LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 13/2019
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.december13.19.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 10/01-07/:”After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go. He said to them, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest. Go on your way. See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves. Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and greet no one on the road. Whatever house you enter, first say, “Peace to this house!”And if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you. Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the labourer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on December 12-13/2019
US senior official to visit Lebanon next week
Lebanon's FPM Says Won’t Join New Gov't on Hariri Terms
Bassil Says FPM Won’t Join Techno-Political Govt., Urges Technocrat PM, Ministers
As Lebanon talks to IMF, Fitch warns of possible debt default
Fitch Downgrades Lebanon Credit Rating to CC
International Transparency: 47 Percent of Lebanese Bribed in Elections
Lebanon Protesters Rally against State Institutions
Private Firms Declare Collective Tax Revolt amid Crisis
Bassil's decision not to participate in a new government
Lebanese State Sues MP Hadi Hbeish
Bassil Meets Berri, Tells Him He 'Misses Dialogue' with Him
Hariri Cancels Trip to Moscow
Hariri Keen on Economic Rescue Plan
AMAL, Hizbullah Supporters Try to Storm Riad al-Solh, Repelled by Tear Gas
UK Defense Official Vows Continued Support for Lebanese Army

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on December 12-13/2019
Netanyahu says he'll resign from all ministerial posts by January 1, 2020
Iran Says Repelled a 'Highly Organized Cyber-Attack'
Iraq Protesters Form 'Mini-State' in Baghdad's Tahrir Square
Iraq Suicide Bomber Kills Seven Fighters Loyal to Sadr
Turkey Says U.S. Recognition of Armenian Genocide Endangers U.S.-Turkish
Turkey Builds Libya Ties in Reaction to Regional Rivals
Moscow, Ankara Draw Borders East Euphrates Between Govt, Opposition
Gaza Security Official: Unprecedented Stability Along Border with Egypt
Election exit poll indicates majority for UK’s ruling Conservative party
EU welcomes clear UK Conservative victory as clarity over Brexit
Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the US visits Florida base hit by shooting attack
US Congress adopts resolution recognizing Armenian genocide
Armenia PM hails ‘courageous’ genocide vote in US Congress
Algeria Holds Presidential Vote Fiercely Opposed by Protesters
Libyan Speaker Says Turkey-GNA Deal Invalid, EU Leaders Set to Reject it
Pope presses anti-nuke, environment call in peace message
North Korea says US ‘foolish’ for calling UN security meeting
Toll rises to 16 as more bodies found from Ukraine college fire

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on December 12-13/2019
International community pressures Lebanon to accept new road map/Randa Takieddine/Arab News/December 12/ 2019
Lebanon's banking sector under immense pressure, warns Pompeo/Christina Farhat/Annahar/December12/2019
Director of Traffic Management Body detained, causes uproar/Chiri Choukeir/Annahar/December 12/2019
The redefining of socioeconomic classes in Lebanon/Dan Azzi/Annahar/December 12/2019
What Does it Mean to Be a Shia in Lebanon Today?/Hanin Ghaddar/Fikra Forum/The Washington Institute/December 12/2019
Amid Reports That Iran Is Moving Short-Range Missiles Into Iraq to Hit U.S. Forces, How Can Washington React?/Michael Young/Carnegie MEC/December 12/2019
Iran fills the Vacuum Created by Trump's Withdrawal/Con Coughlin/Gatestone Institute/December 12/2019
No Migration From West Bank... Jordan Has Nothing to Do With Balfour Declaration/Saleh Al-Qallab/Asharq Al Awsat/December 12/2019
*Abdul Karim Qasim and the Difficult Path of Patriotism in Iraq/Hazem Saghieh/Asharq Al Awsat/December 12/2019
Boris Johnson Is Hiding the Real Price of Brexit/Therese Raphael/Bloomberg/December,12/2019
Saudi Arabia and Israel: Who Needs Whom?/Frank Musmar, BESA/December 12, 2019
Tobin: Iran’s Regime Will Fall if U.S. “Keeps Pressure On”/ Gary C. Gambill and Marilyn Stern/Middle East Forum Radio
Is NATO Still Vital?/Lawrence A. Franklin/Gatestone Institute/December 12/2019
Europe must act on Iran’s nuclear defiance/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/December 12/ 2019
Daesh and the false dawn of Kurdish statehood/Omer Taspinar/Arab News/December 12/ 2019

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on December 12-13/2019
US senior official to visit Lebanon next week
The National/December 12/2019
The National has learnt that undersecretary of state for political affairs David Hale is heading to Beirut. US undersecretary of state for political affairs David Hale will be in Lebanon next week as negotiations over government formation intensify and anti-corruption protests approach their third month. Mr Hale, who served as ambassador to Lebanon, will be flying to Beirut next week, sources in Washington confirmed to The National. He will be the highest level official to visit the country since the protests broke out on October 17 and led to the government resigning. The Lebanese presidency has tentatively scheduled consultations for forming a government on Monday, but there is no consensus so far on naming a prime minister or the nature of the next cabinet. Protesters have been advocating a government of technocrats to address the urgent economic crisis. Two candidates for the position, Samir Khatib and Mohammad Safadi, have withdrawn their candidacy after being met with uproar from demonstrators. Lebanon’s political elite has also failed to attract financial support from the international community, as economists warn of a looming crash. Those attending a meeting for Lebanon’s support group in France this week made it clear that no bailout or financial assistance would be granted without serious reforms. They agreed to give technical advice to Lebanese institutions but will not provide the bailout that caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri requested, the US assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, David Schenker, told AP. “There’s no aid package, there is no bailout,” Mr Schenker said. “Lebanon is not being saved from its financial mess.” Firas Maksad, a professor at George Washington University, said Mr Hale’s visit was to emphasise that there would be "no free bailout". “The US administration is adamant in conditioning any future aid to Lebanon on the formation of a government that can deliver on the people’s demand for meaningful reforms," Mr Maksad said. "David Hale will be delivering this firm message to officials in Beirut.“The US approach combines traditional American values of supporting peoples’ legitimate demands, with its more immediate geopolitical objectives in pressuring Iran’s regional allies including Hezbollah.”

Lebanon's FPM Says Won’t Join New Gov't on Hariri Terms
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 12 December, 2019
The Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) will not join a new government under the terms insisted on by caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri, but it will not obstruct the formation of a new cabinet, its leader Gebran Bassil, who is Lebanon’s Foreign Minister, said on Thursday. Bassil called for the formation of a government made up entirely of technocrats including its prime minister, appearing to leave the door open for participation on different terms. "If Prime Minister Hariri insists on the equation 'either me or nobody else' (as prime minister) ... we in the FPM ... are not concerned in participating in such a government, because its fate will be certain failure," said Bassil, who is President Michel Aoun’s son-in-law. Six weeks since Hariri resigned in the face of unprecedented protests against the country's elite, political leaders have failed to agree on a new premier and government, steps seen as a prerequisite for restoring confidence and earning foreign assistance. Hariri has reemerged as a candidate to head the next government after Samir Khatib withdrew his candidacy. Foreign diplomats decided at a closed-door meeting in Paris on Wednesday that Lebanon cannot expect to receive international aid for its battered economy until a new government undertakes serious reforms. The international group, led by France and the United Nations, met to discuss conditions for helping ease turmoil in Lebanon.

Bassil Says FPM Won’t Join Techno-Political Govt., Urges Technocrat PM, Ministers
Naharnet/December 12/2019
Free Patriotic Movement chief Jebran Bassil on Thursday announced that the FPM will not take part in any techno-political government, calling for a government led by a technocrat and comprising technocrat ministers. “Should (caretaker) PM (Saad) Hariri insist on the ‘me or no one else’ equation and should Hizbullah and AMAL (Movement) insist on their approach on facing external threats through a techno-political cabinet led by Hariri, we in the FPM and the Strong Lebanon bloc are not interested in taking part in such a government, because it will be doomed to fail,” Bassil said after a meeting for the Strong Lebanon bloc. “We certainly do not allow a breach of the National Pact or the bypassing of real representation, that’s why we would give our seats to the protest movement, if it wants so, or to trustable figures if it does not want to take part,” Bassil added. “We won’t take part and we won’t incite (against such a government), but we will form a strong opposition against the current financial, economic and monetary policies, and we will resist the corruption network that has been in place for 30 years, which some want to maintain through replicating the same government,” the FPM chief went on to say.
Addressing partners keen on the FPM’s presence in the government, Bassil called on them to return to “our main proposal which was rejected,” calling on all parties to “reevaluate their stance.”Stressing that the solution is “the formation of an effective salvation government, a government of experts whose head and members would be competent, upright and eligible experts capable of regaining people’s confidence and addressing all files.”Bassil added that such a premier and ministers should be “backed by the political forces and parliamentary blocs.”“I’m fully confident that, at the current stage, such a government is the only serious chance for salvation and preventing collapse, and in our opinion this issue deserves sacrifices,” he went on to say. Hariri has said he would only return as premier if it was to head a government of technocrats. But Bassil on Thursday rejected such a solution that would see Hariri as the only survivor of the last cabinet. "It's as if he were the only one not responsible for the (economic) collapse and not accused of corruption," Bassil said.

As Lebanon talks to IMF, Fitch warns of possible debt default
Al Jazeera/December 12/2019
Ratings agency also warns of further political unrest stemming from US dollar rationing to prioritise debt repayments.
Ratings agency Fitch cut Lebanon's credit rating for a third time in a year on Thursday, warning it now expects the crisis-hit country to restructure or default on its debt. Fitch said its decision to chop the rating to CC from CCC reflected its view that a restructuring or default was now "probable owing to acute political uncertainty, de facto capital controls and damaged confidence in the banking sector". That will deter capital flows vital to meeting the country's financing needs, while the emergence of a parallel exchange rate and the failure of the central bank to fully service its foreign currency obligations also highlighted the strains, Fitch added. "Indications of recession, together with restricted access to bank deposits and goods shortages magnify the risk of further social unrest. Rationing of U.S. dollars to prioritise repayment of government debt may become a more politically charged issue," said Fitch.
Discontent with economic mismanagement and corruption in Lebanon exploded into nationwide protests starting in October. Demonstrators continue to take to the streets to demand an overhaul of the country's political system to set it on the road to financial recovery.
Lebanon's public debt burden, equivalent to about 150 of gross domestic product (GDP), is one of the heaviest in the world. Last year's deficit was equal to about 11.5 percent of GDP, and economic growth rates have been weak for years. Lebanon relies heavily on remittances for foreign exchange, but transfers of money from abroad have dried up, leading to a shortage of United States dollars that in turn has hammered the value of the Lebanese pound. Banks have effectively imposed capital controls limiting the amount of dollars customers can withdraw or transfer out of the country.
As the crisis deepens, citizens are struggling to pay their bills and business are laying off workers and cutting salaries. This week the country's caretaker finance minister warned that there has been a sharp fall-off in government revenues as a result of Lebanon's worst financial crisis since the 1975-90 civil war, which means this year's deficit will also be much bigger than expected. Fitch said rising dollarisation - where citizens exchange their money into US dollars - and the emergence of a parallel or black market exchange rate is also exerting growing pressure on the peg of the Lebanese pound to the US dollar, which has existed since 1997. Soon after Fitch's cut, the office of Lebanon's caretaker prime minister Saad Hariri said he had discussed possible "technical assistance" with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.In a statement, Hariri's office said he told World Bank President David Malpass and IMF head Kristalina Georgieva he was committed to preparing an urgent plan that could be implemented once a new government was formed.The news saw Lebanon's government bonds rally.

Fitch Downgrades Lebanon Credit Rating to CC
Naharnet/December 12/2019
International ratings agency Fitch on Thursday bumped Lebanon’s credit rating down to "CC" from "CCC", after an initial downgrade in August. "The downgrade of Lebanon's ratings reflects Fitch's view that a government debt restructuring or default is probable owing to acute political uncertainty, de facto capital controls and damaged confidence in the banking sector," it said.

International Transparency: 47 Percent of Lebanese Bribed in Elections
Naharnet/December 12/2019
Transparency International published a new report on the level of corruption revealing that Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine top the countries of the Middle East and North Africa in terms of the number of citizens who have been bribed for their votes in elections. The report included a survey in which 6,600 citizens from 6 Arab countries participated, namely: Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia and Morocco. The report showed that 47 percent of Lebanese participants were offered a bribe in exchange for their votes, 26 percent in Jordan, and 12 percent in Palestine. It also showed that 28 percent of Lebanese participants were subject to threats in a bid to force them into voting for a particular party. This percentage falls to 4 percent in Palestine and 3 percent in Jordan. At the level of public utilities services, Lebanon topped the list again with a rate of 51 percent of respondents who said that they used mediators to facilitate access to public services such as electricity and water, then Jordan and Palestine at a rate of 21 percent each.

Lebanon Protesters Rally against State Institutions
Naharnet/December 12/2019
Protest movement against the political class over official mismanagement and corruption continue in Lebanon for the 57th day with protests taking different shapes from street marches, massive rallies in main squares and protests near the state’s institutions. In the northern town of Halba, angry campaigners rallied near the town’s Serail demanding the mayor step down as they accused him of corruption and waste of public funds. “We are ready for anything they (protesters) want but they are not entitled to make me resign. The interior ministry is,” the mayor said in remarks to LBCI reporter, while leaving his office surrounded by security forces as chants demanding his resignation resonated in the background. In Jounieh, protesters rallied near the car registration office preventing access for employees who were in their offices before the groups arrived. In Beirut’s area of Chevrolet, protesters rallied in front of the Cybercrime Bureau in solidarity with detained activists, Shakib Haider and Shadia Abu Dhiyab, appearing before the court against the backdrop of a lawsuit filed against them by caretaker Minister Wael Abu Faour of the Progressive Socialist Party. Under the slogan of “give us back our stolen money,” protesters in Lebanon’s Bekaa region staged a sit-in near the National Social Security Fund in Zahle. Lebanon has been rocked by unprecedented popular protests over official mismanagement and corruption since October 17. On Wednesday, the International Support Group for Lebanon, led by France and the United Nations, met to discuss conditions for helping ease turmoil in Lebanon, which is facing its worst financial crisis in decades and political uncertainty amid an ongoing protest movement. But Lebanon's appeal for urgent aid received short shrift making assistance conditional on the formation of a new reform-minded government. Prime Minister Saad Hariri stepped down two weeks into the revolt, but a deeply divided political class has failed to reach agreement on a new head of government. Hariri remains caretaker premier.

