LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 26/19

Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.february26.19.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
I have become all things to all people, so that I might by any means save some
First Letter to the Corinthians 09/19-27: “Though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I might by any means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings. Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable garland, but we an imperishable one. So I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; but I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on February 25-26/19
Berri Calls for Electing Supreme Council to Try Presidents, Ministers/
Britain to Ban Hizbullah under Anti-Terror Laws
Pompeo Lashes Out at Hizbullah, Lauds British Move
Bassil Meets Mogherini: 'Resistance Not Terrorism Even if Entire World Says So'
Macron: We'll Continue to Distinguish between Hizbullah's Wings
Israel Welcomes British Move to Ban Hizbullah
Jumblat Meets Atallah, Vows Cooperation to Close Displaced People File
Minister Says Metn Foul Odors Problem to End in 3 Days
Hariri Meets Sisi, Says Held Positive Talks with Europeans
Hariri Meets May, World Leaders at Egypt Arab-European Summit
LF to Submit 'Proposal' to Cabinet on Refugees’ Return
Hizballah to be banned alongside other terrorist organisations
Political Parties' ‘Constitutional Violations’ Stir Debate in Lebanon
The Hariri assassination, 14 years later
Heated debate on civil marriage re-emerges in Lebanon
Lebanon’s Druze community is split: Where does it go from here?
The rise of Gebran Bassil
Dispute In Lebanon Over Iran's Offer To Equip Lebanese Army

Litles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on February 25-26/19
Netanyahu Vows to Continue to Prevent Iran’s Entrenchment in Syria
Russia Suggests Deploying its Police in Syria Safe Zone
Iran's foreign minister Zarif announces his resignation on his Instagram page
EU, Arab Leaders Proclaim 'New Era' despite Human Rights Split
Trump Departs U.S. for Vietnam, Summit with N. Korea's Kim
Assad Meets Khamenei, Rouhani in Tehran
Trump Says American Held Hostage in Yemen Freed
Iraq Saves France Thorny Repatriations of IS Jihadists
Iraq to Prosecute 13 French IS Fighters Seized in Syria
'The Work Begins': U.S., Taliban Arrive in Doha for Fresh Talks
Egypt Invited Qatar to Sharm el-Sheikh Summit through ‘Appropriate’ Means
Bouteflika Ignores Protests, Stresses 'Continuity' in Algeria
Kuwait Celebrates 58th National Day
Iraq President Kicks off France Visit
Saudi-Egyptian Business Council Encourages Further Cooperation
AIPAC Condemns Netenyahu’s Policy in Encouraging 'Jewish Terrorism'

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on February 25-26/19
Hizballah to be banned alongside other terrorist organisations/GOV.UK/February 25/19/
The Hariri assassination, 14 years later/Khairallah Khairallah/The Arab Weekly/February 25/19
Heated debate on civil marriage re-emerges in Lebanon/Makram Rabah/The Arab Weekly/February 25/19
Lebanon’s Druze community is split: Where does it go from here/Rami Rayees/The Arab Weekly/February 25/19
The rise of Gebran Bassil/Bassem Ajami/Annahar/February 25/19
Dispute In Lebanon Over Iran's Offer To Equip Lebanese Army/N. Mozes/MEMRI/February 25/19
Saudi Arabia, China and the Silk and Change Road/Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat/February 25/19
The Saudi Ambassador’s Greatest Challenge/Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al-Awsat/February 25/19
The Militarization of Xi Jinping's China/"Recovering" Areas They Never Have Ruled/ Gordon G. Chang/ Gatestone Institute/February 25/19
Syria’s reconstruction lacks benefactors and transparency/Kerry Boyd Anderson/Arab News/February 25/19
Time for the UN to stand up to Houthi stonewalling/Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg/Arab News/February 25/19
Iran’s constitution at the heart of regime’s aggressive policies/Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami/Arab News/February 25/19

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on February 25-26/19
Berri Calls for Electing Supreme Council to Try Presidents, Ministers
Naharnet/February 25/19/Speaker Nabih Berri reportedly has called for a parliament session to elect seven lawmakers for the Higher Council whose function is to try presidents and ministers, al-Joumhouria daily reported on Monday. The judicial authority will then elect its eight members, totaling the number of the Higher Council to fifteen members, added the daily. Noteworthy to mention that the document of National Accord stipulated the formation of the Higher Council for the trial of presidents and ministers, and the enactment of a trail law for that council in fulfillment of Article 80 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Council to try Presidents and Ministers, consists of seven deputies elected by the Chamber of Deputies and of eight of the highest Lebanese judges, according to their rank in the judicial hierarchy, or, in case of equal ranks, in the order of seniority. They meet under the presidency of the judge of the highest rank. The Decisions of condemnation by the Supreme Council shall be rendered by a majority of ten

Britain to Ban Hizbullah under Anti-Terror Laws
Agence France Presse/Associated PressNaharnet/February 25/19/Britain on Monday said it will ban the political wing of Hizbullah, making membership of the movement or inviting support for it a crime. The decision follows outrage over the display of the Hizbullah flag, which features a Kalashnikov assault rifle, at pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London. "Hizbullah is continuing in its attempts to destabilize the fragile situation in the Middle East," Home Secretary Sajid Javid said in a statement. "We are no longer able to distinguish between their already banned military wing and the political party. Because of this, I have taken the decision to proscribe the group in its entirety," he said. Subject to Parliament's approval, the order will go into effect on Friday and being a member, or inviting support for Hizbullah will be a criminal offense, carrying a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. Hizbullah made electoral gains in Lebanon last year and now has three ministers in the government. The U.S. and others accuse the group of destabilizing the region through its military intervention in Syria on the side of President Bashar Assad's government. "It is clear the distinction between Hizbullah's military and political wings does not exist," Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said in Monday's statement. "This does not change our ongoing commitment to Lebanon, with whom we have a broad and strong relationship," he said. There was no immediate comment from Hizbullah officials in Beirut.
The British government is also banning Ansarul Islam, a jihadist group which emerged near the border between Mali and Burkina Faso in 2016, and the Group to Support Islam and Muslims (JNIM), which has sworn allegiance to Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Britain currently has 74 international terrorist organizations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. The European Union put the armed wing of Hizbullah on its terrorism blacklist in 2013, due to Hizbullah's alleged role in blowing up an Israeli tour bus in Bulgaria. But unlike the United States, they had up till now differentiated between the group's military and political wings. The group does not specifically divide itself into armed and political wings and its leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, has said the group does not operate as two wings. The British ban comes as the United States is increasing its pressure on Hizbullah, placing several sets of sanctions on the group and its regional backer, Iran. Last week, the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon described what she labeled as Hizbullah's "growing" role in the new Lebanese cabinet as a threat to the country's stability. U.S. officials have also expressed concern that Hizbullah would exploit the ministries it runs to funnel money to fund the group's operations.

Pompeo Lashes Out at Hizbullah, Lauds British Move
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 25/19/U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday commended London's move to outlaw Hizbullah's political wing, saying it showed that "international unity to confront Iran's regime continues to grow.""This Iran-sponsored terrorist group has American blood on its hands & continues to plot & carry out attacks in the Mideast, Europe & around the world," he tweeted. Earlier in the day, Britain said it will ban the political wing of Hizbullah, making membership of the movement or inviting support for it a crime. The European Union put the armed wing of Hizbullah on its terrorism blacklist in 2013, due to Hizbullah's alleged role in blowing up an Israeli tour bus in Bulgaria. But unlike the United States, the EU differentiates between the group's military and political wings.

Bassil Meets Mogherini: 'Resistance Not Terrorism Even if Entire World Says So'
Naharnet/February 25/19/Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil held talks Monday in Beirut with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, a few hours after Britain said that it will outlaw Hizbullah's political wing under its anti-terror laws. “Hizbullah's terror designation by Britain will not have a negative impact on Lebanon, and it is something we have become used to from the other states,” Bassil said after the meeting. “Britain has informed Lebanon of its keenness on bilateral relations,” he added. Bassil also stressed that “even if the entire world comes together and says that the resistance is terrorist, it will not make it terrorist in the eyes of the Lebanese.”“As long as the land is occupied, the resistance will remain embraced by state institutions and all Lebanese people,” the minister added. Separately, Bassil said a “safe and dignified repatriation of Syrian refugees is the only solution,” noting that the European Union will help Lebanon in this regard. Bassil threw a dinner banquet in Mogherini's honor after the talks. Earlier in the day, Britain said it will ban the political wing of Hizbullah, making membership of the movement or inviting support for it a crime.The European Union put the armed wing of Hizbullah on its terrorism blacklist in 2013, due to Hizbullah's alleged role in blowing up an Israeli tour bus in Bulgaria. But unlike the United States, the EU differentiates between the group's military and political wings.

Macron: We'll Continue to Distinguish between Hizbullah's Wings
Naharnet/February 25/19/France will continue to distinguish between Hizbullah's military and political wings, French President Emmanuel Macron said Monday, after Britain said it will outlaw the political wing. Speaking at a joint press conference with his Iraqi counterpart Barham Saleh, Macron said Paris will still “communicate and exchange viewpoints with the political movement that is represented in parliament.”“We will continue this differentiation,” the French president added, noting that “it is not up to France and other foreign forces to know which political forces represented in Lebanon's parliament will be good or not.”“It is up to the Lebanese people to decide on this,” he said. Earlier on Monday, Britain said it will ban the political wing of Hizbullah, making membership of the movement or inviting support for it a crime. The European Union put the armed wing of Hizbullah on its terrorism blacklist in 2013, due to Hizbullah's alleged role in blowing up an Israeli tour bus in Bulgaria. But unlike the United States, the EU differentiates between the group's military and political wings.

Israel Welcomes British Move to Ban Hizbullah
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 25/19/Israel's foreign minister on Monday welcomed Britain's decision to outlaw Hizbullah's political wing, calling for the United Nations to follow suit. "I would like to praise the British government on the decision to recognize the entire Hizbullah organization as a terrorist organization," Israel Katz wrote on Twitter. "In my upcoming meeting with the U.N. secretary-general in New York next week I will stress that the U.N. institutions should take a similar resolution," he added. Britain said it would make membership of the group or inviting support for it a crime. The decision follows outrage over the display of the Hizbullah flag at pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London. Hizbullah, which backs Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the country's civil war, is seen by Israel as an Iranian proxy, seeking to extend the Islamic republic's military reach to Israel's northern border.
Israeli warplanes have carried out hundreds of air strikes in Syria over the past few years against what Israel says are Iranian and Hizbullah targets. Hizbullah was established in 1982 during Lebanon's civil war and is now a major political party in the country, holding three cabinet posts. It had spearheaded military operations against Israeli forces occupying southern Lebanon until the Israeli withdrawal in the year 2000.
Israel and Hizbullah also fought a 2006 war.
"The separation between the political and armed wings is a false and artificial separation," Israel's U.N. ambassador Danny Danon said in a statement. "Both are controlled and supported by Iran, and enable the organization to continue to raise funds on European soil," he added. Israel in December accused Hizbullah of digging cross-border tunnels into its territory from southern Lebanon and destroyed them in a military operation. Israel and the United States consider Hizbullah in its entirety a terrorist organization while the U.N. and the European Union only proscribe its military wing. "All who truly wish to combat terror must reject the fake distinction between 'military' and 'political' wings," Israeli Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan tweeted on Monday. "Now is the time for the EU to follow suit," he added.

Jumblat Meets Atallah, Vows Cooperation to Close Displaced People File
Naharnet/February 25/19/Ghassan Atallah, the new minister for the internally displaced people, held talks Monday with Progressive Socialist Party leader ex-MP Walid Jumblat in Clemenceau, after his appointment to his post reportedly infuriated the Druze leader.Jumblat posted a picture of him and Atallah on Twitter, saying the meeting was “cordial and frank.”“The PSP and I declare our full readiness for every cooperation with him in order to close this file and open the chapter of developing Mount Lebanon in all fields,” Jumblat added, referring to the file of Lebanese citizens displaced during civil war, especially in the Chouf and Aley regions. Atallah for his part said he carried an initiative to finalize the file. A statement issued by his office said Jumblat strongly supported his plan, “which endorses unified standards in addressing the files in order to turn the page on this issue in a final manner.”“The hand is extended for any cooperation,” it added. Fearing a perceived attempt to curb his influence, Jumblat was reportedly infuriated by the appointment of Atallah and State Minister for Refugee Affairs Saleh al-Gharib, who were named by the Free Patriotic Movement and MP Talal Arslan.

Minister Says Metn Foul Odors Problem to End in 3 Days
Naharnet/February 25/19/Environment Minister Fadi Jreissati announced Monday that the problem of the foul odors emanating from the Bourj Hammoud garbage landfill will end in three days. The minister “communicated with the contractor in charge of the Bourj Hammoud landfill after the Environment Ministry received complaints about the spread of odors in the towns of Northern Metn's coast,” LBCI television quoted the minister as saying. “The contractor asserted that the transfer and treatment of the garbage that has been temporarily stored at the landfill's construction site in Bourj Hammoud will end in three days,” the TV network added. The odors intensified on Monday, engulfing Metn's coast from Dora and Bourj Hammoud to Antelias, LBCI said. Residents of Dekwaneh, Sin el-Fil and Hazmieh also reported an intensification of the nauseating odors on Monday. Jreissati had announced in early February that the temporary waste storage site would be closed before the end of the month. “According to a statement issued by the Council for Development and Reconstruction on 29/1/2019, these odors are caused by piles of garbage that had been temporarily stored in 2016 at the under-construction site of the Bourj Hammoud-Jdeideh landfill pending the completion of the landfill's cells,” a statement issued Jreissati's office said at the time. “Efforts to move the waste started recently after sufficient space was created at the landfill's cells,” the statement added. The garbage was “sprayed with the necessary substances to decrease the emissions and foul odors and this process is expected to be finalized before the end of the month,” the statement said.

