English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For December 08/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

#elias_bejjani_news
 

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.december08.20.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 16/09-12/:”I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes. ‘Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much. If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? And if you have not been faithful with what belongs to another, who will give you what is your own?”
 

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on December 07- 08/2020

Health Ministry: 984 new Coronavirus cases, 16 deaths
US dollar exchange rate: Buying price at LBP 3850, selling price at LBP 3900
UNIFIL head chairs Tripartite meeting in Naqoura
Aoun Meets EU Delegation
Aoun deliberates with PM-designate Hariri over government formation developments
Aoun receives European Parliament delegation, Francophonie University delegation, families of students abroad
Macron Says Lebanese are Hostages of their Political Establishment
Report: EU Delegation in Beirut over French Plan
Explosion at Hezbollah base in southern Lebanon: Report
Hezbollah suing entities who accused it of being behind Beirut explosion
As Lebanon subsidy crunch looms, two UN agencies warn of social catastrophe
STL: Handover ceremony for Inter-University Programme on International Law and Procedure
Wehbe receives credentials of new ambassadors to Lebanon
Diab Says Govt. Wants to 'Rationalize' Essential Goods Subsidies
Protesters Block Highway, Rally against Plans to End Subsidies
Lebanese-French Businessman Freed but Grounded, Judicial Source Says
Hassan: Two Million COVID-19 Vaccines Reserved for Lebanon
 

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on December 07- 08/2020

Pope Francis to make historic Iraq visit in March
Iranian official denies rumors of decline in supreme leader’s health
Sisi: Egypt, France Bound by Strategic Ties
Macron: France will sell arms to Egypt to help counter terrorism in Middle East
Turkey's Erdogan believes in a ‘win-win formula’ in Greece gas row
Turkey's actions worsen gas dispute ahead of summit, EU says
European powers rebuke Iran after enrichment announcement
Riyadh, Baghdad Ink Deals at Saudi-Iraqi Businessmen Forum
US Navy official says ‘uneasy deterrence’ reached with Iran
WHO against Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccines
Time Running Out on Trump Bid to Overturn Election Results

Titles For The Latest The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on December 07- 08/2020

Iran Trap: Why Biden Must Avoid Tehran’s Tried and True Tricks/Lawrence J. Haas/The National Interest/December 07/2020
An Accounting For Armenia/Alberto M. Fernandez/MEMRI Daily Brief /December 07/2020
The Time Is Now for Saudi Arabia To Normalize Relations With Israel/Richard Goldberg/FDD/December 07/2020
Trump’s Wish to End the ‘Endless Wars’ Denies Reality/Thomas Joscelyn/FDD/December 07/2020
Parsing Iranian Responses to the Killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi/Behnam Ben Taleblu/FDD/December 07/2020
Turkey: Erdogan Threatens Europe/Uzay Bulut/Gatestone Institute/December 07/2020
Fear and the freedom to care: France’s delicate balance/Tala Jarjour/Arab News/December 07/2020
Manama Dialogue sparks new thinking on negotiations with Iran/Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg/Arab News/December 07/2020
Did The Rules of The Game Change?/Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat/December, 07/2020

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on December 07- 08/2020

Health Ministry: 984 new Coronavirus cases, 16 deaths
NNA/Monday,07 December/2020
The Ministry of Public Health announced on Monday that 984 new Corona cases have been reported, thus raising the cumulative number of confirmed cases to-date to 138096.
It also indicated that 16 death cases were also registered during the past 24 hours.

US dollar exchange rate: Buying price at LBP 3850, selling price at LBP 3900
NNA/Monday,07 December/2020
The Money Changers Syndicate announced in a statement addressed to money changing companies and institutions Monday’s USD exchange rate against the Lebanese pound as follows:
Buying price at a minimum of LBP 3850
Selling price at a maximum of LBP 3900

UNIFIL head chairs Tripartite meeting in Naqoura
NNA/Monday,07 December/2020
UNIFIL Head of Mission and Force Commander Major General Stefano Del Col today chaired a special Tripartite meeting, convened in a curtailed format due to the COVID-19 restrictions, at a UN position in Ras Al Naqoura.
In a press release by UNIFIL, it said: "Discussions focused on the situation along the Blue Line, air and ground violations as well as other issues within the scope of UNIFIL's mandate under UN Security Council resolution 1701 and subsequent related resolutions. Major General Del Col encouraged the parties to utilize UNIFIL's liaison and coordination mechanism at every opportunity, including the tripartite forum, and explore additional confidence-building measures. "After all we are talking here about measures that serve both your interests by enhancing the security infrastructure along the Blue Line and mitigating the potential for friction," said the UNIFIL Force Commander. Major General Del Col also acknowledged the parties' "continued efforts" to reduce tension across the Blue Line by avoiding provocative actions and asked the parties to continue to maintain this positive dynamic. Amidst the wider regional tensions that are beyond UNIFIL's remit, Major General Del Col urged the parties to keep their focus on the stability of the Blue Line. Tripartite meetings have been held regularly under the auspices of UNIFIL since the end of the 2006 war in south Lebanon as an essential conflict management and confidence building mechanism."-- UNIFIL

Aoun Meets EU Delegation
Naharnet/Monday,07 December/2020
President Michel Aoun received at Baabda Palace on Monday a delegation of European diplomats, and talks highlighted the situation in crisis-hit Lebanon and the ways to improve cooperation between Lebanon and the EU, the state-run National News Agency reported. The delegation is composed of French deputies Thierry Mariani and Jean-Lin Lacapelle, NNA said. Media reports said the focus of the French deputies’ visit is to press Lebanese leaders into adopting the French initiative, of President Emmaneul Macron. The initiative--launched after Macron's visit to Lebanon two days after the devastating Beirut port explosion on August 4-- is aimed at helping Lebanon lineup a reform-oriented government in order to get the international aid it largely needs.

Aoun deliberates with PM-designate Hariri over government formation developments
NNA/Monday,07 December/2020
President of the Republic, General Michel Aoun, met designated Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, this afternoon at Baabda Palace, and discussed with him the latest atmospheres of governmental communications and consultations, and the steps taken to accelerate Government formation.After the meeting, PM-Designate Hariri told reporters "I consulted with His Excellency and I will return, God willing, next Wednesday afternoon, to determine many basic matters".-- Presidency Press Office

Aoun receives European Parliament delegation, Francophonie University delegation, families of students abroad
NNA/Monday,07 December/2020
President of the Republic, General Michel Aoun, asserted Lebanon’s desire to strengthen relations with the European Union, which stood by the Lebanese in the recent Beirut Port explosion ordeal. President Aoun welcomed any assistance which the EU could provide to Lebanon to help it in the economic recovery plan, “Whose implementation would be among the priorities of the future Government”, indicating that “The adoption of forensic audit in Central Bank accounts and official institutions and departments is an important and essential step on the path of reform that the Lebanese and international community are demanding, in order to combat corruption”.
Stances of the President came while meeting a delegation from the European Parliament, today at the Presidential Palace, which included MPs, Terry Mariani, and Jean-Lynn Lacappel, who is in Lebanon on an exploratory visit.
Discussions tackled Lebanon’s relationship with the European Union and the Parliament, in addition to political positions related to the current crises, in Lebanon and the region. The aid provided by the EU to Lebanon, method of its disbursement, and the bodies which followed it up, were also deliberated during the meeting, where the European Parliamentary delegation affirmed desire to help Lebanon in all fields, especially after recent developments.
The meeting was attended by former Minister, Salim Jreisatti, and Presidency Director-General, Dr. Antoine Choucair.
Dean of the Francophonie University Agency:
The President also received the Dean of Francophonie University Agency (AUF), and former Tunisian Minister, Salim Khalbous, heading a delegation which included the agency’s Regional Director in the Middle East, Jean Noel Palaio, Project Manager, Mrs. Sabine Lopez, and Political Affairs and Public Relations Advisor, Mrs. Aisha Moutawakel. Presidency Director-General, Dr. Antoine Choucair, former Minister, Salim Jreisatti, the President’s Personal Representative in the Supreme Council of La Francophonie, Dr. Jarjoura Hardan, Advisor, Mr. Rafic Chelala and Osama Khachab, also attended the meeting. Dean Khalbous delivered a word expressing his happiness for being in Lebanon and for the cooperation received by the University Agency for Francophonie, which was established in 1961 and includes 1007 institutions of higher education and research in 119 countries which implement projects to improve higher education in cooperation with partners in the public and private sectors and international non-Governmental organizations. Dean Khalbous also announced that the agency includes 16 member states in the Middle East, and in Lebanon it cooperates with 20 universities and 4 research centers.
Then, the AUF dean spoke about the repercussions which affected university and educational institutions in Lebanon after the Beirut Port explosion, last 4th of August, “Which further complicated matters in Lebanon”, pointing out that the agency has realized the burdens place on university and educational institutions, and on the Lebanese educational system. Afterwards, Khalbous revealed an action plan prepared by the agency to help Lebanon as part of a program for which an amount of one million Euros has been allocated which includes activating the professionalism of university professors and helping to confront Corona, in addition to other projects which will be followed-up and had previously been launched. Dean Khalbous also revealed that the agency is within the framework of supporting the university and educational system in Lebanon, and studying the implementation of other projects which benefit university students in particular, and university education in general.
In response, President Aoun welcomed Dean Khalbous and the accompanying delegation, noting the existing cooperation between AUF and Lebanese universities and Francophonie educational institutions, considering that “The allocation of 1 million Euros to support the Lebanese university sector once again confirms the importance of the Lebanese role in its surroundings and its commitment to the Francophonie region in the Middle East”.
In addition, the President asserted the importance of preserving the level of university education, especially in current circumstances which Lebanon passes through and as much as possible of is negative repercussions on the educational level, which requires permanent sponsorship of Lebanese universities, especially French-speaking ones.
Finally, the President wished the AUF Dean success in his visit and in the meetings which he will hold with university presidents, and also wished Mr. Palaio success in managing the regional office for the Middle East. President Aoun noted the competence of Lebanese students and their success in their assumed responsibilities after their graduation, “Not only inside Lebanon, but also abroad”, stressing the need to put an end to the migration of qualified university professors, outside Lebanon.
“Lebanese Students Abroad”” Delegation:
President Aoun met a delegation from “Lebanese Students Abroad” association, including: Dr. Sophie Zaza, Mr. Fadi Melhem, Mr. Michel Shartouni, and Mr. Sami Hamiyyeh. The delegation members briefed the President on the difficulties which emerged in the mechanism of implementing the Law known as “Student Dollar Law”, which was recently approved by the Parliament and signed by the President three weeks ago, stating that these difficulties caused an increase in Lebanese students’ sufferings abroad.
Delegation members also explained that the Lebanese university students abroad, who are around 10,000, “Are living the most horrific torture in the country of expatriation and are waiting for the inevitable fate after blocking all options to pursue their university studies, awaiting the speedy implementation of Law No. 193 related to the Student Dollar”. The delegation suggested solving this dilemma through two options. The first option takes the economic crisis into account by dividing the amount of 10, 000 Dollars to each student in installments, aiming to keep students in their universities before it is too late, specifically before the end of the current year, otherwise they will be disbursed from their universities.
The second option is to temporary work with the circular issued by the BDL Governor addressed to money exchangers and related to students, with some amendments in order to pay an amount of 5,000 US Dollars to each student who fulfills the conditions of the Student Dollar Law No.193, but at an exchange rate of 2500 per Dollar, with the need to control exchange operations from Category A exchange shops, by forming a committee from the Association of Parents of Students Abroad, and the Syndicate of Money Exchangers. It is noteworthy that the experience with these issues in the past was unsuccessful due to corruption. The delegation concluded by pointing out that the money-changers only handed over the families a sum of 300 or 500 US Dollars for one time, and until the moment, transfers were not allowed again, noting that these sums cover 3 year-expenses.
For his part, the President of the Republic assured that he daily lives the sufferings of abroad university students, and is seeking a quick solution to implement the Student Dollar Law. President Aoun also asserted that he will work with the concerned authorities to respond to people demands and ensure the arrival of the necessary funds to their students abroad, and to control law-implementation in a manner which benefits the people and prevents any exploitation or abuse, by any party.-- Presidency Press Office

Macron Says Lebanese are Hostages of their Political Establishment
Agence France Presse/Monday,07 December/2020
French President Emmanuel Macron, advocate of an initiative to speed the formation of a reform-oriented government in Lebanon, repeated support for the Lebanese people on Monday, saying “they must not stay hostages of any political class.”
“The Lebanese people must not remain a hostage of any political class,” said Macron in remarks he made at a joint press conference from Paris with his Egyptian counterpart Abdul Fattah al-Sisi. Macron added: “Lebanon is still suffering from the lack of a political path that everyone awaits,” referring to a government formation gridlock delaying the formation of a cabinet since the designation of PM Saad Hariri in October. Last week, as he chaired a second aid conference to help the crisis-hit country after a deadly port blast, Macron urged Lebanese politicians to form a government. Lebanon's cabinet stepped down after the August 4 port blast that killed more than 200 people and ravaged large parts of Beirut, but efforts to form a new one have since hit a wall. Formation of a reform-minded government was the first step in a French plan towards unlocking massive financial aid to rescue the country from its worst economic crisis in decades. "The commitments... have not been respected," Macron had said, at an international conference for humanitarian aid attended by foreign and international donors, as well as Lebanese non-governmental organisations last week. Macron promised to keep up the pressure on Lebanon's political class. He confirmed he would be returning to Lebanon later this month. Macron was the first foreign leader to visit Lebanon after the August 4 blast, traveling to the ravaged capital two days after.

Report: EU Delegation in Beirut over French Plan
Naharnet/Monday,07 December/2020
A delegation of French representatives in the European Parliament arrived in Beirut in the past hours to explore the developments on the French initiative towards Lebanon before an expected visit by the French President to the capital, al-Joumhouria daily reported on Monday. French President Emmanuel Macron is reportedly expected to visit Lebanon before Christmas. According to “well-informed” European diplomats, the delegation composed of French deputies Thierry Mariani and Jean-Lin Lacapelle, will meet senior officials beginning with President Michel Aoun, said the daily.
Discussions are to focus on the worsening economic and living conditions in the country, and Lebanon’s “hesitant” leaders to implement the French plan since its launch on the first of September. According to information obtained by the daily, the delegation’s visit comes after the European Union’s launch of a work mechanism for the Lebanese crisis, “in order to amplify the French initiative and perhaps support it and turn it into a European initiative, if the need arises.”

Explosion at Hezbollah base in southern Lebanon: Report
Al Arabiya English/Monday 07 December 2020
An explosion occurred at a Hezbollah outpost in Jbaa, in the Al Tuffah region in southern Lebanon at 4:04 pm on Monday, according to Al Hadath News. Head of Jbaa municipality confirmed a "small explosion" occurred and that the municipality police could not yet locate the explosion site, in a statement to Lebanese daily Al-Nahar. In September, an arms cache belonging to the Iranian proxy group blew up in Lebanon due to a technical error, Reuters reported at the time.An explosion shook a Lebanese Hezbollah stronghold in southern Lebanon, sending thick gray smoke billowing over the village. The blast occurred in the southern village of Ain Qana, above the port city of Sidon. There were no immediate reports of casualties. An official with Lebanese Hezbollah confirmed there was an explosion but declined to give further details.

Hezbollah suing entities who accused it of being behind Beirut explosion
Jerusalem Post/December 07/2020
A former Lebanese Christian member of parliament and a website affiliated with a Christian party in Lebanon are Hezbollah's latest targets in the legal arena.