Private Firms Declare Collective Tax Revolt amid Crisis
Associated Press/Naharnet/December 12/2019
Hundreds of private owned businesses announced a collective tax strike that they said would “lend their value to workers instead to maintain their livelihood,” as Lebanon passes through an unprecedented economic crisis that saw hundreds of employees laid off. Lebanese business owners gathered Wednesday in central Beirut to protest the delay in forming a new government and threatening a collective tax strike. Organizers said most private businesses have already been unable to pay taxes and are still getting slapped with penalties. Billions of dollars are paid annually by the private sector, companies and individuals, as taxes and fees, “but it turns out that a large part of it goes into the pockets of some beneficiaries to finance an inflating public sector, money squandering and corruption,” organizers said. In recent weeks, hundreds of people have been laid off or are receiving reduced salaries, while many businesses had to shut down. “Workers deserve this money better,” the organizers said. “They bear the consequences of the state’s waste and corruption that caused their companies to close down after the public deficit drained the banks ’money and left the companies in disguised capital control.”

Bassil's decision not to participate in a new government
Michael Young/December 12/2019
Bassil's decision not to participate in a new government is a fundamental moment in the uprising in Lebanon. His decision leaves Amal-Hezbollah isolated, suggesting Hezbollah may have to recalibrate toward a more popularly acceptable government headed by Hariri.1 I honestly don't know, but his move seemed to be more than just a tactical move. Yes, he may be trying to force Hezbollah to choose between Hariri and him, but under the present circumstances it's clear that Hezbollah has more of a stake in Hariri taking over. I have argued this. By trying to preserve the system as is, Hezbollah has accelerated its demise. Is this a break? I don't think so, but did Bassil step down because he felt Hezbollah was prepared to compromise over him? That's important to find out.

Lebanese State Sues MP Hadi Hbeish
Naharnet/December 12/2019
The Lebanese state, represented by the head of the lawsuits dept. at the Justice Ministry Judge Hilana Iskandar and its legal delegate the lawyer Rabih al-Fakhri, has filed a lawsuit against MP Hadi Hbeish, the National News Agency reported on Thursday. The lawsuit accuses Hbeish of “launching a public assault against Mount Lebanon Prosecutor Judge Ghada Aoun in front of all those present in the lobby of the Justice Palace in Baabda on Wednesday.” It also calls for “arresting him and referring him to the relevant judicial authorities and obliging him to pay not less than $100 million in compensations to the Lebanese state in light of the harm that his actions caused to the prestige of the state and its judiciary.” NNA noted that Hbeish’s actions are punishable under articles 381 and 382 of the penal code. Judge Aoun had earlier in the day filed a personal lawsuit against Hbeish, accusing him of libel, slander and the launch of threats, demanding his interrogation, detention and prosecution. The judge attached video recordings showing how Hbeish “stormed her office and insulted her in person,” NNA said. Videos that emerged Wednesday show Hbeish launching a blistering verbal attack on Aoun outside her office.
The lawmaker, who is also a lawyer, accused the judge of “corruption” and “thuggery” in connection with her decision to order the arrest of Huda Salloum -- the head of the Traffic, Trucks and Vehicles Management Authority -- over a graft lawsuit.

Bassil Meets Berri, Tells Him He 'Misses Dialogue' with Him
Naharnet/December 12/2019
Free Patriotic Movement chief Jebran Bassil on Thursday held talks with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri in Ain el-Tineh. The National News Agency said Berri’s adviser and caretaker Finance Minister Ali Hassan Khalil joined the meeting after it got underway and that the talks tackled the political developments. According to media reports, Bassil told Berri that he “misses dialogue” with him. “In this country, there is no alternative to dialogue,” Berri reportedly answered.

Hariri Cancels Trip to Moscow
Naharnet/December 12/2019
Outgoing Prime Minister Saad Hariri has cancelled a visit scheduled next week to Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, al-Joumhouria daily reported on Thursday.
The two-day visit was set between December 16-17 and was agreed before Hariri submitted his resignation on October 29, said the daily. According to Russian diplomatic sources, the Russian embassy sent a cable to Lebanon’s foreign ministry at the beginning of this week requesting the necessary measures be taken to cancel the meeting, provided that a new date will be set later on.
The sources said it might take place in mid-January.

Hariri Keen on Economic Rescue Plan
Naharnet/December 12/2019
Caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri held telephone calls with World Bank President David Malpas and Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund, Christina Georgieva, and discussed with them the economic and monetary difficulties facing Lebanon, his media office said on Thursday.
Hariri reiterated his commitment to prepare an urgent rescue plan to address the crisis in Lebanon, pending the formation of a new government capable of implementing it. Hariri also discussed the technical assistance that both the Wold Bank and IMF can provide in the framework of preparing this plan.
His talks with Malpas discussed the possibility for the bank’s international financing company to increase contribution to international trade financing for Lebanon.

AMAL, Hizbullah Supporters Try to Storm Riad al-Solh, Repelled by Tear Gas
Associated Press/Naharnet/December 12/2019
Tension rose in central Beirut when a group of young men tried to attack the epicenter of the anti-government protests, prompting security forces to fire tear gas. Dozens of men threw stones and Molotov cocktails at anti-riot police who deployed to stop the advancing assailants. Police pushed them back firing rounds of tear-gas. The group of mainly young men who came from the impoverished Khandaq al-Ghamiq area were chanting “Shia, Shia!” as they approached the area of anti-government protesters.
It is not the first time supporters of the two main Shiite groups in Lebanon, Hizbullah and AMAL Movement, attacked the protesters’ site.

UK Defense Official Vows Continued Support for Lebanese Army
Naharnet/December 12/2019
Lieutenant General Sir John Lorimer, the UK's Defense Senior Adviser to the Middle East and North Africa, visited to Lebanon on December 11 and held high level meetings with Lebanese officials, accompanied by the British Embassy’s Defense Attaché, Lieutenant Colonel Alex Hilton.
His meetings included discussions with the President Michel Aoun, the Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri, the Caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri, the Caretaker Defense Minister Elias Bou Saab, Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim, Director General of General Security, and the Lebanese Armed Forces Commander, General Joseph Aoun, the British embassy said in a statement. “Sir John discussed the current situation in Lebanon, the urgent efforts to form a government that reflects people’s aspiration, and the role of the Lebanese Army and Security Forces in protecting protesters and maintaining law and order,” the statement said. At the end of his visit, Sir John said: “I am visiting Lebanon at a critical time in its history. The country faces many urgent challenges and the UK continues to offer its support; in October we announced additional funding of $25 million for the Lebanese Army (2019-2022), part of our ongoing support to the Lebanese Army, the sole legitimate defender of Lebanon.” He added: “They are entrusted with keeping Lebanon safe -- including securing the borders, preventing terrorism and protecting the right to peaceful protests – and I commend them on their professional performance. It is vital that the Lebanese security agencies continue to protect the right to peaceful protest, and those who seek to suppress the protest movement through violence and intimidation should understand that this is completely unacceptable.” British Ambassador Chris Rampling for his part said: “A good visit for Lieutenant General Sir John Lorimer, the UK's Defense Senior Adviser on the Middle East. The International Support Group meeting in Paris yesterday was a demonstration that the ISG is here to support a Lebanon that is committed to reform. Lebanon needs a government urgently.”“We have been clear that the matter of choosing leaders and a Cabinet is a domestic issue for the Lebanese. The people of Lebanon have been clear in their demand for improved governance, and they should be heard,” he added.

International community pressures Lebanon to accept new road map
Randa Takieddine/Arab News/December 12/ 2019
International community pressures Lebanon to accept new road map
The deadlock between Lebanon’s political class and the protesters on the streets has continued for almost two months now. Meanwhile, the members of the International Support Group (ISG) for Lebanon gathered in Paris on Wednesday to pressure the Lebanese politicians to urgently form a “credible and efficient government” to take the necessary decisions to tackle the country’s deteriorating economic and social situation.
France had insisted on this gathering, but some countries dragged their feet before agreeing to attend. Some thought it better to wait for the formation of a new government, but French President Emmanuel Macron and Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian insisted on holding the meeting to remind the Lebanese political class of the reforms that were promised but never implemented following the Cedre Conference of April 2018, which attempted to save the Lebanese economy.
Macron, who is reported by his diplomatic team to be closely following the situation in Lebanon, is convinced that the country’s stability and security is important to the region and that an economic collapse is still avoidable. He knows that the region does not need an additional disastrous development. France has also been very close to Lebanon traditionally and historically.
The deadlock in Lebanon — which has seen the population denied its basic needs, from electricity to employment and sanitation — prompted the French to put pressure on the authorities to quickly form a government that will adopt the macroeconomic and social measures needed to get financial help and support from the international community.
Macron is convinced that the country’s stability and security is important to the region. The Paris meeting was attended by senior officials from the foreign ministries of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (France, the US, Britain, Russia and China), plus Italy, Germany, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Lebanon. They drew up a new road map for the next Lebanese government to implement in order for it to respond to the expectations of the Lebanese people and receive financial support from the international community.
The Paris meeting acknowledged that Lebanon is facing a crisis that puts the country at risk of “a chaotic unwinding of its economy and of increased instability.” It considered that there was an urgent need to adopt a credible and comprehensive policy of economic reforms to restore financial stability and address the longstanding structural deficiencies in the model of the Lebanese economy.
The ISG’s final communique stressed the importance of these measures in terms of responding to the aspirations of the Lebanese protesters, who have been on the streets since Oct. 17. The meeting considered that preserving Lebanon’s stability, unity, security, sovereignty and political independence requires the swift formation of a government that will be committed to dissociating the country from regional tensions. Among the measures in the road map for the new government was the demand for a credible 2020 budget, showing a significantly reduced deficit, to be adopted within a few weeks, including social safety nets to preserve the vulnerable population.
The meeting also urged the authorities to tackle corruption. The road map included the adoption of an anti-corruption law and judicial reform. It also reconfirmed the decisions of the Cedre Conference as still being valid.
While the international community was meeting in Paris, Lebanese President Michel Aoun and his son-in-law and Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, together with Hezbollah, were taking their time to agree on a new date for the repeatedly postponed parliamentary consultations on naming a new prime minister following Saad Hariri’s resignation. Samir Khatib, a Sunni businessman who was a leading candidate for the role, withdrew after meeting Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdellatif Deryan, who told him he is still backing Hariri.
Hariri seems to be engaged in a power game with Aoun and Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, who want him as prime minister but only on their terms, in a mixed government of political and independent personalities. Hariri would accept heading a new government, but with his own conditions, including independent technocratic ministers. Meanwhile, the country is facing a dangerous economic collapse. Central Bank governor Riad Salame is engaged in a struggle with the banks’ shareholders in a bid to get their money back into Lebanon.
Lebanon has received many warnings since September about taking measures to ensure the country’s economic and financial stability, but it was let down by the government. The youth in the streets can no longer wait for irresponsible politicians to kill their future. They have nothing to lose, they say, because nothing was given to them. So the question now is whether or not a new government will adopt the realistic road map put forward by the international community. And when? The protesters dream of a better future, with a new Lebanon away from Hezbollah and its partners.
*Randa Takieddine is a Paris-based Lebanese journalist who headed Al-Hayat’s bureau in France for 30 years. She has covered France’s relations with the Middle East through the terms of four presidents.

Lebanon's banking sector under immense pressure, warns Pompeo
Christina Farhat/Annahar/December12/2019
Pompeo called attention to the financial repercussions of the unofficial capital controls implemented by the banking sector.
BEIRUT: US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, cautioned of the dangers of the increasing pressure on the banking sector while taking the opportunity to denounce the Iranian backed Hezbollah party. Pompeo reinforced the International Support Group (ISG) sentiment, with the ISG meeting being held today in Paris, that the security of Lebanon is in the best interest of the international community.
“I know the meeting is taking place; we’re working on it. We know that the financial situation is very serious and that the Central Bank is under real pressure,” Pompeo said in his remarks.
Pompeo called attention to the financial repercussions of the unofficial capital controls implemented by the banking sector. However, he rested the burden of banking rights, and long-term governmental reform, on the shoulders of the Lebanese people.
“The Lebanese people don’t have access to their accounts in a way that is full, and sufficient, and adequate, but the responsibility lies with the Lebanese people. The responsibility on how the government will be formed, and shaped, falls to the Lebanese people to demand Lebanese sovereignty, Lebanese prosperity, and Lebanese freedom from outside influence,” Pompeo said.
The 70th United States Secretary of State also denounced Hezbollah, verbally positioning the group as a roadblock to freedom.
“We have a designated terrorist organization, Hezbollah, and I know that the people of Lebanon understand the risk that that presents to their freedom, and to their capacity to deliver for themselves,” Pompeo said.
Speaking on behalf of the United States of America, Pompeo insisted that the State Department’s stance on Hezbollah is not an American proposal, but a proposal by the people of Lebanon. This statement was made weeks after the former Ambassador of the United States of America to Lebanon, Jeffrey Feltman, was blasted for unraveling US interests during his recent congressional testimony, stating that the protests “fortunately coincide with US interests” against Hezbollah.
“This is not an American proposition, this is a proposition of the Lebanese people and we do stand ready to do the things that the world can do to assist the Lebanese people getting their economy righted and their government righted,” Pompeo said.
The tension between the US and Iran is felt in Beirut where the US has intensified its sanctions on Iran-backed Hezbollah. The US took extreme measures, such as sanctioning three top Hezbollah officials earlier this year, that was more geared towards sending a symbolic message than limiting Hezbollah’s influence in practice.
With Hariri’s formally accepted explanation to the West on why Hezbollah is represented in government, the distinction between “military wing” Hezbollah, and “political command” Hezbollah, out the window, the question now shifts to what is in store for Hezbollah in the future.
If a Trump re-election is in the cards, US sanctions against Hezbollah are only expected to grow more unrelenting. “We have taken more actions recently against Hezbollah than in the history of our counterterrorism program,“ Sigal P. Mandelker, undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the U.S. Treasury said at a conference in the United Arab Emirates in September of this year.

Director of Traffic Management Body detained, causes uproar
Chiri Choukeir/Annahar/December 12/2019
After detaining several members of the traffic management body, Judge Aoun invited Salloum as a witness before detaining her as well on charges of bribery, corruption, fraud, and illicit enrichment.
BEIRUT: Mount Lebanon Prosecutor, Judge Ghada Aoun, ordered earlier today the detainment of Director General of the Traffic Management Body Hoda Salloum. After detaining several members of the traffic management body, Judge Aoun invited Salloum as a witness before detaining her as well on charges of bribery, corruption, fraud, and illicit enrichment.
Critics say Aoun failed to follow the mandatory legal procedure by detaining Salloum without notifying the Ministry of Interior. Aoun argued that any suspect of illicit enrichment could be detained without notifying the Interior Ministry.
The case caused an uproar within the Future Movement, with MP Hadi Hobeich making his way to the Justice Palace in Baabda to confront Aoun, accusing her of acting as "militia instead of a judge."
The MP continued to question the credibility of Aoun, saying that he would not "leave Baabda before the case is handled by the General Prosecutor."
The reaction of Hobeich was followed by a post on Twitter by MP Nohad Mashnouk, who expressed his outrage at the case.
"Director Hoda Salloum is one of the most precise and decent employees in the Lebanese government," he said on Twitter. Senior Investigative Judge in Beirut, George Rizk, meanwhile, demanded the case be referred to either the Court of Cassation or Appellate Court where the case would go through the mandatory legal procedure. The Supreme Council of the Judiciary criticized Hobeich's outburst, labeling his comments as an insult to the judiciary.

