater than the unemployment statistics suggest.
At any rate, the Fed has acknowledged that its estimates of the natural rate were too high. In June, the Fed revised its estimate to 4.45 percent. The unemployment rate at that time was 3.9 percent, and since then has fallen to 3.7 percent. Nonetheless, inflation pressures seem mild.
Even assuming that the Fed’s current estimate of the natural rate of unemployment is correct — and it seems high — the series of rate hikes that it began in March is premature. Ozimek estimates that had the Fed believed the natural rate was 4.45 percent all along, it would not have raised rates until June 2017, resulting in stronger job growth and roughly 500,000 more workers today.
And yet, given the continued mild inflation, the possibility exists that the Fed is still overestimating the natural rate of unemployment. Suppose that June’s unemployment rate of 3.9 percent is the true natural rate. In that case, Ozimek estimates that the Fed should not have begun raising rates until March of this year. Had the Fed followed that course, Ozimek estimates that 1 million more people would be employed than are today.
But don’t let this speculation obscure the main point: The Fed’s premature rate increases have almost certainly reduced job growth.
The economy is performing exceptionally strong right now, in response to an oil and gas boom and the stimulus associated with the tax reform. If the Fed continues on its current path of rate hikes, it may be setting itself up for tepid growth and disinflation once those effects wear off. That combination is particularly hard on borrowers and makes the economy vulnerable to a financial shock.
By revising its estimate of the natural rate of unemployment, the Fed has implicitly acknowledged that its current series of rate hikes began too soon. Future revisions may well reveal that it ended too late.

Will Nick Clegg Succeed in his Mission?
Alex Webb/Bloomberg View/October 22/18
The two most catastrophic stops on Facebook Inc.'s tour of apology around the world's legislatures were, without doubt, CEO Mark Zuckerberg's appearance in Brussels and Chief Technology Officer Mike Schroepfer's performance in London.
It was clear from these outings at the European Parliament and Britain's House of Commons the pair had embarrassingly little understanding of the arenas into which they had been pitched. The Capitol Hill hearings were a breeze in comparison.
This helps to explain why the social media giant has hired Nick Clegg, the former UK deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrat leader, as its new head of global affairs and communications. The Financial Times reported on Friday that he will move to Silicon Valley next year to start the new position.
Clegg ticks all the boxes. He worked as an FT journalist early in his career, and started in politics as a member of the European Parliament in 1999 before his election to the UK Parliament in 2005. He should prove a valuable asset in helping Zuckerberg and his colleagues deal with European lawmakers' threats to impose higher taxes and tighter rules over how information is disseminated on social media.
Zuckerberg promised Clegg a key role in shaping Facebook's strategy, according to the FT. It's hard to understate the significance of that in a company where most of the top lieutenants are long-serving loyalists. The exposure of shortcomings in the way the company handles user data showed how COO Sheryl Sandberg had struggled to rein in the Facebook bros. Clegg will want to be more than a mouthpiece, and might hope to serve as Facebook's conscience, just as he tried to do with his Conservative coalition partner in government, David Cameron. The risk is he'll be trampled on again by another big blue giant.

A reminder to those delusional about Saudi Arabia
Mashari Althaydi/Al Arabiya/October 22/18
The Saudi state is today facing a huge storm created by a media frenzy and politically motivated campaign over the death of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Khashoggi died due to recklessness of some employees who have been arrested and are being interrogated. It’s clear that their purpose was not to kill Khashoggi. Regarding the biased global campaigns against Saudi Arabia by exploiting Jamal’s story, we ask do you want to know what happened? What’s responsible for it? Who will be held accountable? This was done, or is there something else required from Saudi Arabia? Here’s a reminder to the delusional.