Hezbollah announced on Friday that it is suing a number of entities who have accused it of being behind the explosion at Beirut's port that killed over 200 people and wounded thousands in early August, Walla reported Saturday. A former Lebanese Christian member of parliament and a website affiliated with a Christian party in Lebanon are Hezbollah's latest targets in the legal arena. The Shi'ite terrorist organization said it intends to sue the parties for slander, after they claimed Hezbollah was responsible for the devastating blast at Beiru's port On August 4. Hezbollah's legal representative, a Lebanese journalist named Ibrahim Mousawi, said that the accusations made against Hezbollah by former MP Fares Souaid and a right-wing Lebanese Forces website were "misleading."  Mousawi claimed that the accusations are especially problematic because they threaten the social peace in Lebanon at a time when the US is exerting great pressure on Hezbollah and its allies."When the American administration is focused on oppressing Hezbollah and on pressuring other governments to designate it as a terrorist organization, you learn that there are internal and external entities assisting them in doing so," Mousawi noted when announcing that Hezbollah will be suing those who blamed the organization for the Beirut blast.
After the dust from the devastating blast settled, it was discovered that ammonium nitrate, a white chemical substance that is used as fertilizer as well as for bomb making, was inappropriately stored in a warehouse in Beirut's port. And while many of Hezbollah's political and civil opponents blamed Hezbollah for storing the dangerous chemicals, Hezbollah has rejected the accusations time and time again. No evidence was found so far that could clearly connect the organization to the blast that levelled large areas of Beirut's capital city. The Lebanese official investigation has yet to provide any explanations, and many mourning Lebanese families are demanding that an international investigation be launched. Official documents have indicated that the Lebanese Ports Authority, security agencies and political leadership were all aware of the dangerous chemicals being stored at the port, but failed to take action for their removal. Different reports have indicated in the past that the Beirut port is often used as a storehouse for dangerous materials and is an epicenter of public corruption. Souaid was one of the first Lebanese officials to publicly blame Hezbollah for the Beirut blast, claiming in September that ammunition stored by Hezbollah caused the explosion. Former MP Souaid is known for his anti-Hezbollah rhetoric and has publicly criticized the organization in the past. Following Germany's decision in April to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization, Souaid told Arab News that "Hezbollah burdens Lebanon politically, economically and financially in a way that the country cannot handle ... There are no compromises with Hezbollah. Either Lebanon becomes Hezbollah-free or we let it govern and we leave. We cannot coexist with an imposed policy." Souaid hasn't commented on the pending lawsuit against him and only said that his lawyers would examine the case on Monday. The Lebanese Forces party has yet to release a comment.

As Lebanon subsidy crunch looms, two UN agencies warn of social catastrophe
Reuters/Monday 07 December 2020
The removal of subsidies in Lebanon without guarantees to protect the vulnerable would amount to a social catastrophe, two UN agencies said on Monday, warning there is no parachute to soften the blow. With Lebanon deep in financial crisis, the central bank has been subsidizing basic goods by providing hard currency to importers at the old exchange rate of 1,500 Lebanese pounds to the dollar even as the currency fell by 80 percent from the peg. Central bank governor Riad Salameh said last week the subsidies could be kept for only two more months, urging the state should come up with a plan. Though Lebanon faces the gravest crisis since the 1975-90 civil war, policymaking has been crippled by old rivalries between fractious politicians. Saad Hariri was nominated to form a new government in October but one has yet to be agreed. “The impact of removing price subsidies on the country’s most vulnerable households will be tremendous and yet there is almost nothing in place to help soften the fall,” the UNICEF’S Lebanon country representative and the ILO’s regional director wrote in an op-ed. “It is critical to realize that for Lebanon to fly off another cliff now, without first putting in place an inclusive system of social guarantees, would be to inflict a social catastrophe on the country’s most vulnerable people, sacrificing their wellbeing, and that of the country as a whole, for many years to come,” they wrote. As Lebanon's central bank audit crumbles, the worst is yet to come.Iran’s Quds Force chief tells Lebanon’s Hezbollah to stand down on Israel: Report. The universal way in which Lebanon has been subsidizing basic goods including fuel, wheat and medicine has been widely criticized, including by senior politicians from ruling parties, because it does not target those most in need. A rough analysis shows up to 80 percent of the subsidies may actually be benefiting the wealthiest 50 percent with only 20 percent going to the poorer half, UNICEF Representative Yukie Mokuo and ILO Regional Director Ruba Jaradat wrote in their op-ed. The caretaker government is due to meet Salameh on Monday to discuss the subsidies. The World Bank has said poverty is likely to continue to worsen and engulf more than half the population by 2021.

STL: Handover ceremony for Inter-University Programme on International Law and Procedure
NNA/Monday,07 December/2020
An online ceremony to mark the official handover of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s (STL) flagship outreach programme, the Inter-University Programme on International Criminal Law and Procedure (IUP-ICLP), to the T.M.C. Asser Institute and the International and Transitional Justice Resources Center (ITJRC) was held today with the participation of the STL’s President Judge Ivana Hrdlickovل, Judge David Baragwanath, Acting Registrar David Tolbert. Speakers included Professor Janne Nijman, Chairperson of the Executive Board and Academic Director of the Asser Institute and Dr. Elie El Hindi, University Professor and Treasurer of the ITJRC. The ceremony was also attended by IUP-ICLP alumni and professors of the participating universities. The STL is delighted that the IUP-ICLP will be carried out jointly by the T.M.C. Asser Institute, an interuniversity institute for international law in The Hague, and the ITJRC, a Lebanese NGO based in Beirut. The fruitful cooperation between these two institutions is a direct result of their joint efforts in implementing the programme in previous years together with the STL. The IUP-ICLP, which teaches Lebanese students international criminal law and procedure and encourages them to pursue study or careers in the field, represents one of the STL’s lasting legacies in Lebanon. STL President stated: "Today, the involvement of the STL into the inter-university program is ending and a new era of the IUP is beginning. The establishment of the ITRJC and the handover of the Inter-University Program to the Center will continue to allow hundreds of students to get acquainted with international criminal law. I thank all those who worked hard to make this unique inter-university program happen and wish all the best to the ITJRC in carrying out one of the STL’s legacies. Stay enthusiastic and committed - because it is what the world needs right now. My appreciation and thanks goes also to the Asser Institute for their invaluable support of this program."The IUP-ICLP was set up by the STL in 2011 in cooperation with the T.M.C. Asser Institute in The Hague and 11 Lebanese universities. In 2016, the ITJRC was established with the support of the STL, T.M.C. Asser Institute and partner universities. The NGO started implementing parts of the programme from 2018. With no specialization in international criminal law offered at any Lebanese university prior to that time, the programme is the first of its kind. The course is unique and unprecedented in the Middle East and North Africa region. Nearly 1200 students have completed the course to date. More information on the programme can be found here. "The Inter-University Programme is the best attempt towards reconciliation in Lebanon, because it brings together universities and students from different backgrounds in a country where dialogue unfortunately lacks," said Georges Masse, Professor at the American University of Science and Technology.-- Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL)

Wehbe receives credentials of new ambassadors to Lebanon
NNA/Monday,07 December/2020
Caretaker Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants, Charbel Wehbe, on Monday received the credentials of newly appointed ambassadors to Lebanon Ali Barbara kamara of Sierra Leone, Hermano Telles Ribeiro of Brazil, and Mun Jong Nam of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Separately, Minister Wehbe signed two financial cooperation agreements with Germany, represented by its Ambassador to Lebanon Andreas Kindl. The two agreements amount to 100 million euros, allocated directly by the German government to Lebanon to carry out urgent infrastructure repairs and help the country confront the Coronavrius pandemic. Minister Wehbe hoped that these two agreements would pave the way for financial institutions to provide much-needed aid to Lebanon in the future. Wehbe thanked the German government for its aid to Lebanon.
This afternoon, Wehbe welcomed at his Ministry office a delegation of the European Union, currently on a visit to Lebanon.

Diab Says Govt. Wants to 'Rationalize' Essential Goods Subsidies
Naharnet/Monday,07 December/2020
Caretaker Prime Minister Hassan Diab on Monday chaired a ministerial meeting dedicated to discussing the issue of the subsidization of imported essential goods amid the severe financial and economic crisis in the country.
“We are a caretaker government, but the country is facing a crisis,” Diab said at the beginning of the meeting. “We are trying to rationalize the financing of imports and we are looking for a way that does not harm the people while slashing the cost of this importation,” Diab added. Al-Jadeed TV meanwhile reported that Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh told the conferees that “he has no money for subsidization and that ministers should specify the essential and very necessary goods that will be subsidized.”“There is no inclination to end the subsidization of (Arabic pita) bread and diesel will remain subsidized in the winter season,” al-Jadeed added. MTV meanwhile reported that there are discussions over “rationing power supply to save fuel and over ending the subsidization of nonprescription medicine.” “Intensive meetings will be held at the Grand Serail tomorrow and taking a final decision on the issue of ending subsidization might be postponed to next week, pending an agreement with the Iraqi government over the import of fuel,” MTV added. According to reports that emerged earlier in the day, a decision has been taken to end the subsidization of some types of flour. The decision will not affect the subsidization of flour used in the country’s main type of bread, according to the reports. On October 9, Diab had adamantly rejected any move to end subsidies of goods in the crisis-hit country, warning it would lead to a "social explosion" as the central bank's reserves dwindle and the local currency continues to drop, throwing more Lebanese into poverty. Lebanon is mired in the worst economic and financial crisis in its modern history. It defaulted on paying back its debt for the first time in March, and the local currency has lost nearly 80% of its value amid hyperinflation, soaring poverty, and unemployment. Talks with the International Monetary Fund on a bailout package have stalled since July. Since the local currency's collapse, the central bank has been using its depleting reserves to support imports of fuel, wheat and medicine.

Protesters Block Highway, Rally against Plans to End Subsidies
Naharnet/Monday,07 December/2020
Protesters on Monday staged a sit-in outside the government’s headquarters in Riad al-Solh to denounce plans to end the subsidization of some essential goods, the National News Agency said. Using megaphones, protesters were venting their anger at the ruling authorities and calling for “toppling them and holding the corrupts and thieves accountable.”They later blocked the vital Ring highway in central Beirut with burning tires and trash bins before heading to Hamra where they staged a demo outside the Ministry of Economy. Media reports published Monday have suggested that there is an inclination to end the subsidization of some types of flour. Caretaker Prime Minister Hassan Diab also chaired a ministerial meeting dedicated to discussing the issue of the subsidization of imported essential goods amid the severe financial and economic crisis in the country.

Lebanese-French Businessman Freed but Grounded, Judicial Source Says
Agence France Presse/Monday,07 December/2020
Lebanon on Monday released a Lebanese-French businessman who has been on the run from French authorities since June, but banned him from travel pending investigation, a Lebanese judicial source said. Lebanese security forces detained Ziad Takieddine last week at the request of Interpol. Prosecutor Ghassan Oueidat on Monday freed the 70-year-old under judicial supervision after "determining his place of residence, confiscating his passports and banning him from leaving Lebanese territory," the source told AFP. Takieddine had fled to Beirut in June, when a French court condemned him to five years in jail in a case involving millions of euros in kickbacks from arms sales to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia signed in 1994. Lebanon would soon request France provide it with Takieddine's legal file so it can review charges against him, the judicial source said. If the charges were found to be justified, he could be tried in Lebanon as a Lebanese citizen, the source added.  A French judicial source told AFP he was sceptical of the possibility of extradition to France. "France and Lebanon have not concluded an extradition agreement and Lebanon does not extradite its nationals. The proceedings could very quickly end there," the source said. Takieddine was also once the main accuser in an inquiry into suspected Libyan financing of former French president Nicolas Sarkozy's 2007 election campaign. The businessman was investigated in late 2016 after he told the media he had delivered millions of euros in cash from Libyan dictator Moamer Kadhafi. Sarkozy caught a break last month when Takieddine suddenly retracted his claim. A judicial source in France denied Takieddine's latest arrest was linked to the Sarkozy affair, declining to provide further details. Takieddine spent two weeks in jail in Lebanon until November 10 as part of a disagreement with his former lawyer Hani Mourad, then was released. A Lebanese legal source who asked to remain anonymous said Takieddine was being pursued in a number of financial cases in Lebanon, including on charges of slander, fraud and forgery.

Hassan: Two Million COVID-19 Vaccines Reserved for Lebanon
Naharnet/Monday,07 December/2020
Caretaker Hamad Hassan told Independent Arabia on Monday that Lebanon has booked around 2m Pfizer vaccines that will be given to around 30 percent of the Lebanese population. “Lebanon booked with American Pfizer company around 2 million vaccines to be distributed free of charge to segments of the society as targeted in a plan placed by the company and the Lebanese ministerial committee,” tasked with monitoring the virus, said Hassan. The Minister said the agreement would provide vaccines for 30 percent of the Lebanese population. Hassan said the National Committee for Corona Vaccine Management was formed two weeks ago. A calendar to determine the distribution of the vaccine to target groups, especially the most vulnerable to the epidemic, such as health workers and the elderly, was set. The Minister indicated that he plans on covering the cost of the contract with Pfizer and COVAX, through the Lebanese government, with funding from the budget of the Ministry of Health, from the general budget reserve, donations from some public administration, and a World Bank loan, as agreed during a meeting at the Grand Serail. Lebanon recorded 1,236 virus cases on Sunday, raising the total number of infections to 137,153 cases, and 1,099 deaths since the first infection was detected on 21 February.
 

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on December 07- 08/2020

Pope Francis to make historic Iraq visit in March
AFP/December 07, 2020
VATICAN CITY: Pope Francis will make a historic visit to Iraq in March, the Vatican said Monday, the first ever by a pontiff and which will include a trip to Mosul. The 83-year-old has long spoken of his desire to visit the Middle Eastern country, where conflict has caused the number of Christians to fall dramatically over the past two decades. Between March 5 and 8 next year, Francis will "visit Baghdad, the plain of Ur... the city of Erbil, as well as Mosul and Qaraqosh in the plain of Nineveh," spokesman Matteo Bruni said in a statement.
The pope's visit to the ancient city of Mosul in northern Iraq will be particularly significant, as the former stronghold of Daesh. Iraq's historic and diverse Christian communities have been devastated in the bloody sectarian warfare that followed the 2003 US-led invasion and Daesh's sweep through a third of the country in 2014. Communities of Assyrians, Armenians, Chaldeans, Protestants and more have all been directly targeted. There are no reliable statistics on the number of Christians who fled Iraq during these consecutive waves of bloodshed. According to William Warda, co-founder of the Hammurabi Human Rights Organisation, Christians who have remained in Iraq number up to 400,000, down from 1.5 million in 2003. The trip will be the pope's first abroad since the coronavirus outbreak hit Italy, and the Vatican said the program would "take into consideration the evolution of the worldwide health emergency".
Francis said last year that Iraq was on his list for 2020, but he was forced to cancel all foreign trips in June as coronavirus swept across the globe. At the time, he said he hoped Iraq could "face the future through the peaceful and shared pursuit of the common good on the part of all elements of society, including the religious, and not fall back into hostilities sparked by the simmering conflicts of the regional powers." President Barham Saleh had officially invited the pope to visit Iraq in July 2019, hoping it would help the country "heal" after years of strife. The Iraqi foreign ministry on Monday welcomed news of his trip, saying: "It symbolises a message of peace to Iraq and the whole region." The late pope, John Paul II, had also hoped to visit Iraq, but never made the trip. He was one of the staunchest critics of then-US President George W. Bush's decision to go to war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in what the pope feared would be seen as a clash of civilizations between Christianity and Islam. In 1999, John Paul II wanted to visit the ancient city of Ur of the Chaldees in southern Iraq. According to the Bible, it is where God first prayed to Abraham. But there were significant concerns about security, and the United States and Britain also feared Saddam would seize upon it for propaganda purposes. "The pope's visit will come as the realisation of a dream of his predecessor, Pope St. John Paul II," the Vatican's news portal said. Pope Francis has made boosting ties between Christianity and Islam a cornerstone of his papacy.
Last year he visited Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, where he hosted a historic public mass for an estimated 170,000 Catholics at a stadium, and Morocco. The pope had already visited several Muslim countries in previous years, including Turkey in 2014, Azerbaijan in 2016 and Egypt in 2017.