The redefining of socioeconomic classes in Lebanon
Dan Azzi/Annahar/December 12/2019
Most Lebanese banks have now curtailed withdrawals to as low as $200 a week, even for clients with millions of dollars in their accounts.
With brutal capital controls in place today, this has necessitated some major behavioral adjustments in Lebanese society. Most Lebanese banks have now curtailed withdrawals to as low as $200 a week, even for clients with millions of dollars in their accounts. I know several people with 8-figure accounts who had to cancel trips to Paris, because their credit card limit for overseas use has been reduced from $25,000 down to $1,000. In the good old days (only a few months ago) that would have been their one day spending for a hotel stay at George Cinque, lunch at Fouquet, and dinner a Le Cinq, not including a shopping spree at Chanel.
$1,000 would now match the credit limit of this paper millionaire’s driver or bodyguard. What’s even more shocking for these paper millionaires isn’t the drastic reduction in their standard of living, but the fact that he now has to grovel in front of a low-level teller at his bank, whose name he can’t remember, even though he served him coffee for the last 10 years, while ushering him ahead of the line outside, straight into the branch manager’s office. Today, this guy has to take a number from a machine, wait in line for a couple of hours, to end up taking the same amount of cash as all the proletariat that he hardly ever interacted with except when they parked his car or waited his table at Balthus in downtown.
In the past, this deca-millionaire would have multiple banks competing for this business, offering him 1 or 2% extra in interest to move his account, and then his existing bank would increase his rates at the slightest whiff of dissatisfaction.
Today, life has changed drastically. When this guy threatens to move his cash to another bank – moving it overseas is out of the question – the low-ranking bank teller (the branch manager is too busy … or hiding, these days), would politely tell him to go ahead, because that’s one less customer screaming “I WANT MY MONEY.” Of course, the prospective receiving bank no longer wants his Monopoly Money either, because they have the reverse problem – that’s one more customer screaming at the new bank. The tragedy is when one of those clients is mislead into taking a so-called bankers check and tries to deposit it overseas in Dubai or Zurich, and after a few weeks of his money floating in cyberspace, the check gets rejected with no reason supplied. He then goes back to his bank in all seriousness to complain, and his relationship manager at the bank puts on this surprised look (like it never happened before), and says, “That must be a problem at your bank. We did our duty.” So the guy resigns himself to his fate and re-deposits his semi-worthless check back at the same bank. So now, Paper Millionaire has to go back to groveling with his banker, “Please give me $600 extra this week because I need diesel to heat my home,” to which the banker replies, “You live in Antelias, it’s not that cold, you don’t need to buy diesel. Come back next month and we’ll consider your request.”
So if what we thought of before as the richest and most powerful 1% are now no longer the 1%, who’s winning in this new game in town? Who’s the new 1%?
Clearly, the depositors with wasta, able to withdraw much more than average or send money overseas – those connected to the people in power – no matter what the size of their account. Also, the 1% who are subscribers to An-Nahar English, and read the multiple warnings in our articles, avoided the Ponzi Scheme. Thus, they never believed the fantasies about a magically resilient and omnipotent island – the Banking Sector – prospering happily, with their depositors, in the midst of a collapsing Lebanese economy. Of course, some of these paper millionaires found the $1 subscription fee too expensive and decided not to subscribe – they found out soon enough that it was the second worst financial decision of their life.
There’s another group who are now more powerful than their former bosses. Anyone who is armed, dangerous, and connected can threaten his way into getting his money, similarly to how during the Civil War, a lowly thug ruled your whole neighborhood.
In some sense, these unofficial capital controls are the biggest act of egalitarianism since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1914, but like the Soviet Union, the 1% became not the ones with money, but the ones connected to the Party. In our case, the new 1% are the ones connected to the Parties who can twist arms and allow you to take your money out, when no one else can.
Welcome to the New Lebanese Paradigm.

What Does it Mean to Be a Shia in Lebanon Today?
Hanin Ghaddar/Fikra Forum/The Washington Institute/December 12/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/81408/%d8%ad%d9%86%d9%8a%d9%86-%d8%ba%d8%af%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%85%d8%a7%d8%b0%d8%a7-%d9%8a%d8%b9%d9%86%d9%8a-%d8%a3%d9%86-%d8%aa%d9%83%d9%88%d9%86-%d8%b4%d9%8a%d8%b9%d9%8a%d9%8b%d8%a7-%d9%81%d9%8a-%d9%84%d8%a8/
Among the Shia in Lebanon, two major shifts are taking place within the collective perception of the community. One, Lebanese Shia identity is moving from a sectarian identity to a national one, caused by the costs endured by the Shia community over the past decade. And two, there is a widening departure from the resistance narrative, which is increasingly seen as a narrative of war and Islamic indoctrination.
The ideas of resistance and the antagonism towards Israel are still deep-seated facets of Lebanese Shia identity. Yet growing feelings of resentment towards war and Hezbollah’s efforts to continue militarizing the community are proving to be stronger. Today, the reality of a militarized and war-thirsty identity is being challenged by the desire of members of the community for better living standards, financial stability, and security. In this sense, national identity—and an eagerness to be part of the Lebanese people as a whole—is becoming more significant than the sectarian identities that have long been seen as dominating Lebanese politics.
These shifts have been taking place over a number of years, but such changes are very complex, gradual, and slow. They rise and fade depending on the political and economic circumstances, and while the course of change is steady, it is still uneasy for the Shia as a communal whole to express their opinions during a process that hasn’t yet been completed or realized.
Surveying the Shia
Today—more than any time in the modern history of the Lebanon—it has become evident that a cohesive and monolithic Shia community does not exist. Rather, the constitutive elements of the community have been going through successive waves of identity shifts and internal conflicts that give the community multiple layers of identity, often overlapping within an individual. This makes categorizing this community a complicated matter.
What is clear is that Shia individuals expressing discontent and disagreement with Hezbollah by either joining the protests in Lebanon, disseminating a WhatsApp recording against Hezbollah, or even stealing a quick moment on TV to complain are no longer unusual occurrences. Moreover, these events are illustrative of a deeper hidden reality that is managing to escape through the cracks of the very same layers that had previously masked the visibility of its development.
Moreover, these nascent moments of protest complicate the still supportive façade Shia present to outsiders. A recent poll published by Fikra Forum shows that among Lebanon’s Shia population today, 75% of respondents say they hold a “very positive” attitude toward Hezbollah—which is down only slightly from 83% in late 2017 and 77% in late 2018.
Although numbers do not lie, they can mask shifting realities on the ground that are difficult to capture in polling data. Unpacking the layers of Shia identity requires much more than blunt questions from outsiders about their opinion on Hezbollah and Iran. Identifying the real attitudes of Shia involves understanding these layers and looking into issues beyond Hezbollah and Iran, such as war and peace in Lebanon, Hezbollah’s domestic allies, and the significance of the Shia center of Najaf in Iraq—where Ayatollah Sistani presents a notable challenge to the Iranian model of Shia community through wilayet e-faqih.
It also requires unpacking what these institutions represent to Lebanese Shia. Hezbollah could mean resistance for some; for others, it could mean protection. Iran, for some, can mean empowerment; while for others, it could mean financial support. Many Shia still see Hezbollah as a paternal figure and feel an obligation or a duty to protect the group from outsiders. However, this doesn’t mean that Hezbollah is a father figure these Shia look up to internally.
Given these factors, attempting to label this community often restrains us from reading between the lines. And most importantly, this classification could also serve Hezbollah—and other sectarian leaders—who prefer to hide the nuances, the layers of identity, and the reality that lies in-between in favor of one monolithic entity. Hezbollah’s main narrative is that it represents the majority of the Shia in Lebanon, despite knowing very well that this claim is inaccurate. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have cracked down on Shia cities for the past two months of protests with such violence.
The Layers of a Shia
From Musa Al-Sadr’s Amal movement to the PLO domination of the south of Lebanon until 1982, all through the civil war and the leftist movements that relied on Shia for its wars, and recently the Iranian hegemony of the Shia agency and identity, many Shia have developed multiple identities and layers in response to these different forces. A Shia could be pro-Palestine and anti-Palestine, pro-resistance and anti-resistance, and pro-Lebanese and anti-Lebanese, all at the same time. These concealed differences are on their way out to the surface, but have existed for a long time.
That also applies to members of the community who are Hezbollah’s supporters. Every Hezbollah supporter or fighter I have talked to during my adult life has also described navigating these layers. They are tired of wars and ideologies, yet they are deeply rooted in an identity that glorifies bygone victories. They are torn between a lifeless leftist idea of liberation—based on the national resistance movement that predated Hezbollah—and an ideological resistance that Hezbollah enforced through its meticulous cultural appropriation and services to a community that has suffered from deprivation for decades.
A Shia can be pro-Palestine—as a cause—but also look down on the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon as a burden and a lesser community in terms of rights and freedoms. A Shia can want Hezbollah to return to its original mandate of resistance, and can be critical of Hezbollah for abandoning it, yet he or she can also be scared of resistance, because resistance means another war. A Shia can want to fight injustice while recognizing that Hezbollah’s allies are the most corrupt political figures in Lebanon.
Many Shia are frustrated with Hezbollah’s wars in the region, its isolation of the community, and with its increased corruption and failures. However, they are also afraid to lose the father-figure that Hezbollah represents and be exposed to sectarian discrimination, and further isolation, in the process. Not all Shia believe in absolute wilayat e-faqih ideology. Many—mainly those who are descended from the leftist and progressive parties—became Hezbollah supporters only because of Hezbollah’s adoption of the resistance narrative rather than through any religious appeal.
Fears and Dilemmas
The taboos preventing the overt expressions of these doubts are strong, but the fear is even stronger. Among the Shia community, how can one freely or clearly express his or her ideas and desires—even anonymously—when Hezbollah intelligence have knocked on Shia protesters’ doors every day in the past few weeks to inquire about their daily whereabouts and check their personal cellphones? Shia know that if one happens to be spotted in one of the protests squares, the interrogations start and will never end. Entire families are harassed, and many have been arrested.
In contrast to the Iraqi Shia, who have an internal religious establishment that is actually tacitly supporting the country’s protests, the Lebanese Shia do not have a Najaf to turn to. They have no place to go if the protests fail and each sect goes back to its leader. This pushes the Lebanese Shia into a real dilemma: many are trapped between their desire to become Lebanese citizens and their fear of becoming exposed without protection were they to move away from the traditional sectarian model.
The Shia who live in fear or humiliation might not be aware of their own needs and longings. They might express their dilemmas in ways that others might misread or overlook. Therefore, what really matters is not what they think of Iran or Hezbollah. What matters is the context: of how and when they take to the streets, what flag they choose to raise, and, most importantly, if they manage to defy Hezbollah’s cultural and social—rather than political—rules and red lines.
What is important to recognize is that people danced in Nabatiyeh, and that women took off their veils in the middle of the square in Baalbek. It is not strange that Hezbollah felt threatened enough by these actions to crack down on Shia protesters. In Lebanon, the cultural and social has always been the pathway to the political—and this has especially been the case within the Shia community. This is why Hezbollah felt the threat, and this is why the protesters’ defiance is significant.
Given all these factors, it is probably unfair to ask the question of who is a Lebanese Shia today. But this very same question, with all its biases and complications, is more necessary now more than ever. The answers to this question need to address all the layers, the fears, and the unspoken truths lying behind the visible among the Lebanese Shia community.
*Hanin Ghaddar is the inaugural Friedmann Visiting Fellow at The Washington Institute’s Geduld Program on Arab Politics, where she focuses on Shia politics throughout the Levant.
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/fikraforum/view/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-shia-in-lebanon-today

Amid Reports That Iran Is Moving Short-Range Missiles Into Iraq to Hit U.S. Forces, How Can Washington React?
Michael Young/Carnegie MEC/December 12/2019
A regular survey of experts on matters relating to Middle Eastern and North African politics and security.
Hassan Hassan | Director of Non-State Actors Program at the Center for Global Policy in Washington, D.C., and co-author of ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror (Regan Arts, New York, 2015)
Like it or not, President Donald Trump’s policy against Iran is working as intended. The “Maximum Pressure” campaign is causing the regime to become nervous and lash out. The unprecedented and uncharacteristic attack on Saudi oil facilities last September, attributed to Iran, was symptomatic of its growing anxiety.
With reports that Iran is moving short-range missiles into Iraq to hit U.S. forces, Washington’s response is simply to stay the course, tighten the economic screws, and keep up the pressure against the Islamic Republic. Despite warnings of a U.S.-Iran confrontation due to heightened tension, neither side wants war. But Iran also understands that Trump is determined to destabilize its regime.
Increased pressure will further strain Tehran’s ability to manage erupting crises in countries where only a year ago it saw significant victories—in Syria against the anti-government rebels, in Iraq against the Islamic State, and in Lebanon through a Hezbollah-friendly government. The continued American presence in Syria, the persistence of protests in Lebanon and Iraq, and the worsening sanctions are constraining the regime.
Under these circumstances, Tehran’s current policy seems to be focused on preventing Washington from acting militarily against it and on waiting Trump out. To hold the line until then, Iran is trying to show strength. Moving the missiles and attacking the Saudi oil facilities are part of that effort. There is no need for the United States to lash out. It just needs to press on.
Loulouwa Al Rachid | Beirut-based analyst of Iraq, former scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut
The late French theoretician of international relations, Raymond Aron, once defined the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union in this way: “Peace impossible, war unlikely.” This formula applies perfectly to U.S.-Iran relations. Both countries have a great deal to lose by entering into a war or engaging in escalation beyond unclaimed attacks on oil tankers and facilities, Iran’s deployment of short-range missiles outside its borders, an increased U.S. military presence in the Middle East, and cyberwarfare.
For both countries to go on the offensive in Iraq, a fragile country where the crisis over government legitimacy runs the risk of sparking another civil war, would have a devastating impact not only on Iraq but also on the United States’ and Iran’s respective strategic interests in the region. Washington cannot afford a further deterioration in its credibility by allowing the breakup of a country where it imposed costly regime change in 2003, nor can Iran put at risk the political, economic, and military influence it gained there since that time. Their shared condominium over Iraq, which allowed among other things the successful war on terror, will likely prevail, all the more so given the reluctance of Iraqi politicians to be drawn into a proxy war between Washington and Tehran.
Michael Knights | Senior fellow at The Washington Institute, specializing in the military and security affairs of Iraq, Iran, and the Persian Gulf states
The first action—already taken last May by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—is to warn Baghdad explicitly that any effective attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq will be met by vigorous self-defense and retaliatory actions inside Iraq as well as elsewhere. This message must be continually reinforced by senior U.S. government officials. As mobile launch platforms may relocate or be collocated with civilians, the United States needs to maintain updated sets of pre-vetted “response option” targets that can be struck at a time and place of its choosing. The United States should wait, if need be, for militia headquarters to re-fill, not just strike empty buildings as quickly as possible. Any target in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, or elsewhere should be considered fair game.
Joel Wing | Analyst of Iraqi affairs at the Musings on Iraq blog
The latest news that Iran is moving missiles into Iraq is actually old as these types of stories have come out since 2015, when Tehran began giving short range missiles to its allies in the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) during the war against the Islamic State. In fact, in July and August 2019 Israel carried out a series of airstrikes against PMF bases in part to target these armaments.
There is little the United States can do about this development. First, its influence has dramatically decreased in Baghdad. The U.S. presence is constantly attacked by Iraqi politicians and resigned prime minister ‘Adil ‘Abdul Mahdi has done nothing about Iran’s moves. Second, despite Washington’s “Maximum Pressure” policy against Iran, President Donald Trump is not really interested in Iran, and especially not Iraq. That means the U.S. government is severely limited in what it can do because it is cannot get the backing of the president. Just look at what’s happening in Syria or Trump’s offer of engaging in talks without preconditions with Iran to see the problems policymakers are having with the president.