Hariri Meets Sisi, Says Held Positive Talks with Europeans
Naharnet/February 25/19/Prime Minister Saad Hariri held talks Monday with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on the sidelines of an Arab-European summit in Sharm el-Sheikh. Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Hariri said all the meetings he held with European leaders in Sharm el-Sheikh were “positive.” “They stressed anew the importance of the CEDRE conference and their support for Lebanon and interest in developing the relations with it,” the premier added. “Lebanon needs major reforms and I'm counting on all political parties to abide by the decisions that we endorsed and this challenge is not difficult,” Hariri went on to say. The prime minister also underscore that “fighting terrorism is essential” and that “any economic structure is based on stability and security.”

Hariri Meets May, World Leaders at Egypt Arab-European Summit
Naharnet/February 25/19/Prime Minister Saad Hariri held talks Sunday with a number of world leaders after arriving in Egypt's Sharm el-Sheikh to take part in the first Arab-European Summit.Hariri is accompanied by the ministers Jebran Bassil, Ali Hassan Khalil and Wael Abu Faour and ex-minister Ghattas Khoury. A statement issued by his office said Hariri has met on the summit's sidelines with British Prime Minister Theresa May and the European Union's president. He has also met with Austria's chancellor, the Czech premier and the Jordanian foreign minister. Hariri is also scheduled to meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and other officials.

LF to Submit 'Proposal' to Cabinet on Refugees’ Return
Naharnet/February 25/19/Lebanese Forces Minister of Social Affairs Richard Kouyoumjian on Monday said that although his party insists that Syrian refugees must return to their homeland as soon as possible, but it refuses any attempts aiming to invest this file in normalizing relations with Syria. “The position of the Lebanese Forces is clear regarding the return of Syrian refugees, but unfortunately this file was used to falsely portray the LF as if it is against it, while we are preparing a proposal for their return," he told Voice of Lebanon radio (100.5). “The proposal will be put forward at the Cabinet meeting,” he said. “The file has unfortunately been taken advantage of. It is an important file put forward by the President of the Republic. We have insisted that steps such as the return of displaced Syrians should be considered by the government combined,” added the Minister. “The Syrian regime does not want their return. If the opposite is true let the return begin because exploiting the return for a surreptitiously passing of normalizing ties with Syria is something we will not accept,” he added.

Hizballah to be banned alongside other terrorist organisations
GOV.UK/February 25/19/
Home Office and The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP
The Home Office.
Hizballah, Ansaroul Islam and Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam Wal-Muslimin (JNIM) are set to be banned following their proscription as terrorist organisations.
A draft order, laid in Parliament today, will proscribe Hizballah in its entirety alongside Ansaroul Islam and JNIM who operate in the Sahel region in Africa.
Subject to Parliament’s approval, from Friday when the order comes into effect, being a member, or inviting support for Hizballah, Ansaroul Islam and JNIM will be a criminal offence, carrying a sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid said: My priority as Home Secretary is to protect the British people. As part of this, we identify and ban any terrorist organisation which threatens our safety and security, whatever their motivations or ideology which is why I am taking action against several organisations today.
Hizballah is continuing in its attempts to destabilase the fragile situation in the Middle East – and we are no longer able to distinguish between their already banned military wing and the political party. Because of this, I have taken the decision to proscribe the group in its entirety.
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said: We are staunch supporters of a stable and prosperous Lebanon. We cannot however be complacent when it comes to terrorism – it is clear the distinction between Hizballah’s military and political wings does not exist, and by proscribing Hizballah in all its forms, the government is sending a clear signal that its destabilising activities in the region are totally unacceptable and detrimental to the UK’s national security.
This does not change our ongoing commitment to Lebanon, with whom we have a broad and strong relationship.
All three groups have been assessed as being currently concerned in terrorism.
Hizballah’s External Security Organisation and its military wing including the Jihad Council were already proscribed in 2001 and 2008 respectively.
The government has taken the decision to proscribe Hizballah in its entirety on the basis that it is no longer tenable to distinguish between the military and political wings of Hizballah.
Hizballah was established during the Lebanese civil war and is committed to armed resistance to the state of Israel. It continues to amass weapons in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolutions, putting the security of the region at risk. Its involvement in the Syrian war since 2012 continues to prolong the conflict and the regime’s brutal and violent repression of the Syrian people.
Ansaroul Islam seeks to impose its own strict Salafist Sharia law in northern Burkina Faso and are known to target other ethnic groups in the region leading to substantial internal displacement of people. In December 2016, the group claimed responsibility for an attack on an army outpost in Burkina Faso which killed at least 12 soldiers.
JNIM was established in March 2017 as a federation of Al Qa’ida aligned groups in Mali and aims to impose a strict Salafist interpretation of Sharia law in the Sahel region and has claimed responsibility for several attacks in the region in which people were killed.
Furthermore, a separate order laid in Parliament today will proscribe:
the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Front (DHKC), the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party (DHKP) and the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Front/Armed Propaganda Units (DHKC/SPB) as aliases of the Revolutionary Peoples’ Liberation Party—Front (Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi) (DHKP-C) which is already proscribed
Jaysh Khalid Bin Walid (JKbW) (JKW), Jaysh Khalid bin al-Walid (KBW) and Khalid ibn-Walid Army (KBWA) as aliases of Daesh
These changes will come into force from tomorrow (Tuesday 26 February).
Decisions about proscribing or extending the proscription of a particular organisation are taken after extensive consideration and in light of a full assessment of available information.
There are currently 74 international terrorist organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, alongside 14 organisations connected to Northern Ireland proscribed under separate legislation.

Political Parties' ‘Constitutional Violations’ Stir Debate in Lebanon
Beirut - Caroline Akoum/Asharq Al Awsat/Monday, 25 February, 2019/Recent political decisions have stirred debate in Lebanon over the constitutionality of these moves. Earlier this year, Foreign Minister and head of the Free Patriotic Movement MP Gebran Bassil ordered ministers from his party to sign written resignations and submit them to him for approval. Last week, Hezbollah suspended one of its MPs for a year following a verbal dispute with another lawmaker at parliament. These two measures have set a precedent in Lebanon with some observers saying that they aim to keep party ministers and lawmakers in check and accountable for their actions. Others have deemed them as illegal and unconstitutional because the party leaderships have effectively confiscated the voice of a minister or deputy, who is supposed to become, after his election, a representative of the nation, not the party.
MP Alain Aoun, of the FPM’s Strong Lebanon bloc, criticized the way in which the announcement of the resignation order was made, but still defended the move. “Such a decision aims to motivate ministers to work seriously and to make achievements at their ministries, not to confiscate their decision-making power.”However, opponents of the move believe the decision allows Bassil to use mass resignations as a weapon to control the fate of Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s government.
As for Hezbollah, it ordered last week the suspension of MP Nawwaf al-Mousawi’s political activities following a row at parliament between the MP and Kataeb lawmaker Sami Gemayel during government policy deliberations at parliament two weeks ago. Gemayel said that Hezbollah's wide influence was seen when it got its ally, Michel Aoun, elected president in 2016. Mousawi responded by saying "it's an honor" for the Lebanese that Aoun came to his post alongside "the rifle of the resistance," a reference to Hezbollah, and "not on an Israeli tank."His last reference was to late President-elect Bashir Gemayel who was assassinated in 1982 days after being elected during Israel's invasion of Lebanon.
Two days later, the head of Hezbollah's bloc in parliament, Mohammed Raad, apologized during a meeting of the legislature saying that Mousawi "crossed lines."
The FPM and Hezbollah measures clearly violate the law, said former Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar. By law, the government, prime minister and president have a final say over a resignation, he told Asharq Al-Awsat. Item 2 of Article 69 of the Constitution stipulates that a minister shall be dismissed by a decree signed by the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister after the approval of two-thirds of the Council ministers, he added. “The resignations have more of a political effect than a legal one,” he went on to say. Commenting on Mousawi’s suspension, Najjar said after his election, an MP becomes a representative of the nation, not a certain party and therefore, he should not stop attending parliamentary sessions. However, he remarked, the failure of any deputy to attend parliament is not punishable by law.

The Hariri assassination, 14 years later
Khairallah Khairallah/The Arab Weekly/February 25/19
Druze clerics in recent weeks have actively worked t
In memory of Rafik Hariri, it is worth noting that, despite the hardships it is going through, Lebanon is continuing its fight against the Iranian project.
It is hard for a Lebanese, with a deep belief in the concept of Lebanon, to accept that the assassination of Rafik Hariri 14 years ago achieved its goal, at least for the time being.
The odious crime ended the single serious attempt since 1975, to revive the only national project that could have succeeded and that was the project launched by Hariri from the heart of Beirut
The political scene in Lebanon is disheartening. Iran had effectively taken control of Lebanon through political discourse, actions on the ground and illegal armed militias, and has replaced the savage and uncivilised Syrian domination over Lebanon.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif went to Beirut recently offering specific services with very clear and transparent objectives that had nothing to do with any national interest of Lebanon. On the contrary, Zarif’s plan was to find a way out for Iran from its deep crisis.
Zarif’s visit to Beirut was for Iran to prove that Hariri’s assassination and the subsequent crimes that were committed have been fruitful and Zarif was able to act with total freedom in Beirut. He was on his turf.
The state of affairs in Lebanon has made it possible for any Iranian official to say loud and clear that Tehran is in control of four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sana’a. This is somewhat true if it weren’t for the fact that Baghdad is rebelling against Tehran and rejecting Iranian colonialism, while Beirut is still resisting.
Zarif offered Lebanon weapons and rockets that have been proven useless in countering Israel. The Syrian scene is a clear proof of that.
Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who knows who was behind the assassination of his father, was courageous enough to confront Zarif and state openly that the Lebanese government bases its development programme on “the interest of the Lebanese people and the higher interests of Lebanon, adding that “Lebanon respects its agreements and commitments to the Arab and international communities.”
Thus, Hariri remains the last stronghold defending Lebanon and the interests of the Lebanese people against the attack from Tehran, which pays Lebanon no significance and considers it as a mere colony of Iran.
In memory of Rafik Hariri, it is worth noting that, despite the hardships it is going through, Lebanon is continuing its fight against the Iranian project, which was taken on new dimensions since February 14, 2005, when Hariri’s convoy was attacked.
It is no secret as to who planned and executed the hideous crime. It is no secret that a series of crimes was subsequently committed to cover up the assassination.
The war with Israel in the summer of 2006 was simply a war staged against Lebanon, with Iran and Israel as accomplices. Rafik Hariri and his national project for Lebanon were the real targets of that war, which saw the destruction of part of the country’s infrastructure and made many young Lebanese flee their homeland.
Lebanon has remained an Iranian target. It was a country that needed to be tamed and penetrated.
So, when Saad Hariri visited Tehran in 2010 as prime minister, the Iranian government made three requests: the exemption of Iranian citizens from entry visas to Lebanon, as is the case with Arab nationals; signing a defence treaty between the two countries like the Iranian-Syrian treaty; and giving Iran access to the Lebanese banking system.
Hariri paid the price for rejecting all three requests. Following that refusal, Hezbollah, which represented a bloc of one-third of the Lebanese parliament, took to the streets of Beirut and defeated Hariri’s government as a prelude to imposing Najib Mikati as prime minister.
There is no need to go back to these events and point out the Christian party was behind the fall of Hariri’s government during those days.
What Iran has requested from Lebanon is nearly impossible. Lebanon may exempt Iranian citizens from entry visas, and this is what Mikati’s government did, but Lebanon cannot sign a defence treaty with and accept Iranian weapons, which would entail the presence of Iranian military experts on Lebanese soil to train the Lebanese Army on the use of the weapons.
Most important, Lebanon cannot open its banking system to Iran. Lebanese banks and financial institutions have no choice but to go along with the US sanctions on Iran if Lebanon it wants to protect what remains of its economy.
It is clear why getting rid of Rafik Hariri was needed. He was an obstacle to the Iranian expansionist plan, which was opposed not only by Lebanon but by the whole of the Arab world.
What is equally clear is that 14 years after Hariri’s death, Iran progressed in its intended plan in Lebanon. As proof, Hezbollah was able to impose its choice regarding the presidency and its choice regarding the composition of the current parliament, as a result of an unbelievably weird law the secret of which is known only to Hezbollah.
In addition, the current Lebanese government would not have seen the light without Iran’s interference in laws regulating the constitution of governments in Lebanon.
Is this the utmost Iran can do in Lebanon in the absence of an Arab action in the country? The answer is that Lebanon continues to resist but, in the end, much will depend on what happens in the region and inside Iran.
Iran, despite the show of muscles beyond its borders, remains a failed state on all levels. Besides its sectarian militias and their culture of death, it doesn’t have a real model to present to Lebanon or to any other country.
Rafik Hariri was killed by this culture of death and this same culture is about to finish off Lebanon but it won’t save Iran and its expansionist aspirations in any country in the region.