Iranian official denies rumors of decline in supreme leader’s health
Reuters/December 07/2020
DUBAI: An official close to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denied rumors on social media on Monday that the 81-year-old’s health was deteriorating. “By the grace of God and with the good prayers of devotees, the gentleman (Ayatollah Khamenei) is in good health and is busy vigorously carrying out his plans according to his routine,” the official, Mehdi Fazaeli, said on Twitter. Fazaeli has worked in an office publishing Khamenei’s work. His tweet was also reported by Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency. The statement about Khamenei’s health appeared to be a response to reports by several news organizations, which referred to a tweet by a journalist in Arabic who said Khamenei had transferred duties to his son because of his health. Khamenei has served as supreme leader since 1989, with the final say on all state matters. His health has been the subject of speculation for years.
A security official in Israel, which closely follows events in its enemy Iran, told Reuters: “We are aware of these rumors, and regard them as rumors only.”The Tehran bourse’s index fell 10,000 points, or about 0.7% on Monday.
The state news agency IRNA blamed the decline on a “rumor widely exchanged on social media,” without giving details. But news websites, including bultannews.com, said the market was reacting to the rumors about Khamenei’s health.
 

Sisi: Egypt, France Bound by Strategic Ties
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday,07 December/2020
Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi stressed on Monday that Cairo and Paris are bound by natural strategic ties in all fields. Speaking during a press conference with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron in Paris, he added that the aspects of cooperation between their countries have witnessed “qualitative” advances in political, military and economic fields, among others. He said his talks with the French leader were “frank and transparent”, reflecting their similar stances on several bilateral and regional issues. Discussions, continued Sisi, focused on economic, trade and investment affairs and ways to boost them. “We agreed on the importance of joint work to increase French investments in Egypt where opportunities are many in wake of the mega projects the country is pursuing,” he stressed. For his part, Macron said Sisi’s visit is a sign of the strong relations between Egypt and France. The Egyptian leader is on a three-day visit to Paris, which he kicked off on Sunday.

Macron: France will sell arms to Egypt to help counter terrorism in Middle East
Arab News/December 07/2020
PARIS: President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday he would not condition the future sale of French arms to Egypt on human rights because he did not want to weaken Cairo's ability to counter terrorism in the region. "I will not condition matters of defence and economic cooperation on these disagreements (over human rights)," Macron said during a joint press conference with President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi after the two leaders held talks in the Elysee Palace. "It is more effective to have a policy of demanding dialogue than a boycott which would only reduce the effectiveness of one our partners in the fight against terrorism," he added. Meanwhile, Sisi said that he was working to secure the future for the Egyptian people in the region. "The security of 100 million Egyptians falls upon me," he said, accusing the Muslim Brotherhood organization of exporting extremist ideology to France and the rest of world. Macron also stated that he had spoken frankly to El-Sisi about matters of human rights in the North African country, though he gave few details. Macron made his remarks at a press conference with El-Sisi after the two leaders held talks at the Elysee Palace. Sisi was making a two-day visit to France, though hopes of nurturing closer ties were overshadowed by a furor over Cairo’s rights record. Macron also said that while progress had been made in stabilising Libya, threats persisted from external actors. France views Egypt and its leader as a bulwark against Islamist militants in the Sinai peninsular and Libya.
Earlier in the morning, France had welcomed Sisi with a Cavalry parade through Paris.(with Reuters)

Turkey's Erdogan believes in a ‘win-win formula’ in Greece gas row
AFP, Istanbul/Monday 07 December 2020
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan believes “a win-win formula” can be found in a row with Greece over undersea resources, according to comments published on Monday, as EU leaders mull sanctions ahead of a summit. NATO members Turkey and Greece have been at loggerheads over maritime territory in the eastern Mediterranean, believed to be rich in energy resources including natural gas. Turkey has enraged Greece by sending a survey ship and navy vessels to the disputed waters, prompting Athens to push its EU allies for tougher sanctions at Thursday’s summit. “I am calling on all neighboring countries in the Mediterranean especially Greece not to see this issue as a zero-sum game,” Erdogan said.“I believe a win-win formula that observes everyone’s rights could be found.”Erdogan reiterated a call to gather “all the actors around the table” including the breakaway republic in northern Cyprus, which is recognized only by Turkey.Turkey extends seismic survey work in eastern Mediterranean amid tensions with Greece. EU foreign ministers to evaluate sanctions against Turkey. Greek FM: Turkey’s moves to ease tensions ‘unconvincing.’But Greece has insisted Turkey – a candidate country to join the European Union – must halt its exploration before negotiations can begin. Not all EU members are convinced by sanctions, with some fearing that an escalating standoff could see Erdogan’s government once again allow asylum seekers to leave Turkey and cross into the bloc. European Council chief Charles Michel, who will host the summit, on Friday expressed Europe’s frustration. “I think that the cat and mouse game needs to end,” Michel said, referring to Turkey’s repeated incursions into disputed waters with gas exploration vessels. “We will have a debate at the European summit on December 10 and we are ready to use the means at our disposal,” he said. Last month, Turkey pulled its research vessel Oruc Reis back to port, just as it did before a previous EU summit.

Turkey's actions worsen gas dispute ahead of summit, EU says
Arab News/December 07/2020
BRUSSELS: European Union foreign ministers said on Monday that Turkey had failed to help resolve a dispute over natural gas resources in the eastern Mediterranean, but they left any decision on retaliatory sanctions for an EU summit on Thursday. The 27 ministers, who were tasked to evaluate the grounds for economic sanctions on Ankara, did not go beyond agreeing Turkey had aggravated tensions since October, when EU leaders voiced a threat to impose punitive measures in December. "Unhappily, we haven't seen much progress or improvement since the last European Council," the EU's top diplomat Josep Borrell told reporters, referring to the Oct. 1-2 summit, when EU leaders gave Ankara time to find a diplomatic solution. "We have not seen a fundamental change of direction in Turkey's behaviour. On the contrary, in several aspects the situation has worsened," said Borrell, who chaired the meeting.NATO ally and EU candidate Turkey claims gas resources also contested by Greece and Cyprus, a dispute that has fanned territorial rows over the divided island of Cyprus, maritime boundaries with Greece and Turkey's broader foreign policy. EU states cite Turkish exploration in contested waters, a decision to re-open part of a town in disputed territory in Cyprus and a row with Germany over a U.N. arms embargo on Libya as evidence that Turkey is no longer a reliable partner. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said his country would not "bow down to threats and blackmail" but repeated his call for negotiations over the conflicting claims to continental shelves and rights to potential energy resources. Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias said on Twitter that "Turkey's stance is a challenge to the Union as a whole," appearing to challenge comments earlier on Monday by his Turkish counterpart that Greece and Cyprus were manipulating the EU to act against Turkey. Tensions flared in August when Turkey sent a survey vessel to map out energy-drilling prospects in waters claimed by Greece. Germany, current holder of the EU's six-month presidency, holds the key to whether sanctions go ahead. It had hoped to mediate between Athens and Ankara, but was angered when Turkey resumed its gas exploration off Cyprus in October after a pause."There will be a decision at the summit," German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said after the meeting. "There have been repeated Turkish provocations. So the EU summit will have to decide how to handle this." The Turkish vessel at the centre of the dispute, Oruc Reis, returned to port again last week, which was welcomed by the EU and NATO. But European Council President Charles Michel warned Turkey not to play "cat and mouse" by returning exploration ships to port just before EU summits, only to redeploy them after they had finished.

European powers rebuke Iran after enrichment announcement
Reuters/ December 2020
PARIS: France, Germany and Britain said on Monday they were alarmed by an Iranian announcement that it intended to install additional, advanced uranium-enriching centrifuges and by legislation that could expand its nuclear program. “If Iran is serious about preserving a space for diplomacy, it must not implement these steps,” the three powers, who along with China and Russia are party to a 2015 nuclear containment deal with Tehran, known as the JCPoA, said in a joint statement. A confidential International Atomic Energy Agency report obtained by Reuters said Iran plans to install three more cascades, or clusters, of advanced IR-2m centrifuges in its enrichment plant at Natanz, which was built underground apparently to withstand any aerial bombardment. Iran’s nuclear deal with major powers says Tehran can only use first-generation IR-1 centrifuges, which refine uranium much more slowly, at Natanz and that those are the only machines with which Iran may accumulate enriched stocks. “Iran’s recent announcement to the IAEA that it intends to install an additional three cascades of advanced centrifuges at the Fuel Enrichment Plant in Natanz is contrary to the JCPoA and deeply worrying,” the three powers said of the UN watchdog report, which has yet to be made public. The powers further said a new law obliging Iran’s government to halt UN inspections of its nuclear sites and step up enrichment beyond the deal’s limits was also incompatible with the accord and Iran’s wider non-proliferation commitments.
“Such a move would jeopardize our shared efforts to preserve the JCPOA and also risks compromising the important opportunity for a return to diplomacy with the incoming US administration,” they said, referring to Joe Biden, who defeated President Donald Trump in the Nov. 3 election.
“A return to the JCPOA would also be beneficial for Iran,” the three added, referring to Tehran’s decisions to reverse some of its nuclear commitments in response to the Trump administration’s 2018 pull-out from the deal and reimposition of tough sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.

Riyadh, Baghdad Ink Deals at Saudi-Iraqi Businessmen Forum
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 7 December, 2020
The Saudi-Iraqi Businessmen Forum kicked off in Baghdad on Monday under the sponsorship of Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi. Delegations discussed prospects of cooperation between their countries in all fields, reported the Saudi Press Agency (SPA). They signed an agreement to set up a metal grain silo in Iraq’s al-Diwaniyah province and another to establish a hospital in al-Saqlawia in Iraq’s Anbar province. Speaking at the event, Saudi Commerce Minister and head of the Saudi-Iraqi coordination council, Dr. Majid al-Qasabi stressed the Kingdom’s keenness on establishing economic, trade and investment relations with Iraq. The Saudi delegation is in Iraq as part of the Saudi-Iraqi coordination council.
 

US Navy official says ‘uneasy deterrence’ reached with Iran
Jon Gambrell/AP/December 07/2020
The top U.S. Navy official in the Mideast said Sunday that America has reached an “uneasy deterrence” with Iran after months of regional attacks and seizures at sea, even as tensions remain high between Washington and Tehran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
Vice Adm. Sam Paparo, who oversees the Navy’s 5th Fleet based in Bahrain, struck an academic tone in comments to the annual Manama Dialogue hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He described having a “healthy respect” for both Iran’s regular navy and the naval forces of its paramilitary Revolutionary Guard. “We have achieved an uneasy deterrence. That uneasy deterrence is exacerbated by world events and by events along the way,” the vice admiral said. “But I have found Iranian activity at sea to be cautious and circumspect and respectful, to not risk unnecessary miscalculation or escalation at sea.”While Iran has not directly seized or targeted a tanker in recent months as it did last year, a mine struck an oil tanker off Saudi Arabia and a cargo ship near Yemen came under assault in recent days. Suspicion immediately fell on Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi rebels for being behind both attacks. The Houthis have not commented on either. Paparo, a former Navy fighter pilot who most recently served as director of operations at the U.S. military’s Central Command, offered a different stance than his immediate predecessor, Vice Adm. James Malloy. In one of his last comments to journalists in August, Malloy referred to Iran as “reckless and provocative” and always trying in dramatic naval drills to “lower the denominator until they’re sure that they can look like they’ve won something.” Malloy’s tenure saw oil tankers seized by Iran and a series of limpet mine explosions targeting tankers that the Navy blamed on Iran. Tehran denied being involved, though Revolutionary Guard members were filmed taking an unexploded mine away from one tanker. By contrast, the several months that Paparo’s been in charge have not seen any major crises.
The U.S. Navy routinely has tense encounters with the Revolutionary Guard, whose speed boats race alongside American warships in the Persian Gulf and sometimes conduct live-fire drills with machine guns and missile launches in their presence.
The Guard typically patrols the shallower waters of the Persian Gulf and its narrow mouth, the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s regular navy largely operates in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. While previous commanders have made a point to differentiate between the professionalism of the two, Paparo dismissed it as an “old idea” that included a lingering belief that the service was still loyal to Iran’s former shah, who was toppled in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. “Forty-one years into the revolution, I think we can dispense with that notion,” the vice admiral said. “I sincerely doubt there’s a difference among them.”
Asked about Paparo’s comments, Alireza Miryousefi, a spokesman for Iran’s mission to the United Nations, said all of Iran’s naval forces “have always conducted themselves in the utmost professional manner while patrolling in our territorial waters and the greater Persian Gulf.”
“Any suggestion to the otherwise is categorically false,” Miryousefi told The Associated Press. “The question that should be raised is, what is the U.S. Navy doing 7,000 miles from its territorial waters?”
The 5th Fleet long has patrolled the Mideast as part of a mission to ensure energy supplies can pass through crucial regional chokepoints, like the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of all oil passes. Iranian officials in the past have threatened to close the strait. Paparo said he did not believe the 5th Fleet’s mission would be affected by the Navy potentially reconstituting a 1st Fleet responsible for the Indian Ocean. Still, Paparo’s remarks carried a clear warning, quoting former U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis at one point.
“Be polite, be professional and have a plan to kill everyone in the room,” he said. “That’s how we conduct ourselves at sea.”
*Follow Jon Gambrell on Twitter at www.twitter.com/jongambrellAP.