Iran fills the Vacuum Created by Trump's Withdrawal
Con Coughlin/Gatestone Institute/December 12/2019
President Trump has hastened the withdrawal of American forces from Syria, and is actively seeking to reduce America's military presence elsewhere in the region, with troop withdrawals under active consideration in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Russia is always on standby to fill power voids. That is how it happened that Russian troops swept in when the US left northern Syria. To sum up that still unfolding story: nobody will remember it as our finest hour.... There are some deeply malign forces at work in the broader Middle East... disengagement is just another term for leaving all the power to them." – Richard Cheney, Former US Vice President," Arab Strategy Forum, Dubai.
It is a measure of the failure of the nuclear deal with Iran that former US President Barack Obama helped to negotiate in 2015 that Tehran used the brief easing of tensions with Washington to strengthen and consolidate its military presence in Arab countries such as Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.
There are now serious concerns that Mr Trump's desire to reduce America's military presence in the Middle East will only encourage Iran to intensify its own activity, thereby increasing the threat to Israel and pro-Western Arab states.
The problem for small states such as Lebanon, though, is that they are no match for a regional superpower like Iran. And so long as the mullahs have the resources and weaponry to maintain their aggressive presence in the region, there is very little that small states like Lebanon can do to stop them.
President Donald Trump has made no secret of his dislike of America's long-standing military involvement in the Middle East, which dates back decades, and which he claims has cost the American taxpayer a mind-blowing $8 trillion. Pictured: President Trump speaks about his decision to pull U.S troops out of northeastern Syria, as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Army Gen. Mark Milley, looks on, October 7, 2019. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
The threat by a senior commander in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps this week "to flatten Tel Aviv" from Iranian-controlled bases in southern Lebanon provides arguably the most graphic example of the deepening dangers the region faces as a result of the Trump administration's decision to scale down its military presence.
With next year's presidential election contest now very much the primary focus of President Donald J. Trump's attention, many of America's long-standing allies in the Middle East are becoming increasingly concerned at the president's desire to improve his electoral prospects by scaling down America's military footprint.
Mr Trump has made no secret of his dislike of America's long-standing military involvement in the Middle East, which dates back decades, and which Mr Trump claims has cost the American taxpayer a mind-blowing $8 trillion. His attitude towards the region was best summed up by the remark he made in October following his unilateral decision to withdraw US forces from northern Syria, when he said: "Let someone else fight over this long bloodstained sand."
To this end, Mr Trump has hastened the withdrawal of American forces from Syria, and is actively seeking to reduce America's military presence elsewhere in the region, with troop withdrawals under active consideration in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet, as former US Vice President Dick Cheney warned earlier this week, the US withdrawal of troops from key areas of the Middle East is causing deep alarm among some of America's allies.
Speaking at a Gulf security forum earlier this week, Mr Cheney, 78, who served as Vice President in the Bush administration from 2001-09, warned that the US was in danger of departing from the "sound traditions" of American foreign policy, thereby playing into the hands of hostile states such as like Russia, Syria and Iran.
"Russia is always on standby to fill power voids," Mr Cheney said in a speech to the Arab Strategy Forum in Dubai. "That is how it happened that Russian troops swept in when the US left northern Syria. To sum up that still unfolding story: nobody will remember it as our finest hour," he said of Mr Trump's withdrawal decision.
Mr Cheney also had some tough words for Iran: "There are some deeply malign forces at work in the broader Middle East... disengagement is just another term for leaving all the power to them."
As if to vindicate the veracity of Mr Cheney's comments, Morteza Ghorbani, a senior advisor with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, issued a direct threat against Israel, warning the Jewish state that, "If Israel makes a mistake, even the smallest one, against Iran, we will flatten Tel Aviv into dirt from Lebanon."
It is a measure of the failure of the nuclear deal with Iran that former US President Barack Obama helped to negotiate in 2015 that Tehran used the brief easing of tensions with Washington to strengthen and consolidate its military presence in Arab countries such as Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.
Israeli intelligence officials estimate that Hezbollah, Iran's Shia militia in southern Lebanon, is now equipped with tens of thousands of Iranian-made medium-range missiles that can hit targets deep within Israel. Similar stockpiles are being built up in Syria, although the Israel Air Force has carried out a number of air raids aimed as disrupting Iran's attempts to build a new network of military bases along the Syrian border.
There are now serious concerns that Mr Trump's desire to reduce America's military presence in the Middle East will only encourage Iran to intensify its own activity, thereby increasing the threat to Israel and pro-Western Arab states.
The only resistance Iran is likely to encounter as it seeks to expand its hegemony in the region is from Arab governments that object to Iran using their countries in order to pursue its own goals.
Lebanon is a case in point: senior government officials have reacted angrily to Iranian threats to renew hostilities with Israel.
During the last confrontation involving Israel and Lebanon in 2006, more than 1,000 Lebanese, mostly civilians, were killed, as well as 121 Israeli soldiers and 46 civilians in Israel.
Lebanese ministers have no desire to repeat the experience, and the attitude of many in Lebanon was summed up by caretaker Lebanese defence minister Elia Bou Saab, who said Iran's latest threats against Israel were "unfortunate and unacceptable and infringed on the sovereignty of Lebanon."
The problem for small states such as Lebanon, though, is that they are no match for a regional superpower like Iran. And so long as the mullahs have the resources and weaponry to maintain their aggressive presence in the region, there is very little that small states like Lebanon can do to stop them.
*Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on December 12-13/2019
Netanyahu says he'll resign from all ministerial posts by January 1, 2020
Yael Freidson,Itamar Eichner|/Ynetnew/December 12/2019
The indicted leader - who currently holds health, welfare, agriculture and diaspora affairs portfolios - announces his decision to the Supreme Court following a petition; adds he will not quit his post as prime minister
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday said he will resign from all ministerial positions by January 1, 2020. He is not expected to quit his post as prime minister. Netanyahu, who currently holds health, welfare, agriculture and diaspora affairs portfolios, is expected to appoint ministers who will take over the posts. The move comes three weeks after the prime minister was charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust in three corruption cases in which he is accused of trading legislative or regulatory favors in exchange for gifts or favorable media coverage. Netanyahu announced his decision to the Supreme Court after a petition had been launched by The Movement for Quality Government, demanding the indicted prime minister vacates all his post. The petition also demanded the court orders Netanyahu to resign from his post as Israel’s premier and appoints a temporary replacement.
Netanyahu’s attorneys emphasized that under Israeli law, a sitting prime minister charged with a crime is not required to step down or vacate any of his ministerial posts, but he nonetheless decided to respect the wishes of those urging him to resign. "It’s unfortunate that the prime minister knowingly violated the law for weeks and only announced the resignation following our petition,” said The Movement for Quality Government said in response. “We call on the court to order the prime minister to resign immediately from all his duties, including as prime minister.”"Netanyahu must fight to prove he’s an innocent man as a private individual and not as prime minister … and not drag the entire country with him to the defendant’s bench.”Earlier on Thursday, the Knesset approved a motion to dissolve itself and hold an unprecedented third national vote in less than a year on March 2, 2020 afterNetanyahu and his main rival Benny Gantz failed to parlay the previous two ballots into a new coalition government.

Iran Says Repelled a 'Highly Organized Cyber-Attack'
Asharq Al-Awsat/December,12/2019
An Iranian minster said Wednesday Tehran had recently thwarted a "highly organized cyber-attack" targeting its e-government infrastructure.
The threat "was successfully identified and repelled by the country's cyber security shield," said telecommunications minister Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi, according to the ISNA and Mehr news agencies. The minister described the attack as "really massive" and "state-sponsored," according to statements reported by Mehr. "I can't disclose any details right now," he said, adding that he could also not yet disclose which country allegedly attempted the attack. But "there will certainly be a report on it later," he said. ISNA reported the minister had said authorities were "studying the extent of this cyber-attack".
In late September, the Iranian energy sector was put "on full alert" to the threat of "physical and cyber" attacks a few days after Tehran denied media reports that its oil installations had been disrupted by a cyber-attack.

Iraq Protesters Form 'Mini-State' in Baghdad's Tahrir Square
Baghdad- Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 12 December, 2019
With border guards, clean-up crews and hospitals, Iraqi protesters have created a mini-state in Baghdad's Tahrir Square, offering the kinds of services they say their government has failed to provide. "We've done more in two months than the state has done in 16 years," said Haydar Chaker, a construction worker from Babylon province, south of the capital. Everyone has their role, from cooking bread to painting murals, with a division of labor and scheduled shifts. Chaker came to Baghdad with his friends after the annual Arbaeen pilgrimage to the Shiite holy city Karbala, his pilgrim's tent and cooking equipment equally useful at a protest encampment. Installed in the iconic square whose name means "liberation", he provides three meals a day to hundreds of protesters, cooking with donated foods. In the morning he coordinates with the surrounding tents, dividing sacks of rice, sugar, flour, and other ingredients then assigning meals, drinks, and sandwiches for volunteers to prepare. The self-reliant encampment is the heart of a protest movement that seeks the radical overhaul of Iraq's political system, and despite frequent power cuts, it never stops beating.
War, a habit
At the entrances to the square, dozens of guards like Abou al-Hassan man makeshift barricades, where men and women search incoming visitors. "We Iraqis rub shoulders with the military from a young age, so we pick up a thing or two," said Hassan, dressed in camouflage fatigues. "We don't need special training to detect saboteurs and keep them out... or to be able to defend our state," he added, alertly scanning the perimeter. But on Friday, their "state" came under attack, when gunmen Iraqi authorities have failed to identify stormed a parking building occupied by protesters. After the massacre that left 24 dead, protesters installed new checkpoints and closed an 18-story building overlooking the square. Infiltrated by intelligence agents and at the mercy of gunmen able to cross police and military roadblocks at will, protesters insist their mini-state remains committed to non-violence. But in a country where the influence and arsenals of pro-Iran armed groups continue to increase, the protest enclave has forged an alliance with another of Iraq's states within a state.Unarmed "blue helmets" from Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr's Saraya al-Salam (Peace Brigades) have intervened to protect protesters.
'My weapon? A brush' -
When protests started in October, Ahmed al-Harithi "abandoned his job" as an obstetrician-gynecologist to protest and later to care for the injured. He learned to coordinate with the paramedics and tuk-tuk drivers who ferried the wounded. Soon, the doctors' and pharmacists' syndicates were organizing a "mini-health ministry" in Tahrir, he said. They coordinated with logistics cells to stock medication that was donated or bought at a discount from sympathetic pharmacies. To light their clinics at night, protesters jerry-rigged connections to the municipal high-tension wires. During daily power cuts, they rely on purchased generators. In front of the field clinics, as tuk-tuks zoom between clusters of protesters, dozens of volunteers sweep the pavement. Tahrir has never been so clean, protesters say, in contrast to its previous neglect by municipal workers. Houda Amer has not been to class in weeks. Instead, the teacher spends her days painting the curbs and railings in the square."My weapon is my paintbrush," she said with a smile. "Our revolution doesn't want to destroy everything," she said. "We are all here to build our nation."

Iraq Suicide Bomber Kills Seven Fighters Loyal to Sadr
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 12/2019
Seven Iraqi fighters were killed north of Baghdad on Thursday when a suicide bomber attacked a base of an armed group led by Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, the army said. The attack, which also wounded three fighters, was carried out by "a suicide terrorist", it said, using its standard term for Islamic State group jihadists. No group immediately claimed responsibility. The attack took place late in the day near Tharthar lake southwest of Samarra, a longtime stronghold of Sunni jihadist groups some 100 kilometres (65 miles) north of Baghdad.
Sadr's Saraya al-Salam (Peace Brigades) force took part in the gruelling Iraqi operation against IS after the jihadists seized a third of Iraq and swathes of neighbouring Syria in 2014.In late 2017, Iraq declared victory over the jihadist group, but its sleeper cells continue to carry out attacks across the country.

Turkey Says U.S. Recognition of Armenian Genocide Endangers U.S.-Turkish
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 12/2019
A U.S. Congress bill to recognise there was a genocide of Armenian people during the Ottoman era is endangering U.S.-Turkish relations, Turkey's government said on Thursday. "The behavior of some members of the U.S. Congress is damaging the Turkish-American ties," Turkey's presidential communication director Fahrettin Altun said on Twitter. He was referring to recent sanctions and the Armenian resolution in Congress. Turkey has long rejected that 1.5 million Armenians were killed in a genocide between 1915 and 1917 as the Ottoman Empire was falling apart.