Heated debate on civil marriage re-emerges in Lebanon
Makram Rabah/The Arab Weekly/February 25/19
Any real effort to impose secular reforms should not sit at the same table with these supposed “religious leaders."
The annual budget of the religious courts in Lebanon is more than $41 million, a huge number when compared to the $25 million that three of the main ministries — Environment, Industry and Youth and Sports — receive annually for many important and underfunded projects.
This simple yet revealing budgetary fact, published by Gherbal Initiative, an online portal encouraging accountability and transparency, clearly frames the debate involving the adoption of a law that allows optional civil marriage in Lebanon.
The resurfacing of this debate was brought about after Interior Minister Raya El Hassan declared she would work to convince religious authorities to allow the law to be enacted.
Since assuming office, Hassan, the first women Interior minister in the Arab world, has taken assertive measures and given the weary public a sliver of hope. However, Hassan’s supposed good deed over civil marriage yielded opposite results because religious authorities have taken to the offensive, dismissing talk of civil marriage as blasphemous.
This reactionary attitude is neither new nor unexpected from the Lebanese religious, who have repeatedly repelled attempts to curb their control over personal status laws of their communities.
The fatal error of Hassan and many other civil society groups that have tried to pass secular reforms is that they have chosen to play a populist game that cannot be won under the current circumstances.
In the past, civil society activists have tried to weaken the religious centres only to make them more powerful and controlling of their communities. This is partly due to a few factors, some of which have to do with the predominant civil society culture that lacks vision yet compensates this deficiency with opportunism and populism.
More important is the fact that the Lebanese in general do not seem to respect or acknowledge the legal notion of conflict of interest, which should lead them to refuse to even debate this topic with factions benefiting from the matter being discussed — in this case civil marriage.
Hassan gullibly declared she would engage the heads of the religious authorities in open debate, yet she failed to explain why such an empowered faction would even contemplate the matter.
If the $41 million does not provide enough material incentive for the factions to resist change, the sense of entailment and leverage it gives them over their subjects is immeasurable.
Any real effort to impose secular reforms should not sit at the same table with these supposed “religious leaders” because any such exercise will be futile and empowering to the latter group.
The right to enter wedlock and to exit it is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, given that Lebanon is a signatory of that treaty, any local legislation that prevents the aforementioned is unconstitutional.
Perhaps more important, Hassan and her fellow politicians, instead of merely speaking about reform, must translate their intent into action by proposing laws in the cabinet or bills on the parliament floor.
In 2013, Prime Minister Saad Hariri, Hassan’s political patron, publicly endorsed civil marriage, yet his liberal promises and soapbox tactics never made it beyond his social media channels and petered out.
It is no longer acceptable for the political elite to exploit these matters to divert attention from their continued mismanagement of public funds.
While the Lebanese were misdirected by the civil marriage debate, the Hariri cabinet advanced Electricite Du Liban, Lebanon’s main electricity producer, $265 million to pay its fuel bills and to keep its plants operating.
What is essentially needed is for these so-called champions of civil marriage to place the issue on the parliament table so the wider public can call out many who claim to be liberal but, in fact, support the archaic Lebanese political system.
Most properly this farce will soon repeat itself, if not in the civil marriage debate perhaps involving electoral law, domestic violence or other worthy causes that will rise only to be killed and buried by the Lebanese political system bent on corruption and, above all, hypocrisy.

Lebanon’s Druze community is split: Where does it go from here?
Rami Rayees/The Arab Weekly/February 25/19
Druze clerics in recent weeks have actively worked to reduce tensions and reconcile Jumblatt and Arslan but there remains a long road to improving ties.
Lebanon’s Druze community is facing unprecedented challenges that threaten to fracture the minority group.
Much of the tension revolves around competing political visions of Druze leaders Walid Jumblatt, who heads the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), and Talal Arslan, who leads the Lebanese Democratic Party.
During the last three parliamentary elections, Jumblatt, the more powerful of the two figures, has allowed his political rival to control one of eight parliamentary seats allocated to the Druze community. Arslan has hardly been appreciative of the gesture, joining forces with the Damascus regime, which Jumblatt staunchly opposes, to besiege Jumblatt and the PSP.
In doing so, Arslan has facilitated Damascus’s efforts to punish the PSP for its support of the Syrian revolution.
The conflict has led to violence in two mountain villages, leading to the death of a young PSP supporter and a Druze bodyguard belonging to Al-Tawhid, a small party also supportive of the Syrian regime and antagonistic to Jumblatt.
The PSP supporter died during the elections period when he was shot by an Arslan affiliate who fled to Syria. The Druze bodyguard was mistakenly shot when security forces headed to Wiam Wahhab in Chouf to call him for a judiciary session.
Wahhab and Arslan, long-time rivals, have come together because of their shared antipathy of Jumblatt and support for the Syrian regime, causing tensions to further flare in the Druze community.
This came to a head when approximately 300 Al-Tawhid supporters rallied around Jumblatt’s 400-year-old headquarters, the Moukhtara castle. Jumblatt was not in the castle at the time but the demonstration was a source of tension in several mountain villages. It cooled after Jumblatt’s requests for withdrawal and self-restraint.
This is evidence of Jumblatt’s powerful political presence. His party retains most — seven of the eight — of the Druze seats in parliament, with the eighth intentionally vacant.
Still, he compromised on the third Druze-allocated cabinet seat, allowing for a neutral figure to take the position. The nominee, Saleh al-Gharib, however, immediately aligned himself with Arslan, though he was supposed to remain nonaligned.
To make matters worse, Gharib was assigned the refugee portfolio, a position Jumblatt feared he could use to unsafely push Syrian refugees back into their country.
Jumblatt’s position in favour of Syrian refugees’ rights won him praise from many Syrian oppositionists in exile, which started an online petition, signed by hundreds of prominent figures, to thank him.
However, wrangling over Syria harmed inter-Druze relations, causing negative repercussions throughout the country.
PSP, the dominant political party in much of Lebanon’s mountainous regions, has attempted to retain good ties with the different parties, even outside the Druze sphere. This is reflected in Jumblatt’s reconciliation in 2001 with the Maronite patriarch, which has helped foster an effective relationship.
Druze clerics in recent weeks have actively worked to reduce tensions and reconcile Jumblatt and Arslan but there remains a long road to improving ties.
Syria is far from reaching a lasting political solution, despite reports from the so-called Axis of Resistance that its battles are nearly won, but its engagement in the Lebanese political scene seems to be ramping up.
Whether the conflicts plaguing Lebanon’s Druze community can be resolved, meanwhile, remains unclear.
Written By Rami Rayees
*Rami Rayess is editor-in-chief of Lebanese Al Anbaa Electronic Newspaper (anbaaonline.com) and spokesman for the Progressive Socialist Party in Lebanon.

The rise of Gebran Bassil
Bassem Ajami/Annahar/February 25/19
Bassil depends on exploiting Lebanon's sectarian structure to propel his political career.
The mention of Gebran Bassil invites mixed feelings. But regardless whether one likes or dislikes him, the man is certainly a unique phenomenon. In less than ten years, he managed to place his distinctive mark on Lebanese politics.
Bassil's political career gained momentum as an activist in the Free Patriotic Movement, founded by General Michel Aoun. His climb to power was boosted by his marriage in 1999 to the General's daughter. Aoun insisted that Bassil receive a key post in every government since 2008. In 2009, while Bassil failed to win a parliamentary seat in the general elections, Aoun defiantly delayed the formation of the new government for seven months demanding that his son in law be named a minister. Bassil was appointed minister of Telecommunication.
But Bassil's meteoric climb through the complicated network of Lebanese politics is not entirely related to his kinship to President Aoun. The man obviously possesses political talents. Such talents manifest themselves in his superb negotiating skills.
In 2016, with the office of president vacant for more than two years, Bassil played a key role in reaching a complex deal that brought Aoun to the presidency and Saad Hariri to the premiership. The deal involved tough bargaining with a maze of local and foreign parties. In the process, he convinced Hariri to abandon the March 14 movement, which he had led since 2005.
In the formation of the two governments that followed the presidential deal, Bassil overshadowed the designated prime minister, Hariri. This was most visible in the formation of the recent cabinet, when Bassil insisted, contrary to the constitution, on setting a certain criterion according to which the government ought to be formed.
Still, Bassil depends on exploiting Lebanon's sectarian structure to propel his political career. And while this is not an unusual practice in Lebanese politics, Bassil took it to new heights.
He presents himself to his constituents as a man on a mission. The mission is dedicated to restoring the political rights of the Christians, supposedly denied by the 1990 Taif Accord.
Such image carries immense benefits for Bassil. For one thing, it helps him derail criticism about his performance in the cabinet posts that he occupied. Most notably as minister of Energy and Water, (2009-14), while the electricity supply deteriorated. For another, it shields him from charges of corruption which are made against him by his political rivals.
Yet the most serious mark that Bassil made on Lebanon's political scene is the "Bassil doctrine."
The "Bassil doctrine" states that the most powerful among his sect should occupy the highest post allocated for that sect. Bassil needs such "doctrine" as a vehicle to advance his fortunes to win the presidency. That said, there are many shortcomings in the "Bassil doctrine". For one thing, it is contrary to the constitution. It also lacks a reliable mechanism to gauge the popularity of a candidate among his sect. For another, it carries within it destructive seeds that will only deepen the sectarian divide that plagues Lebanon.
While the "Bassil doctrine" applies to the three top jobs in the country, it is certain that it will seep into all senior government posts as well. And in the absence of a reliable mechanism to measure popularity, each aspirant to a high post will seek to emulate Bassil by enthusiastically offering himself as the "true guardian" of the interests of his sect, thus splitting each sect into several competing fragments.
While several voices have challenged the "Basil doctrine," such objections remain fractured, and unable to prevent it from being embedded into Lebanon's political culture. Even Prime Minister Saad Hariri was sucked into it. His recent declaration "I am the father of the Sunnis in Lebanon" is telling; coming from a politician who claims to lead a party that has crossed the sectarian barrier.