WHO against Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccines
Agence France Presse/December 07/2020
The World Health Organization said Monday that persuading people on the merits of a Covid-19 vaccine would be far more effective than trying to make the jabs mandatory. The WHO said it would be down to individual countries as to how they want to conduct their vaccination campaigns against the coronavirus pandemic. But the U.N. health agency insisted making it mandatory to get immunized against the disease would be the wrong road to take, adding there were examples in the past of mandating vaccines use only to see it backfire with greater opposition to them.
"I don't think that mandates are the direction to go in here, especially for these vaccines," Kate O'Brien, director of the WHO's immunization department, told a virtual news conference. "It is a much better position to actually encourage and facilitate the vaccination without those kinds of requirements. "I don't think we envision any countries creating a mandate for vaccination." O'Brien said there may be certain hospital professions in which being vaccinated might be required or highly recommended for staff and patient safety. But WHO experts admitted there was a battle to be fought to convince the general public to take the vaccines as they become available.
Only 'responsible' choice: Ryan
"The vaccine story is a good news story. It is the victory of human endeavor, potentially, over a microbial adversary," said the organization's emergencies director Michael Ryan. "We need to convince people and we need to persuade."
As for making vaccines mandatory, he said: "I think all of us who work in public health would rather avoid that as a means for getting people vaccinated. "We are much better served to present people with the data and the benefits and let people make up their own minds. "There are certain circumstances... where I would believe that the only responsible thing would be to be vaccinated," he added. According to the WHO's overview of different candidate vaccines, 51 have entered human trials, 13 of which have reached final-stage mass testing. A further 163 candidate vaccines are being developed in laboratories with a view to eventual human testing. The world-first roll-out of the Pfizer vaccine is due to begin in Britain on Tuesday.
Priority list
As countries begin deploying vaccines in the coming weeks and months, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus urged them to prioritize those most in need. "These are not easy decisions," he said, setting out the WHO guidelines.
Tedros said health workers at high risk of infection were a top priority, plus people at the highest risk of serious disease or death due to their age -- thereby easing the pressure on health systems. He said they should later be followed by people with a higher risk of severe disease due to underlying conditions, and marginalized groups at higher risk. The WHO's ACT-Accelerator mechanism, pooling risk and reward among countries rich and poor, is a global attempt to speed up the development of Covid-19 vaccines, tests and treatments, and purchase and distribute them evenly regardless of wealth. However, the scheme needs $4.3 billion urgently, with a further $23.9 billion required in 2021. "What we need now globally is not to enter the land of empty promises in terms of supporting the ACT-Accelerator," said Ryan, urging wealthy donors to stump up. "The means to do this allocation fairly and equitably is there. But what's not in place is the financing to make that happen in 2021. "There's too much of a gap between the rhetoric and the reality."

Time Running Out on Trump Bid to Overturn Election Results
Agence France Presse/December 07/2020
Humiliation in the courts, witnesses who provide more farce than facts and a chief lawyer battling coronavirus -- Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the November 3 presidential election are not going well. And time is running out. The Electoral College is to meet on December 14 to certify Democrat Joe Biden's victory and Tuesday is the deadline for state-level challenges to be resolved. Among the latest blows to Trump's bid to tarnish the vote with baseless fraud claims was the announcement on Sunday that former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has been hospitalized with Covid-19.
Giuliani, 76, has been leading the Trump campaign's legal team, filing lawsuits that purport to expose ballot fraud and staging public hearings in the swing states where Trump lost narrowly. Many of the witnesses put forward by Giuliani have strained credulity, however, and the flimsy lawsuits rely often on convoluted conspiracy theories that have been repeatedly debunked by state election officials -- many of them Republican. One witness, Melissa Carone, who appeared besides Giuliani at a hearing in Michigan, was so over-the-top that she ended up going viral and being lampooned on the comedy show "Saturday Night Live."
Carone had already been deemed "not credible" by a Michigan judge but that did not stop Giuliani from parading her before the Michigan House hearing. When the lawsuits filed by Giuliani and other Trump allies have actually reached the courts they have been tossed out by judges -- sometimes in scathing terms.
The latest defeat -- bringing the Trump campaign's win-loss record in court to 1-47 -- came on Monday in Michigan, where Trump lost to Biden by 154,000 votes. "The People have spoken," wrote US District Court Judge Linda Parker. "This case represents well the phrase: 'this ship has sailed.'"Parker said the suit seeking to overturn Biden's victory in Michigan was "stunning in its scope and breathtaking in its reach.""If granted, the relief would disenfranchise the votes of the more than 5.5 million Michigan citizens who, with dignity, hope, and a promise of a voice, participated in the 2020 General Election," she said. The judge said the suit appeared to be mainly aimed at shaking "People's faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government."
'Subvert constitutional democracy' -
A letter published Monday by more than 1,500 lawyers from across the country made a similar point, accusing Giuliani and other attorneys of filing "frivolous court claims" in a bid to "undermine citizens' faith in our election's integrity." They noted that election security officials and the 74-year-old Trump's own attorney general, Bill Barr, have said there was no evidence of significant ballot fraud. "President Trump's barrage of litigation is a pretext for a campaign to undermine public confidence in the outcome of the 2020 election, which inevitably will subvert constitutional democracy," they said. "Sadly, the President's primary agents and enablers in this effort are lawyers, obligated by their oath and ethical rules to uphold the rule of law." Nowhere has the pushback against Trump been stronger than in Georgia, where Republican officials from the governor on down have rebuffed his efforts. Lieutenant Governor Geoff Duncan, a Republican, accused Trump on Monday of spewing "mountains of misinformation" in his bid to discredit the vote in Georgia, a once reliably Republican state where Biden won by some 12,000 votes. Duncan told "CBS This Morning" that the Trump campaign claims of voter fraud were "literally stuff that can be debunked in 10 seconds or less." Georgia Governor Brian Kemp rejected a Trump demand that he call a special session of the Georgia legislature to switch the state's 16 Electoral College delegates from Biden to Trump. And last week, another Georgia official, voting system manager Gabriel Sterling, said Trump's rhetoric could lead to violence. "Someone's going to get hurt. Someone's going to get shot. Someone's going to get killed. It's not right," Sterling said. Dozens of pro-Trump protesters, some of them armed, turned up Saturday night outside the home of Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, the state's chief election officer, shouting obscenities. "Through threats of violence, intimidation, and bullying, the armed people outside my home and their political allies seek to undermine and silence the will and voice of every voter in this state," Benson said. "But their efforts won't carry the day," she said in a statement. "The will of the people is clear." While many state officials have pushed back, Republican members of Congress have for the most part remained silent in the face of Trump's unfounded claims that he won the election. Biden, 78, has mostly ignored Trump's refusal to concede, calling it "embarrassing" but pressing ahead with the formation of his cabinet and plans for his January 20, 2021 inauguration.
 

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on December 07- 08/2020

Iran Trap: Why Biden Must Avoid Tehran’s Tried and True Tricks
Lawrence J. Haas/The National Interest/December 07/2020
لورانس ج. هاس/ناشيونال انترست/الفخ الإيراني: لهذه الأسباب مطلوب من بايدن تجنب الوقوع في الحيل الإيرانية المجربة والصحيحة

http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/93440/lawrence-j-haas-the-national-interest-iran-trap-why-biden-must-avoid-tehrans-tried-and-true-tricks-%d9%84%d9%88%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86%d8%b3-%d8%ac-%d9%87%d8%a7%d8%b3-%d9%85%d9%86-%d9%86%d8%a7/
The Middle East region has evolved in the four years since Joe Biden served as Obama’s vice president. The incoming administration will achieve more by recognizing how those changes could aid—or hinder—its agenda.
No one knows for sure how Israel’s assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist will shape prospects for U.S. relations with Tehran under President Joe Biden—whether a cowed regime will seek accommodation or a defiant one will double-down on its nuclear pursuits and regional mischief.
America’s presumptive president, however, has made clear that he plans to return the United States to the 2015 global nuclear agreement with Iran (if the latter agrees to reverse course and abide by its restrictions) and to seek further talks with Tehran to strengthen the agreement and address Iran’s “other destabilizing activities.” That’s fine. But as Biden prepares to launch the latest change in America’s topsy-turvy approach to Tehran’s forty-one-year-old regime, he and his incoming team need to see Iran, the region’s other major players, and the evolving dynamics among them through clear eyes, not the rose-colored glasses of Western hopes.
Here are four essential realities that the new administration will face as it seeks to reshape U.S.-Iranian relations:
First, Iran’s regime remains what it has always been—an inherently malignant force at home and abroad.
Born of a revolution, the regime is ideological in its drive, hegemonic in its aspirations, and malevolent in its conduct. The region’s leading Shia nation, it seeks to de-stabilize rival Sunni governments, sponsors terrorist groups that seek Israel’s destruction, threatens Europe and the United States, and pursues nuclear, ballistic, and other weapons to intimidate (or to use against) its adversaries.
The United States and the Islamic Republic have different values and interests, and no amount of diplomatic appeasement or economic bribery from Washington will transform the radical regime in Tehran into something that it isn’t. The United States will never achieve more than a cold peace with Iran, certainly nothing better than the cold peace of U.S.-Soviet détente, and it should pursue its goals accordingly.
Second, the nuclear deal is inadequate in its current form, raising the question of how Biden should approach it.
If the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as it’s formally known, was designed to close all Iranian avenues to a nuclear bomb, it does so—at best—only temporarily. That’s because all of its restrictions on Iranian nuclear activities will expire over the course of about a decade.
Biden says that he’d rejoin the JCPOA, which Trump left in 2018, and also seek a stronger and longer deal. The question, though, is one of timing. If he rejoins the deal in hopes of subsequently negotiating a stronger JCPOA 2.0, then he may face an intransigent Tehran that’s content to exploit the sizeable loopholes in the current deal, wait for its restrictions to expire, or both. Perhaps, rather than rejoining the existing JCPOA, the incoming president should immediately seek a new agreement with a regime that wants relief from U.S. sanctions that are crippling its economy.
Third, Israel is at war with Iran, and neither a new nuclear deal nor a broader U.S.-Iran rapprochement will change that.
Israel’s war with Iran is hotter than the cold war of U.S.-Soviet vintage, but not as hot as a full-scale conflagration. Iran threatens to destroy Israel, pursues the weapons to do so, arms its terrorist allies with increasingly sophisticated weaponry, and seeks a military presence closer to Israel borders through its entrenchment in Syria. Israel seeks to derail Iran’s nuclear pursuits by assassinating its scientists and sabotaging its facilities, and it bombs the military facilities that Iran constructs in Syria and the weapons convoys that it orchestrates.
Biden is angering Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu by vowing to rejoin the JCPOA. But, if Jerusalem can’t tell Washington how to address the issue of Iran’s nuclear aspirations, neither should Washington tell Jerusalem how to protect itself from a nation that seeks Israel’s destruction.
Fourth, Israel’s capacity to attack Iran’s nuclear program from within the country is an asset for Washington to exploit.
Biden and Netanyahu may never agree about the JCPOA, but U.S.-Israeli relations need not return to the frosty days when President Obama, who spearheaded the 2015 deal, and Netanyahu clashed openly. Indeed, Israel’s capacity to strike Iran’s nuclear program could serve the interests of both Washington and Jerusalem.
With its economy severely weakened by U.S. sanctions, fueling growing domestic dissent that could threaten Tehran’s hold on power, the regime may—may—be willing to consider not just renewed but stronger restrictions on its nuclear-related pursuits. A savvy Washington might be able to use the threat of further Israeli action to push Tehran into an agreement with stronger provisions than its predecessor.
Iran, Israeli, and the greater Middle East region have evolved in the four years since Joe Biden served as Obama’s vice president. The incoming administration will achieve more by recognizing how those changes could aid—or hinder—its agenda.
Lawrence J. Haas, senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, is the author of, most recently, Harry and Arthur: Truman, Vandenberg, and the Partnership That Created the Free World.

An Accounting For Armenia
Alberto M. Fernandez/MEMRI Daily Brief /December 07/2020
البرتو فرننادس/ميمري: جردة حسابية لأرمينيا
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/93434/alberto-m-fernandez-memri-an-accounting-for-armenia-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a8%d8%b1%d8%aa%d9%88-%d9%81%d8%b1%d9%86%d9%86%d8%a7%d8%af%d8%b3-%d9%85%d9%8a%d9%85%d8%b1%d9%8a-%d8%ac%d8%b1%d8%af%d8%a9/
Exactly a century ago, a victorious Turkey imposed a draconian peace on a prostrate Armenia. On December 3, 1920 Armenia signed the Treat of Alexandropol, officially surrendering a large swathe of what is now northeastern Turkey that had been awarded to the Armenians by the allies. The treaty was signed by the foreign minister of an Armenia that had ceased to exist, as the previous day the Bolsheviks had taken power. Armenia would be under the Soviet yoke until 1991.
Turkey was one of the losers of the First World War, surrendering most of its Middle East empire, but it did quite well in a series of post-war conflicts from 1919 to 1923. With the victorious Western allies either exhausted or distracted, the so-called Turkish War of Independence saw Turkish nationalists under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk defeat the Armenians in the East, the French in the South, and the Greeks in the West.
In recognition of the suffering of the Armenians during the genocide inflicted on them in the First World War, the Western powers decided that there should be an Armenian state. It was actually proposed that the new Armenia be under American mandate, and the new state's borders were drawn by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson.[1] The same King-Crane Commission that recommended an independent Arab Kingdom in Syria proposed a larger Armenian state stretching from current-day Armenia to the Black Sea.[2] In the end, an isolationist U.S. Senate rejected accepting a mandate over Armenia.[3] The victors of American diffidence were both Turkey and Russia. The great losers were the Armenians, who not only lost territory which encompassed part of historic Armenia but were subject to decades of oppressive Soviet Russian rule.
A century later the parallels are eerie. A short bloody war in late 2020 with Azerbaijan, heavily supported by an irredentist Turkey, leads to the defeat of the Armenians of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) and the loss of more territory.[4] A draconian ceasefire agreement, brokered by Russia, is grudgingly signed by the Armenians. As in 1920, the Armenians sign because they know that if they don't, they might lose even more of what little remains in their hands.[5]
Two thousand Russian soldiers are to secure the uneasy peace for a minimum of five years, a period which can be extended unless either Armenia or Azerbaijan gives six months' notice that it is to be terminated. While the results of the war seem to confirm it as another of those Russian "frozen conflicts," conceivably, in about four and a half years, one of the parties could give notice that the armistice is ended and open conflict could again resume.[6] Certainly the triumphalist rhetoric from Baku indicates a lust for even more conquest.[7]
Is there anything for the United States of America to do in such a situation? The conventional answer is, not much. The U.S. has been a member of the often-hapless Minsk Group charged with finding a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue since 1992, but America will never match the attention and intensity that other players – Russia, Turkey, and, of course, Azerbaijan and Armenia – bring to the table.
Ironically, the roots of the 2020 Russian-imposed ceasefire agreement are American. This is a version of the old "Goble Plan," named for former U.S. diplomat Paul Goble, who suggested mutual recognition of an Azerbaijan land bridge across southern Armenia to the Azeri enclave of Nakhichevan coupled with a corridor at Lachin connecting Nagorno-Karabakh with the Republic of Armenia.[8] The concept was actually floated as part of a peace deal by Azerbaijan's then-president, the veteran KGB Gen. Heydar Aliyev (father of Azerbaijan's current dictator) more than 20 years ago, but proved to be too cynical or forward leaning for his own regime.
As Turkish president Erdoğan's lapdog media made abundantly clear, one of the losers in this sharp brutal conflict was the "pro-Armenian West." Turkish media played up both Turkey and Russia, along with Azerbaijan, as the winners: "All pro-Armenian states can be counted among the losers of the war as well. Among them, the Western countries come first... Especially, the United States and France, the most pro-Armenian countries in the West."[9]
In a more just world, the remaining Nagorno-Karabakh territory in local Armenian hands, along with the Lachin corridor, would become an integral part of the Republic of Armenia, borders would be formalized, and both Azerbaijan and Armenia would prioritize the essential job of building up their own states that are beset by a myriad of social and economic ills. But what may be just is often inconceivable. While dysfunctional dictatorship Azerbaijan is flush with oil wealth, Armenia is a country whose population census is treated as a state secret because its dire economic situation continues to lead to the flight of those able and talented enough to emigrate.
U.S. policy has been, even before President Trump, leaning towards Azerbaijan, driven by the twin magnets of Baku's oil wealth and the tempting concept of "encircling" Russia with a string of pro-Western anti-Russian states. During the U.S. presidential campaign, Democratic candidate Joe Biden issued a position paper outlining a greater emphasis on helping Armenians in both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.[10]
Campaign promises should, of course, be taken with a grain of salt. The U.S. doesn't have the attention span to work to detach Armenia fully from the Russian sphere of influence (Russia also seeks to expand its influence in both Turkey and Azerbaijan) even if it tried. With so many hotspots and crises elsewhere, and with the fait accompli caused by the latest war, the Southern Caucasus is just not going to be an American priority.
But there is some room for an American policy towards Armenia that has clear and humble goals seeking to strengthen the capacity of this ancient Christian people to remain rooted and flourish in their homelands. That should be the focus. U.S. policy towards an aggressive Turkey obsessed with lebensraum is also ripe for an overdue course correction.[11] Making it clear to Erdoğan that America has interests in the survival and flourishing of the Armenians in the Caucasus (and in the territorial integrity of Greece and Cyprus) would be a very good early message to send.
As for victorious Azerbaijan, a smart American policy would seek renewed positive engagement, while at the same time quietly warning against renewed military hubris and especially against incitement and an orchestrated campaign of erasing Armenians from history and from the region.[12]
*Alberto M. Fernandez is Vice President of MEMRI.
[1] Woodrowwilson.org/blog/2019/12/19/armenia, December 19, 2019.
[2] Dcollections.oberlin.edu/digital/collection/kingcrane/id/2902/rec/1, August 1919.
[3] Nytimes.com/1920/06/02/archives/senate-rejects-mandate-52-to-23-thirteen-democrats-vote-with.html, June 2, 1920.
[4] Caucasuswatch.de/news/3306.html, December 3, 2020.
[5] Armenianweekly.com/2020/11/23/putin-armenia-not-recognizing-artsakh-was-a-significant-factor, November 23, 2020.
[6] Warsawinstitute.org/post-soviet-frozen-conflicts-challenge-european-security, March 14, 2019.
[7] Dailysabah.com/politics/diplomacy/azerbaijans-aliyev-vows-to-revive-liberated-nagorno-karabakh, November 26, 2020.
[8] Haberturk.com/son-dakika-turk-dunyasi-icin-onemli-gelisme-nahcivan-dan-azerbaycan-a-koridor-haberler-2865989, November 11, 2020.
[9] Dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/pro-armenian-west-is-net-loser-of-2nd-karabakh-war, November 18, 2020.
[10] Armradio.am/2020/10/17/joe-biden-pledges-to-recognize-armenian-genocide-push-for-lasting-peace-in-the-region, October 17, 2020.
[11] Nordicmonitor.com/2020/02/erdogans-secret-keeper-says-lausanne-treaty-invalid-turkey-free-to-grab-resources, February 24, 2020.
[12] Evnreport.com/spotlight-karabakh/christianity-in-karabakh-azerbaijani-efforts-at-rewriting-history-are-not-new, November 22, 2020.