The age of the Saudi state with all its “modern” phases is around 300 years. The giant Saudi project was launched in the Arabian Peninsula in 1744 and that empire expanded to the far east, west, north and south in Arab countries. Following failed Ottoman campaigns via its rulers in Iraq or Egypt, the fiercest campaign was launched led by the most dangerous general in the East Ibrahim Pasha following the death of the great Saud. Ad-Diriyah fell following an epic steadfastness in 1818 but almost four years later, the state emerged again miraculously with the power of second Founder Imam Turki bin Abdullah, the father of the grandfather of King Abdulaziz, the third founder. Following internal strife and foreign conspiracies, the second state collapsed but this was just for few years. The Saudi emergence happened from al-Yamama in the Arabian Peninsula and morning dawned from the fences of Riyadh castle in 1902.
The third Saudi state has been developed and steadfast ever since as the enemies’ attacks and the traitors’ incitement to evil from within have failed. This chapter of blackmailing Saudi Arabia with Jamal Khashoggi’s story is like what preceded it, no matter which way the storm’s winds blow
Centuries of challenges
Six kings from the sons of the founder of the third state have ruled. They have witnessed all the challenges during the 20th century, during their father’s life and after they assumed power, from the two world wars to the Cold War conspiracies and its upheavals between the eastern and western camps after the end of WWII, and they sailed with the country and its people to safety. In 1990, Kuwait evaporated from the map and the Iraqi army of Saddam swallowed it. Saudi Arabia rejected this and restored Kuwait despite the noise of the Brotherhood, the Arab left and nationalists and the entire global left. Then there was al-Sahwa strife by the group of al-Faqih, al-Massari, al-Hawali, al-Ouda and others and which aimed to ignite sedition in the kingdom, but their swords were shattered on the rocks of the Saudi state. The last of this strife was the incitement of the so-called Arab Spring, which ended the reign of some rulers and tampered with Arab countries. Saudi Arabia toppled this conspiracy and strongly and fiercely defended Bahrain and Egypt from the conspiracies of parties, some of whom are Jamal’s beloved.
This chapter of blackmailing Saudi Arabia with Jamal Khashoggi’s story is like what preceded it, no matter which way the storm’s winds blow.

Khashoggi and another incitement campaign against Saudi Arabia
Mamdouh AlMuhaini/Al Arabiya/October 22/18
Saudi Arabia announced the details of the unfortunate incident of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The country took strong measures including relieving some from their positions, arresting those involved, beginning investigations and rectifying the structure and functioning of the intelligence apparatus. Despite that, the media campaign against the country did not calm down – as expected – because the purpose is Saudi Arabia itself and not punishing the wrongdoers and those who caused the crime. It is certain that if Saudi Arabia issues dozens of other statements, they will be met with more doubts and refusal.
It’s in the interest of Saudi Arabia’s enemies to reject and refuse the facts to create a state of suspicion and paranoia in order to resume the campaign in the name of Khashoggi, whose name is being exploited every minute by those that claim to defend him but actually intend to shake the image of Saudi Arabia in front of the world over a crime committed by rogue individuals. It was a tremendous mistake, as Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said in his interview with Fox News. No such mistake has happened during 80 years of the history of Saudi Arabia, which did not pursue well-known opposition figures. On the contrary, they get their space via satellite channels and on the internet and continue to insult and incite. Saudi Arabia’s political doctrine performs the more important work, which is maintaining the region’s stability by confronting terrorist elements and organizations like al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Houthis or rogue regimes like Iran, which are based on the ideology of assassinations and silencing opposition voices with bullets and booby-trapped cars. Saudi Arabia is engaged in an open war on the ground, and in the media sphere, with these parties, and this is what has made the country the biggest target of these groups.This is another attempt to stain Saudi Arabia’s image and blackmail it. Saudi Arabia has overcome bigger crises such as the September 11 events, and this crisis will inevitably pass
Ideological level
On an ideological level, Saudi Arabia fights extremist ideas and dark doctrines like those the Muslim Brotherhood promotes. We still remember Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s famous statement: “We will destroy extremist ideas today and immediately” and which transformed into a work program on the ground. The state that fights dangerous mix of extremist organizations and rogue regimes does not commit the same practices. Therefore, it’s no coincidence that all these formed one team and exploited the Khashoggi case from the first hour as the target is Riyadh, their biggest and strongest enemy. There’s more than one motive in the media around the Khashoggi case. There is a rightful motive, which is to know the details of what happened, and this is everyone’s request including Saudi Arabia itself. Secrecy by those involved at the beginning and covering up made the matter more mysterious and complicated. Revealing facts publicly before the world is the right way and this is what happened. However, in addition to this rightful demand, there are other voices. We are aware that their purpose is incitement and the spiteful desire to destroy and distort and not seek the truth. As we see, there is a clear alliance of these voices in the east and west, and they are enemies with no masks.