Dispute In Lebanon Over Iran's Offer To Equip Lebanese Army
ان موزيز من موقع ميمري: نزاع في لبنان حول عرض إيران تزويد الجيش بمعدات عسكرية
N. Mozes/MEMRI/February 25/19
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/72458/n-mozes-memri-dispute-in-lebanon-over-irans-offer-to-equip-lebanese-army-%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B2-%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%8A/
Introduction
Having established its status and presence in Syria, it appears that Iran, which has a great deal of influence in Lebanon's political system and daily life via Hizbullah, now seeks to further strengthen its direct control of the country by infiltrating its institutions and its vital areas, first and foremost the military and also energy and health. This is aimed at, among other things, opening up the Lebanese market for Iranian goods, which have a very limited market because of the U.S. sanctions on Iran.[1]
On February 6, about a week after the announcement of the new Lebanese government, in which the pro-Syria and pro-Iran March 8 camp holds a majority of seats, and on the eve of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif's visit to the country, Hizbullah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah proposed to the Lebanese people that they accept aid from Iran, calling Iran "a great and true friend who wants nothing from us." Nasrallah suggested importing weapons from Iran that, he said, would "make the Lebanese Army the strongest in the region," and pointed out Iran's willingness to supply Lebanon with medicines and help solve its electricity problems as well.[2] Nasrallah's statement appears to have been aimed at priming Lebanese public opinion for Zarif's visit, two days later. Indeed, Zarif himself announced, upon arriving in Beirut, that his country was "willing to meet Lebanon's military and economic needs."[3]
In meetings with Lebanese officials, headed by President Michel 'Aoun and Prime Minister Sa'd Al-Hariri, Zarif reiterated the offer of aid to Lebanon. In an attempt to dispel Lebanese apprehensions regarding the ramifications of accepting aid from Iran because of the sanctions on it, Zarif stressed: "No international law prevents Iran and Lebanon from cooperating with each other."[4] He also proposed that Iran and Lebanon work together in arrangements similar to those that Iran has arrived at with a number of European countries, and with Russia, Turkey, and China, that would allow Lebanon to evade punishment for violating the sanctions.[5] Likewise, in an attempt to underline how Lebanon would benefit economically from increasing its trade with Iran, Zarif proposed that transactions would be in Lebanese pounds – that is, Lebanon would not have to use foreign currency in its dealings with Iran.[6]
This is not the first time Iran has offered Lebanon military and economic aid. In 2014, it was offered and rejected, apparently because of a U.S. veto. This time, Iran's task will be easier because the March 8 camp, headed by Hizbullah, has strengthened, and the March 14 camp, headed by Prime Minister Al-Hariri, which is close to Saudi Arabia and opposes Hizbullah, is weakened. The new government, established January 30, 2019, comprises 30 ministers, 18 of them belonging to the March 8 camp. Also, the new defense minister, Elias Bou Saab of the Free Patriotic Movement, which is headed by president 'Aoun who is considered close to Hizbullah, has not said anything to rule out accepting Iran's proposal.
More than anything else, what happens with Iran's proposal depends on how much pressure the U.S. and European countries bring to bear on Lebanon. In recent months, a struggle for control of Lebanon is becoming evident, with Iran on one side and the U.S. and its Arab allies on the other. The U.S. had already identified the risk of a Lebanese government with a pro-Iran majority, and before its establishment several American officials visited Lebanon to warn Lebanese officials not to appoint Hizbullah politicians to top ministerial posts such as health minister, and also to warn about the ramifications of rapprochement with Iran. It also may be no coincidence that, days after Zarif's Lebanon visit, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut announced that the U.S. had delivered to Lebanon precision-guided Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS) rockets for the A-29 Super Tucano aircraft, worth $16 million.[7] Furthermore, in her meeting with Defense Minister Bou Saab, the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Elizabeth Richard, stressed that the U.S. is the strongest supporter of the Lebanese Army and would continue to support it.[8]
In addition, the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar reported that the U.S. was pressuring the Arab countries to offer aid to Lebanon, in an attempt to strengthen the March 14 camp and prevent Lebanon from needing Iranian aid.[9] It is not inconceivable that these pressures led to the Lebanon visit by Nizar Al-Aloula, an advisor in the office of the Saudi king, only one day after as Zarif's visit. In Lebanon, Al-Aloula expressed his hope that the 20 Lebanese-Saudi agreements already signed would soon be implemented.[10] Also during his visit, Saudi Arabia announced that it was lifting its travel ban to Lebanon.[11]
Unsurprisingly, Nasrallah's and Zarif's proposals that Lebanon accept military aid from Iran sparked a heated debate between the March 8 camp and the March 14 camp. Hizbullah supporters argued that Lebanon's economic circumstances made it impossible for it to reject Iran's offer, particularly when practically nothing was being asked of it in return, and that this was a test of Lebanon's independence of the West. They stressed that Iran was willing to equip the Lebanese Army with weapons that could deter Israel and that the U.S. was keeping the Lebanese Army from obtaining.
The March 14 camp, on the other hand, argued that accepting Iran's proposal could bring Lebanon into conflict with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and thus put at risk the tremendous amount of aid it receives from the U.S. – aid so large in scale that Iran would not be able to compensate Lebanon for its loss, particularly in light of the harsh sanctions on it. They also expressed doubts about Iran's ability to follow through on its proposals, even if Lebanon did accept them. Furthermore, they expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the air defense systems that Iran proposed giving Lebanon, and asked why Iran was not using them itself to thwart Israeli attacks on Iranian forces in Syria.
It should be noted that in this debate, both anti- and pro-Hizbullah elements speculated that Nasrallah and Iran had made the offer to equip the Lebanese Army because they were certain it would be rejected – thus providing a pretext for Hizbullah to maintain its weapons and making it appear to be the only element capable of defending Lebanon.
This report will review reactions in Lebanon to Iran's and Hizbullah's proposals.
Iran's Allies In Lebanon: Lebanon Must Demonstrate Its Independence By Accepting Iran's Offer
As stated, following the establishment of the government, which is dominated by the pro-Hizbullah March 8 camp, there were increasing calls by pro-Iran elements in Lebanon, in particular by Hizbullah, to accept Iran's offer and thereby alleviate Lebanon's economic and security problems.
Nasrallah: I Am Willing To Obtain From Iran Everything The Lebanese Army Needs
In his February 6 speech on the occasion of the anniversary of Iran's Islamic Revolution, Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah urged the Lebanese people to realize that the regional balance of power has changed: Iran and the resistance axis have grown stronger and the U.S. and Israel have considerably weakened. He therefore called on Lebanon to accept the aid of Iran, "a great and true friend who wants nothing from us," and added: "I wonder why we ignore this friend, who can assist in [the areas of] defense, development and science, and support us in international organizations? Why do we turn our back to it while extending our necks [in surrender] to others [i.e., the U.S.] whose attitude towards us is known to all? The main issue that the [new Lebanese] government will have to address is that of electricity. Iran is willing to solve this problem [for us] within a year and at a very low cost. As for medicines, why do we keep importing them? Why do we remain dependent on others? In the period of [former Lebanese president Najib] Mikati, an Iranian delegation came and offered to build tunnels that would solve Lebanon's traffic problems for 50 years. Did the Lebanese government dare to accept these Iranian offers? What is Lebanon afraid of?"[12] Nasrallah noted that, if Iran supplied air defense systems to Hizbullah, some in Lebanon would complain: "If Hizbullah had [such air defenses], and it were to down an Israeli air force plane attacking Lebanon... wouldn't many people start complaining that Hizbullah was dragging Lebanon into a war?" He therefore offered to use his good relations with Iran to obtain these systems for the Lebanese Army instead: "As a friend of Iran, I am willing to bring Lebanon air defense [systems] from Iran... and whatever [else] the Lebanese Army needs to become the strongest army in the region." To watch a video of Nasrallah's statements, click below:
In an attempt to garner public support in Lebanon for the Iranian offer, Hizbullah officials noted the considerable aid it has extended to Hizbullah and which, they said, has enabled it to defend Lebanon. On the eve of Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif's visit, Nawwaf Al-Moussawi, a member of Hizbullah's faction in the Lebanese parliament, said that Iran's support for the organization since 1982 has enabled it "to build a significant missile arsenal. Our brothers in Iran improved the accuracy of [our] ballistic missiles, and enabled us to ward off the specter of war [that was threatening] our country. This was thanks to the power we gained with the help of our friends in Iran and Syria."[13]
Hizbullah Officials: Lebanon Must Not Pass Up An Opportunity To Resolve Its Economic Difficulties
Lebanon's Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Hizbullah Executive Committee member Mahmoud Qamati, said following his meeting with Zarif that "Lebanon is independent in its policy and decisions, [and welcomes] any country that wants to help it and support it... If Iran will be the first to offer Lebanon aid, we will thank it, especially since its aid has no conditions or price attached to it. We appreciate that there are international pressures [to avoid accepting Iranian aid]. But [those who are pressuring Lebanon], what do they want? Do they want Lebanon to remain backward? If they want to help Lebanon, let them propose solutions [themselves]. This government is serious, so far, in its desire to solve Lebanon's problems... first and foremost the problem of electricity." He assessed that the Lebanese government would take a decision that would suit Lebanon's interests.[14]
'Ali Da'moush, deputy-chair of Hizbullah's Executive Committee, called on the Lebanese government "not to miss the opportunity to receive Iranian support and cooperation – an opportunity that was missed by previous governments – and [thereby] prove that it is an independent and sovereign decision-maker, that it does not let the American veto stop it... and that it heeds the interests of Lebanon and the Lebanese..." [15]
Lebanese Defense Minister: No Reason To Refuse Iranian And Russian Cooperation
Hizbullah's political allies likewise welcomed the Iranian offer, most prominently Defense Minister Elias Bou Saab of the Free Patriotic Movement. In his inauguration ceremony at the Ministry, he said that he was not against accepting military aid from Russia and Iran if this would benefit the Lebanese Army: "We welcome [the help] of any country that is willing to give us the weapons we need. We need the Russians [to continue providing us] with Russian missiles and mortars... We welcome [the aid] of anyone who is willing to help the Lebanese Army with no strings attached." As for Iranian aid, he said: "We [in the Lebanese military] stay away from politics... The interest of the Lebanese Army is above any other consideration... The issue will be discussed in the Army's headquarters and we will accept [the offer] if we need to. Yes, we are willing to receive aid from anyone." While stressing that Lebanon wished to maintain its relations with the U.S., which grants it the largest amount of aid, Bou Saab added: "In the recent years advanced and high-quality weapons have become available, [such as] smart missiles and laser-guided missiles... I repeat once again that the interest of the Lebanese Army is our first [priority]... and that will be the basis for any decision we take."[16]
Following his meeting with Zarif, Bou Saab said that Iran understands Lebanon's position and is not pressuring it. He reiterated that the interest of the Army is the top priority, and added that "there is nothing to preclude cooperation" with Iran. He made similar remarks regarding Russia.[17]
Former Lebanese MP Emile Emile Lahoud, the son of former president Emile Lahoud, contrasted Zarif's visit and the Iranian offers, which "benefit Lebanon economically and militarily," with the visit of Saudi royal advisor Nizar Al-Aloula, which he said was "degrading" and useless, since it resulted only in the lifting of the Saudi travel ban to Lebanon but not in any direct economic aid, as Lebanon had hoped.[18]
March 8 Sources: We Must Refuse U.S. Aid; If The Army Does Not Accept Iran's Offer Of Air Defense Systems, Hizbullah Will Take Them
Sources in the March 8 camp called to refuse the U.S. military aid to Lebanon, especially since, according to them, the U.S. provides Lebanon only with primitive and obsolete weapons, and keeps it from obtaining advanced air defense systems, in order to preserve Israel's air superiority. "The Lebanese people," said the sources, "must oppose Lebanon's ties with such countries [i.e., the U.S. and Europe], which aid the Israeli enemy that attacks Lebanon... Does the Lebanese people [really] want to tighten its relations with the U.S. and the Western countries that conspire against Lebanon and sever its ties with countries that help us unconditionally and without interfering in the decisions of the Lebanese government?" As for the danger that the U.S. would cease its aid to Lebanon in response to its tightening relations with Iran, the sources said that they would be pleased to see this happen.[19]
The proponents of accepting the Iranian proposal also stated that, if the Lebanese government declined Iran's offer of air defense systems, Hizbullah would consider itself justified in acquiring these systems for itself, and then would present itself as the only one capable of defending Lebanon. Nasrallah, they said, actually expects the government to decline the Iranian offer, and relayed this offer only "to fulfill his obligation and avoid being accused of usurping the right to make decisions about war and peace." They added: "If the relevant authorities lack the courage to accept the offer that was expressed by Nasrallah and personally conveyed by Zarif, this will provide the resistance with further justification to reinforce its defensive arsenal... Nasrallah will even be entitled to choose the right time to put an end to the ongoing Israeli violations... and nobody will be able to blame him after turning down an offer to arm the [Lebanese] Army with weapons that can stop these violations..."[20]
It should be noted, however, that some in the March 8 camp had reservations about accepting the Iranian offer. MP Chamel Roukoz of the Strong Lebanon bloc, which is affiliated with the March 8 camp, said prior to Zarif's visit that, while the offer should be regarded in a positive light, there is need for national consensus and a discussion of Lebanon's defense strategy. About the electricity crisis, he said that Lebanon could solve it without external intervention, by means of its gas resources.[21]
March 14 Camp: Accepting Iran's Offer Will Bring Us Into Conflict With U.S. And Arab World
Unsurprisingly, Hizbullah's rivals, the March 14 camp, did not welcome the proposals of Iran and its allies. Members of this camp argued that accepting Iranian aid would put Lebanon in violation of international agreements, and warned about the consequences of tightening relations with Iran, which is under strict sanctions. In addition, they doubted that Iran could actually follow through on its offer, considering own economic difficulties, and said that these were empty promises made for propaganda purposes only. They also questioned the effectiveness of Iran's air defense systems, given that Israel is able to attack the Iranian and pro-Iranian forces in Syria undisturbed, and even urged Hizbullah to return the weapons it has already received from Iran, or else turn them over to the Lebanese Army.
In his meeting with Zarif, Lebanese Prime Minister Sa'd Al-Hariri politely declined the latter's offer, saying that Lebanon "respects its commitments and agreements with the Arab world and the international community."[22] Several days later, in a ceremony commemorating the assassination of his father, Rafiq Al-Hariri, he took a firmer position, saying: "Lebanon is not part of any axis and is not a theatre for the regional arms race. It is an independent Arab state with a constitution, laws, institutions and commitments towards the Arab [world] and the international [community], a state that is committed to the policy of disassociation from conflicts.[23] Any other position is not binding for Lebanon or the Lebanese."[24]
Sa'd Al-Hariri's advisor 'Amar Khouri said that, in principle, there was no reason not to consider the Iranian offer, but presented several conditions for accepting it, including that Lebanon's sovereignty and its relations with other countries would not be compromised and that there would be no price attached – conditions which effectively implied a rejection of the offer. Like other March 14 figures, he doubted the effectiveness of the Iranian air defense systems, saying: "If Iran has air defense capabilities, why does it not use them to defend its positions in Syria, which Israel repeatedly attacks?"[25]
March 14 Officials: Iran Must Stop Arming Hizbullah And Demand That It Return The Weapons It Has Already Received Or Else Hand Them Over To The Army
Other March 14 officials used less diplomatic language. Former Lebanese president Michel Suleiman warned that accepting Iranian arms could mean giving up the American aid, amounting to $100 million annually, and stressed that this offer could not be accepted without international approval. The only Iranian weapons Lebanon might like to receive are those already held by Hizbullah, he added.[26] He called on Hizbullah to return its weapons to Iran.[27]
Samir Geagea, head of the Lebanese Forces party, said that the Iranian weapons were unsuitable for the Lebanese Army, since most of its equipment is Western.[28] On another occasion he said: "If these air defense systems exist... why didn't [the Iranians] use them against the repeated Israeli attacks on them, especially in Syria? That is why [I believe] this offer is a lie. As for medicines, the Lebanese market is open to medicines from all over the world, but they must meet certain standards and be approved by the Ministry of Health. Of all the medicines manufactured in Iran, only two are approved, and they are [already] on the Lebanese market... They want us to violate the law and [our own] standards and flood our markets with medicines of uncertain effectiveness... If Iran wants to help Lebanon in this area it should open its market to Lebanese medicines, which meet international standards and whose effectiveness is proven."[29]
Former deputy parliament speaker Farid Makari said that Zarif could take back the weapons "he [had already] sent to Lebanon without the Lebanese people's consent instead of urging them to accept his weapons willingly."[30]
Former minister Ashraf Rifi, also a member of the March 14 camp and a firm opponent of Hizbullah, issued a scathing statement in which he accused Iran of pursuing a "destructive" policy in Lebanon and the region that has "transformed the reality [of the region's countries] into hell and their future into a mirage under the guise of the so-called resistance plan." He wondered why, in the 2006 war between Hizbullah and Israel, Iran had stood by and had not fired missiles into Israel, but only "verbal missiles." He called Zarif's visit in Beirut "a provocation that we reject."[31]
Elie Mahfoud, head of the Change Movement, said he was confident that the Lebanese government would not succumb to Hizbullah's pressure to accept the Iranian proposal. He tweeted: "No matter how powerful Hizbullah is and how much control it has, and how effectively it manages to unite parliamentary blocs in order to lend legitimacy to its weapons, it will not manage to persuade the Lebanese government to import Iranian weapons and medicines. There are many reasons for this, mainly Lebanon's stance vis-à-vis its historic allies, as well as its identity and its regional role."[32]
Lebanese Columnists: This Is An Empty Offer That Must Not Be Accepted
The Lebanese media identified with the March 14 camp published articles opposing the offer and calling to refuse it. 'Ali Al-'Amin, a Shi'ite journalist who opposes Hizbullah, wrote on the Janoubia.com website, of which he is the editor: "There is no doubt that Lebanon is ill, but the treatment prescribed by Zarif will not cure it... This Iranian minister and his government know that Lebanon's illness... is [the conduct of] the Lebanese state itself. That is why Zarif and the Iranian politicians who came before him... act to weaken the Lebanese state [still further] and invest in supporting and funding everything that weakens it... Minister [Zarif], Lebanon's illness obliges you first of all to refrain from offering to equip the Lebanese Army." Al-Amin added that Lebanon did not need Iranian weapons, especially since they have not proved their effectiveness against Israel in Syria. The cure Lebanon needs, he said, "is simpler than the arms deals and the medicines offered by Iran, namely support for the homeland's decisions. As for the weapons that you [Zarif] think will defend Lebanon against any aggression – you need only to instruct the Hizbullah leadership, which declares day and night its religious and political loyalty to your leader [Khamenei], to hand over all the weapons and all the precise and imprecise missiles it possesses to the Lebanese Army, and thereby declare, loud and clear, that Hizbullah must be as loyal to the Lebanese state as you and your leader are to Iran. Neither more nor less."[33]
Lebanese journalist Randa Taqi Al-Din, a columnist for the Dubai-based daily Al-Hayat, wrote: "If we look at the details, we will find that Iran is unable [to provide] the aid, and that Lebanon cannot receive military aid from a country that is under strict American sanctions. This is especially [true] considering that, since 2007, the U.S. has granted Lebanon $4.8 billion in aid: $1.7 billion in military aid and $3.1 billion humanitarian and civilian aid. Last year alone, the U.S. gave Lebanon $750 million... Zarif's visit was intended to show the world and the Iranian [public] that the regime of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps still has a long arm and can intervene and sow destruction in the Middle East, despite the American sanctions..." Al-Din warned the Lebanese leadership "to beware any Iranian attempt to exploit Lebanon's relative stability in order to evade the American sanctions, either by manufacturing Iranian products in Lebanon and elsewhere, or by other means that will worsen Lebanon's economic situation."[34]
Rozana Bu Munsif, a columnist for the daily Al-Nahar, wrote that the Iranian offer may yield a positive outcome in prompting the Arabs to support Lebanon so as to prevent it from turning to Iran. She added that the U.S. has already urged several Arab states to support Lebanon politically and economically.[35]
* N. Mozes is a research fellow at MEMRI.
[1] It should be noted that in addition to Iran, Russia too has, in the past year, worked hard to establish its influence in Lebanon, seeking, inter alia, to advance a Russia-Lebanon military cooperation agreement that has yet to be signed because of U.S. objections. Likewise, in January 2019, Lebanon signed a contract with the Russian government company Roseneft for operating the petroleum port at Tripoli, Lebanon, and last year seven Russian cultural centers were built in the country. Al-Mudun (Lebanon), January 28, 2019.
[2] Almanar.com.lb, February 6, 2019.
[3] Fars news agency (Iran), February 10, 2019.
[4] Almayadeen.net, February 11, 2019.
[5] A reference to the financial instruments aimed at allowing Iran and the countries that trade with it to circumvent the U.S. sanctions, such as oil for goods deals, or oil for food and medicines, for example the European INSTEX transactions channel, or transactions in local currency for oil, as with China and India.
[6] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), February 12, 2019.
[7] Facebook.com/USEmbassyBeirut/videos/2512137188858537/ , February 13, 2019.
[8] Albawabhnews.com, February 20, 2019.
[9] Al-Nahar (Lebanon), February 13, 2013.
[10] Al-Hayat (Dubai), February 13, 2019.
[11] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), February 13, 2019.
[12] Almanar.com.lb, February 6, 2019.
[13] Almanar.com.lb, February 9, 2019.
[14] Alnashra.com, February 10, 2019.
[15] Alnashra.com, February 11, 2019.
[16] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), February 4, 2019.
[17] Sputniknews.com, February 16, 2019.
[18] Alnashra.com, February 15, 2019.
[19] Al-Diyar (Lebanon), February 9, 2019.
[20] Alnashra.com, February 13, 2019.
[21] Janoubia.com, February 8, 2019.
[22] Almayadeen.net, February 11, 2019.
[23] In August 2011, as the Syrian crisis came up for debate in the UN Security Council, Lebanon, which was a Security Council member at the time and whose government, headed by Najib Mikati, was dominated by supporters of the Syrian regime, had to take an official position on the crisis. The Security Council ultimately issued a Presidential Statement condemning Syria, approved by 14 of its 15 members; Lebanon was the only member-state that did not support the statement, choosing instead to "dissociate itself" from the consensus. In this manner, Lebanon avoided criticizing Syria while refraining from thwarting the condemnation. Since then, the Lebanese governments have consistently defined their policy as one of "dissociation" from the Syrian crisis and from other conflicts in the region, including the one between Saudi Arabia and Iran. This policy allows Lebanon to avoid taking a definite stance on these conflicts and to bridge the very significant gap between the pro-Saudi camp in Lebanon, headed by Sa'd Al-Hariri, and the pro-Iranian camp, headed by Hizbullah. See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 842, Syria's Role In Lebanon's Conflagration, May 31, 2012.
[24] Lebanonfiles.com, February 14, 2019.
[25] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), February 11, 2019.
[26] Youtube.com/watch?v=wiZJr9LHxxA, February 14, 2019.
[27] Alnashra.com, February 10, 2019.
[28] Al-Jadid TV (Lebanon), February 10, 2019.
[29] Alnashra.com, February 18, 2019.
[30] Twitter.com/makarifarid, February 10, 2019.
[31] Alnashra.com, February 10, 2019.
[32] Twitter.com/MahfoudElie, February 10, 2019.
[33] Janoubia.com, February 11, 2019.
[34] Al-Hayat (Dubai), February 12, 2019.
[35] Al-Nahar (Lebanon), February 13, 2019.
https://www.memri.org/reports/dispute-lebanon-over-irans-offer-equip-lebanese-army