Turkey Builds Libya Ties in Reaction to Regional Rivals
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 12/2019
Turkey's recent moves with Libya -- threatening troop deployments and signing a contentious maritime deal -- are aimed at shoring up a rare regional ally and preserving access to gas supplies, analysts say.
Ankara has been one of the staunchest supporters of the beleaguered Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli, a relationship that has deepened in the face of an assault to seize the Libyan capital by military strongman Khalifa Haftar since April. As in Syria, the Libyan conflict has become a battle for influence between regional players, with Turkey's bitterest rivals, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, backing Haftar's Libyan National Army. The issue returned to the spotlight after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan welcomed the head of the GNA, Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, to Istanbul last month to sign military and maritime agreements.
"Turkey has found itself a natural ally of the GNA. They share the same opponents in different theatres," said Anas El Gomati, director of Tripoli-based think tank, Sadeq Institute, noting the "commercial and political" reasons behind Ankara's support. "Sarraj has no real force of his own... He badly needs Turkish support to have any chance of counterbalancing Haftar," added Libya specialist Alison Pargeter, of Kings College London. The maritime deal -- which divides much of the Eastern Mediterranean between Turkey and Libya -- is particularly important given the recent discovery of vast gas reserves that has triggered an exploration scramble between adjacent states and international oil companies. Greece responded angrily to the Turkey-Libya deal, expelling the Libyan ambassador and urging the UN to condemn it. Turkey already faces European Union sanctions over ships searching for oil and gas off Cyprus, whose government in Nicosia is not recognised by Turkey. Analysts say the agreement was a response to Turkey being frozen out by others in the region. Earlier this year, energy ministers from Cyprus, Greece, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Italy and the Palestinian territories agreed to create the "East Mediterranean Gas Forum" without Turkey. "Turkey fears that it is being boxed in from its southern flank, faced with plans for a future gas pipeline to link Cypriot gas fields with European markets," said Ege Seckin, an analyst focusing on Turkey at IHS Markit."The maritime boundaries drawn under the deal cover an area that reaches from southwest Turkey to northeast Libya, cutting across the planned route for this pipeline."Libya's GNA is the only international partner that supports Ankara's maritime borders. "If Haftar won the civil war in Libya, Turkey would find itself with no other branch to hold on in the eastern Mediterranean," said Seckin.
Military support
To forestall that outcome, Erdogan said this week that he was ready to send troops if they were requested by Sarraj's government in Tripoli. A UN report said last month several countries were already violating the arms embargo on Libya in place since the overthrow of its long-time dictator Moamer Kadhafi in 2011. Jordan and the UAE regularly supply Haftar's forces, while Turkey supported the GNA, the report said. Turkish and Emirati drones were spotted in Libyan skies during clashes this summer. Erdogan has said Turkey may hold patrols in the Mediterranean, which Secken said could include waters around the Greek island of Crete.  Another motivating factor, added Seckin, is that Turkey sees Haftar as "a Libyan copy" of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Erdogan strongly backed Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood government that was overthrown by Sisi in 2013, and they have been bitter rivals since.
Haftar has previously ordered his forces to target Turkish companies and arrest Turkish nationals. Six Turkish sailors were briefly held by his forces over the summer. Reports of Russian mercenaries supporting Haftar -- so far denied by Moscow -- have added a new element to the dangers for the GNA.
Erdogan has said that he does not wish the situation in Libya to "give birth to another Syria", where Ankara and Moscow are on opposing sides of the eight-year conflict despite joint efforts to end the war.

Moscow, Ankara Draw Borders East Euphrates Between Govt, Opposition
London- Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 12 December, 2019
Russia and Turkey are demarcating the borders between Syrian government forces and pro-Turkish opposition factions in the Raqqa and Hasaka countrysides, said official spokesman for the Turkey-backed Syrian National Army. Spokesman Youssef Hammoud told DPA that what is on ground between Russia and Turkey and the government forces and the national army are interim understandings. He said they aim at keeping the region away from the threat posed by the armed conflict and from the international issues and internationalization in the Security Council. These understandings, he explained, have also contributed to the unprecedented deployment of the Russian army in some of Syria’s northeastern regions. “The army now has military bases in areas northern Syria and is being handed over some bases established by the US army.”“Russia seeks to exist on Syria’s international roads, and it is seeking to control the Aleppo-Damascus and Aleppo-Latakia roads, as well as the Aleppo-Qamishli road, which reaches the Iraqi border,” Hammoud noted. Meanwhile, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) has learned that the US forces prevented a Russian military patrol from crossing in the countryside of al-Qahtaniyah, east of al-Qamishli city. According to SOHR sources, the Russian patrol wanted to explore the area of Tal Allou in al-Qahtaniyah countryside on Wednesday morning, but the US forces prevented them from doing so and forced the Russians to turn back. It is noteworthy that Russians run patrols in Ain Issa and other areas north of Raqqa, and there is a Russian military base in Ain Issa. The SOHR has also monitored a new stage of joint patrols between the Russian forces and their Turkish counterpart, where a joint patrol has been conducted between both parties on Hasakah – Aleppo Highway, aka “M4”.

Gaza Security Official: Unprecedented Stability Along Border with Egypt
Ramallah- Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 12 December, 2019
The commander of Hamas’ National Security Forces in the Gaza Strip, Brigadier General Jihad Muheisen, said that the security situation on the southern borders with Egypt was witnessing unprecedented stability. In statements published by the website of the Interior Ministry in Gaza, Muheisen noted that field monitoring and control imposed by the national security forces in addition to reinforcements at security checkpoints have resolved security gaps along the border. Last month, Asharq Al-Awsat published a report on reinforcement measures implemented by Hamas on the borders with Egypt to better secure the region. The area has been witnessing sporadic infiltration attempts by militants from Gaza to Sinai and vice versa. Sources said that the movement has mobilized additional security forces to thwart infiltration. Hamas relies on security surveillance through security patrols and cameras installed along the border. Muheisen revealed that the movement’s National Security Forces had thwarted 13 attempts of infiltration across the southern border with Egypt in recent months. He said that those were referred to the competent authorities, to take the necessary legal measures against them. There is an additional action plan to boost border control, by increasing security points and intensifying patrols and ambushes to prevent infiltration and smuggling, he underlined. Muheisen added: “We are seeking, during the next stage, to expand the lighting project for the southern borders of the Gaza Strip, over a distance of 14 kilometers, in coordination with the competent authorities.”

Election exit poll indicates majority for UK’s ruling Conservative party
Reuters/Friday, 13 December 2019
Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Conservative Party will win a majority of 86 seats in Britain's election, giving him the numbers in parliament he needs to deliver Brexit on January 31, an exit poll indicated on Thursday. The exit poll showed Johnson's Conservatives would win 368 seats, enough for a comfortable outright majority in the 650-seat parliament. Labour were forecast to win 191 seats, the Scottish National Party 55 seats and the Liberal Democrats 13.Official results will be declared over the next seven hours.
In the last five national elections, only one exit poll has got the outcome wrong – in 2015 when the poll predicted a hung parliament when in fact the Conservatives won a majority, taking 14 more seats than forecast.

EU welcomes clear UK Conservative victory as clarity over Brexit
Reuters/Friday, 13 December 2019
European diplomats on Thursday welcomed the clarity an apparently decisive election victory for the Conservative Party gave to Britain’s stalled withdrawal from the EU, but said it would be challenging to agree on a trade deal by the end of 2020. Exit polls showed the Conservatives of Boris Johnson would enjoy a majority of 86 in the 650-seat British parliament. “What’s certain tonight is that this clarification seems to have come,” France’s European affairs minister Amelie de Montchalin told reporters in Brussels. She said EU leaders would now discuss the mandate to negotiate the future relationship with Britain after the country’s planned exit from the bloc at the end of January. “The most important thing with Brexit is not the way we divorce, it’s what we build afterward,” she said. Britain and the EU have to negotiate a trade deal by the end of 2020 because that is when a transition period for Britain’s withdrawal ends and when trade relations between London and its biggest trading partner – the EU – would revert to World Trade Organization standards. But EU officials warn that negotiating a trade deal with Britain in less than 12 months will be very difficult, as normally such agreements take years.
“(It is) a tall order to move on the future relationship in such a short time,” one EU official said.

Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the US visits Florida base hit by shooting attack
Ismaeel Naar, Al Arabiya English/Friday, 13 December 2019
Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States has visited a US naval base in Florida on Thursday to extend her condolences for a shooting attack by a Saudi Air Force officer that killed three people last week, the Saudi Arabian embassy said in a statement. Princess Reema bint Bandar al-Saud, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the US, said Saudi Arabia would remain “fully engaged” and provide assistance to American authorities in the ongoing investigations. “Ambassador Princess Reema bint Bandar Al Saud, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, visited the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida on Thursday to personally extend her deepest condolences for the tragedy that unfolded last week and to reinforce Saudi Arabia’s full cooperation with US authorities in investigating this senseless act of violence,” the statement read. “During her visit, the Ambassador met with the command of the base and reiterated her condemnation of this horrific attack. The ambassador stressed that she would remain fully engaged on the matter and would provide any assistance possible to accelerate the investigation,” the statement added. According to an FBI report released earlier this week, investigators said they believe Saeed Alshamrani, 21, acted alone when he killed three people and wounded eight at the navy base in Pensacola, Florida.

US Congress adopts resolution recognizing Armenian genocide
Agencies/Thursday, 12 December 2019
The US Congress on Thursday formally recognized the 1915-1917 murder of up to 1.5 million Armenians as genocide. The Senate’s passage of the repeatedly stalled resolution is expected to anger Turkey, which insists the Armenians died as a result of World War I, not at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. Armenians say the mass killings of their people from 1915 to 1917 amounted to genocide, a claim recognized by some 30 countries. Turkey strongly denies the accusation of genocide and puts the death toll in the hundreds of thousands. The US House of Representatives first passed the resolution on October 29 in a vote of 405-11, featuring strong bipartisan support. Two weeks later Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan brought up the issue during his visit to the White House on November 13. Standing next to Trump, Erdogan warned that “some historical developments and allegations are being used in order to dynamite our reciprocal and bilateral relations.”Allies in the international military alliance NATO, the US and Turkey are also currently at odds over Ankara’s decision to procure S-400 Russian defense systems. Turkey said on Wednesday it would retaliate against any US sanctions over its purchase of the S-400 defenses.

Armenia PM hails ‘courageous’ genocide vote in US Congress
Agencies/Friday, 13 December 2019
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on Thursday hailed as a “victory of justice and truth” a US Congress resolution formally recognizing as genocide the mass killings of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey a century ago.“On behalf of the Armenian people, I express gratitude to the US Congress,” he wrote on Twitter, adding that the resolution was a “courageous step towards the prevention of genocides in future.” Armenians say the mass killings of their people from 1915 to 1917 amounted to genocide, a claim recognized by some 30 countries. Turkey strongly denies the accusation of genocide and puts the death toll in the hundreds of thousands.

Algeria Holds Presidential Vote Fiercely Opposed by Protesters
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 12/2019
After almost 10 months of political turmoil, Algeria on Thursday held a presidential vote bitterly opposed by a protest movement that sees it as a regime ploy to cling on to power. All 61,000 polling stations around the North African country opened as planned at 8 am (0700 GMT), the official APS news agency reported. Five candidates are in the running, all of them widely rejected as "children of the regime" of former president Abdelaziz Bouteflika, whom people power ousted in April after two decades in office. Turnout was expected to be extremely low after demonstrators shouting "no vote" again pressed their demand for a boycott on the eve of the polls, facing off with truncheon-wielding riot police in Algiers. "How can we trust those who betrayed the country and helped Bouteflika?" read one placard at the rally, which saw scores arrested and many wounded in clashes with security forces. Polls were scheduled to close at 1800 GMT but the result may not be announced until Friday, as it was after previous elections already marked by high abstention rates. Whoever wins will struggle to be accepted by the electorate in the north African country, where many citizens rail against a military-backed regime they see as inept, corrupt and unable to manage the flagging economy."None of the five candidates can hope to be considered legitimate" in the eyes of the protesters, said Anthony Skinner, Middle East and North Africa director at risk analysis company Verisk Maplecroft.
He predicted that "the vote will be boycotted on a large scale".
'No to the system'
In an early indication of mass abstentions, polling stations at Algerian embassies abroad have stayed almost empty since they opened Saturday, with the few expatriates who did show up weathering insults by protesters. The "Hirak" street movement kicked off when Bouteflika, 82, announced in February he would seek a fifth term in office. Since then protesters have stayed on the streets for more than 40 weeks, demanding the total dismantling of the system that has ruled Algeria since independence from France in 1962. The military high command, which long wielded power from the shadows, has been forced to take a more visible role and has pushed for the election as a way to resolve the political crisis. Demonstrators have also directed their ire at the powerful army chief Ahmed Gaid Salah, who has emerged as Algeria's de facto strongman. A previous poll set for July was scrapped for lack of viable candidates and interim president Abdelkader Bensalah's term technically ended five months ago. Given the broad opposition, the five candidates have run low-key campaigns, usually under heavy police protection and often being drowned out by hecklers. All of them in the past either supported Bouteflika or participated in his government -- two as prime ministers and one as a minister. This week saw Algerian courts hand down heavy jail sentences in high-profile corruption trials for two other former prime ministers, Ahmed Ouyahia and Abdelmalek Sellal. But even those verdicts did little to win over the protesters, who see the trials as little more than a high-level purge in a struggle between still-powerful regime insiders. Protests have been illegal in Algiers since 2001 and police have only tolerated weekly Hirak protests on Fridays and student marches on Tuesdays. Wednesday marked the anniversary of the outbreak of major demonstrations against French colonial power in Algeria in 1960, and calls online urged protesters to converge on the Algiers square commemorating it. Meriem, a 62-year-old Algiers resident, marched with her daughter and daughter-in-law brandishing red cards to oppose the election.
"I'm marching to say no to the vote," she said, "no to the Bouteflika system without Bouteflika."

Libyan Speaker Says Turkey-GNA Deal Invalid, EU Leaders Set to Reject it
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 12 December, 2019
Libyan Parliament Speaker Aguila Saleh Issa on Thursday said he disagreed with an accord between the Government of National Accord (GNA) and Turkey establishing maritime boundaries which has infuriated Athens. Greece expelled the Libyan ambassador last week over the Nov. 27 accord establishing a sea corridor between Libya and Turkey and in areas where Greece considers it has maritime rights. "We are here to stress that this specific agreement is rejected, it is invalid," said Aguila Saleh in Athens. "Those that signed it do not have any legal authority to do so, since the government itself was rejected. It did fail a confidence vote twice and has not been legally sworn in at the House of Representatives," Saleh told reporters through an interpreter. He met with the Greek parliament speaker and with the country's foreign minister, Nikos Dendias.Speaking after the meeting, Dendias thanked Saleh and welcomed the Libyan parliament's position “according to which the memoranda which have been signed ... are void and without content, are unenforceable and create instability in the region.”“They threaten peace and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean,” Dendias said, adding that Greece was prepared to help in efforts to restore peace in Libya. On Tuesday Athens said it had lodged objections with the United Nations, saying the accord violated international law. European Union leaders are set to reject the maritime border agreement as invalid and insist that the pact interferes with the rights of other Mediterranean Sea countries, according to a draft summit statement. In the statement, the leaders say the agreement “infringes upon the sovereign rights of third states, does not comply with the Law of the Sea and cannot produce any legal consequences for third states.” The text, seen Thursday by The Associated Press and drawn up for a two-day EU summit underway in Brussels, was a draft so its exact wording could change. The draft document continues that the EU “unequivocally reaffirms its solidarity with Greece and Cyprus regarding these actions by Turkey.”Arriving for the summit in Brussels, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said he would seek help from his European counterparts, “and I am sure I will receive, their active support in the face of Turkish provocation.” Mitsotakis said the deal between the GNA and Turkey "grossly violates the sovereign rights of (our) country and has no legal effect. Europe is raising diplomatic walls against Turkish provocations, and in all this process our country is not alone. It has very powerful allies.”