Brotherhood everywhere
The media of Doha regime, which supports terrorist organizations like al-Nusra, Hezbollah and Brotherhood, launched an attack in alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood everywhere. Even al-Qaeda members like its preacher Majed al-Rashed are appealing to President Trump via Twitter to punish Saudi Arabia.
The hostility of terrorist groups and organizations and their financers toward Saudi Arabia is well known. This is why the rare case of the murder of a Saudi citizen is being exploited and taken outside its criminal, legal and humanitarian context to transform into a political crime.
Allied with them in the west are those who hate the Saudi state for several reasons of which the most prominent is the kingdom’s strong stance toward Iran, which they enthusiastically defend while forgetting the bodies of children and the horrific massacres Iran is committing in Iraq and Syria and which thousands have fallen victims to. There is hypocrisy and moral double standard as there are demands for revenge and penalties over a crime committed by rogue individuals – who have been detained and will be tried and punished – at a time when the Iranian regime, which is publicly committing crimes in Syria under the pretext of protecting holy shrines, is not being criticized. This is another attempt to stain Saudi Arabia’s image and blackmail it. Saudi Arabia has overcome bigger crises such as the September 11 events, and this crisis will inevitably pass and the country will resume its approach of fighting extremist regimes in Doha and Tehran. These regimes have found opportunity in an isolated incident to accuse the Saudi state of something that is actually one of their very own political principles.

Economic growth at the expense of punishing IMF package for Pakistan
Sabena Siddiquii/Al Arabiya/October 22/18
Even as Pakistan tries to find a way out of its financial crisis, there is a lot of discussion regarding the pros and cons of the options available. Some days ago, Pakistan’s Minister of Finance, Asad Umar announced that Pakistan could be taking a $12 billion bailout package from the Washington-based International Monetary Fund (IMF) for three years, as well as $5 billion from the Asian Development Bank and World Bank. Having extremely high deficits around 6.6 percent of the GDP and fast depleting foreign exchange reserves, such an arrangement would get the economy through the immediate balance of payments crisis at hand. However, it is widely expected that the IMF delegation arriving on November 7th would want to place special conditions and get some policies changed. Since a while, the IMF has been warning Pakistan that its financial risks have increased and need regulation as its medium-term debt repayment capacity is reducing due to current account and budget deficits. Several issues are on top of the IMF list such as the viability of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), weak currency, hike in interest rate and possible sale of public sector enterprises going in loss. It has also been urging Pakistan to improve its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing and drastic changes are expected in this latest IMF economic program. To begin with, the government might have to carry out structural reforms under IMF monitoring and supervision. Moody’s has also recommended that the IMF would aid in macro-economic rebalancing and further the Pakistan government’s reforms agenda. In the long run, Pakistan has to improve its economic outlook and work on becoming fiscally self-sufficient so that it does not have to rely on IMF
Foreign exchange reserves
Noting that foreign exchange reserves were below the IMF minimum adequacy three-month threshold, the global ratings agency has highlighted that the IMF would “provide crucial policy support and technical assistance.”Most of all, there is widespread concern in the media about the possible implications an IMF bailout might hold for ongoing CPEC projects in Pakistan. Vital for economic growth, these energy and infrastructure projects should proceed as planned notwithstanding any IMF measures. Having taken financial help from the IMF 14 times since 1980, Pakistan’s last package with it ended just two years ago but there has never been any controversy. But this time round, the situation is different as Pakistan and China have launched the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project under the Belt and Road Initiative and it is perceived as a potential clash of Sino-US interests.