Latest LCCC English Miscellaneous Reports & News published on February 25-26/19
Netanyahu Vows to Continue to Prevent Iran’s Entrenchment in Syria
Tel Aviv - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 25 February, 2019/Russian President Vladimir Putin will discuss the Iranian presence in Syria with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, as well as possible ways to clamp down this presence. “Yesterday we heard a senior official in Iran’s terrorist regime say, ‘Iran has attained 90 percent of its goals in Syria,'” Netanyahu said at a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem Sunday. “That’s not true. It’s true they’re trying, and it’s true we’re preventing it,” he added. “A month ago an Iranian official said they’re just ‘advising’ in Syria. The world is hearing a great many lies from Iran. I have a clear message to the Iranian regime, which wants to destroy Israel: Israel will continue to act for as long as necessary to prevent Iran’s military entrenchment in Syria.”Of his talks with Putin, Netanyahu said: “Of course, Iran will be at the top of our agenda, we’ve agreed on that. I’ll discuss with him developments in the region and Iran’s aggression.”The two leaders “will also discuss strengthening the defense coordination mechanism between the Israeli army and the Russian army to ensure stability and prevent unnecessary friction in the region,” he revealed. The visit was scheduled for last Thursday but was postponed to this week.

Russia Suggests Deploying its Police in Syria Safe Zone
Moscow - Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 25 February, 2019/Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said on Sunday that Russian military police could be deployed in a buffer zone on the border between Syria and Turkey. The minister told Vietnamese and Chinese news outlets that in 1998, Turkey and Syria signed a document about setting up a buffer zone. He said the agreement stipulates cooperation in eradicating the terrorist threat on the common border, including an opportunity for the Turkish side to carry out operations in certain border areas on Syrian territory. According to the Russian minister, the format of the buffer zone is being finalized. “The final format of this buffer zone is undergoing adjustments … by taking into account the interests of Damascus and Ankara,” he said. Separately, European sources in Beirut told Asharq Al-Awsat on Sunday that a high-ranking Syrian security official succeeded to evade arrest in Lebanon. They said the Interpol issued a red notice for chief of Syria's Air Force Intelligence Directorate General Jamil Hassan for committing crimes against humanity during the war in Syria. The sources said that the Interpol office in Beirut received a notice in that regard and should inform Lebanese authorities to work on arresting Hassan, if present in the country. The sources confirmed that the arrest warrant against the Syrian general lacked full details on his identity. Hassan is a member of Bashar Assad's inner circle. The US Treasury Department froze his assets because of his role in Syria’s war.
German newspapers said Hassan was forced to move from Damascus to Beirut to seek medical treatment. Last June, the German federal prosecutor issued an arrest warrant against Hassan for committing crimes against humanity based on a complaint filed by Syrian refugees in Germany. ;

Iran's foreign minister Zarif announces his resignation on his Instagram page
Reuters//Arab News/February 25, 2019/DUBAI: Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, the urbane, US-educated architect of its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, announced his resignation unexpectedly on Monday on Instagram. “Many thanks for the generosity of the dear and brave people of Iran and its authorities over the past 67 months. I sincerely apologize for the inability to continue serving and for all the shortcomings during my service. Be happy and worthy,” he wrote on his Instagram page jzarif_ir.He gave no specific reasons for his decision.
Zarif played the lead role in striking the deal under which Iran agreed to curbs on its nuclear program in return for the lifting of international financial sanctions. He came under attack from anti-Western hard-liners in Iran after the United States pulled out of the agreement last May and reimposed sanctions.
A spokesman for the Iranian mission to the United Nations, Alireza Miryousefi, confirmed the announcement of the resignation. However there was no immediate word on whether President Hassan Rouhani would accept it. Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency said “some sources have confirmed Zarif’s resignation.”Born in 1960, Zarif lived in the United States from the age of 17 as a student in San Francisco and Denver, and subsequently as a diplomat to the United Nations in New York, where he served as Iranian ambassador from 2002 to 2007.
He was appointed minister of foreign affairs in August 2013 after Rouhani won the presidency in a landslide on a promise to open up Iran to the outside world. Since taking charge of Iran’s nuclear talks with major powers in late 2013, Zarif has been summoned to the parliament several times by hard-line lawmakers to explain about the negotiations. In February 2014 he caused an uproar with public comments condemning the Holocaust and was subsequently summoned to parliament. Holocaust denial has been a staple of public speeches in Iran for decades.
Some hard-liners even threatened Zarif with bodily harm after the nuclear deal was signed. Iran’s top authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, guardedly backed the deal.

EU, Arab Leaders Proclaim 'New Era' despite Human Rights Split
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 25/19/European and Arab leaders on Monday ended their first summit pledging to launch a "new era" of cooperation on topics ranging from counter-terrorism to migration despite sharp differences over human rights. Around 40 EU and Arab leaders stressed at their two-day summit in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh how their challenges were interlinked and required joint efforts to meet them. In a final statement, the leaders pledged to "embark on a new era of cooperation and coordination" that would boost stability and prosperity in both regions and beyond, all within a rules-based international order. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the summit host, highlighted common interests on counter-terrorism, migration, economic development and efforts for peace in Yemen, Syria, Libya as well as between Israel and the Palestinians. But Sisi shot back at a European journalist who asked him to respond to EU criticism of human rights in Egypt."You are not going to teach us about our humanity, our values, and our morality," Sisi said during the closing news conference. "Respect our humanity and our morality as we respect yours."
The Egyptian leader said "our priorities are different" as people of the region faced hundreds if not thousands of terrorist acts, compared with Europe which had only a few. Jean-Claude Juncker, head of the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, told the same news conference that differences on "respect for human rights should not prevent us from envisaging the future with optimism."There were also differences on how to deal with Iran, with the Sunni-led Arab countries taking a harder line toward the government in Shiite-dominated Tehran. A Western diplomat told AFP several Arab countries wanted a firmer position on Iran in the final summit statement, which the Europeans refused to do. Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel earlier cautioned against expecting too much from the first EU-Arab League summit. "If you think that by seeing each other for 24 hours in Sharm el-Sheikh and it's peace in the world and in the region, then you believe in Father Christmas," Bettel told reporters.But Bettel said the summit helped lay the ground for future talks and led to important personal contacts.
'Same concerns'
Both sides agreed the need to work together to manage migrant and refugee flows as well as fight extremists, though Europe is itself divided on migration. More than one million people, most of them fleeing the war in Syria, entered the bloc in 2015. Eastern EU governments have refused to admit asylum seekers landing in front line states like Italy and Greece. Conflict-wracked Libya meanwhile is used as a staging area by smugglers and traffickers to take economic migrants and asylum seekers to Italian shores. European leaders have also stressed the need to defuse conflicts in the region because they are linked to extremists implicated in a wave of terrorist attacks in Europe. Arabs and Europeans have both been battling the Islamic State group, and its followers. The group has territorially been pushed out of its strongholds in Iraq and Syria. The summit in the southern Sinai desert was heavily guarded by Egyptian security forces who are fighting a bloody jihadist insurgency a short distance to the north. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said Sunday the two sides "share the same concerns when it comes to fighting terrorism, preventing radicalization."Mogherini also said "we largely share the same positions" on Syria, the Arab-Israeli peace process, Yemen and Libya. Most of the leaders of the 22-member Arab League attended, except for Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, whose country was suspended from the League over the civil war, and Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, who is grappling with protests at home. Absent on the EU side were the leaders of France, Spain, Latvia and Lithuania. European Union countries viewed the summit as a way to protect their traditional diplomatic, economic and security interests while China and Russia move to fill a vacuum left by the United States.