The Time Is Now for Saudi Arabia To Normalize Relations With Israel
Richard Goldberg/FDD/December 07/2020
Here’s a news flash for Saudi Arabia: Presumptive President-elect Joe Biden is looking to fundamentally restructure the U.S.-Saudi relationship. The only way for Riyadh to stop what’s coming might be to normalize relations with Israel right now.
Biden’s nominee for secretary of state, Tony Blinken, reportedly held regular calls with far-left foreign policy activists during the presidential campaign and expressed an openness to cutting off arms sales to Saudi Arabia. In an interview shortly before the election, Blinken announced that a Biden administration would “undertake a strategic review of our bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia to make sure that it is truly advancing our interests and is consistent with our values.” Translation for Riyadh: Buckle up for a rough ride.
Absent a seismic shift—like a normalization agreement with Israel—the Saudis should prepare for the worst. Congress has the votes to send a bill to the president’s desk to halt U.S. arms sales to the kingdom. Such a bill passed the Senate just last year, when Republicans held a wider margin than they will in 2021—and before the kingdom angered a number of oil state Republicans by crashing the price of oil and pummeling the U.S. energy industry. This time around, when that same bill reaches the Oval Office, there will be nobody to veto it.
The incoming State Department brass will also likely reopen an investigation into the 2018 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to determine whether U.S. human rights sanctions should be imposed on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or “MbS,” as he is known. To preserve the bilateral relationship, the Trump administration shielded MbS from direct sanctions retribution in 2019—a decision likely to be reversed in a Biden administration.
Against the backdrop of a complete reset in U.S.-Saudi relations, President-elect Joe Biden is also making it clear that he will press for a full re-entry into the Iran nuclear deal without any preconditions. He could very well turn back the clock four years and flood the Islamic Republic with billions of dollars in sanctions relief, which would enable Tehran to recapitalize both its Revolutionary Guard and its sprawling terror operations throughout the Middle East. Biden could renew American support for the enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil and acquiesce to the expiration of international restrictions on transferring advanced arms to the mullahs.
The Biden administration, with bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate, will likely open a diplomatic assault on Riyadh to end its military involvement in Yemen, where it is fighting the Iranian-backed Houthis. The end of Saudi operations there would effectively cede the Saudi-Yemeni border to Iranian proxies. The pace of Iranian-sponsored, Yemen-based missile and drone attacks against Saudi Arabia could grow—and there may even be an effort to normalize U.S. ties with the Houthis as a political organization, rather than designate them as an Iranian-backed terror proxy.
But what if Saudi King Salman gave MbS the green light to take a leap—to do something dramatic that could prompt the incoming Biden administration to reframe its strategic perception of Saudi Arabia? That “something” is normalization with Israel.
It’s already happened for the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Last year, Congress was pressing to cut off arms sales to the UAE. In the wake of the Abraham Accords, Congress is now debating the merits of selling Abu Dhabi the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. A trilateral U.S.-Israel-UAE intergovernmental investment fund has been established, while venture capitalists in Israel and America are racing to find deals in the UAE. Talk about a pendulum swing.
This is not a new phenomenon. Middle East peace is a big deal. It’s something the world has waited more than 70 years to see. When an Arab nation takes a risk in the name of peace, Washington responds with support. U.S. support for Egypt and Jordan remains a foundational foreign policy bedrock, owing to those countries’ long-standing peace treaties with Israel. The same will be true for the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and others that follow suit.
There’s no reason Saudi Arabia can’t have this future, too. It is a future where U.S. arms sales to the kingdom continue and members of Congress view the U.S.-Saudi strategic relationship as an integral underpinning for regional normalization, given Riyadh’s leadership role in the Middle East. It is a future with a trilateral Saudi-Israeli-American investment fund that dwarfs the size of its Emirati parallel. It is a future where Israeli and American start-up accelerators descend on Neom —the planned Saudi smart city on the Red Sea—and bring together Israeli technology, American investors and Saudi capital to resurrect MbS’s Vision 2030 plan for economic innovation.
Bipartisan concerns about human rights and counter-extremism will never disappear—nor should they. But the U.S.-Saudi strategic and economic relationship would be secured for a generation—much to the chagrin of Iran, Qatar and Turkey.
Secret meetings between MbS and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are intriguing, but they will not be enough to stave off the Biden administration’s intended reset in U.S.-Saudi relations. It’s time for Saudi Arabia to take control of its future. That starts by normalizing relations with Israel.
*Richard Goldberg is a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He served on Capitol Hill, on the U.S. National Security Council, as the governor of Illinois’s chief of staff and as a Navy Reserve Intelligence Officer. Follow him on Twitter @rich_goldberg. FDD is a nonpartisan think tank focused on foreign policy and national security issues.

Trump’s Wish to End the ‘Endless Wars’ Denies Reality
Thomas Joscelyn/FDD/December 07/2020
ISIS isn't dead, al-Qaeda is not a ‘shadow of its former self,’ and the Taliban is not our counterterrorism partner.
During an interview with Tom Friedman of the New York Times, President-elect Joe Biden briefly discussed his incoming administration’s priorities. Their conversation understandably focused on the coronavirus pandemic, its effects on the domestic economy, and the challenges posed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Still, there was not a single word on what many now call the “endless wars”—that is, America’s post-9/11 effort to contain and disrupt the terrorists of ISIS and al-Qaeda, as well as their allies.
The outgoing Trump administration hasn’t ignored this issue. In the closing days of his administration, President Trump and his loyalists are taking steps to limit America’s involvement even further. As I’ve written previously, the days of large-scale counterinsurgency efforts are long over. President Trump inherited a much smaller U.S. military footprint from President Obama than the one President Bush bequeathed to Obama. Today, that footprint is even smaller, with fewer than than 10,000 U.S. servicemembers stationed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, plus another small contingent in Africa. If Trump has his way, there will be even fewer troops stationed in these theaters by the time Biden assumes office. And some key figures are pretending that the jihadist threat has been all but eliminated. This, simply put, isn’t true.
On Monday, Christopher P. Maier, who led the Pentagon’s Defeat ISIS Task Force since March 2017, was forced to resign from his post. Maier was told that his services were no longer needed. Why? According to the New York Times, a White House appointee informed Maier that the U.S. “had won that war and that his office had been disbanded.”
But ISIS hasn’t been vanquished. The group has lost its territorial caliphate—a major blow for its cause. Yet, the jihadists fight on as insurgents. As the Department of Defense’s Office of Inspector General reported in early November, ISIS continues “to wage a low-level insurgency in both” Iraq and Syria, “operating mainly in rural areas and targeting mainly security forces with small arms and improvised explosive devises.” At the zenith of its power, the jihadists controlled contiguous territory the size of Great Britain., and it may be the case that ISIS is incapable of seizing as much ground as it once did. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t recapture some ground in the future. U.S. CENTCOM Commander General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. has warned “that ISIS could regain territory in a short time if there is a decrease in counterterrorism pressure.”
Meanwhile, the Trump White House is arguing that no counterterrorism pressure will be necessary after the coming year. Defense Onereports that the Trump administration has continued to work on a proposed defense budget even though it will be dead on arrival. The incoming Biden administration will draft its own funding proposal for the Pentagon. The Trump defense budget appears to be a political ploy, as it serves no realistic purpose beyond allowing the outgoing administration to critique the Biden team’s cuts and reallocations. Tellingly, according to Defense One, the Trump White House is demanding that the Pentagon “‘zero out’ all funding for the counter-ISIS fight by 2022.”
That is, the Trump White House doesn’t think any military funds will be required to fight ISIS—an international terrorist organization that currently conducts attacks on a daily basis—after the upcoming year. That is not a reasonable forecast. There are ample reasons to think the U.S. will have to play some military role, even if it is only a small one, in the anti-ISIS campaign during the Biden administration.
In Afghanistan, the Trump team is drawing down from approximately 4,500 troops to 2,500 by January. As part of its deal with the Taliban, the Trump administration agreed to withdraw all American forces by May 2021. In return, the State Department endorsed the Taliban’s supposed counterterrorism assurances. The Taliban agreed to prevent al-Qaeda from operating on its soil or threatening the U.S. and its allies. To date, there is no evidence that the Taliban is willing to adhere to this alleged pledge. Al-Qaeda’s men continue to fight alongside the Taliban members as they wage jihad to overthrow the Afghan government.
Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller has volunteered to justify this drawdown—and to explain away the al-Qaeda threat, in general. In his initial letter to U.S. military personnel, Miller argued that “[w]e are on the verge of defeating Al-Qaeda and its associates.” Miller didn’t offer any reason to think this is the case. He just stated his opinion as if it were a fact. But in his previous writings, Miller has offered a demonstrably erroneous model for understanding al-Qaeda. Miller’s definition of al-Qaeda is absurdly narrow, as he wrongly believes that Ayman al-Zawahiri is the group’s “sole remaining ideological leader.” (It’s easy to point to other veteran leaders around the globe.) He has also seemingly dismissed as irrelevant al-Qaeda’s sprawling insurgency operations, which span several countries.
Al-Qaeda’s insurgency is especially potent in Somalia, where the group’s East African arm, Shabaab, is waging jihad to form its own Taliban-style state. The Trump administration intends to withdraw all of the more than 700 American servicemembers from Somalia by January, while keeping forces in the neighboring countries of Kenya and Djibouti.
Trump has called upon Miller to oversee this withdrawal, as well as a desperate attempt to buy off Shabaab. As first reported by the Times, Miller, who was then the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, flew to the Middle East in October as part of a gambit to convince “Qatar to help devise plans to buy off or otherwise marginalize some senior leaders of” Shabaab, namely, those “who are more committed to attacking the West.”
Readers should know that Shabaab is quite vocal about its allegiance to al-Qaeda and regularly celebrates this intimate relationship in its media. Miller’s quixotic plan was based another misunderstanding of al-Qaeda—namely, that there is some clear dividing line between the “local” jihadist ambition to conquer Mogadishu and the “global” threat to the U.S. That is not true. When he was alive, Osama bin Laden was quite clear about al-Qaeda’s objectives in Somalia. In his private correspondence, bin Laden referred to Shabaab as an Islamic emirate and devised plans to buttress its rule, while privately accepting the group’s allegiance to him. If anything, bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has been even more forthright concerning al-Qaeda’s objectives. Al-Qaeda’s chief goal in East Africa is to build an Islamic state. But according to the Times, Miller believes this is a mostly “nationalistic” agenda, advanced by younger Shabaab commanders—as opposed to a “group of about 10 older leaders with strong personal ties to Al-Qaeda.”
There is no good reason to think Miller is right about this—or anything else. In any event, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reportedly nixed Miller’s desperate ploy. Subsequently, in mid-November, the State Department sanctioned two Shabaab leaders, with Pompeo describing the group as “one of al-Qaeda’s most dangerous affiliates.” While true, this observation cuts against Pompeo’s own desire to downplay al-Qaeda’s global network, as he has previously described al-Qaeda as a “shadow of its former self.”
What’s this all about? When it comes to Trump World, it is always difficult to say—exactly. It appears to be political and, to some extent, ideological. Trump has repeatedly inveighed against the “endless wars,” claiming he would “end” them. As I’ve written previously, there are many problems with this talking point. And it may be the case that Trump simply wants to take credit for “ending” America’s role in the post-9/11 conflicts, or at least coming close to it—regardless of what is actually transpiring on the ground.
ISIS hasn’t been completely eliminated. Al-Qaeda isn’t a shadow of its former self. The Taliban isn’t our counterterrorism partner. And Shabaab isn’t 10 guys away from breaking with al-Qaeda.
President-elect Biden will inherit these problems from President Trump, just as Obama left many of the same issues to Trump. There is little reason to expect that Biden wants to expand America’s role once again in the post-9/11 conflicts. But Trump is making it even more difficult for the Biden team to maintain a small counterterrorism presence in some of the world’s most dangerous jihadist hotspots.
*Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for FDD’s Long War Journal. Follow Tom on Twitter @thomasjoscelyn. FDD is a nonpartisan think tank focused on foreign policy and national security issues.