In case the IMF disapproves of CPEC terms and conditions it might become difficult to implement projects as planned. Notably, Christine Lagarde has already emphasized that the IMF expects absolute transparency of all of Pakistan’s debt so that its debt sustainability can be determined.
Nevertheless, the redeeming factor is that China itself is also a member of the IMF and has endorsed and approved of Pakistan approaching it for a bailout. Thus, these fears might be somewhat extreme and CPEC should continue without any delay or impediment. It is also worth noting here that China has voting shares third in number within the IMF after the US and Japan.
CEPEC projects
For the record, the fact remains that only four out of the 22 CPEC projects are on concessional loan basis, while the rest are aid and equity-based investment for which Pakistan might have given a guarantee for annual profits. Out of these nine have been completed and 13 are underway. It is mostly previous loans from the IMF and others that constitute 47 percent of the total amount pending. Notwithstanding the advantages of streamlining and fixing the economy, it is most likely going to be a punishing package for Pakistan and the rate of economic growth might slow down initially, prices of electricity and other utilities are expected to go up as well as taxes and inflation should spiral. Expecting to find IMF conditions too difficult to manage, on second thought the Pakistan government is mulling over other options to reduce its reliance on the IMF deal.
Meeting a press delegation recently, Prime Minister Imran Khan apprised them that efforts are still being made to secure help from friendly countries and he hoped that the government would be able to fix economic issues with its policies. Having said that, a clearer picture should emerge in the next few weeks.
In the long run, Pakistan has to improve its economic outlook and work on becoming fiscally self-sufficient so that it does not have to rely on the IMF and other lenders. Once the present glitches are overcome, more focus is required on supporting domestic industries so that Pakistan’s overall exports can multiply.
Drastic measures may be required, such as introducing effective land reforms even though it is not a politically popular decision. Meanwhile, some favorable factors are also there, such as the CPEC projects, which will start entering in the operational phase and help bolster up the economy.

Iran: Between braggadocio and suicidal action
Amir Taheri/Al Arabiya/October 22/18
Getting ready for what they think will be the regime’s biggest challenge yet, the leadership in Tehran is looking to Iran’s near or far neighbors to help beat new sanctions being prepared by the Trump administration in Washington. Under study is a plan with three key objectives.
The first of these is to make sure Iran exports enough oil to finance “essential expenditure” including the payment of salaries of civil service and military personnel. The second objective is to make sure enough foreign currency is available in the domestic market to slowdown an expected plummeting of the national currency which could fuel inflation. Finally, the plan aims at ensuring the availability of crucial items, including industrial parts needed to keep major factories going. In all those domains success depends on the degree of goodwill that neighbors would be prepared to demonstrate in the face of threats of retaliation by Washington. As far as selling oil is concerned Russia and Iraq might be able to allow Iranian oil to be sold through their established channels or via partial swaps, making it hard for Washington to clearly identify the source and opt for punitive action. For its part, Turkey could reduce oil imports from other sources so as to release capacity for more imports from Iran.
As far as making more foreign currency available is concerned, both Afghanistan and Iraq are awash with US dollars, much of it controlled by small business and political elites always on the lookout for making even more money. In recent months reportedly large quantities of foreign currency has entered Iran from Iraq, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and even Georgia. For its part Turkey has taken action to stop a massive hemorrhage of foreign currency from Iran.
Iran’s urgent need for goodwill from its neighbors was the theme of a recent speech by President Hassan Rouhani, especially as the prospect of meaningful support from the European Union continues to recede. All indicates that Rouhani and his theme are convinced that they would eventually have to open a dialogue with the Trump administration. But they also hope to seek the dialogue when parts of the configuration have changed in favor of the Islamic Republic.
A poor showing by the Republican Party in next month’s midterm elections in the US would be welcomed in Tehran even if Trump does not lose control of the Congress. But more importantly, perhaps, Rouhani believes that if Iran could cope with Trump’s “toughest sanctions in history” for a year or so; Tehran would be able to seek a dialogue without obvious humiliation.
Managing to muddle along for six months or a year would also enable the “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei to throw the weight of his faction behind talks with the “Great Satan” by claiming that his “resistance recipe” has worked.