Canadian opposition Conservative leader resigns
The Associated Press/Thursday, 12 December 2019
Canada’s opposition Conservative leader said Thursday he will resign as party leader after weeks of party infighting. The decision came weeks after he lost the federal election in October and amid calls from within his own party to resign. Andrew Scheer, 40, called it one of the most difficult decisions he’s made in his life. He will stay on until a new leader is elected. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau won a second term in Canada’s October elections despite losing the majority in Parliament. It was an unexpectedly strong result following a series of scandals that had tarnished his image as a liberal icon. The vote led several Conservative officials to call for Scheer to step aside. Scheer made his announcement to party members in Parliament and later stood up in Parliament to make a public announcement.

Pope presses anti-nuke, environment call in peace message
The Associated Press, Vatican City/Thursday, 12 December 2019
Pope Francis is pressing his anti-nuke campaign in his annual peace message, saying the fear of nuclear annihilation embodied by the doctrine of deterrence provides a false sense of security that should be replaced with policies based on fraternity and mutual trust. Francis’ message for the World Day of Peace, which the Vatican celebrates January 1, was issued Thursday. It followed on the major theme of his recent trip to Japan, where Francis denounced as “immoral” not only the use of nuclear weapons but their possession. He also warned against using nuclear energy, given the environmental risks it poses.
As he did in Japan, Francis tied ecological concerns to matters of international peace and security, saying peace requires a new way of interacting with one another and the planet. “Faced with the consequences of our hostility towards others, our lack of respect for our common home or our abusive exploitation of natural resources - seen only as a source of immediate profit, regardless of local communities, the common good and nature itself - we are in need of an ecological conversion,” he wrote. “All this gives us deeper motivation and a new way to dwell in our common home, to accept our differences, to respect and celebrate the life that we have received and share, and to seek living conditions and models of society that favor the continued flourishing of life and the development of the common good of the entire human family,” he wrote.

North Korea says US ‘foolish’ for calling UN security meeting
Seoul, AFP/Thursday, 12 December 2019
North Korea’s foreign ministry on Thursday criticized the United States as “foolish” for convening a UN Security Council meeting over growing concern about short-range rockets fired from the isolated state. Washington on Wednesday used the meeting to warn of consequences for North Korea if it followed through with its promise of an ominous “Christmas gift” in the event that the US does not come up with concessions by the end of the year. “By arranging the meeting, the US did a foolish thing which will boomerang on it, and decisively helped us make a definite decision on what way to choose,” North Korea’s foreign ministry spokesman said in a statement carried by the official KCNA news agency. Trump has met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to discuss Pyongyang’s nuclear program, but frustrated North Korea is seeking a comprehensive deal that includes sanctions relief.
“The US talks about dialogue, whenever it opens its mouth, but it is too natural that the US has nothing to present before us though dialogue may open,” it added. North Korea said it has “nothing to lose more and we are ready to take a countermeasure corresponding to anything that the US opts for.”
At the UN Security Council, US ambassador Kelly Craft voiced concern that North Korea was indicating it would test intercontinental ballistic missiles “which are designed to attack the continental United States with nuclear weapons.”But she said the United States, which used its presidency of the Security Council to convene the meeting, wanted to work towards a deal. She appeared, however, to rule out meeting North Korea’s demands for an offer in the final weeks of 2019: “Let me be clear: The United States and the Security Council have a goal -- not a deadline.”

Toll rises to 16 as more bodies found from Ukraine college fire
AFP, KievThursday, 12 December 2019
Firefighters have pulled two more bodies from a college building in Ukraine's southern port of Odessa that burned in a fire last week, authorities said Thursday, bringing the number of dead to 16. Prosecutors have arrested the director of the college on charges of professional negligence and placed her under house arrest. The bodies of the last two people missing following the fire were found late on Wednesday, the emergency services said in a statement. Firefighters spent eight days combing through the debris of the six-story building, which caught fire last Wednesday. Another 30 people were injured in the blaze, with eight still in hospital as of Thursday. The College of Economics, Law, and the Hotel and Restaurant Business is in central Odessa and has some 400 graduates per year.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on December 12-13/2019
No Migration From West Bank... Jordan Has Nothing to Do With Balfour Declaration
Saleh Al-Qallab/Asharq Al Awsat/December 12/2019
*Former Jordanian information minister
Indeed, it is no coincidence that among two former prominent Jordanian officials who had taken part in taking difficult and decisive decisions, one would warn against a transfer, a mass migration, from West Bank to Jordan and the other against a sequel to the Balfour Declaration targeting the east of the Jordan River, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and would be implemented by Israel soon under the Zionist slogan, “From the Nile to the Euphrates.” Both these officials are from Nablus, a city that was and still is referred to as the Mountain of Fire for playing a vital role in the successive Palestinian revolutions.
In a previous article for Asharq al-Awsat, I had insisted that even if extremist Israelis and Zionist Jews, especially in the United States, considered expelling Palestinians from what was left of Palestine, if it were possible before, was not possible today. These remaining parts of Palestine are populated by more than 3 million Palestinians who will cling to their homeland, and no mass migrations have been recorded among them for more than half a century. The cities and villages of West Bank are well-built and are home to the best universities and schools; its people live under European standards.
It is impossible for a mass migration of the people of the West Bank who are as rooted in their land as the centuries-old, even millennia-old, olive trees in that part of Palestine. It is well known that some Israelis who take their distant future into consideration reject this and that the Western World, mainly Europe, also rejects this. Therefore, if such a “transfer” were possible in 1967, it no longer is, even if extremist Zionists wanted it and had the support of the American President Donald Trump.
Despite the fears expressed in all seriousness by those whom we respect and admire and discussed this issue with, the way it was presented is out of the question. More important, is that the people of this part of Palestine have learned a lot after what happened in 1948 and in June 1967. This made them very attached to the West Bank, and what is worth noting in this regard is that the number of people who returned to their homeland after the infamous Oslo Accords has exceeded half a million. This is despite the fact that the Israelis kept transgressing these agreements and the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was the only one who was serious about implementing them, famously gave his life for this conviction.
Importantly, and undisputedly, the motivations behind those warnings against mass migration are cautions stemming from bitter experiences. We must affirm, however, that it is entirely out of the question, as these people are holding very tightly to their land. There will be no migration from this land, come what may.
This is one issue. Another is that caution compelled the former Jordanian Prime Minister, Taher al-Masri, to warn against any regional divisions in Jordanian society that may weaken Jordan’s position visa vie the Zionist project in the east of the Jordan River, considering that it was part of the mighty Balfour Declaration, something that Israel and Christian Zionists are pursuing so that they complete their occupation of historical Palestine and finish the Jordanian part of this project.
Of course, the former Jordanian Prime Minister deserves nothing but respect and admiration for his fears of this grave issue, but what is known in this regard that the cursed, and not mighty, Balfour Declaration did not indicate anything to do with the east of Jordan River as part of the Zionist project, and no text indicates a Jordanian part of what Israel and Christian Zionists are pursuing other than the notorious Zionist slogan, “From the Nile to the Euphrates.”
No doubt that the Oslo Accords have miserably failed after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, which left matters in the hands of more extreme Zionists who undermined the foundations of this agreement in the region and closed the horizon for Palestinian liberation and the establishment of their own independent country. This essentially means that if things keep moving in this direction, then all agreements in the area are transgressed, from Camp David, Wadi Araba Treaty, to Oslo, and there will be no disputing that the basis for this whole Middle Eastern struggle is the Palestinian cause.
Perhaps extreme Zionists dream of East Jordan after completing their project at the level of Palestine, which will never happen. It is necessary to affirm that the East of the Jordan River, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, was never mentioned in the infamous Balfour Declaration. The truth is that those who championed the Arab project wanted the Levant and Iraq to be one Arab country. Of course, this did not work from the beginning, given the circumstances of that well-known historical period.
It is, therefore, a big mistake to say that the Zionist project includes the East of the Jordan River as part of the Balfour Declaration, as no official and unofficial documents indicate this. Consequently, we ought not to treat the issue this way, and it is well known that whoever keeps talking about the wolf will find the wolf at his doorstep.
­­In all cases, what is supposedly known to every Jordanian and Arab is that the only time that Israelis tried to cross the Jordan River in an attempt to occupy the Western As-Salt Heights was on the 21st of March, 1968 and that the great Battle of Karameh took place between the Jordanian Arab Army alongside their Palestinian Fedayeen brethren, and defeated the Israeli Army. This is still an example of the fact that it is possible to defeat the Israelis and to expel them from every occupied Palestinian and Arab land.
This means that even if the Israelis think the way the former Prime Minister Taher al-Nasri describes their ambitions, then they will not only face one Karameh but a thousand, and that the Jordanians will not be an easy bite in the Zionist project East of the Jordan River, as all Jordanians will all become Fedayeen. They should be sure that if such a battle were to take place, it would be a nationalist struggle that Iraqis, Khaleejis, and others will participate in it, just like they did before.

No Migration From West Bank... Jordan Has Nothing to Do With Balfour Declaration
Saleh Al-Qallab/Asharq Al Awsat/December 12/2019
*Former Jordanian information minister
Indeed, it is no coincidence that among two former prominent Jordanian officials who had taken part in taking difficult and decisive decisions, one would warn against a transfer, a mass migration, from West Bank to Jordan and the other against a sequel to the Balfour Declaration targeting the east of the Jordan River, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and would be implemented by Israel soon under the Zionist slogan, “From the Nile to the Euphrates.” Both these officials are from Nablus, a city that was and still is referred to as the Mountain of Fire for playing a vital role in the successive Palestinian revolutions.
In a previous article for Asharq al-Awsat, I had insisted that even if extremist Israelis and Zionist Jews, especially in the United States, considered expelling Palestinians from what was left of Palestine, if it were possible before, was not possible today. These remaining parts of Palestine are populated by more than 3 million Palestinians who will cling to their homeland, and no mass migrations have been recorded among them for more than half a century. The cities and villages of West Bank are well-built and are home to the best universities and schools; its people live under European standards.
It is impossible for a mass migration of the people of the West Bank who are as rooted in their land as the centuries-old, even millennia-old, olive trees in that part of Palestine. It is well known that some Israelis who take their distant future into consideration reject this and that the Western World, mainly Europe, also rejects this. Therefore, if such a “transfer” were possible in 1967, it no longer is, even if extremist Zionists wanted it and had the support of the American President Donald Trump.
Despite the fears expressed in all seriousness by those whom we respect and admire and discussed this issue with, the way it was presented is out of the question. More important, is that the people of this part of Palestine have learned a lot after what happened in 1948 and in June 1967. This made them very attached to the West Bank, and what is worth noting in this regard is that the number of people who returned to their homeland after the infamous Oslo Accords has exceeded half a million. This is despite the fact that the Israelis kept transgressing these agreements and the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was the only one who was serious about implementing them, famously gave his life for this conviction.
Importantly, and undisputedly, the motivations behind those warnings against mass migration are cautions stemming from bitter experiences. We must affirm, however, that it is entirely out of the question, as these people are holding very tightly to their land. There will be no migration from this land, come what may.
This is one issue. Another is that caution compelled the former Jordanian Prime Minister, Taher al-Masri, to warn against any regional divisions in Jordanian society that may weaken Jordan’s position visa vie the Zionist project in the east of the Jordan River, considering that it was part of the mighty Balfour Declaration, something that Israel and Christian Zionists are pursuing so that they complete their occupation of historical Palestine and finish the Jordanian part of this project.
Of course, the former Jordanian Prime Minister deserves nothing but respect and admiration for his fears of this grave issue, but what is known in this regard that the cursed, and not mighty, Balfour Declaration did not indicate anything to do with the east of Jordan River as part of the Zionist project, and no text indicates a Jordanian part of what Israel and Christian Zionists are pursuing other than the notorious Zionist slogan, “From the Nile to the Euphrates.”
No doubt that the Oslo Accords have miserably failed after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, which left matters in the hands of more extreme Zionists who undermined the foundations of this agreement in the region and closed the horizon for Palestinian liberation and the establishment of their own independent country. This essentially means that if things keep moving in this direction, then all agreements in the area are transgressed, from Camp David, Wadi Araba Treaty, to Oslo, and there will be no disputing that the basis for this whole Middle Eastern struggle is the Palestinian cause.
Perhaps extreme Zionists dream of East Jordan after completing their project at the level of Palestine, which will never happen. It is necessary to affirm that the East of the Jordan River, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, was never mentioned in the infamous Balfour Declaration. The truth is that those who championed the Arab project wanted the Levant and Iraq to be one Arab country. Of course, this did not work from the beginning, given the circumstances of that well-known historical period.
It is, therefore, a big mistake to say that the Zionist project includes the East of the Jordan River as part of the Balfour Declaration, as no official and unofficial documents indicate this. Consequently, we ought not to treat the issue this way, and it is well known that whoever keeps talking about the wolf will find the wolf at his doorstep.
­­In all cases, what is supposedly known to every Jordanian and Arab is that the only time that Israelis tried to cross the Jordan River in an attempt to occupy the Western As-Salt Heights was on the 21st of March, 1968 and that the great Battle of Karameh took place between the Jordanian Arab Army alongside their Palestinian Fedayeen brethren, and defeated the Israeli Army. This is still an example of the fact that it is possible to defeat the Israelis and to expel them from every occupied Palestinian and Arab land.
This means that even if the Israelis think the way the former Prime Minister Taher al-Nasri describes their ambitions, then they will not only face one Karameh but a thousand, and that the Jordanians will not be an easy bite in the Zionist project East of the Jordan River, as all Jordanians will all become Fedayeen. They should be sure that if such a battle were to take place, it would be a nationalist struggle that Iraqis, Khaleejis, and others will participate in it, just like they did before.