Parsing Iranian Responses to the Killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi
Behnam Ben Taleblu/FDD/December 07/2020
2020 has proven to be a tough year for the Islamic Republic of Iran. It began with the killing of its most important general and terrorist mastermind, Qassem Soleimani, and now appears to be ending with the killing of a key military nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi. While the exact details of his death remain murky and Iran has offered competing accounts of events from that day, the outpouring of commentary after Fakhrizadeh’s death from Iranian politicians, military personnel, and media outlets matters greatly, as well as helps shed light on Tehran’s immediate political concerns, security imperatives, as well as prospects for retaliation and escalation.
Who Was Fakhrizadeh and Why Did He Matter?
According to Persian-language accounts, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was born in Qom (though some outlets say Tehran), Iran in 1957/1958 (1336 in the Persian calendar). Despite being known for his service of Iran’s nuclear pursuits, Fakhrizadeh got his start in the military arena, being an early member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) which was founded shortly after the 1979 Islamic Revolution as a parallel military institution to the country’s national military (called the Artesh). During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, Fakhrizadeh served with the IRGC’s 17th Ali Ibn Abu Talib Division and partook in operations that reportedly included Operation Ramadan. Later in that same war, Fakhrizadeh worked with the father of Iran’s missile program, Hassan Tehrani-Moghadam, helping lay the foundation for Iran’s diverse ballistic missile arsenal. Reportedly, Fakhrizadeh attained the rank of Brigadier General, and as early as 1983 began working on nuclear matters for the IRGC under a special research entity called “Team-32.”
Fakhrizadeh’s participation in Operation Ramadan, as well as his presence in other battlefields is confirmed by none other than Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, the former head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI), a war veteran, and the only Iranian nuclear scientist who survived an assassination attempt. According to an interview on Iranian television after the killing of Fakhrizadeh, Abbasi-Davani claimed to have known Fakhrizadeh for approximately 33 years. Since detailed information about the biography of Fakhrizadeh is scarce or hard to confirm, the details offered in Abbasi-Davani’s interview matter greatly, and are accordingly summarized below.
Fakhrizadeh’s professional and academic resume included a Bachelors Degree from Shahid Beheshti University, a teaching stint at Imam Hussein University, and service in (the now disbanded) IRGC Ministry starting in 1366 [1987/1988] where he worked for Abbasi-Davani until obtaining a Masters Degree from Isfahan University of Technology in nuclear physics. Fakhrizadeh then reportedly returned to engage in research and administrative work for another six years apparently following Abbasi-Davani to study, teach, and then continued in several research roles, including serving as the head of a group. After what is made by Abbasi-Davani to sound like a significant gap in time, Fakhrizadeh (with outside encouragement) attained a PhD studying under Abbasi-Davani (who also was his dissertation advisor). Abbasi-Davani further claims that Fakhrizadeh went on to hold one position for an estimated 20-odd years, deputy to various Iranian defense ministers by leading a Ministry of Defense (MODAFL) entity called the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research (also known by its popular Persian-language acronym “SPND”). According to Abbasi-Davani, SPND is an entity engaged in “high-level defense research.”
The timeline offered by Abbasi-Davani about Fakhrizadeh’s time at SPND conflicts with what is known in the open-source community about SPND. Per the U.S. State Department in 2014, “SPND was established in February 2011 by the UN-sanctioned individual Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who for many years has managed activities useful in the development of a nuclear explosive device.” As such, 20-plus years of service by Fakhrizadeh would predate the founding of this entity. Moreover, almost all open-source accounts of Fakhrizadeh’s career indicates that his positions evolved over time to lead Iran’s weapons effort through service in what the State Department listed as the “AMAD Plan, the MODAFL subsidiary Section for Advanced Development Applications and Technologies (SADAT) and Malek Ashtar University of Technology (MUT).” The State Department further notes that, “SPND took over some of the activities related to Iran’s undeclared nuclear program that had previously been carried out by Iran’s Physics Research Center, the AMAD Plan, MUT, and SADAT.” The existence of an entity like SPND, up to and throughout the duration of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal known as the JCPOA, means that Iran has always wanted to keep its weapons-related options open, and that Fakhrizadeh was seen as the man for the job.
The conflation in timeline over SPND means that Washington and the international community are either wrong about the establishment date of SPND and that the entity was an umbrella organization all along for Iran’s covert weapons work, or, more likely, that Abbasi-Davani ignored the details of Fakhrizadeh’s career to avoid vindicating foreign government assessments about his colleague’s resume. Either way, the decades of service by Fakhrizadeh to what amounts to a slew of sanctioned entities involved in Iran’s nuclear weapons quest underscores both his and the regime’s commitment to this project.
As a reminder, Fakhrizadeh was listed in UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1747 from 2007 as head of the Physics Research Center (PHRC), an entity which he formerly led. PHRC was developed in 1989 to reportedly defend Iran from a potential nuclear attack and also to provide research support to MODAFL. Fakhrizadeh’s academic trajectory vindicates this function of the PHRC, since according to current AEOI director Ali-Akbar Salehi, Fakhrizadeh helped create the foundations for Iran’s “nuclear defense.” Fakhrizadeh is also twice (May 2008 and November 2011) mentioned in reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In 2008, the IAEA inquired from Iran about the purpose of Fakhrizadeh’s “visits abroad between 1998 and 2001.” In 2013, media outlets alleged that Fakhrizadeh had traveled to North Korea to witness a nuclear test.
The U.S. sanctioned Fakhrizadeh in 2008. His organization, SPND, was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2014, and in 2019, Washington broadened its counter-proliferation sanctions against entities working for or tied-to SPND.
Who is Saying What?
Iranian officials and media outlets have not kept quiet in the aftermath of the killing of Fakhrizadeh. Below is a list of select statements and headlines produced in Iran from late November to early December.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei:
“Two important issues must be put seriously on the agenda for stakeholders. The first is the following-up of this crime and the punishment of the perpetrators and those responsible for it, and the other is pursuing the scientific and technical endeavors of this martyr in all arenas where he was engaged.”
Armed Forces General Staff Chief Major General Mohammad Bagheri:
“Once again, the blind-hearted terrorists affiliated with the Global Arrogance and the Zionist regime brought one of the managers and servants of the scientific, research, and defense fields of the nation to martyrdom.”
“Terrorist groups and perpetrators and those responsible for this blind act should know that a severe revenge awaits them.”
IRGC Chief Brigadier General Hossein Salami:
“The blind-hearted enemies of the nation of Iran, and in particular the designers, perpetrators, and backers of this crime should know that these sorts of crimes will not create an obstacle to the determination and will of Iranians to continue along this glorious and authoritative path, and a severe punishment and revenge against them is [now] on the agenda.”
President Hassan Rouhani:
“Once again, the impure hands of the Global Arrogance with the mercenary[-like] usurping Zionist regime was tainted with the blood of the offspring of strong and brave offspring of this land, and plunged the nation of Iran into grief and sorrow for losing this hard-working scientist.”
“Undoubtedly, this terroristic and despicable incident is due to the helplessness and inability of the sworn enemies of the Iranian nation against the scientific movement and honors and capabilities of the great nation of Iran, and their successive defeats in the region and other political arenas, and the depths of their malice and resentment, like [their] other inhuman acts, has been revived in the minds of the world.”
Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif:
Twitter (November 27): “Terrorists murdered an eminent Iranian scientist today. This cowardice—with serious indications of Israeli role—shows desperate warmongering of perpetrators” and “Iran calls on int’l community—and especially EU—to end their shameful double standards & condemn this act of state terror.”
Twitter (November 28): “Terror attack on our scientist was indubitably designed & planned by a terrorist regime & executed by criminal accomplices. Shameful that some refuse to stand against terrorism and hide behind calls for restraint. Impunity emboldens a terrorist regime with aggression in its DNA.”
AEOI Spokesperson Behrouz Kamalvandi:
“The agents involved in the Natanz incident are the same as what happened to martyr Fakhrizadeh, and it appears that the Zionist regime is involved in these cases.”
Editor-in-Chief of Kayhan (hardline newspaper) Hossein Shariatmadari:
“The Supreme Leader of the Revolution has on several occasions emphasized the necessity of preventative action with the enemy and imposing a heavy cost against the crimes of the enemy. Using this formula has been effective such that America and its allies are terrified of revenge against Iran.”
“Today, all the attention of the people and the system must be concentrated on two axes, one; a severe and regrettable revenge against the criminal Zionists, and two; exposing domestic agents and the possibility of enemy influence.”
Hardline Newspapers (with photos):
Kayhan Headline (front-page above the fold, November 28):
“An eye for an eye, the Zionists should be waiting.”
Kayhan Headline ((front-page above the fold, December 1):
“Military commanders have emphasized the day of punishment is not far.”
Vatan-e Emrooz Headline (front-page above the fold, November 28):
“[If] we don’t strike, they will strike.”
Vatan-e Emrooz Headline (front-page above the fold, December 1):
“[I] Swear by revenge.”
Reformist Newspapers (with photos):
Etemaad Headline (front-page, above the fold, November 29):
“The day after the incident.”
Etemaad Headline (front-page, above the fold, December 2):
“One of the hundreds of untolds about the JCPOA.”
Mardom Salari Headline (front-page, above the fold, November 29):
“Footsteps of the joint-madness of Netanyahu and Trump in the terror at Absard.”
Aftab-e Yazd Headline (front-page, above the fold, November 29):
“Iran’s international litigation.”
Making Sense of Tehran’s Next Steps
Religious Rebranding
The Islamic Republic and its media apparatus has not wasted any time casting Fakhrizadeh as another nuclear “martyr,” a tradition that began with the commemoration of previous Iranian nuclear scientists who were also killed. The rationale behind providing them with this epithet is two-fold. First, to sanctify their career, thus making their life’s work (and ultimately, death) in the service of the regime on par with service to Iran’s official religion (Twelver Shiite Islam). Second, once sanctified, to have the life and legacy of these individuals become a domestic propaganda tool to both rally the nation and prevent any doubt or deviation from Iran’s current course of action. These efforts are reinforced by an Iranian media landscape which has termed Iran’s nuclear “martyrs” as “the real flagbearers of Iran and Iranians’ excellence in the region and the world.”
The Domestic Media War
The posthumous publicity surrounding Fakhrizadeh continues to grow in the Iranian media space. Analysts have noted there are more images of Fakhrizadeh making their way online now than ever before. Almost immediately, this led to his name and legacy being invoked to adjudicate domestic factional disputes. This is despite, of course, the injunctions by select Iranian elites to prevent the factionalization of Fakhrizadeh’s legacy. Broadly speaking, hardliners are taking the opportunity to grow their criticism of the government of President Hassan Rouhani and his programs (inclusive of the JCPOA). Conversely, the pro-Rouhani camp coupled with what is left of Iran’s ailing reformist faction are using the opportunity in what can be interpreted as an attempt to raise questions over the efficacy (within the limited bounds of Iran’s authoritarian system) of the regime’s security services while turning Fakhrizadeh into a proponent of their programs. This battle of narratives is likely to continue in the short-to-medium term.
For example, while former reformist Vice-President Mohammad-Ali Abtahi declared on his Instagram page that “Israel is the direct agent of these crimes,” he also hinted with concern at the operational reach of Fakhrizadeh’s assumed assassins, noting “Israel has pitched its tent in a bad way inside Iran. Numerous events in the past years indicate this calamity.” Moreover, Abtahi appears to have offered a veiled critique of Iran’s security services and the operational freedom of foreign regime opponents on Iranian soil. “Find the real and influential spies of Israel,” he charged.
Days later, the pro-government Iran newspaper, which is owned by the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), posted photos from a hitherto seen portion of an award ceremony related to the JCPOA in early 2016. On the sidelines of that ceremony in a private room and away from global attention, Rouhani awarded Fakhrizadeh the Order of Service medal, second-class, for helping attain the JCPOA. He was reportedly the first scientist to receive this award from an Iranian president. By releasing photos from that ceremony, pro-Rouhani elements attempted to weaponize Fakhrizadeh as a pro-JCPOA personality. This is something which could benefit Rouhani as he attempts to deflect blame against his government and its main foreign policy achievement, the JCPOA, in a year when nearly every setback including the killing of Soleimani is cited by ultra-hardliners as either the result of the JCPOA or negotiations with the U.S.
For their part, ultra-hardline elements are contesting the legacy of Fakhrizadeh and are hoping to ascribe him to their causes. Shortly after the IRNA photos of Rouhani and Fakhrizadeh appeared, a state-run TV broadcaster aired comments allegedly by Fakhrizadeh wherein he denigrated the idea of negotiations with the U.S., saying specifically, “American cannot be compromised [with]… compromise with this [America] has no meaning.” The broadcaster has also claimed that Fakhrizadeh’s “voice is the most important record.”
Ultra-hardline elements are also using the killing of Fakhrizadeh to make the case for a more a more aggressive response and direct exit from the JCPOA through large-scale violations. Such a policy, at least on the nuclear front, contrasts with Rouhani’s existing policy of incremental violations since mid-2019, a policy which nonetheless at the time of this writing has led to the accumulation of more than 12 times the permitted amount of low-enriched uranium (LEU) on Iranian soil.
Nowhere is this desire for confrontation better heard than in the statements of Iranian parliamentarians. As a reminder, the Iranian parliament, which held its latest elections this past February, is dominated by hardliners. Abdolkarim Jamiri, a hardline parliamentarian, used the current political climate to denigrate the idea of nuclear diplomacy with a potential Joe Biden administration in 2021 by claiming that the killing of Fakhrizadeh “shreds” the “dream” of renewed negotiations. Similar anti-engagement sentiments were espoused by the likes of Elyas Naderan, who alleged that information about Fakhrizadeh was passed along to IAEA, which in turn he alleges made its way to Israeli sources and enabled Fakhrizadeh’s assassination. Other hardline voices, such as Ali Khezrian, disparaged the notion of “strategic patience” being floated as an option in the face assassination and sabotage. Khezrian and others critical of this approach fear that those who may want to lay-low during the last few months of the presidency of Donald Trump risk giving a “green light” to more pressure and attacks.
Creating Facts on the Ground at Home
One consequence of the hardline media war are the facts that it may well soon create on the ground, facts that add leverage to the Iranian side of the ledger through greater nuclear violations in scale and scope. To that end, the Guardian Council has approved an amended bill from the Iranian parliament that was introduced just after the killing of Fakhrizadeh to kick out IAEA inspectors. The bill also contains other measures like timed requirements for the Rouhani government to cease its adherence to the Additional Protocol (a supplementary safeguards agreement which Iran voluntarily agreed to implement under the JCPOA), as well as requirements to grow its uranium stockpile to include enrichment of uranium to 20% purity (a level last seen in 2010-2013).
While the Iranian parliament doesn’t make nuclear policy and there have been several high-level deliberations about this matter in years past, the latest bill, which is now with the executive branch for implementation and enforcement, contains a trigger should Iran not receive major sanctions relief within a reported two months. While the Rouhani government has opposed the bill, select administration members like Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif appear to understand the leverage this provides to potentially scare Washington back into the JCPOA by weaponizing a “Good-Cop, Bad-Cop” approach. Lest we forget, Zarif has previously wielded the claim that his faction is under domestic pressure from hardliners in an attempt to gain foreign concessions.
Another consequence, and one which has evaded much media attention, is the proposed increase to the budget of SPND, a move that is both symbolic and practical. Symbolic, since it shows that Iran will not be deterred from carrying out activities that were previously under the guidance or purview of Fakhrizadeh, and practical, as it may attempt to use the infusion of cash to supplement the loss of Fakhrizadeh. According to press reports about the expected increases in Iran’s defense budget (emblematic of a larger series of budget deliberations in Iran currently), SPND’s budget will reportedly increase from 40 billion tomans to 245 billion tomans. One toman, the unofficial currency measure in Iran, is treated as 10 Iranian Rials (IRR). Converting those sums to U.S. dollar (USD) values using the current official exchange rate (estimated between or just over 41,000 – 42,000 IRR to 1 USD, rather than the unofficial or “free market rate”) is the equivalent of moving from approximately 9.5 million USD to approximately 58.3 million USD. If appropriated, this would be over a six-fold increase in just a one-year period.
Escalation Abroad?
In addition to the nuclear escalation at home, Tehran is likely entertaining several options for retaliation abroad. Given Iran’s past track record and current capabilities, this author assesses those options to fall within four broad categories, each of which are explained below:
Terrorism. Considered Tehran’s tried and true method of retaliation, terrorism offers the regime the potential to disguise it’s hand (and thus manage the prospects for escalation) while still striking at its adversaries. Tehran’s ability to use its IRGC and/or IRGC Quds-Force (IRGC-QF), regional proxies (like Lebanese Hezbollah) as well as disaffected persons across a wide-swath of geography for purposes of state-sponsored terror is well known. What’s more, terrorism remains a key component of Iranian security policy because it is relatively low-cost, occurs away from Iranian soil, and puts the burden of proof on the recipient of the attack. Interestingly, Tehran appears to have relied on terrorism to respond to past killings of its nuclear scientists. From 2007 (the date of the first killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist on Iranian soil) to 2012 (the last killing before Fakhrizadeh), there were six reported terror attacks, five of which were lethal. Those five attacks killed: Ardeshir Hosseinpour (2007, although later it was alleged that the IRGC killed him), Masoud Ali-Mohammadi (2010), Majid Shahriari (2010), Dariush Rezaie-Nejad (2011) and Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan (2012). Starting in 2012, Iran commenced a policy of responding to threats, with, according to Supreme Leader Khamenei, “our own threats to impose at the right time.” While that statement was used to frame Iranian retaliation to growing U.S. and EU sanctions, it also appears to have touched-off a transnational terror campaign aimed at Israeli citizens and diplomats across four countries: Georgia, India, Thailand, and Bulgaria (which killed six Israeli tourists). Given this history, as well as Tehran’s continued interest in terrorist operations, terrorism remains Tehran’s most likely course of action to respond to the killing of Fakhrizadeh.
Indirect proxy escalation (regional). Rather than enlist a group to directly support an Iranian terror plot, Tehran could recast its retaliation by offering its proxies a longer-leash to respond kinetically in areas they are already operationally engaged. One challenge with this approach however relates to the synchronization of targets and the ability for its adversary to detect the signal of resolve by an Iranian proxy. Say for example, an Iran-aligned group like the Houthi rebels in Yemen use this opportunity to strike at Saudi Arabia – as some analysts believe is already the case – whereas Iran is blaming Israel for killing Fakhrizadeh. Not only would it be challenging for Iran’s adversary (Israel) to discern the new driver of escalation (namely, determining if escalation by the Houthis in this instance is more a product of political signaling than existing battlefield conditions), but the adversary would have to interpret the escalation in a different geography as a show of force related to itself. The potential for confusion makes this a less than ideal option for Tehran, but a comparatively safer choice than terrorism. As such, it is a possible but not probable retaliatory option for Tehran. An amended (and riskier) version of the strategy of indirect proxy retaliation could instead involve authorizing a proxy to strike at Israel directly (and perhaps covertly with an IRGC backstop). This could come from the array of pro-Iran Shiite militias in Iraq, or perhaps even Syria, which shares a border with Israel. Should one such militia strike at the Israeli homeland using weapons systems likely supplied by Iran, as happened in years past, this would touch-off larger Israeli retaliation, again putting the ball in Tehran’s court. Yet the ability to signal resolve by striking at the Israeli homeland but not jeopardizing retribution against the Iranian homeland makes this a possible option for Tehran.
Cyber attacks on critical infrastructure. Iran and the Jewish state are already engaged in a heated cyber contest, with attacks on each other’s critical infrastructure being reported in the news for over a year. While Iran is certainly no tier-one cyber power like Russia or China, it has been growing its cyber capabilities alongside a willingness to take more risks in response to the U.S. maximum pressure campaign. A cyber attack on a piece of critical infrastructure in Israel, if successful, may land a punch for the regime, but it may not provide a sufficient spectacle to respond in kind to the targeted killing of its chief military nuclear scientist. As such, if employed, cyber attacks are likely to serve as a complementary vector for pressure, rather than a stand-alone operation. What’s more, given Israel’s cyber advantage over Iran, an Iranian attack may invite reciprocal or greater response than Tehran may be able to handle or thwart.
Overt kinetic action from Iran. Building on the parallel to Soleimani, a hardline Iranian foreign policy analyst penned an op-ed in the pages of Kayhan newspaper just days after the killing of Fakhrizadeh calling for a direct attack on Haifa, Israel. His rationale was that Iran’s response should be no less than that which it leveled against U.S. bases in Iraq for killing Soleimani. As a reminder, Iran overtly launched 16 short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) from its territory in that retaliatory strike, which while not taking any lives, led to over 100 traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) for U.S. forces in the area. Experts believe that Haifa was likely chosen/mentioned for its large population and presence of chemical/petrochemical facilities. Haifa is also home to gardens and a shrine honoring a faith Iran’s religious leaders believe to be a heresy. Interestingly, Khamenei, Iran’s most important national security decision-maker, has thus far avoided the term “severe revenge” in his response to the killing of Fakhrizadeh. This is likely an attempt to downplay any potential response Iran may offer while not wanting to back the sort of escalation which could cost Tehran sanctions relief under a Joe Biden administration. Besides cognizance of Iran’s limited conventional capabilities, the taboos of overtly and directly launching a missile from Iranian territory at the Israeli homeland, the inability to best Israel in an escalation spiral thus far, Khamenei (and others) have come to watch in real time that unlike America in Iraq, Israel has not at all been willing to accept or absorb Iranian escalation, be it in neighboring Syria or elsewhere. This understanding is likely the most significant impediment to an overt strike, and feeds into larger Iranian calculations about the crippling costs (material and reputational) the regime would incur and can ill afford. Therefore, overt kinetic action ranks as a low-probability but high-impact option, but one that Tehran benefits from keeping alive in the press.
The comparisons between Soleimani and Fakhrizadeh that have filled the Iranian media space (for instance: terming Fakhrizadeh “the Soleimani of the defense industry,” or various paintings showing Fakhrizadeh embraced by Soleimani in the after-life) are certain to drive comparisons between the response to the killing of Soleimani to the response to the killing of Fakhrizadeh. Only time will tell what that response will look like, but a survey of Iranian commentary indicates one thing: it is coming.