A poor showing by the Republican Party in next month’s midterm elections in the US would be welcomed in Tehran even if Trump does not lose control of the Congress
Wishful thinking
The main problem with Tehran’s strategy is that much of it may be based on wishful-thinking. Right now there is more tension in Iran’s relations with all is neighbors, including Russia, than in their relations with the US.
Despite the fact that Tehran abandoned its historic position on the Caspian Sea and agreed to sign a convention dictated by Moscow, the Russian leadership has not delivered on any of the many promises it had given to Tehran.
In Afghanistan, Iran remains the third largest donor of aid, after the US and India. And, yet, neither the official government in Kabul nor the armed groups including the Taliban, opposed to it regard the Islamic Republic as a threat to both their opposing views of “Afghan identity”. They regard the present Iranian regime as a vehicle for an ideology that is seeking to conquer the whole region in the name of its peculiar version of Islam.
Tehran regards the new Pakistani government led by Prime Minister Imran Khan as more inclined towards good relations with Iran than its predecessor under Nawaz Sharif. This may or may not be the case. However, the fact remains that Imran Khan heavily depends on support from the Pakistani army which, in turn, does not seem ready to break with the US to side with the mullahs of Tehran.
A big question mark also hangs above the new Iraqi government as far as its intentions towards Tehran are concerned. As things stand now it is unlikely that Iraq would be ready to side with Iran in what everyone sees as an ultimately losing battle. Top of the agenda of the new Iraqi Prime Minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi, is to obtain the full cancellation of all UN sanctions imposed on Iraq since 1991.
And that would require strong support from Washington. Many Iraqis also resent the fact that relations with Iran are handled by the Quds (Jerusalem) Corps rather than the “normal” Iranian government. Many Iraqi Kurds are still sore about Tehran’s collusion with Ankara and Baghdad to crush their “independence” referendum. A majority of Iraqi Shiites also resent Tehran’s attempts at turning them into its Trojan Horse in Baghdad.
Though still strong, Tehran’s relations with Oman and Qatar are not free of tension. Oman has been able to work closely with Iran. It is not at all certain that the Trump administration would continue the same policy even if that means sanctions-busting in favor of the Islamic Republic. Qatar, too, would think twice before becoming part of an Iranian scheme designed to oppose Trump’s new strategy.
More importantly, perhaps, Turkey is unlikely to play the art scripted for it by Tehran. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has shown that, when and if needed, he can be as tough as anyone in defying the major powers. However, he has also shown that he knows the difference between braggadocio and suicidal behavior. Iran’s “Supreme Guide” would do himself, and the Iranian people, a favor by pondering that difference.

‘Muslim Brotherhood’ is a global threat: US Expert
Dalia Aqidi/Al Arabiya/October 22/18
Efforts continue in Washington D.C. to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization due to its global activities.
Hillel Fradkin, Director of the Center on Islam, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World at the Hudson Institute emphasized to Al Arabiya English that the Muslim Brotherhood is a global threat, "It is true that it operates on a global basis or as global as it can be. It has branches in various Muslim countries, especially Arab countries, but also other regional countries, and it has organizations that were founded by and directed by its members in other places like France, England, US, and so forth,” he said.
The US expert highlighted that the Brotherhood founder, Egyptian, Hassan al Banna, was aiming to establish his organization outside Egypt as well, not for his personal ambitions, but to implement the agenda of the Brotherhood’s project.
Fradkin who testified before the United States’ House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, last July, to consider the proposition that Washington should declare the Brotherhood a terrorist organization.
He argued against the suggestions that if the U.S. takes this step, it would negatively affect Washington’s foreign relations with several Arab and Muslim countries, “If you take the case of Egypt, we were understood to be favorably disposed towards the Brotherhood, especially with former U.S. President Barak Obama's Cairo speech and his embrace of the group through it.
But, afterward, there was a general understanding on the part of some part of the Egyptian public that we were siding with the Brotherhood. Unfortunately, a lot of Egyptians were hostile to the U.S. They weren't favorable to us.” the US expert told Al Arabiya English.