Trump Departs U.S. for Vietnam, Summit with N. Korea's Kim
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 25/19/Donald Trump departed Washington Monday bound for Vietnam and a second historic summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, with the U.S. president saying he will push for Korean denuclearization. Trump left Joint Base Andrews near Washington aboard Air Force One at 12:34 pm (1734 GMT) bound for a Wednesday-Thursday summit in Hanoi. Shortly before his departure from the White House he spoke optimistically about what he expected would be a "very tremendous summit," adding that "we want denuclearization" on the Korean peninsula.

Assad Meets Khamenei, Rouhani in Tehran
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 25/19/Syrian President Bashar al-Assad met Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Monday on his first visit to the Islamic republic since the start of the Syrian conflict. During talks, Assad expressed his gratitude to Iran for all that it has done for Syria during the nearly eight-year war, the Syrian presidency said. The leaders "reviewed the fraternal and strong relations between their two peoples, which have been the main factor in maintaining Syria and Iran in the face of plots by enemy countries," the presidency said. Khamenei told Assad that "Iran considers helping the government and nation of Syria to be helping the resistance movement and is proud of it from the bottom of its heart," his website said. "The creation of the buffer that the Americans are seeking to create in Syria is an example of these dangerous conspiracies which must be strongly denounced and resisted," Khamenei added. He called Assad "the hero of the Arab world" and said his steadfastness made the "resistance more powerful and respected."Iran and Russia have been the key allies supporting Assad as he has battled to maintain his grip over Syria during nearly eight years of fighting that has claimed more than 360,000 lives. Tehran has repeatedly said it does not send regular troops to fight in Syria, but has only provided military advisers and militia fighters from various countries.Photographs published on the leader's website showed the commander of the Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, Major General Qassem Soleimani, was present at the meeting with Khamenei.
'Economic cooperation'
Assad also met with Iran's President Hassan Rouhani during his trip.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran as before will be alongside the people and government of Syria," the Iranian government's official website quoted Rouhani as saying.With the help from its allies, Assad's regime has retaken swathes of territory from rebels and jihadists since 2015 and now controls around two-thirds of Syria, including its main cities. During their meeting Rouhani assured Assad that "Tehran will be alongside Damascus in the stabilization, return of refugees and internal political process."Damascus and Tehran signed a string of deals in late January, including a long-term "economic cooperation" agreement.At the time, Assad said the deals were meant to "help consolidate Syrian and Iranian resilience against the economic war waged against them by some Western states."The conflict in Syria has caused nearly $400 billion of destruction, according to the United Nations. Khamenei's website said the meeting with Assad took place on Monday morning, but gave no information on whether the Syrian leader remained in Iran. Assad's only other trips outside his homeland since the war began in March 2011 with a brutal crackdown by his forces have been to Russia.

Trump Says American Held Hostage in Yemen Freed
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 25/19/U.S. President Donald Trump announced Monday that an American had been freed after being held hostage in Yemen for 18 months. Danny Burch has been "recovered and reunited with his wife and children," Trump said in a tweet.Trump did not say who had been holding Burch but he expressed appreciation for the "support of the United Arab Emirates in bringing Danny home." According to Burch's family, the Texas native, who has lived in Yemen for more than two decades, was kidnapped in the capital Sanaa in September 2017.
A number of foreigners have been abducted in Yemen by the country's heavily armed tribes for use as bargaining chips in local disputes and there have also been some kidnappings by al-Qaida.In a telephone call with AFP at the time of his kidnapping, Burch's wife, Nadia Forsa al-Harazi, urged Huthi Shiite rebels to secure the release of her husband. She said her husband had lived in the capital for more than 20 years and the couple had three children. Trump said "recovering American hostages is a priority of my (administration).""With Danny's release, we have now secured freedom for 20 American captives since my election victory," he said. "We will not rest as we continue our work to bring the remaining American hostages back home!"

Iraq Saves France Thorny Repatriations of IS Jihadists
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 25/19/By pledging to try 13 French Islamic State group fighters, Iraq has assumed the role of judge and jailor for the suspected jihadists -- thereby saving Paris the controversy of repatriating them. France has been rocked by fierce public debate over whether to repatriate dozens of its nationals, including children, caught fleeing IS' collapsing "caliphate" in east Syria. Most are held by U.S.-backed Syrian forces, but 13 French citizens were transferred across the border to be tried in Baghdad, Iraqi President Barham Saleh announced on Monday.
The alleged fighters, who were turned over to Iraq after being seized by Syrian Kurdish forces, "will be judged according to Iraqi law," Saleh told a news conference after talks with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris. "Those who have engaged in crimes against Iraq and Iraqi installations and personnel, we are definitely seeking them and seeking their trial in Iraqi courts," he said. The issue is extremely sensitive in France, where a deadly 2015 attack on the capital claimed by IS killed 130 people -- but this arrangement could be Paris' best option. "This deal suits Iraq, but it's also politically favorable for France, which will avoid having to deal with the difficult return issue. Baghdad will have done it a favor," said Hisham al-Hashemi, an Iraqi expert with intimate knowledge of the issue."This way, France will no longer have to deal with organizations calling to repatriate, rehabilitate, and re-assimilate these people," he said.
Death penalty
Transferring foreign fighters to Iraq for trial appears to resolve a legal conundrum for Western powers. On the one hand, the Kurdish-run administration in northern Syria is not a legally recognized government, so trying them there would be dubious. On the other, repatriation is a politically-fraught issue, and governments fear they may not have enough evidence to convict IS members who claim they did not fight. But Iraq has already tried hundreds of foreign IS fighters, including some caught in Syria and transferred across the border. It has sentenced many, including 58-year-old French national Lahcen Ammar Gueboudj and two other French nationals, to life in prison. Baghdad has even handed down death sentences to around 100 foreigners, only one of which has been implemented. Iraq's 2005 counterterrorism law condemns any individual who provided material support for extremist groups to death, even if they did not pick up arms. "This means Iraq can put anyone on trial who just passed through their territory on their way to Syria," said Hashemi. He said the 13 French nationals now in Iraqi custody had battled government troops in Iraq, and were transferred in coordination with the U.S.-led coalition fighting IS. France initially insisted its citizens should face trial wherever they were caught, then seemed to soften its stance last month by saying it was considering repatriations. But Macron appeared to double-back on Monday, saying it was "up to the authorities of these countries to decide, sovereignly, if they will be tried there.""These people are entitled to benefit from our consular protection, and our diplomatic service will be mobilized," he added.
'Much tougher sentences'
An Iraqi judicial source told AFP that Western countries had a vested interest in making sure their nationals were tried in Iraq, not at home. "In their own countries, their lawyers could claim their clients were abducted in Syria," which could hurt the prosecution's case, the source said. "But trying them in Iraq guarantees these countries that this point won't matter." Handing them over to Iraqi courts would also ensure "much tougher sentences," the source added. The 13 French nationals were brought to Iraq in parallel with the repatriation of 280 Iraqi IS members from Syria. Fadel Abu Ragheef, a security adviser and strategic analyst, said there was more to come. "There's another wave of Iraqi and foreign jihadists that will arrive soon to Iraq," he told AFP. But Human Rights Watch said any transfers should be completed in full transparency. "When these transfers get done in the middle of the night with no one knowing, there's no way to track these people," said Nadim Houry, HRW's head of counter-terrorism. He told AFP on Monday that he was concerned about a lack of due process in Iraqi courts and the possibility of abuse in its detention centers. "Iraqi trials are rife with due process abuses and the trials are not providing justice to the victims or information about the crimes," said Houry. "It seems the West is still looking for someone to take that burden off of them without them engaging on the substance of the trials."

Iraq to Prosecute 13 French IS Fighters Seized in Syria
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 25/19/Iraqi courts will prosecute 13 French citizens captured while fighting for the Islamic State jihadist group in Syria, Iraq's President Barham Saleh said Monday. The fighters, who were turned over to Iraq after being seized by Syrian Kurdish forces, "will be judged according to Iraqi law," Saleh told a news conference after talks with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris. "Those who have engaged in crimes against Iraq and Iraqi installations and personnel, we are definitely seeking them and seeking their trial in Iraqi courts," he said. An Iraqi government source in Baghdad had told AFP earlier Monday that 14 French fighters had been brought to Iraq by the U.S.-backed forces trying to dislodge IS jihadists from their last bastion in Syria. France has long maintained that any of its nationals caught in Syria or Iraq should be tried locally, a stance which critics say could leave them facing the death penalty, which is outlawed in France. Macron reiterated this position Monday, saying that "it is up to the authorities of these countries to decide, sovereignly, if they will be tried there.""These people are entitled to benefit from our consular protection, and our diplomatic service will be mobilized," he added. Macron also said he would visit Iraq in the coming months, after France announced in January that it would provide one billion euros ($1.1 billion) in reconstruction funds for the war-ravaged country.

'The Work Begins': U.S., Taliban Arrive in Doha for Fresh Talks
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 25/19/US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad arrived in Doha Monday to kick off fresh high-level talks with the Taliban aimed at ending the 17-year Afghan conflict, saying it could be a "significant moment". "Arrived in #Doha to meet with a more authoritative Taliban delegation. This could be a significant moment. Appreciate #Qatar for hosting & #Pakistan in facilitating travel. Now the work begins in earnest," tweeted the envoy. The latest round of negotiations follows six days of talks in Doha last month that sparked hopes of a breakthrough. Then, the two sides walked away with a "draft framework" that included a Taliban vow to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a haven for international terror groups. There had been no accord on a US withdrawal or a ceasefire, however, issues which have derailed attempts at peace talks in the past, while the government in Kabul voiced fears it was being sidelined from the talks. Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar -- a Taliban deputy leader and a cofounder of the hardline Islamist movement -- arrived in Qatar late Sunday, according to a Taliban spokesman. It remained unclear what role Baradar would have during the talks, but the presence of the influential leader widely believed to carry popular support across the Taliban's myriad factions set expectations high. "The fact that Taliban deputy leader Mullah Baradar is attending the talks, shows both sides are serious this time," Kabul-based analyst Ahmad Sayeedi told AFP.
Afghan special envoy for peace Mohammad Omar Daudzai also lauded Baradar's participation, saying the insurgent leader was known for being "independent" and making "tough decisions". "[I] hope he uses his independence to decide on peace as soon as possible," Daudzai told a press conference in the Afghan capital. Baradar was arrested in Pakistan in 2010, but was released in October and named as head of the Taliban's political office in Doha. He was long considered the number two to Taliban chief Mullah Omar, who died in 2013. Meanwhile the government in Kabul continued to voice concerns Monday over being sidelined in the negotiations. The Taliban have steadfastly refused to negotiate with the Kabul government, whom they dismiss as "puppets"."The Taliban are still not ready to talk to Afghan government, but we are ready. We think that Taliban's dishonesty is the only obstacle," said Abdullah Abdullah, the country's de-facto prime minister, in a televised address Monday. "We are flexible and ready to make a team that is acceptable to all."The latest negotiations come as violence soars in Afghanistan, with the UN reporting Sunday that more civilians were killed in 2018 than any other year since records began in 2009. US President Donald Trump has signalled his eagerness to end his country's involvement in Afghanistan, where 14,000 American troops are still deployed. Afghanistan has suffered nearly constant conflict since the Soviet invasion of 1979, which was followed by civil war, the Taliban regime, and the US invasion in late 2001.

Egypt Invited Qatar to Sharm el-Sheikh Summit through ‘Appropriate’ Means
Sharm el-Sheikh – Maohmmed Nabil Helmi/Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 25 February, 2019/Egypt stressed that Qatar was invited to the weekend’s inaugural Arab League-European Union summit through the “appropriate” way, said an informed Egyptian source. Doha had lowered its level of representation at the two-day summit that got underway in Sharm el-Sheikh on Sunday. It explained that it did not receive an invitation through the normal channels. The source countered by saying the suitable means were taken. Media reports said that Cairo had sent Doha the invitation through the Greek embassy in Qatar, forcing it to lower its level of representation. The source hoped that attention would be focused on the agenda of the summit and avoid giving too much attention to statements made by Qatar.