Turkey: Erdogan Threatens Europe
Uzay Bulut/Gatestone Institute/December 07/2020
أوزاي بولوت/معهد جايتستون:الرئيس التركي أردوغان يهدد أوروبا
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/93443/uzay-bulut-gatestone-institute-turkey-erdogan-threatens-europe-%d8%a3%d9%88%d8%b2%d8%a7%d9%8a-%d8%a8%d9%88%d9%84%d9%88%d8%aa-%d9%85%d9%86-%d9%85%d8%b9%d9%87%d8%af-%d8%ac%d8%a7%d9%8a%d8%aa%d8%b3%d8%aa/

That a NATO member and European Union candidate, Turkey, is openly threatening the security of Westerners, is unprecedented.
One of the most abusive Ottoman practices was the institution of “devshirme,” also known as the “child levy” or “blood tax,” with which Christian boys were forcibly abducted from the conquered population, enslaved, converted to Islam and later trained as soldiers. Erdogan evidently sees the Ottoman occupation and abuse of European nations as Turkish “contributions” to Europe.
This current belligerence once again demonstrates major differences between Europe and Erdogan’s regime. It is a crisis between a mentality that respects a free press versus a mentality that jails critical journalists. It reveals a mentality that wants to preserve the safety of its citizens versus a mentality that aims to force others to submit to its demands through threats and use of terror. It is a mentality that stubbornly believes in violating and even trying to invade the territories of its neighbors versus one that tries to resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.
It is Erdogan’s regime who targets the safety and freedoms of Europeans — as well as Armenians, Syrians, Iraqis, and many of his own Turks.
Recently, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that French President Emmanuel Macron “needs mental treatment” because of Macron’s attitude toward Muslims in France. Erdogan also called for a boycott of French products. The Turkish government’s hostile reaction to Europe is not new. Erdogan has been threatening Europe and the rest of the West for several years.
Europe has once again been targeted with Islamist terror attacks.
On October 16, Samuel Paty, a history teacher, was beheaded in Paris by an 18-year-old Chechen Muslim who acquired refugee status in France this past March. The teacher was murdered after showing cartoons from Charlie Hebdo depicting Islam’s prophet Muhammad to his students, during a discussion on freedom of expression.
On October 29, three people were murdered and several others wounded in an Islamist knife attack in the Basilica of Notre-Dame-de-l’Assomption in Nice, France; one victim was decapitated.
After the attack in Nice, France raised its nationwide terror alert status to the “maximum emergency” level. Approximately 4,000 military personnel were deployed to guard schools, churches, and other places of worship.
In Vienna, on November 2, four more people were murdered and 22 injured (including a police officer) in another Islamist terror attack that took place in six locations across the Austrian capital.
After Paty’s murder, French President Emmanuel Macron defended freedom of expression and freedom of religion:
“Our compatriot was killed for teaching, for teaching children freedom of speech, freedom to believe, or not to believe. Our compatriot was the victim of a terrorist attack.”
Macron added that Islam was “in crisis” and that he would fight “Islamist separatism” within the country. It was reported that “the government would present a bill in December to strengthen a 1905 law that officially separated church and state in France. He [Macron] announced stricter oversight of schooling and better control over foreign funding of mosques.”
In response, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan remarked, “What’s the problem of the individual called Macron with Islam and with the Muslims?… Macron needs mental treatment.”
Erdogan also called for a boycott of French products and was supported in parliament by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), the secular opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Iyi Party.
The Turkish government’s hostile reaction to Europe is not new. Erdogan has been threatening Europe and the rest of the West for several years.
The ongoing crisis between Turkey and Europe appears to stem from deep cultural and political differences between the parties involved — Europe that respects freedoms and Turkey that violates them.
After the 2016 attempted coup in Turkey, the authorities’ crackdown on journalists critical of the regime targeted Western journalists as well, including French journalists Olivier Bertrand and Loup Bureau.
Turkey, long a candidate for European Union membership, has often been criticized by Western governments and international press organizations for its mass incarceration of journalists.
In March 2017, Erdogan, lashed out at criticisms at an event in which he addressed journalists in Ankara. If Europe continues its attitude, he said, “no European and no Westerner will be able to walk safely and peacefully in the streets.”
Erdogan pressed on, saying that Western countries always accuse Turkey of violating press freedom and jailing journalists.
“When we wanted a list of those [jailed] journalists… they gave us one… The list includes everyone from murderers to thieves, from child abusers to swindlers. It is only journalists that are missing in the list.”
Erdogan stated that Turkey was sent a list containing the names of 149 [journalist] prisoners in Turkey and that the list was examined by the government. “144 people in the list are in jail due to terror-related crimes and four due to ordinary crimes.”
“What do these people have to do with journalism that you send this list to our country?,” Erdogan continued.
“We are aware of their real intentions. When it is about themselves, they have no problem shelving democracy, rights, freedoms, justice, and prosperity but when it comes to Turkey, they immediately put on a mask. We have also decided to treat those with masks like the bandits that they are. Indeed, if you have nothing to hide, why are you wearing a mask? Come out courageously and say ‘I have issues with Turkey; I want it to get divided and fragmented’ so everyone can know who is who.
“If you open this dangerous road,” he went on, “you will be the ones to be exposed to the greatest damage. As Turkey we call on the European countries to respect democracy, human rights and freedoms.”
Freedom House lists Turkey as “Not free.” According to a November 16 report by the Platform for Independent Journalism (P24), at least 86 journalists and media workers are in prison in Turkey, either in pre-trial detention or serving a sentence.
Problems between Turkey and France intensified even more following Turkey’s invasions of northern Syria: After Macron met with Kurdish-Syrian officials (Syrian Democratic Forces/SDF) at Elysée Palace in March 2018, he offered to mediate Turkey-Kurdish talks. Macron said he hoped “a dialogue can be established between the SDF and Turkey with help from France and the international community.”
Erdogan turned down the offer:
“This is a statement that goes beyond the limits and height of that person [Macron]… Who gave you such a duty? Do not engage in endeavors that exceed your height.
“We don’t need a mediator. Since when has Turkey had a problem of sitting around a table with terror organizations? Where did you get that from? You can sit at a table with a terrorist organization, but Turkey fights against terrorist organizations as in Afrin [Syria].”
Erdogan evidently forgot to mention that Turkey has been hosting members of the terrorist group Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, while presumably enabling them to set up bases there from which to attack Israel. According to a report in The Times on October 22, Hamas is secretly operating a facility in Turkey where it conducts cyberattacks and counterintelligence operations. Citing Western intelligence sources, The Times said the headquarters was set up two years ago and is overseen by Hamas military leaders in the Gaza Strip. However, Erdogan targeted France after Macron met with Syrian Kurdish officials:
“After this attitude, France has no right to complain about any terrorist organization, any terrorist or terror acts. Those who sleep with terrorists and even host terrorists at their palace will sooner or later understand the mistake they have made. Those who so recklessly support these terrorists should also be ready to account for the consequences to the French public. The problems we are experiencing right now might also happen to them any time. I do not know what more we should say or do for them to understand we are not making jokes and do not have the slightest tolerance for this.”
On April 7, hours after a man ploughed his van into pedestrians in Münster, Germany, Erdogan threatened France again:
“France, you are helping terrorism, you support and host the terrorists in the Elysee Palace. You will not be able to account for these things. You see what is happening in Germany, right? The same will happen in France. The West will not be able to get rid of this scourge of terrorism. You will not be able to get rid of this terror scourge. As the West feeds these terrorists, it will sink. “
Austrian precautions against radical Islam also seemed to anger Erdogan. In June, 2018, the Austrian government announced it was closing down seven radical mosques and expel 40 foreign-funded imams employed by ATIB (Turkish-Islamic Union for Cultural and Social Cooperation), which is connected to Turkey’s Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet). The moves followed the Austrian “Islam law”, passed in 2015, which bans foreign funding of religious groups and made it a duty for Muslim organizations to have “a positive fundamental view towards (Austria’s) state and society”.
“Political Islam’s parallel societies and radicalizing tendencies have no place in our country,” said Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz.
Erdogan responded:
“The Austrian PM… is making calculations over closing our mosques in Europe. Where is this going? I’m afraid towards a crusade-crescent war; the steps taken by this Austrian Prime Minister are leading the world towards it. For this reason, the Western world should pull these men together. If they don’t, these calculations will be made differently. They say [they are] going to kick our clergy out. So [you think] you’ll do it and we will stand idle? We will do some things too.”
That a NATO member and European Union candidate, Turkey, is openly threatening the security of Westerners, is unprecedented. Yet, on November 22, Erdogan called on the European Union to “keep your promises” on issues such as the country’s membership bid and refugees:
“Even if we leave aside the previous history, only the Ottoman Empire had a history of 600 years in Europe. Today, we see ourselves as an integral part of Europe.”
Erdogan was referring to the centuries-long Ottoman occupation of several European nations such as Cyprus, Hungary and Greece. The presence of the Ottoman Turks in Europe was marked by wars between the Ottoman Empire and Europe dating from the late Middle Ages up through the early 20th century. After destroying the Greek Byzantine Empire in Asia Minor (today’s Turkey), Ottoman Turks waged wars against Christian nations in the Balkans, including the Hungarians, Bulgarians, Croatians, Greeks and Serbs. The Ottoman Empire targeted Central Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. The Ottoman-Venetian Wars lasted for four centuries, starting in 1423 and lasting until 1718. Christians in European nations that fell under the Ottoman occupation became dhimmis, second-class, tolerated, subjects of the empire who had to buy their lives and protection by paying a high tax, and were systematically abused by Ottoman authorities.
One of the most abusive Ottoman practices was the institution of “devshirme,” also known as the “child levy” or “blood tax,” with which Christian boys were forcibly abducted from the conquered population, enslaved, converted to Islam and later trained as soldiers. Erdogan evidently sees the Ottoman occupation and abuse of European nations as Turkish “contributions” to Europe.
This current belligerence once again demonstrates major differences between Europe and Erdogan’s regime. It is a crisis between a mentality that respects a free press versus a mentality that jails critical journalists. It reveals a mentality that wants to preserve the safety of its citizens versus a mentality that aims to force others to submit to its demands through threats and use of terror. It is a mentality that stubbornly believes in violating and even trying to invade the territories of its neighbors versus one that tries to resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.
As the president of France, Macron has the responsibility to protect the security and freedom of expression of his citizens. It is Erdogan’s regime who targets the safety and freedoms of Europeans — as well as Armenians, Syrians, Iraqis, and many of his own Turks.
*Uzay Bulut, a Turkish journalist, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.
© 2020 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.