Abdul Karim Qasim and the Difficult Path of Patriotism in Iraq
Hazem Saghieh/Asharq Al Awsat/December 12/2019
When Saddam Hussein’s regime fell in 2003, photos of leaders and clerics killed by Saddam rose in Baghdad. But another image, from an earlier era, rose higher than the others. It is the photo of Abdul Karim Qasim, who ruled Iraq between 1958 and 1963.
Qasim, despite his military and arbitrary dictatorship, remained the most prominent symbol of Iraqi patriotism in the country’s modern history: As a result of the coup that he led on July 14, 1958, Iraq emerged from the policy of alliances, of which Baghdad was the most important capital. In his struggle with the Arab nationalists and the Baathists, he was establishing the Iraqi patriotism that is not affiliated with Nasserite Egypt.
Qasim - the son of a Sunni father and a Shiite mother – has always remained sensitive to the issue of national unity that transcends all confessions.
This attachment to Qasim the “leader” was the first source of thirst for stable patriotism. The ownership of Iraq was given to non-Iraqi Faisal bin Hussein. As for the new Iraqis - the Kurds, they were bombed by the British Mandate Air Force because they revolted, under the leadership of Mahmoud Hafid.
In 1932, a quarter of a century before the “decolonization”, the country became nominally independent, but the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty had predated independence two years earlier. Thus, independence was limited and formal, preserving most of the colonial force’s privileges.
However, the British were not the worst cause of the Iraqis’ sufferings. The year 1933 witnessed the massacre of the Assyrians of Iraq, and in 1941, the Farhud was carried out against the country’s Jews.
Before these two dates, there were enough signs of disintegration among the most prominent components of the country: This happened with the publication of Anis Nsouli’s book in 1927 on the Umayyad State in the Levant; when Sateh al-Husari took over the directorate of higher education between 1923 and 1927; and when Poet Muhammad Mahdi Al-Jawahiri was dismissed from the education corps and his nationality was withdrawn; in addition to the famous controversy between Al-Husari and Fadel Al-Jamali.
In the summer of 1927 specifically, the security forces collided with the worshippers taking part in Ashura.
Moreover, in 1934, under the government of Arab nationalist Yassin al-Hashemi, Muharram processions were banned, and a Shiite rebellion resulted in the bombing of the Diwaniyah Brigade…
Confessional conflict was fostered by a firm and powerful tribal foundation in the center, the South as well as in the North, along with a worsening social situation.
All of this affected political stability: between 1932 and the proclamation of the Republic in 1958, Iraq knew 45 governments, an average of eight months for one government, and eight of these governments were formed under the pressure of the army.
Iraq also witnessed two coups: The Bakr Sidqi in 1936, and Rashid Ali al-Kilani and the officers of the “Golden Square” in 1941. The country also saw three disturbances and uprisings: in 1948, 1952 and 1956.
The era of Abdul Karim Qasim was like a promise of a homeland, stability, and justice. But the promise was never fulfilled.
In addition to Qasim’s dictatorship and tremendous errors, especially his clash with the Kurds of the North, the new regime found itself confronting those insisting on preventing national formation.
Those were an extension of the Arab nationalist tradition influenced by fascism, prioritizing Arabism over the question of Iraq.
This tradition, which started with al-Kilani and al-Hashemi, passing through the "Independence Party" and reaching the “Baath Party”, has succeeded, through a military coup, in overthrowing and executing Qasim.
For months, during which much blood was shed, the Baathists dominated the country, before being toppled by less bloody and ideological nationalist partners.
However, the era of Abdul Salam Arif al-Nasiri did not succeed in establishing unity with Egypt, while his brother Abdul Rahman failed in almost everything.
As for the rule of the Baath Party, which returned to power after the 1968 coup, its internal violence instigated a number of external wars that weakened the country as much as it undermined its internal unity.
After the fall of Saddam Hussein at the hands of the Americans, the American era soon diminished, paving the way for the Iranian rule.
But in the meantime, and in the shadow of the two eras, finding a unified slogan has become absurd: De-Baathification, Nuri al-Maliki, and the Popular Mobilization are anti-Sunni slogans; while the resistance and "ISIS" are anti-Shiite titles.
Amid a sea of names and slogans, a civil war breaks out in 2006. As for the Kurds, they remained the sons of a separate history, especially after the eruption of a dispute over Kirkuk.
But if the path of patriotism in Iraq is difficult and long - perhaps more difficult and longer than in Syria and Lebanon - the current revolution raised this question again.
The question was brought up when the Iraqi Shiites rose up against Iran. It was also brought up when the Sunni Iraqis responded to calls in Fallujah, Tikrit, Mosul, and Ramadi in solidarity with Al-Najaf.
It is, of course, just the beginning of a difficult and long road. It is a path that requires the expansion of the common areas between the components of the country and the end of the Sunnis’ marginalization complex. A democratic and civil version of Abdul Karim Qasim is also needed this time.

Boris Johnson Is Hiding the Real Price of Brexit
Therese Raphael/Bloomberg/December,12/2019
With only a few days left before the UK votes, it’s unlikely many voters will be swayed by the leaked Treasury department documents Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn dramatically revealed at a press conference on Friday. And yet the papers provide a glimpse of the hangover that could follow any “Brexit bounce” should the Conservatives win the parliamentary majority predicted by the polls.
The 15-page internal briefing document, marked “official sensitive,” examines the financial implications of various aspects of Brexit in relation to Northern Ireland. Anyone looking at the volume of trade at stake would be forgiven for thinking these are mere details, the snag-list a new homeowner goes through with a builder. Northern Ireland represents just 2% of the British economy, after all. But the Northern Ireland trade arrangements are of huge significance because of the sometimes fragile peace achieved by the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. It also has a bearing on the UK’s own increasingly fragile constitutional order. Tory leader Boris Johnson enraged his former allies in Democratic Unionist Party because his Brexit deal creates a de facto trade border between the UK mainland and the province; the leaked memo won’t have improved their mood.
Article 6 of the Northern Ireland Protocol in Johnson’s revised deal says “nothing in the protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom’s internal market.” The second page of the leaked document quotes this undertaking. But it then goes on to list the many possible interpretations of the term “unfettered access.” Does it mean a “lack of restrictions on goods?” Or regulatory alignment between the mainland and Northern Ireland, or the reduction of administrative costs when transferring goods, or the elimination of physical inspections? It’s unclear.
Northern Ireland exports 11.4 billion pounds ($14.9 billion) of goods to England, Scotland, and Wales, 53% of its total external sales. A small group of large companies, accounting for nearly 40% of export volume, will more easily absorb any new costs. But most businesses exporting from Northern Ireland are small- and medium-sized enterprises. Customs declarations and documentary checks “will be highly disruptive to the Northern Ireland economy,” says the Treasury document, suggesting the government act to reduce the burden on smaller traders.
The Treasury assumes that “unfettered access” will mean goods traveling from Northern Ireland to the mainland will be part of a common area for value-added tax, and that there will be no tariffs, quotas or “rules of origin” checks. But it acknowledges that there would be checks on plant and animal goods and customs declarations. There are plenty of question marks (literally indicated as such in the document) on what other trade frictions will exist in the new regime.
As for east-to-west trade — from the mainland into Northern Ireland — much will depend on negotiations with the European Union, which will establish the terms of reference for assessing which goods are “at risk” of landing in the EU’s single market by crossing the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Most alarming, the leaked document says that physical checks and customs declarations going both ways “will be highly disruptive to the NI economy.” The result will be higher consumer prices, which will hit retail jobs. Johnson constantly dismisses the possibility of such frictions, but the Treasury is clear about the danger of Northern Ireland without checks becoming a back door into Britain for goods that avoid import duties or don’t meet origin requirements or UK regulatory standards.
Then there are the so-called “high level” effects. The physical separation of Northern Ireland “has the potential to undermine the coherence of the UK’s internal market and embed a fundamental asymmetry in its functioning,” the Treasury says. Johnson’s best hope at avoiding the checks would be a close regulatory relationship with Europe — exactly what his his predecessor Theresa May’s much-hated Chequers proposals sought. But that would lose him the support of Brexiters and the possibility of a trade deal with US President Donald Trump. And it’s not just the Treasury that sees the practical flaws in Johnson’s plans. The Financial Times reported this week on a document from the country’s Brexit ministry, which warns that the government may not have the new Northern Ireland trade system ready to go before it concludes broader trade talks with the EU.
None of this has been subject to cross-examination during the election campaign, beyond Corbyn’s belated press conference. Brexit secretary Steve Barclay admitted to the new Northern Ireland trade frictions at a House of Lords hearing in October, but Johnson has denied repeatedly that his deal would lead to any such hassles, frictions or uncertainties. In some ways, Johnson’s refusal to deal with reality is the bigger problem. With frank discussion and transparency, the public might be prepared for a degree of disruption. But the Tory leader is either refusing to engage honestly with his deal, or he doesn’t understand it. Neither bodes well. As for Thursday’s election, none of this will keep most English voters awake at night. For some time, the polls have shown that Brexit supporters would willingly see Northern Ireland or Scotland leave the union if it meant getting Brexit done. Still, the revelation underscores just how much is yet to be negotiated and what’s at stake for Britain’s own union. It’s a reminder too of the trust issues that have always plagued Johnson. How big a problem this becomes for him depends on the size of his majority if he wins. After that, much will depend on the EU, where he’ll have to negotiate the terms of those frictions he denies will exist.

Saudi Arabia and Israel: Who Needs Whom?
Frank Musmar, BESA/December 12, 2019
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,370, December 12, 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Extreme instability and mistrust are heightening tensions in the Persian Gulf, especially between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. America’s appetite for military engagement has waned after nearly two decades of war and the region lacks any form of collective security framework, leaving a considerable security vacuum. The Gulf states’ overtures to Israel are part of an effort to salvage America’s security commitment to the area while shoring up a relationship that can mitigate Tehran’s rising influence.
The relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia has been warming up for some time. Both countries were alarmed by what their respective governments saw as the Obama administration’s weakness in the face of a rising Iran. Both opposed the Iran nuclear agreement (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA). Both want to see much stricter action taken against Tehran’s spreading influence, not least in Syria. But with all of that said, Israel—which does not import anything from the Gulf—would prefer not to interfere directly in the Saudi-Iranian conflict, as it is unlikely to benefit from such interference and could in fact be seriously harmed.
The Saudi-aligned Gulf states would like to reinvigorate Washington’s interest in the region, but this is a harder sell than it once was—and not only because Americans have tired of military engagement in distant conflicts. President Donald Trump stated outright that America does not need Gulf oil, and asserts that the beneficiaries of this trade should look after themselves with only general support and backing from the US.
Adding to the challenge facing Riyadh is its leadership’s tarnished image. Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman was widely (if ineffectually) condemned for allegedly ordering the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the kingdom is increasingly criticized for its conduct in the war in Yemen. One of the few plays open to Riyadh is to make peaceful overtures toward Israel, a move likely to boost its stock in Washington even as it offers other potential benefits.
Saudi Arabia is facing serious consequences resulting from its clashes with Shiite Iran and its proxies. About half the country’s oil production was disrupted—5 million barrels a day—as a result of drone strikes by Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels on the extensive Saudi Aramco oil facilities in Abqaiq on September 14, 2019. According to the website of Al-Masirah, a Houthi-run satellite news channel, the group vows additional attacks if Saudi coalition forces do not withdraw from Yemen.
The strike proved that Riyadh is vulnerable to attacks from Tehran and its proxies. Further Houthi strikes on the Saudi oil business would be disastrous because oil is the central pillar of the kingdom’s economy and the cornerstone of its development. According to the IMF’s latest data, oil receipts accounted for around 85% of Saudi Arabia’s exports and almost 90% of fiscal revenue, and the oil sector comprises over 40% of overall GDP. Saudi Arabia’s budget deficit each year, depending on the price of Brent crude, is $40-60 billion.
Saudi Arabia urgently needs an alternative export route for its oil, and that is a further reason for Riyadh’s overtures toward Jerusalem. The kingdom is already talking to Israel about a pipeline to Eilat, only 40km away, for the import of Israeli natural gas. By extension, this route could be developed as an alternative way to get Saudi oil to the deep harbor of Haifa for export to Europe and the West. This would be a much safer, faster, and more secure way to guarantee Saudi exports to the west, as it would avoid Iranian aggression at the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea. It would also save the considerable transit fees involved in crossing the Suez Canal.
This route could open a new world of export markets for Saudi Arabia. At the moment, the kingdom is looking to import natural gas, but in time, it may move to develop its own natural gas reserves, which are the fifth-largest in the world.
Israel is developing its natural gas reserves, but does not possess enough to justify building an export pipeline to Europe. A link with Saudi Arabia, however, could tip the scales in favor of an Eastern Mediterranean pipeline, which could be extremely lucrative for both partners.
Whether or not Saudi Arabia is pressing for war with Iran, its options to avoid one are narrowing. The kingdom, which is within range of Iranian missiles, has much more to lose from such a war than does Iran. “Saudi Arabia will not support a war with Iran that has a Saudi return address on it,” said Joshua Landis, director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma.
Tehran continues to take advantage of the many disruptions across the Middle East to spread its influence. It is forming a land bridge to connect Iran through Iraq to Syria, the Israeli border at the Golan, and Lebanon (the “Shiite Crescent”). Shiites make up just 10% of the world’s Muslim population but are a massive majority in Iran, which has used Shiite movements elsewhere to assert its regional hegemony.
A completed Shiite Crescent would represent a serious challenge to Saudi interests in the region. It would threaten vital trade routes and the security of the region as a whole. It would make intervention in Iranian-dominated areas even more complicated, given the potential for escalation between Saudi Arabia and Iran-backed forces. More broadly, the Iranian presence fuels a growing sectarianism that will pose a threat to regional stability for years to come. Riyadh will do what it can to mitigate that threat, even going so far as to extend a friendly hand to Israel.
*Dr. Frank Musmar is a financial and performance management specialist.