Muslim Brotherhood’s experiment
“President Obama basically said let's try an experiment. Let's see if we engage with them, if we show some accommodation to the Muslim Brotherhood, let's see if we get something positive out of that" Fradkin pointed out, adding that while the whole world was going through that experiment, the Egyptians were the ones who had to live with it. “Once the Brotherhood was in power, it showed us that they weren't moderate,” he said.
The United States’ laws when it comes to designating a person or a group as terrorists have a specific definition of what that means and require specifically violent acts, according to the US expert who pointed out that; “One could say that there are certainly branches of the Brotherhood, which have committed violent acts and terrorist acts. The Egyptian Brotherhood, before it fell from power, or at the time it was falling from power, certainly committed violence acts. So too did the Syrian Brotherhood in its day, and so too does Hamas on a regular basis, which is a branch of the Brotherhood.”
Islamic State
During his testimony, Fradkin explained to the committee that the Banna’s Brotherhood’s project was to apply to all Muslims and the forms of government under which they lived, rejecting the nation-state as a legitimate form of Muslim governments.
Banna’s ultimate goal was to form a new Muslim state which would embrace all Muslims and would restore the authentic Muslim way of life as well as restore Muslim political powered, military power, and Muslim prestige. To use a term that has recently become familiar it was to be an Islamic and not a national state, or rather The Islamic State.
Fradkin emphasized to Al Arabiya English that the larger issue that was not captured was the degree to which the Brotherhood contributes through its ideology and through its attempts to impart that ideology to the people, to create a basic understanding, which as often as not does wind up in violent acts, “It is very hard to part that in a very clear way as such that it comes under the American laws which was the complication in the hearing,” he said.
He noted that recently Ayman al-Zawahiri, the present leader of Al Qaeda, reached out to the Brotherhood expressing nostalgic appreciation for the fact that Al Qaeda had been born out of the Brotherhood project and welcomed its members to join his own.
“Most of the groups that gain attention in our American politics, and elsewhere, are brotherhood groups. I mean Isis and Al Qaeda cannot come out into the open, but the brotherhood can and does in the form of organizations. The Council on American-Islamic Relations “CARE” in the United States is an example which the majority of the moderate Muslims argue that those people don't represent us,” Fradkin stated.
What should be done?
“The US administration should not treat these organizations and their leaders as representatives of the Muslim community of the United States. That's the beginning point,” the Hudson’s expert emphasized.
He stressed that the Washington should be firm in dealing with the Brotherhood and the countries that support, finance, harbor, or provide a platform for the group to freely promote its ideology, The thing is countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt had banned the Muslim brotherhood movements, they considered it or they listed it as a terror group. While some of the US allies did not, and still work with the group, such as Qatar,” Fradkin concluded.

A look at Iran’s history of assassinating dissidents
Heshmat Alavi/Al Arabiya/October 22/18
The Jamal Khashoggi case has taken the world by storm, all in favor of the Iranian regime to take attention from its domestic and international crises, and place the spotlights elsewhere.
What should not go overlooked is the fact that Iran has a long history of brutal methods to eliminate dissidents inside the country and abroad, especially Europe.
This goes alongside the Iranian regime’s atrocious report card of massive terrorist attacks, killing scores of innocent people. Unfortunately, through the past 39 years, the West’s appeasement approach has saved Tehran from any meaningful accountability in this regard. This must change.
Special targets
The names of Kurdish opposition leader Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou, former Iranian prime minister Shapour Bakhtiar and opposition figure Fereydoun Farrokhzad have been heard as victims of Iran’s terror machine. One objective of this piece is to see into other cases unfortunately lesser mentioned by mainstream media.
One of the most high-profile cases was the 1990 assassination of Dr. Kazem Rajavi, the brother of Massoud Rajavi, leader of Iran’s main opposition, People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK). The murder of Kazem, representing the Iranian opposition in Switzerland and the United Nations European Headquarters, was a highly sophisticated operation involving numerous Iranian regime embassies and conducted outside his home on the outskirts of Geneva.