Bouteflika Ignores Protests, Stresses 'Continuity' in Algeria
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 25 February, 2019 /Protests against President Abdulaziz Bouteflika’s run for a fifth term in office raged for a third straight day in Algeria amid a wave of arrests against activists in the capital. Thousands have taken to the streets of the capital and other cities since Friday calling on the authorities to abandon plans for Bouteflika, 81, to stand in a presidential election scheduled to be held on April 18. Bouteflika, in office since 1999, suffered a stroke in 2013. He has since been seen in public only a handful of times and has given no public speeches in years.
Bouteflika ignored the popular uproar and instead stressed the need for “continuity” in the country. State media quoted a letter in the president’s name read out at a government oil and gas industry event in the southern town of Adrar as saying: “Continuity is the best option for Algeria.”“Continuity helps each generation build on the achievements of the previous one, it guarantees that they learn from marginal missteps and allows Algeria to intensify its efforts to compete with other countries in achieving progress,” he added. He also warned against terrorism and cross-border crimes, saying that the army needs the people to “remain vigilant to act as its strong support to preserve the stability of the country.”Bouteflika was scheduled to travel to Geneva Sunday for “routine medical checks”, said a presidency statement Friday. In Algiers, security forces fired tear gas at the protesters and arrested dozens as they peacefully rallied in the Maurice Audin Square. Among the detainees was Zubaida Assoul of the opposition Mouwatana movement. A total of 41 protesters were detained on Friday, state news agency APS said. It gave no arrest for the last two days. Journalists working for state media protested against what they said were orders from managers not to cover the marches. “The decision of our hierarchy to ignore the big protests of Friday, February 21, shows the hell of our situation,” said a statement released by journalists working for state radio. “I categorically refuse to endorse a behavior that doesn’t respect the most elementary rules of our job,” a star reporter and editor for state radio, Meriem Abdou, said in a statement announcing that she had decided to quit.

Kuwait Celebrates 58th National Day
Kuwait- Merza al-Khuwaldi/Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 25 February, 2019/Kuwait marks on Monday the anniversary of its 58th Independence and its 28th Liberation Day as the country faces local and regional political tension given its significant geographic location.The National Day commemorates the creation of Kuwait as a nation in 1961 while Liberation Day marks the end of the Iraqi occupation in 1991 during the Gulf War. Monday also marks the 13th anniversary of Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah’s assumption to power. In the past three years, Kuwait has been diplomatically active in alleviating regional tensions, including mediating to resolve the Gulf crisis and bolstering commercial ties with Iraq. Kuwait backs a stable Iraqi regime and has been closely watching developments in the war on ISIS until its defeat. Kuwait also seeks to resolve Qatar’s dispute with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt. The four states insist that Doha abides by the text of the 2013 accord to resolve the crisis that erupted on June 5, 2017. Internally, Kuwait succeeded in limiting the influence of extremist groups and confronting terrorism, but amid a drop in security challenges, the country began facing other main challenges such as corruption, which the government has pledged to fight. At the end of Feb. 2018, Kuwait ranked 78 on the Corruption Perceptions Index, advancing by seven places compared to its 85 spot in 2017, Transparency International indicated in its CPI. The index, which ranks 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption according to experts and business-people, uses a scale of zero to 100, where zero is highly corrupt and 100 is very clean.

Iraq President Kicks off France Visit
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 25 February, 2019/Iraqi President Barham Salih is expected to kick off a two-day visit to France on Monday by holding talks with his counterpart Emmanuel Macron. Discussions will focus on the country's security and the fight against the ISIS terrorist group in the region. The French presidency said Paris intends to reaffirm its full support to Iraq to face challenges regarding security, stability, inclusive governance and the country's reconstruction. Salih and Macron are also set to address the case of French citizens who traveled to fight with ISIS in Iraq and Syria and are now being detained by the US-led coalition's forces. The US has called for countries to take back and try their own nationals. France's official position states that French "terrorist" fighters "must be tried wherever they committed their crimes," according to the French foreign affairs ministry.
Two years after declaring victory against ISIS, the terrorist group appears to be regrouping to wage an insurgency in Iraq. US and Iraqi officials warned last week that extremists facing defeat in Syria are slipping across the border into Iraq, where they are destabilizing the country's fragile security. Hundreds — likely more than 1,000 — militants have crossed the open, desert border in the past six months, defying a massive operation by US, Kurdish, and allied forces to stamp out the remnants of the group in eastern Syria. In recent months, the group has carried out kidnappings, assassinations and roadside ambushes in Iraq aimed at intimidating the local population and financing the group's extortion rackets.

Saudi-Egyptian Business Council Encourages Further Cooperation
Cairo - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 25 February, 2019/Egypt hosted on Sunday the Saudi-Egyptian Business Council Forum as Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz visited the country to attend the first Arab-EU summit held in the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. The forum was chaired by Vice President of the Council Dr. Abdullah bin Mahfouz and Governor of Faisal Islamic Bank of Egypt Abdel Hamid Abu Moussa, and attended by General Investment Authority (SAGIA) Governor Ibrahim bin Abdulrahman al-Omar, Chairman of the Council of Saudi Chambers (CSC) and the Federation of GCC Chambers (FGCCC) Sami al-Obeidi, President of the Federation of Egyptian Chambers of Commerce (FEDCOC) Ahmed al-Wakeel and top Egyptian and Saudi businessmen. Wakeel said, in his inaugural speech, that the Kingdom ranked first in terms of Arab investments in Egypt, and that Saudi Arabia implemented more than 5,000 projects in the country. In return, Egyptian projects in Saudi Arabia grew to total 1,300 with investments exceeding USD2.5 billion. He added that Saudi tourists represent more than 20 percent of Arab visitors to Egypt while the number of Egyptian workers in the Kingdom reached 1.8 million.  Further, more than half a million Saudis reside in Egypt. As for Obeidi, he lauded Saudi-Egyptian ties and underpinned the necessity for progress in cooperation and trade exchange. A few months ago, there was a total of 4,996 Saudi companies in the country. That figure recently rose to 5,338, he continued. Abu Moussa stated that Saudi Arabia is the number one investing state in Egypt, and that the number of Saudi firms are on the rise, which clearly shows the significant investment opportunities in Egypt. Moreover, bin Mahfouz said that Saudi investments in Egypt are increasing on a yearly basis. In 2017, trade exchange was around USD6 billion, reaching USD8 billion in 2018, he added. Omar also spoke at the forum, stressing that the Kingdom and Egypt share a vision amid a development movement in Egypt thanks to the new policies endorsed to lure foreign firms. He added that the bilateral economic ties are huge but don’t meet the ambition of both parties.

AIPAC Condemns Netenyahu’s Policy in Encouraging 'Jewish Terrorism'
Tel Aviv- Nazir Majli/Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 25 February, 2019/Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received rare criticism from the US largest pro-Israel lobby, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), after he promised the racist Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party with an election alliance. “AIPAC has a longstanding policy not to meet with members of this racist and reprehensible party,” the Committee said in a tweet. Otzma Yehudit is a new political party formed by longtime followers of Meir Kahane and is now seeking election to the Knesset. The Committee described views of Otzma Yehudit as “reprehensible”, adding that: “they do not reflect the core values that are the very foundation of Israel,” echoing comments of American Jewish Committee (AJC). Netanyahu and other Likud members were shocked by AIPAC’s statement given that it is the largest lobby group in the United States and includes all non-left US-Jewish organizations. The Committee is a key supporter of Israel and defends its policies and governments. AIPAC usually avoids opposing the Israeli government even if it disagrees with it and always focuses its efforts on strengthening Israel's standing in the United States and the world. Every year, AIPAC holds a huge conference of 20,000 delegates representing the wealthiest Jews, all right-wing Jewish organizations and representatives of Jewish organizations of both the Republican and the Democratic parties. The conference is more of a huge support rally for Israel with the participation of its top leaders.Netanyahu responded to the Committee’s criticism without referring to it. He considered the criticism a “leftist attack” and accused it of “a hypocritical double-standard.”“It is absurd that they rule out encouraging mergers on the Right but consider it legitimate to ensure that inciters and spies against Israel enter the Knesset.”Netanyahu also noted that in 1999, then-candidate for prime minister Ehud Barak participated in the same rally as Northern Islamic Movement head Sheikh Raed Salah, who was later convicted of incitement. The PM said: “representatives of Labor and Meretz voted for Azmi Bishara who spied for Hezbollah, so he can enter the Knesset.” He also argued that Isaac Herzog acted, when he was leader of Zionist Union, to sign a vote-sharing agreement with the Arab Joint List. “Herzog worked to reach a vote exchange deal with the Joint List and said that Arab MKs are legitimate in the government.”
In turn, Otzma Yehudit party called on AIPAC members to do the right thing and return home to Israel before they involve themselves in elections.
“When they arrive here, they will be able to be partners in the crucial and existential decisions of those living in Israel, and we will be happy for them to make decisions together with Israel's citizens."The statement concluded by addressing the Israeli voter warning that AIPAC's opposition stems from one thing: “They insist on seeing the rise of the Israeli left and they will be happy if the government gives land and weapons to its enemies."Head of Blue and White Party Benny Gantz indicated that the rare reaction by AIPAC, an organization that does not usually touch on internal Israeli politics, proves that Netanyahu has once again crossed ethical red lines just to keep his seat. Gantz noted that Netanyahu caused serious harm to “Israel’s image, Jewish morality, and our important relationship with American Jewry.”
AJC had previously issued a statement saying that it does not normally comment on political parties and candidates during an election. “But with the announcement that Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”), a new political party formed by longtime followers of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, is now seeking election to the Knesset, we feel compelled to speak out.”AJC said the party’s views are reprehensible and do not reflect the core values that are the very foundation of the State of Israel, warning that it might gain enough votes to enter the next Knesset, and potentially even become part of the governing coalition.
“Historically, the views of extremist parties, reflecting the extreme left or the extreme right, have been firmly rejected by mainstream parties, even if the electoral process of Israel’s robust democracy has enabled their presence, however small, in the Knesset.”
AJC concluded by reaffirming its commitment to “Israel’s democratic and Jewish character, which we hope will be the ultimate winners in every election cycle.”US Special Representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt also tweeted saying: “25 years ago Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinians and wounded 125 in a universally condemned attack in Tomb of the Patriarchs/Sanctuary of Abraham. I pray our separated peoples can reconcile as Isaac & Ishmael did before they jointly buried their father Abraham at that holy site.”During the 1970's, Rabbi Meir Kahane formed an extremist party which called for Arabs to be expelled from Israel. Before coming to Israel, Kahane was the leader of the militant Jewish Defense League in New York City. His party had a history of harassing Israeli Arabs. When Kahane was elected to the Knesset in 1984, despite widespread opposition, legislators responded by walking out of the parliament en masse whenever he rose to speak. American Jewish groups also frequently spoke out against him. Both Likud and Labor parties agreed that Kahane was unfit to serve in Israel’s parliament. Likud Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir once called Kahane a “dangerous character.”Kahane was suspended from the Knesset for swearing at an Arab member and waving a noose at him.

Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on February 25-26/19
Saudi Arabia, China and the Silk and Change Road
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat/February 25/19
When Mohammed bin Salman was born in the summer of 1985, Xi Jinping was a 32-year-old youth who was forging his path towards the top positions in the Chinese Communist Party. Had China surrendered to the old dictionary that was dividing the world into two rival camps, the two leaders could have only met at a neutral venue, such as the United Nations. The world has changed, however. China has changed and Saudi Arabia has changed. This made it easy for the two leaders to meet in Beijing to strike a partnership for the future between the two peoples. The silk and change road. A partnership of mutual interests and dreams.
As Xi threw a banquet in honor of his guest, I began to examine the two men, two countries and two experiences. One must not forget that the dinner was held near the mausoleum of Mao Zedong. A traveler to Beijing now realizes that the key to understanding present-day China does not lie in the Great Helmsman’s tomb, but in Deng Xiaoping’s career. Deng shouldered the burden of steering the country towards the future and breaking away from the policies of the past.
Lucky are the countries that enjoy extraordinary leaders standing at extraordinary crossroads.
China was lucky to have Deng who worked in Mao’s shadow before falling out of favor during the Cultural Revolution when he was accused by the Red Guards of harboring Capitalist ambitions. The truth is that the man shared a much different and greater dream.
Deng was among Mao’s delegation that visited Moscow in 1957. Mao suddenly turned to Nikita Khrushchev and pointed to Deng, informing him that “that small man is very intelligent and has a great future ahead of him.”
Indeed, Deng had the ability to understand the messages of the current age. Khrushchev’s reaction to Stalin’s death helped him realize the fatal danger of the “cult of personality”. He also realized the danger of allowing the country to be run from a leader’s tomb. Perhaps he made all of these realizations because he studied in France for some time and because he visited Moscow before it became crippled by the fear of reading the suffering of the people.
“The prevalent feeling in China was that our country was weak. We wanted to make it strong. We traveled to the West and endured the travails of immigration in order to learn.” When he later became the most powerful man in China in 1978, he predicted that his country would need half a century to complete the mission of modernity and political and economic control. He therefore, sought to dispatch missions to western countries where they would learn engineering, economics and modern management.
A Chinese woman wondered about Deng’s famous quoted: “It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.” He meant that results are more important than the means and you have the right to alter methods in order to reach the best outcome. This is China today. She added that the China of openness, modernity and refusal to surrender to ideology began with Deng. This is why China is not seeking enemies or adversaries, but it wants partners and it has approached the world with its Belt and Road Initiative. It will speak to the world through the language of cooperation, investment, expertise, technology, artificial intelligence and robots, not the method of imposing policies.
The past decades have seen the Chinese youth unleash their potential and provide the necessary environment for innovation and competition under the protection of stability that is provided by the Communist Party. China is expected to achieve a massive economic and technological leap under its current president. The Chinese woman said that a “major country always needs a strong man of vision. This is currently embodied in the president. Stability is a red line. We have also learned from the Soviet experience under Gorbachev.”
China in the early 1980s was different than the Middle East at the time. Our region was living under the weight of the Iranian revolution, Afghan jihad and Iraq-Iran war. Extremism emerged and sought to take root in mosques, schools and universities. Fear and the “wait and see” policy prevailed. The world was meanwhile bracing for a series of global, technological and communications revolutions that would transcend borders.
In the new millennium, the wheels of change sped up and the world found itself confronted with massive challenges that demand thinking out of the box in order to remain abreast of modernity and book a place for itself in the future. You are no longer entitled to close off your country under the excuse of preserving your identity. The cost of isolation is a thousand times greater than the inconveniences of assimilation. Walls have been torn down and bridges have been built. You must coexist with the other. You must trade interests and expertise with him. Gone are the days of clinging to the past and the battle of the future has begun. How can we improve education? How can we provide job opportunities? How can we unleash energies to create a new world instead of rejecting it?
Saudi Arabia is lucky that it is facing the world with the future on its mind. Relations are no longer built on formalities and general statements. They are built on partnerships, interests, stability and investment. This is why Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman declared that the Arabian Peninsula is a fundamental part of the Belt and Road Initiative, which is in line with the Saudi Vision 2030. This was further demonstrated by the decision to include the Chinese language in Saudi school curricula.
What applies to Beijing, also applies to new Delhi and Islamabad, despite the tensions between the latter two. The Saudi interest in the rise of Asia did not begin yesterday, but it was evident during the past three years. This is why the Crown Prince’s trip was not aimed at searching for alternatives as Saudi Arabia is aware of the importance of relations with the West, despite some passing dark clouds. Experience says that the road to change is not always paved in silk. Major changes become difficult when they demand a change in mentalities, not just methods. Most importantly, one must reserve his seat on the train of the future that is moving along the track of silk, modernity and change.