Tobin: Iran’s Regime Will Fall if U.S. “Keeps Pressure On”
 Gary C. Gambill and Marilyn Stern/Middle East Forum Radio
Middle East Forum Radio host Gregg Roman spoke on December 4 with Jonathan S. Tobin, editor in chief of the Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) and a contributing writer for National Review, who called in a recent op-ed for the Trump administration to exploit a “historic moment of Iranian weakness” by ramping up pressure on its Islamist regime.
Tobin emphasized that recent waves of protests in Iran “are a greater threat to the regime than it has faced in the last forty years of its existence,” judging from the amount of violence needed to suppress them. This puts Iran at an inflection point similar to that during the Obama administration when “international sanctions … put it in a very difficult place.” Unfortunately, at that time Iran’s ruling mullahs were “rescued by the weakness of the Obama administration and its willingness to make a … nuclear deal with them at any price.”
For starters, the Trump administration should further ramp up economic pressure on the regime. “As draconian as the sanctions have been for Iran up until now, they can get worse. The United States can seek to embargo all oil sales from Iran,” says Tobin. “Trump hasn’t gone quite all the way to really strangle the Iranian economy.”
Secondly, the Trump administration must take European countries to task for their continuing, if largely ineffective, attempts to circumvent U.S. sanctions on Iran via INSTEX, a bartering mechanism established at the beginning of the year to enable trade outside the U.S. financial system. Iran “is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and the Europeans are looking to keep a lifeline and the money flow to the terrorists.”
Finding a way to “slap the Iranians down without escalating” is no easy task.
Thirdly, the Trump administration must respond more forcefully to Iranian provocations, such as attacks on oil tankers. However, he acknowledges that finding a way to “slap the Iranians down without escalating … into a conflagration that the United States can’t control” is no easy task.
According to Tobin, Iran’s extraordinary provocations over the past nine months are not a reflection of regime confidence, but rather are efforts to “distract everyone from the fact that it cannot withstand the pressures” of tightening sanctions. The Trump administration understands this – that “the more extreme the Iranians get, it shows that this policy is working,” but “has erred too much on the idea of ‘these are just bluffs, let’s not play into their hands.'”
“This is an administration whose foreign policy has always been a mixed bag. It’s always been engulfed in deeply contradictory impulses, which are embodied by the president’s own beliefs,” said Tobin. He continued:
[Trump’s] desire to withdraw from the Middle East … has always been at odds with his instinctive distrust and hostility toward the Iranian regime and his willingness to brave the brickbats he’s gotten for reversing Obama’s nuclear deal. These two policies don’t fit together. His brain, love him or hate him, has always allowed contradictory impulses to reside rather comfortably next to each other. His policy in northern Syria, his softness toward Turkey doesn’t really mix well with other elements of this administration’s very strong, very commendable foreign policy initiatives.
“Iran can’t help being what it is.”
At the end of the day, however, contradictory impulses within the administration have tended to get ironed out by the “vital” presence of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and they “do[n’t] gainsay the fact that on Iran, the United States has consistently tended to do the right thing.”
Asked if the ultimate goal of U.S. pressure on Iran should be regime change or a deal, Tobin argued that it doesn’t really matter so long as the administration continues ramping up the pressure:
Our end goal should be to change that regime; I think that’s what the Iranian people want. … [But] there’s nothing wrong about Trump … or even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying, “If you want to act like a normal country, we’re willing to deal with [you] as a normal country.” But the definition has to be … stop supporting terrorism, stop building illegal missiles, stop threatening to destroy Israel, stop doing all the things that make you the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the end it’s a circular argument. Iran can’t help being what it is. … [W]hether we say our goal is a better deal … it’s always going to go back to “change the regime” because that regime is not capable of being normal.
The Obama administration outwardly framed its pursuit of a deal with the Iranians in this fashion – as something that would lead Iran to “get right with the world,” Tobin remarked, though in actuality nothing of the sort happened. “They took all the money that they got from the deal and plowed it right back into all the same rogue-regime mischief-making that they had been doing all along.”
*Gary C. Gambill is general editor at the Middle East Forum. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. Marilyn Stern is the producer of Middle East Forum Radio.

Is NATO Still Vital?
Lawrence A. Franklin/Gatestone Institute/December 12/2019
Many additional countries who joined the alliance -- such as Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States, which had been Soviet satellites -- still consider post-Communist Russia an extremely disquieting potential threat. That is just one issue that has created friction among NATO nations....
The larger question [is] the degree to which enemy countries perceive NATO as a unified organization that would respond militarily to aggression against any member state -- a crucial psychological factor in deterrence.
Its reason for being should not be written off quite yet...
In the absence of cohesion and deterrence, NATO no longer would be viable or vital. But its reason for being should not be written off quite yet. Pictured: A group photo of the NATO leaders, taken on December 4, 2019 in Watford, England, at the NATO summit.
The two-day summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) -- held in London on December 3-4 to commemorate its 70th anniversary -- may have been marked by controversy, but the gathering constituted an important reminder of why the international alliance was established in the first place.
Founded in April 1949 by the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom, NATO was a pact created to counter the world's greatest threat at the time: the Soviet Union and its race for global domination.
At the time, it was clear that all NATO members were dependent on and deferred to American political and military leadership. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, some of the original NATO member states began to seek systems that would protect their particular individual interests.
Germany, for instance, has become Europe's economic powerhouse, enjoying a favorable balance of trade with the US. France, no longer viewing Russia as an existential threat to the Free World, now seems more motivated to protect NATO's southern flank from radical Islamic terrorist groups in West Africa, and from mass migration from former French colonies in North Africa.
Meanwhile, many additional countries who joined the alliance -- such as Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States, which had been Soviet satellites -- still consider post-Communist Russia an extremely disquieting potential threat. That is just one issue that has created friction among NATO nations, particularly with Turkey's decision to purchase a Russian air defense system. Another internal bone of contention is the failure of some members to reach the minimum defense-spending level of 2% of GDP, a goal established by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
Other issues that NATO countries have yet unanimously to agree upon are:
Whether China should be treated by NATO as a cooperator, competitor or adversary. Would NATO help the US if it decided to respond militarily to Chinese gunboat diplomacy?
Whether NATO should assume the role of protector against all aggressive states, such as Iran. Would all NATO states -- now numbering 29 -- agree to assist Israel, the only democratic state in the region, in an all-out war with the Islamic Republic?
Whether Article 5 of the NATO charter, the cornerstone of the treaty that was invoked only once in its history -- following the 9-11 attacks -- still applies. Would a Russian cyber-assault on Estonia, for example, constitute a trip-wire for a NATO response? Would all member states be willing to defend tiny Montenegro if Moscow supported one side in a civil war there, as it is doing in Ukraine?
All of the above leads to the larger question of the degree to which enemy countries perceive NATO as a unified organization that would respond militarily to aggression against any member state -- a crucial psychological factor in deterrence.
In the absence of cohesion and deterrence, NATO no longer would be viable or vital. But its reason for being should not be written off quite yet, due to its "new overarching space policy" to "share information, increase interoperability, and ensure that [its] missions and operations can call on the support they need," and its "Readiness Initiative," according to which "by 2020, Allies will make available 30 combat ships, 30 land battalions, 30 air squadrons, to be ready within 30 days."
*Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

Europe must act on Iran’s nuclear defiance
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/December 12/ 2019
The European powers appear to be changing their position toward the Islamic Republic, as they last week warnedthat Iran is developing nuclear-capable ballistic missiles. The UK, France and Germany (E3) — all signatories to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal — stated in a letter to the UN that Iran had in April tested a Shahab-3 missile variant that is “equipped with a new maneuverable re-entry vehicle” and could deliver a nuclear weapon.
Tehran sees the potential change in the E3’s stance as a threat to its national security and the survival of the theocratic establishment. Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif lashed out, branding the letter a “desperate falsehood” designed by the European powers “to cover up their miserable incompetence in fulfilling (the) bare minimum of their own #JCPOA obligations.” However, Zarif failed to mention that Tehran is violatingUN Security Council resolution 2231, which calls on Iran not to “undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”
The EU has been attempting to save the nuclear deal through a mechanism called the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (Instex), which aims to help Iran and the European countries bypass US sanctions. But the Iranian regime is not totally satisfied due to the fact that its revenues and oil exports continue to decline despite the EU’s appeasement policies.
More fundamentally, Iran’s leaders claim that they ratcheted up their nuclear and missile activities due to the US’ withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. This claim is absurd because Tehran has a history of ballistic missile activity in violation of resolution 2231, even before President Donald Trump pulled his country out of the JCPOA.
After the nuclear deal was struck in 2015, the Iranian regime received huge additional revenues, which helped it further advance its ballistic missile program and test-fire more missiles. For example, soon after the deal was agreed, in October and November 2015, Iran testedthe precision Emad missile and the Ghadr-110. In March 2016, Iran test-fired several missiles, including the Qiam 1. In January and possibly September 2017, Iran tested the medium-range Khorramshahr ballistic missile. And, in June 2017, for the first time, Tehran launched ballistic missiles into another country — Syria — when six Qiam missiles were fired into Deir Ezzor province.
Hours after that June 2017 attack, the US office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) revealed that, on the orders of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Tehran had accelerated its missile activities in the wake of the nuclear deal. Basedon detailed intelligence obtainedfrom inside the clerical establishment in Iran — specifically reports obtained from the Ministry of Defense and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — the NCRI showed Khamenei had tasked the IRGC’s Aerospace Force with executing this mandate.
The Iranian opposition group also revealed the locations of 42 centers involved in the production, testing and launching of missiles by the IRGC. Of these, 15 were part of the regime’s missile manufacturing network.
It is unrealistic to argue that Iran’s missile program is not connected with the regime’s nuclear program. For example, the missile center in Semnan has actively collaborated with the SPND, the organization reportedly tasked with building a nuclear bomb. SPND is the Persian acronym of the engineering unit for the nuclear weapons program inside the Iranian government, which is called the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. The NCRI first revealedthe existence of the SPND in 2011. Three years later, it was placed on the US State Department’s sanctions list.
Leaders across the Iranian political spectrum appear to be united in investing in the ballistic missile program because all factions realize the survival of their political establishment is at stake. President Hassan Rouhani has repeatedly emphasizedthat Iran’s missile activities will continue unabated. Soon after the nuclear deal was agreed, he famously statedthat “we will have a new ballistic missile test in the near future that will be a thorn in the eyes of our enemies.”
Leaders across the Iranian political spectrum appear to be united in investing in the ballistic missile program.
The Iranian regime has also been smugglingits missiles to its proxies in other countries, including in Iraq and Yemen, as confirmed by the discovery of a “cache of weapons and advanced missile components” by the US Navy last week.Even though France, Germany and the UK have expressed concern over Iran’s ballistic missile activities, the EU is yet to take concrete action to hold the Iranian regime accountable. This is due to the fact that the EU still wants to keep the nuclear deal alive and protect its economic and trade ties with Tehran, particularly in the energy sector.
The international community must enact and enforce effective and broad sanctions against Iran’s missile program and all its related entities, institutions and individuals. This includes designating the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization and expelling it and its affiliated militias and proxies from other countries.
*Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman and president of the International American Council. Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh

Daesh and the false dawn of Kurdish statehood
Omer Taspinar/Arab News/December 12/ 2019
History is often full of strange ironies. Decades from now, the rise and fall of Daesh will probably be remembered in the same breath as the rise and fall of Kurdish hopes of statehood. That Kurdish aspirations of independence in Syria and Iraq should have suffered the same fate as Daesh is, of course, an irony of tragic proportions for the Kurds.
Let’s be clear: From the perspective of Kurdish nationalism, there is certainly nothing to regret about the demise of Daesh. But what happened after the territorial defeat of the so-called caliphate — first in Iraq with the fall of Mosul and later in Syria with the fall of Raqqa — did not produce the strategic results the Kurds expected.
During their heroic struggle against an ascendant Daesh between 2014 and 2017, Western support for the Kurds was total. But, once Daesh was gone, that support turned into cold betrayal, as America and Europe stood by and watched Ankara go after the Kurds in Syria this year, while Baghdad did the same in Iraqi Kurdistan in 2017.
Perhaps the Kurds should have known better; after all, their history is littered with such betrayals. But it is also clear they had no better alternative.
The rise of Daesh presented an existential threat as well as a strategic opportunity for Kurds. Peace with Daesh was simply not an option. In many ways, Kurds were defending their own lands more than Western interests. Between 2014 and 2016, things went rather well for them. As late as 2017, Iraqi and Syrian Kurds appeared to be on the cusp of making history, as statehood genuinely seemed to be within reach.
In Iraq, the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) was determined to crown its critical territorial gains with a declaration of independence. Shortly after the Daesh hordes shocked the world in 2014 by conquering Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, the KRG Peshmerga seized the oil-rich province of Kirkuk in northern Iraq.
The city is disputed territory, claimed by both Kurds and Arabs. However, the ineptitude of the Iraqi army gave Baghdad no choice but to accept Kurdish sovereignty over Kirkuk. The only other alternative was Daesh. With Kirkuk now within the KRG, the Kurds felt history was finally on their side. They also felt they should consolidate their gains before the Iraqi army had a chance to reassert itself.
The need to act fast became all the more apparent when Iraqi forces, supported by pro-Iranian Shiite militias, took Mosul back from Daesh in early 2017. This was the context for the KRG’s fateful decision to hold a referendum for independence from Iraq in September of that year.
Around the same time, across the border, Syrian Kurds were also riding high. Empowered by their cooperation with the American superpower against Daesh, the People’s Protection Units (YPG) felt confident that Washington would reward their defeat of the caliphate with strategic support for Kurdish regional autonomy. What a difference a couple of years make. Today, with Daesh largely defeated, there is nothing left of what the academic Henri Barkey called the “renaissance” the Kurds enjoyed back in mid-2017. After giving the green light to Turkey’s military incursion into northern Syria, Washington and the US military are on their way out and Syrian Kurds are left fighting alone — for survival rather than for statehood.
In Iraq, the KRG has ended up paying a heavy price for the hubris of 2017. In the aftermath of the bold yet ultimately disastrous decision to hold an independence referendum, the Kurds lost 40 percent of the territory they previously held, including Kirkuk. After years of struggle against Daesh, the losses have turned out to be greater than the gains for the Kurds of Syria and Iraq. Yet all is not lost for the Kurdish cause. On the contrary, the long-term process of Kurdish nation-building is well under way. The greater majority of Kurds no longer feel part of Turkey, Iran, Iraq or Syria. Although still divided geographically among these four countries, they increasingly see themselves as part of a larger Kurdish nation and are in communication with each other thanks to the rapidly growing Kurdish media.
As a result, time and numbers favor the 30 million Kurds who, in the last two decades, have gained an unprecedented level of ethnic consciousness as the world’s largest nation without a state. There is also a vibrant Kurdish diaspora in Europe that is politically active, socially integrated and intellectually invested in the pursuit of a pan-Kurdish identity.
The rise of Daesh presented an existential threat as well as a strategic opportunity for Kurds.
To be sure, an independent and united greater Kurdistan is not likely to emerge anytime soon. But, as the rise of Daesh clearly demonstrated, Iraq and Syria are weak states and they remain so. The KRG has come closer than ever before to realizing its dream of independence and is not likely to give up now.
In Syria, the YPG will also continue to pursue autonomy. Even in Turkey, home to half of the Kurds in the Middle East, Kurdish politics is thriving despite all kinds of political pressure and injustice. Turkey’s Kurds are not only winning elections in their regions, but also becoming the kingmakers in Turkish politics as the country’s third-largest political party.
Finally, let’s not forget that, thanks to their heroism against Daesh, the Kurds have gained unprecedented global legitimacy and popularity.
Western governments may still betray the Kurds in the name of realpolitik and geostrategic interests, but public opinion, both in Europe and the US, is certainly rooting for the Kurdish cause. In democratic countries, winning hearts and minds is the best kind of investment for the future. There will be more false dawns, but for most Kurds the coming of statehood is just a matter of time.
*Omer Taspinar is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor of national security strategy at the National Defense University in Washington. Copyright: Syndication Bureau