Being a strong critic of the Iranian regime’s human rights violations, Tehran’s mullahs wanted him dead and went to extreme measures for this end result. As in many cases, there is a strong belief that the mullahs’ Intelligence Ministry was directly involved in this plot. Kazem was gunned down in his car on April 24, 1990. In Rome, Iranian intelligence agents assassinated Mohammad Hossein Naghdi, a member of the Iranian opposition coalition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), on March 16, 1993.
This former charge d’affairs of Iran was on Tehran’s hit list for joining the opposition ranks and Iranian regime founder Ruhollah Khomeini had called for his assassination back in 1983. After one failed attempt in that same year, Khomeini once again called for Naghdi’s assassination in 1988, resulting in his murder 10 years after the initial order.
Focusing on the main Iranian opposition movements, the Iranian regime’s Supreme National Security Council took steps forward in specifying a list of dissidents whose elimination was considered necessary for Tehran. After Kazem Rajavi and Naghdi, this list included NCRI Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Mohammad Mohadessin and other senior NCRI figures such as Jalal Ganjei, Manouchehr Hezarkhani, Abbas Davari, Parviz Khazaie and Abolghasem Rezaie
Gruesome measures
The Mykonos restaurant killings is arguably described as one of the most vicious assassinations carried out by Iranian regime operatives. Tehran’s terrorists in Berlin gunned down Iranian Kurdish dissidents in a very brutal manner to send a message.
In 1997, a German court ruled that the Iranian regime’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati and former intelligence ministers Ali Fallahian were all involved in this assassination.
The Anglo-Iranian communities, supporters of Iran’s democratic opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran and main organised opposition movement PMOI, hold a rally in London on Jan. 4, 2018. (AP)
When it comes to eliminating dissidents, Iran’s regime truly recognizes no borders and crosses all red lines of morality. At the age of 39, Ms. Zahra Rajabi was a senior PMOI/MEK member stationed in Turkey when brutally assassinated on February 20, 1996. She was in Istanbul on assignment to protect the rights of Iranian women and refugees in Turkey.
She was found murdered in an apartment with bullets in her body. This assassination proved the Iranian regime is extremely ruthless to the point that even an individual seeking to protect the rights of refugees is considered a target and national security concern.
These assassination dossiers across various counties portray how the Iranian regime's presidents and senior ministers, along with other high-ranking officials, are directly involved in the murder of Iranian dissidents.
More recently, Saeed Karimian, chairman of Gem TV, was assassinated in Istanbul by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) along with a colleague. This April 2017 killing was immediately followed by Iran’s state media running a chorus of fake news reports claiming the victim had been in collaboration with the PMOI/MEK.
This, parallel to a doctoring of Karimian’s image in a photo next to Iranian opposition President Maryam Rajavi, made it obvious how Iran’s main objective in this assassination of a TV official was to demonize and defame the main Iranian opposition organization.
And speaking of the PMOI/MEK, their members and supporters have been targets of a recent surge in terror and espionage plots, including in Albania, France and the United States. Iran’s Vienna-based diplomat and intelligence operatives in the US and across Europe have been arrested, some facing charges.
Foreign aspects
The Lebanese Hezbollah, a known Iran offspring, has been a designated terrorist organization by the US State Department since 1997. Funded by Tehran, this terrorist group was responsible for the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut, killing over 50, and the US Marine barracks in Lebanon’s capital six months later, leaving 241 Americans and 58 French peacekeepers dead in 1983.
In 1985, Hezbollah hijacked a TWA flight, holding dozens of American hostage for weeks and eventually killing a US Navy sailor. Hezbollah also played a major role in the Iranian regime’s 1994 attack targeting the AMIA Jewish center that left 85 killed and over 300 injured. In 2006, a US federal judge held Tehran responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 American service members.
At the end of the day, the murder of one human being, let alone more, must be responded with due justice. And if any party deserves facing justice it is the Iranian regime for its four decades long history of assassinations and terror attacks. This undeniable fact is especially worth reminding to the slate of Iranian regime apologists/lobbyists going the distance regarding the Jamal Khashoggi case.