Fear and the freedom to care: France’s delicate balance
Tala Jarjour/Arab News/December 07/2020
My regional flight had landed in Istanbul just a few hours earlier, and what I thought would be an uneventful early January night at an airport hotel in 2015 turned out to be a nonstop news stream from Paris. Footage showing some car in a narrow street in the French capital was replayed ad nauseam. News bulletins were scrambling to report what was happening around the offices of a satirical magazine I had not heard of. Tension was high; fear and shock were palpable. Never had French news reporting seemed so incoherent. A terrorist attack was ongoing. Charlie Hebdo quickly became a loaded term in Europe, embodying an unmitigated clash of values. But that was just the beginning.
Fast forward to autumn 2020 and a new level of terrifying news emerged from Paris: The beheading of a schoolteacher on his way out of work. I tuned in to the France Culture channel for some local reporting. “Detruire notre liberte” (destroying our liberty) said the live stream. This was a predictable combination of words and receiving them at the outset was little surprise. Returning to the abundance of arguments on individual freedoms, which got heated in the wake of the numerous attacks around Paris in January 2015, and the invocation of the Bataclan alongside Charlie Hebdo are hardly edifying anymore. But, on this occasion, there was more at stake. In France, education is a red line.
The teacher in question was reportedly targeted because he had shown the controversial cartoons. The class in question was civics and the topic was the limits of free speech. The teacher, praised by colleagues and pupils for his competence and care, had a teaching plan and had communicated it to students. According to other teachers, addressing controversial materials such as satirical cartoons is common practice in French classroom discussions on the freedom of speech. In a different world, namely a university classroom in the US, I encouraged students in sessions on music and censorship to find songs from their own world that were subjected to restriction. While initially some were outraged by the thought of censorship in a country where many individual freedoms are constitutionally protected, the students had no shortage of examples. The exercise was eye-opening, to say the least. It demonstrated how society practices censorship in myriad ways. In another example from the US, a colleague who taught a class on civic law told me it was a very stressful experience, and it took a toll on the professor’s popularity among students.
Stirring up emotions when discussing the exercise of freedoms, especially the freedom of expression, is not unusual. The slain French teacher was all too aware of this peril; it was widely reported that he warned students about the cartoons, telling them they could leave the classroom if the images might offend. But little did he know. What in his mind was an act of sensitivity to contradicting views would fail to spare his life.
In the debates that followed the 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo staff, I found one notion particularly perplexing: The freedom to offend, which, I must say, was new to me. For someone who spent their formative years in a diverse part of the Middle East, the right to offend contains an inherent contradiction. If behaving sensitively to values that others hold dear is a moral value in its own right, then offending is definitely not a socially constructive choice. In other words, in diverse societies, people take care of each other; avoiding intentional offending is a no-brainer — but that, too, is a choice.
Thinkers have been debating the meaning of free will for ages, and in great nuance. Philosophers, religious scholars and scientists are still trying to work out how free we really are as individual human beings. Recent research suggests that, alongside our upbringing, our genetic makeup also influences our belief systems. For someone who spent their formative years in a diverse part of the Middle East, the right to offend contains an inherent contradiction.
While the existence of mass-disseminated publications that offend may be the result of believing in the freedom to do so, teaching about them is not. If anything, dissecting the complexities of freedom and choice within educational debate helps students appreciate the power of their freedom to choose, which equips them for making socially responsible decisions. This awareness is especially important when disagreements cut wide and deep.
Back in 2015, I packed up and headed to Ataturk Airport in the small hours of Jan. 8. As I lugged my large suitcase to the check-in desk, the TV was still on. My transatlantic flight included a stopover in Paris and I needed to know whether airports were still open, especially to flights and travelers from the Middle East. There were no major disruptions, save for tighter security checks — something I had got used to when boarding US-bound flights in Paris since the early 2000s. But this time I had no complaints. The country was visibly in shock, even in the transit zone of its largest international airport.
Perhaps I should buy something in print with today’s date on it, I thought. A particular option came to mind. “Charlie Hebdo no longer is,” said the newspaper seller, looking me in the eye but staring into the void. Fear had hit home, and deep, his eyes seemed to say. “Ca n’existe plus,” were his exact words, which my mind heard as: “On what planet are you living, insensitive visitor?” I subsequently learned that the magazine prints flew off the shelves while I was glued to a news screen.
The magazine eventually returned to circulation and, with it, seemingly unending controversies. But the memory of that moment in Paris-Charles De Gaulle leaves me wondering today: What other things have ceased to exist in the souls of teachers and parents from all religious creeds and cultural backgrounds in France? How will Muslim parents and children — also teachers — deal with the repercussions of such troubling events as they try to lead normal lives in Europe? As this piece goes to print, France is fully embroiled in debating new laws that will, at best, restrict civil freedoms and, at worst, further isolate specific slices of its population. Reading the news and following the media, I wish that I, and many people, could have a chance to look into each other’s eyes more often.
*Tala Jarjour is author of “Sense and Sadness: Syriac Chant in Aleppo.” She is Visiting Research Fellow at King’s College London, and Associate Fellow of Yale College.

Manama Dialogue sparks new thinking on negotiations with Iran
Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg/Arab News/December 07/2020
The Manama Dialogue concluded on Sunday after two days of intensive discussions, mostly in person, with its usual focus on Gulf security. American, Asian and European officials and experts shared with their Gulf counterparts strikingly similar assessments of the region’s security threats and how to address them in the coming year, with a new administration in Washington and taking into account how Iran has conducted itself since signing the nuclear deal in 2015.
Military experts went into some detail about how their combined forces in the Gulf region have deterred Iran’s maritime provocations, which were common a few years ago but have now been kept in check. The conventional military superiority of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and its American and British partners has, in general, deterred Iran from starting or provoking a conventional war.
To offset this allied military superiority, Iran has resorted to asymmetric warfare, including its attacks on Saudi oil facilities in 2019 and other civilian targets in the country, at times using proxies to carry out such attacks. Soon after the Iranian revolution of 1979, Tehran started utilizing unconventional tactics and strategies, many of which are unlawful, to train, arm and indoctrinate terrorists and religious militias to penetrate neighboring countries. Those efforts intensified after the 2011 Arab Spring and especially after the conclusion of the nuclear deal in 2015. Now, Iran has added drones and cyberwarfare to its arsenal, upgraded its ballistic missile program, and has developed other, non-militarized, tactics.
There was a consensus at the Manama discussions that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as it stands is no longer enough as a basis for engagement with Iran. There needs to be more precision on timelines, inspections, enrichment levels and safety standards. More importantly, it has to have a stronger regime to curb Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional activities. Even Germany, which had been among the most passionate about the JCPOA, now appears to favor this enlarged approach to “update the agreement.” Miguel Berger, permanent secretary of the German Foreign Ministry, said he favored going back to “full compliance of Iran under the nuclear agreement,” but added that “back to full compliance is not enough. We have to address the role of Iran in the region and we also have to address the challenges which are posed by the ballistic missile program of Iran.”
There was less certainty on the sequencing of steps. Prince Turki Al‐Faisal asked pointedly: “If you go back to the nuclear deal with lifting the economic and financial sanctions, why would Iran accommodate you by dealing with regional and missile issues?” Therefore, some appeared to favor starting with full compliance, followed by negotiations on upgrading the agreement. Sanctions could then be lifted after an agreement is reached. Others thought that Iran should go back to full compliance first, after which the US could start lifting sanctions as negotiations start on the other issues.
There were no clear answers to the questions about sequencing. Everybody was conscious that there will be a new administration in Washington in January and that it has not spoken on this issue yet, other than President-elect Joe Biden’s comments to the press, which indicate that he wants to listen to the region before ploughing ahead with reviving the JCPOA, either in its existing or some new format. But those were general comments and cannot be construed as the official policy of his upcoming administration.
Berger, however, suggested a tight timeframe based on the fact that the Biden administration will come into office on Jan. 20 and Iran will have presidential elections in mid‐June. He said that Germany wanted to “make some progress in the months ahead in order to move toward the compliance in the JCPOA. And then I would say work on an update, and in parallel we need to tackle the question of regional security… It is impossible to give you more details because I think we all need to discuss that first with the new US administration.”
If the timeframe for new negotiations with Iran was uncertain, there was a consensus that the region, especially the GCC states, should be involved in them in a meaningful manner. That involvement was absent in the negotiations leading to the JCPOA, despite the fact that the GCC states are potentially the most affected by Iran’s nuclear program. They are also the most affected by its ballistic missile program and have been on the receiving end of its asymmetric war instruments. Mere “listening” to the regional voices is not enough; some formal representation at the negotiation table may be needed so that, if an agreement is reached, there will be certainty that the regional parties are able to support it.
There was a consensus that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as it stands is no longer enough as a basis for engagement and that GCC states should be involved in the talks.
In addition to Gulf security, the Palestine question was another issue that dominated the discussions in Manama. Speakers made the case for linking the two issues, as a fair resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict would enable Israel to normalize its presence in the region and would deprive Iran of a pretext to meddle in Arab affairs. They all brought up the Arab Peace Initiative as the right basis for such a resolution. It stipulates full normalization with Israel in exchange for a peace deal with the Palestinians that includes a state of their own along the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The Palestine discussions registered the most animated exchanges in the otherwise sedate event. Prince Turki, in particular, lambasted Israel for its long history of mistreatment of the Palestinians, which he went into in some detail, and the Israeli interlocutors appeared to be taken aback. Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi tried to appear more conciliatory and less triumphalist than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but he could not offer anything more than a readiness to talk with the Palestinians, while not addressing any of the substantive issues raised by the GCC speakers. The Palestine discussions may have disabused the Israeli participants of the notion that normalization would take place at the expense of the Palestinians, as GCC speakers made it clear that was not the case.
**Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg is the GCC Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs & Negotiation, and a columnist for Arab News. The views expressed in this piece are personal and do not necessarily represent GCC views. Twitter: @abuhamad1

Did The Rules of The Game Change?
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat/December, 07/2020
Did the “great coup” program that Iran launched four decades ago clash with the international and regional reality? Is it imperative for the current Iranian regime to bitterly reconsider the big dreams that it engineered and promoted? Can Tehran accept the fact that the cards it can manipulate today are fewer than those it possessed years ago? Should it admit that the Donald Trump era brought about irrefutable change in the issues concerning it?
The Middle East is a field of questions that does not always find answers. Can we wake up one morning to the news of a pro-Iranian suicide bomber plunging into an American embassy or site and causing dozens of casualties similar to what happened previously on Lebanese soil? Can Iran bear the consequences of an act of this kind? Can we say that the rhetoric that Trump adopted in addressing Iran deprived it of the ability to direct such strikes at the US even if Trump is gone?
The power equations at the end of Trump’s term look different than they were before he entered the Oval Office. Has something changed or did the rules of the game change? Can Iran fire its missiles at Haifa port, and can its allies bear the consequences of such an attack?
It is clear that the situation in the region today is completely different from the circumstances that allowed Iran to bomb the US embassy in Beirut or the Marines headquarters there. The situation is different for Israel as well. Can Iran today, for example, order Jihad and Hamas to launch a wave of suicide attacks inside Israeli agglomerations? Can Lebanon, mired in collapse, endure a new war with Israel, and can the Syrian regime bear the firing of missiles from its land?
It is too early to say that Iran has lost all of its cards. But it is clear that something has changed in the region. Israel has noticeably abandoned the caution it had been sticking with for years in its strikes against Iranian targets on Iranian soil. The circumstances of the assassination of the prominent nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, are more dangerous than exciting... Dangerous because it is a strike that deserves to be responded to, especially in the club of countries that bet on their force and prestige. It is far beyond proving the penetration ability of the Mossad. It is like a call for an open duel, which means war.
Israel chose this dueling call at a very difficult time for Iran. The broad confrontation between Iran and Israel with Trump’s presence in the White House involves many dangers for Tehran. Trump is the maker of games and surprises. He may choose his last weeks in office to turn the tables if he finds the right excuse. Iran wants to stay on the brink of war with America, but does not want to slide into it.
The Iranian regime knows that an open military confrontation with the US “means that America will take us decades back and destroy part of the revolution’s achievements. This is why, let me tell you, that the war you are asking about will not take place,” an Iranian official once said.
Iran has the ability to shower Israel with missiles. It has missiles under its command in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. But the order to launch the rockets raises the question about the next hour. It is hard to believe that America, regardless of the name of the White House resident, could sit idly by in a conflict of this kind. In addition, the war that Israel is waging against the Iranian “positioning” on Syrian soil demonstrated the extent of the Israeli aircraft superiority. This means that it is not just a question of the first strike, but of the ability to maintain the attacks and to bear the losses.
The Israeli air force would not have appeared in this picture if Russia had chosen to close the Syrian airspace to it. Russia’s acceptance of the war that Israel is waging against Iran inside the Syrian territories, in turn, indicates that the Iranian deployment in the region is not necessarily welcomed by the major countries, even those that contradict US policies or compete with America.
This tense situation is likely to continue. It is not enough for Trump to leave the White House for Iran to be reassured. The issue is more complicated. Trump’s approach will have lasting effects on the Iranian issue. By withdrawing from the nuclear deal, Trump raised the issue of the Iranian behavior, including its nuclear goals.
The results of Trump’s decisions are evident in the French and German approaches to the issue. We are talking here about two countries that opposed the US exit from the agreement and tried to adhere to it by all means. Today, the two countries stress that any resumption of the agreement necessarily involves discussing Iran's ballistic missiles and Tehran’s sponsorship of the militias on several maps.
Iran’s call on Biden to return to the nuclear agreement, while rejecting any new negotiations over it, will not yield results. Biden himself knows that the participation of countries in the region, mainly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, is necessary in any comprehensive negotiations with Tehran.
If we take into account the relations that were established between Israel on the one hand, and the UAE and Bahrain on the other hand, we realize the extent of the change that has occurred in the region. A change that is not in Iran’s interest.
Trump has done great damage to the Iranian regime. The issue of Iranian behavior in the world and the region has become an explicit item in any future negotiations.
His sanctions have clearly damaged the Iranian economy and exposed its fragility.
He changed the rhetoric, announcing that Iran would pay the price for any military harassment against America. The Trump administration has demonstrated that Iran does not have solutions to offer to countries that are falling under its influence, as is the case in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
It seemed obvious that the policy of manipulating the Houthi proxy also increased anxiety about the Iranian coup program. Only the coming months will reveal whether Tehran will accept the change in the rules of the game.