The Saudi Ambassador’s Greatest Challenge
Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al-Awsat/February 25/19
Saudi Arabia’s development process does not stop. The state continues to renew its executive authority whenever necessary. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who issued the recent decisions on behalf of the King, appointing Prince Khalid bin Salman as Deputy Defense Minister and Princess Reema bint Bandar as Ambassador to Washington, directly supervises the work of ministers and state officials. The first criterion of choice is efficiency and performance. Therefore, we find that the process of continuous development is the main feature of this stage. Certainly, no one expects that this process will stop any time soon. Modernization and development have a long path ahead of them. They cannot be achieved at once.
The appointment of Prince Khalid as Deputy Defense Minister did not surprise many; not only because he was the ambassador of his country to Washington and had deep knowledge in many political, intelligence and military files, but also because he was a member of the Ministry of Defense. He worked as a pilot in the Saudi Royal Air Force and served in the Office of the Minister of Defense, which helped him get a closer look at the Ministry’s development strategy.
The appointment of the first female Saudi ambassador to the world’s most powerful country was the biggest surprise for the Saudis before others. Reema bint Bandar bin Sultan landed in Washington after successfully proving herself as a strong figure in government work. In a short period of time, she confirmed the Saudi women’s ability to succeed and confront the toughest challenges. She takes on the former office of her father – the most famous ambassador to the US - as a Saudi woman who has proven herself through a busy path before becoming a princess or ambassador. Undoubtedly, her appointment to this important post is a great boost for women in Saudi Arabia. Nonetheless, the process of empowering women in the Kingdom is carried out according to strict criteria and positions are reserved to those who deserve them, as in the rest of the government employments.
An adviser to the Crown Prince’s office, like Princess Reema, knows well that the positions are not a mere honorary title, but are the result of a lot of hard work, based on indicators that assess the performance of officials and allow the promotion of only those who deserve it.
Princess Reema arrives in Washington while the relationship between her country and the United States is in a strange state of misunderstanding. The formal relationship is perfect, but the problem lies with some official US institutions, such as Congress. However, what helps the new ambassador achieve her government’s aspirations to remove the remnants of Khashoggi’s case with these institutions is the presence of a strong and solid foundation for the Saudi-American strategic alliance and interests that cannot be sacrificed for a passing crisis. Those who committed the crime will be prosecuted and will receive just punishment. It is true that there are those in Washington who do not want to listen to the reality and only follow false impressions and baseless stories, but insiders know well that this crisis is a passing cloud, just like other stronger crises. The relationship must be fixed. It is a difficult mission for the Saudi ambassador to Washington, but confidence is high in her ability to meet this challenge and to accomplish the most important task of her career.

The Militarization of Xi Jinping's China/"Recovering" Areas They Never Have Ruled
by Gordon G. Chang/ Gatestone Institute/February 25/19
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13794/china-militarization
The People's Liberation Army is arming fast, and that development is triggering alarm. Beijing has always claimed its military is for defensive purposes only, but no country threatens territory under China's control. The buildup, therefore, looks like preparation for aggression.
Chinese leaders — not just Xi Jinping — believe their domains should be far larger than they are today. The concern is that, acting on their own rhetoric, they will use shiny new weapons to grab territory and occupy, to the exclusion of others, international water and airspace.
Moreover, in the 1930s the media publicized the idea that Japan was being surrounded by hostile powers that wished to prevent its rise. Eri Hotta in Japan 1941: Countdown to Infamy writes that the Japanese "talked themselves into believing that they were victims of circumstances rather than aggressors." That is exactly what the Chinese are doing at this moment.
Unfortunately, this tragic pattern is evident today in a Beijing where Chinese, wearing stars on their shoulders, look as if they want to repeat one of the worst mistakes of the last century.
h of the equipment that China's People's Liberation Army is acquiring — aircraft carriers, amphibious troop carriers, and stealth bombers — is for the projection of power, not homeland defense. .
"Be ready for battle." That's how the South China Morning Post, the Hong Kong newspaper that increasingly reflects the Communist Party line, summarized Xi Jinping's first order this year to the People's Liberation Army (PLA). Xi, in his own words, which were broadcasted nationwide, demanded this: "prepare for a comprehensive military struggle from a new starting point."
China's bold leader has been threatening neighbors and the United States with frequency during the last several months. "Xi is not just toying with war," Victor Mair of the University of Pennsylvania wrote on the Fanell Red Star Rising listserve this month. "He's daring himself to actually start one. He's in a dangerous frame of mind."
Dangerous indeed. From Washington to New Delhi, policymakers wonder whether China will begin history's next great conflict. Beijing of course wants to "win without fighting," but the actions Xi Jinping are taking could lead to fighting nonetheless. One particularly disturbing development in this regard is the Chinese military gaining power in Beijing's political circles.
The PLA, as the Chinese military is known, is arming fast, and that development is triggering alarm. Beijing has always claimed its military is for defensive purposes only, but no country threatens territory under China's control. The buildup, therefore, looks like preparation for aggression. Much of the equipment the People's Liberation Army is acquiring — aircraft carriers, amphibious troop carriers, and stealth bombers — is for the projection of power, not homeland defense.
Chinese leaders — not just Xi Jinping — believe their domains should be far larger than they are today. The concern is that, acting on their own rhetoric, they will use shiny new weapons to grab territory and occupy, to the exclusion of others, international water and airspace.
The Chinese — leaders and others — certainly have the world's worst case of irredentism as they seek to "recover" areas they have in fact never ruled, but they do not necessarily envision military conquest as the means of acquiring vast "lost territories." They believe they can intimidate and coerce and then take without force. The fast rearmament also has other objectives. Speaking of China, Arthur Waldron of the University of Pennsylvania told Gatestone Institute:
"I think her goal is to increase her awesomeness in the eyes of the world, so her buildup is therefore to be understood as an attempt to become strong enough to flout the international system without consequences."
Despite the rhetoric, the Chinese know the "imponderables" of actually going to war. For centuries, they have not been very good at it, enduring defeat after defeat and invasion after invasion.
Their military record during the tenure of the People's Republic is similarly unimpressive. Yes, the Chinese grabbed control of the Paracel Islands and specks in the Spratlys in the South China Sea in a series of skirmishes with various Vietnamese governments, but these incidents were minor compared to the setbacks. Mao Zedong sustained perhaps 600,000 killed — including his son, Mao Anying — to obtain a draw in Korea in the early 1950s. His successor, Deng Xiaoping, launched an incursion in 1979 "to teach Vietnam a lesson" and instead suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of his small communist neighbor. Despite its undistinguished record, China causes grave concern. Xi was already beholden to the generals and admirals, who form the core of his political support in Communist Party circles, and they have gotten even more powerful as the Chinese people have become more restive.
As Willy Lam of the Chinese University of Hong Kong told Gatestone this month, "the top leadership is paranoid about massive social unrest" and so has given the military and police "extra power to tighten internal security... Xi understands very well that it is the army and the police that are keeping the Party alive."
Xi has tried to bring the military under control with both "anti-corruption" efforts — in reality a series of political purges — and, as June Teufel Dreyer of the University of Miami told Gatestone, "a sweeping military organization."
Yet those efforts have not been entirely successful. That is why Xi is trying, in the words of Waldron, to be viewed as the "martial emperor." He knows the power of the PLA as "kingmaker," able to back and depose civilian leaders. "The current Chinese focus on the military undoubtedly has internal political roots and is not related to changes in the security environment," Waldron said. Xi, in order to curry favor, has to accede to the flag officers.
Just because the process is internally driven does not make it less dangerous. Xi has sponsored overly large military budgets and has allowed senior officers to have outsized roles in formulating provocative external policies. The November 2013 declaration of the East China Sea Air-Defense Identification Zone, an audacious attempt to control the skies off its shores, is a clear example of the military influence. The seizure of Scarborough Shoal in early 2012 and the reclamation and militarization of features in the Spratly chain in the South China Sea are other destabilizing events.
Military influence in the Chinese capital means that hostility never goes out of fashion. Twice in December, senior PLA officers publicly threatened unprovoked attacks on the U.S. Navy. "The United States is most afraid of death," said Rear Admiral Luo Yuan in the second of the outbursts.
"We now have Dong Feng-21D, Dong Feng-26 missiles. These are aircraft carrier killers. We attack and sink one of their aircraft carriers. Let them suffer 5,000 casualties. Attack and sink two carriers, casualties 10,000. Let's see if the U.S. is afraid or not?"
Everyone, not just the U.S., should be afraid, in part because of the parallels between China's military today and Japan's in the 1930s.
In the 1930s, Japan's military officers, as Dreyer told Gatestone, took "drastic action to force the government into a war footing, even assassinating Japanese politicians who opposed such moves."
Then, the Japanese military, like the Chinese one today, was emboldened by success and ultra-nationalism. Then, like now, civilians controlled Asia's biggest army only loosely. Then, like today, Asia's largest military is full of assertion and belligerence.
Moreover, in the 1930s the media publicized the idea that Japan was being surrounded by hostile powers that wished to prevent its rise. Eri Hotta in Japan 1941: Countdown to Infamy writes that the Japanese "talked themselves into believing that they were victims of circumstances rather than aggressors." That is exactly what the Chinese are doing at this moment.
"If we ask, 'Did they want war?' the answer is yes; and if we ask 'Did they want to avoid war?' the answer is still yes," noted Maruyama Masao, a leading postwar political scientist, as recounted by Hotta. "Though wanting war, they tried to avoid it; though wanting to avoid it, they deliberately chose the path that led to it."Unfortunately, this tragic pattern is evident today in a Beijing where Chinese, wearing stars on their shoulders, look as if they want to repeat one of the worst mistakes of the last century.
*Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China and a Gatestone Institute Distinguished Senior Fellow.
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Syria’s reconstruction lacks benefactors and transparency
Kerry Boyd Anderson/Arab News/February 25/19
The war in Syria may be continuing, but there are now more and more discussions about post-conflict reconstruction, with questions around who will fund it and who will benefit. The war has caused extensive destruction throughout Syria, damaging or destroying many schools, homes and roads. It has eroded Syria’s water, electricity and agricultural infrastructure. Health care facilities were particularly targeted in the war and have suffered extensive damage. The cost of reconstruction has been estimated to be around $250 billion, although Syrian government estimates go as high as $400 billion.
The unfortunate reality is that funds spent on reconstruction in government-controlled areas are very likely to benefit the Assad regime, which played a major role in the country’s destruction.
Several countries are keen to assist in rebuilding Syria — and to take home the economic benefits of doing so. Syrian government officials have repeatedly said that reconstruction contracts would only go to companies from countries that have been friendly to the Assad regime, notably Russia and Iran. Both countries have signed a number of economic cooperation agreements and advance contracts with the Syrian government in preparation for rebuilding. The Assad regime owes its survival to Russian and Iranian support, and Moscow and Tehran expect to receive thanks in the form of post-war economic benefits. Over the course of the war, Iran has made moves to ensure that Iranian firms have a strong foothold in Syria’s economy, and the multilateral sanctions on the Syrian government are less of a problem for Iran than for other countries.
Some neighboring countries also hope to benefit. Turkey’s construction sector has been struggling in the wake of the country’s 2018 economic crisis, and participating in rebuilding in Syria could be a boon to Turkish firms. Turkish companies are reportedly involved in some reconstruction in the chunk of territory in northern Syria that Turkish forces control. However, the Ankara government and the Assad regime are not on good terms. Lebanese firms also hope to participate, though complicated relations with the Syrian government and sectarian communities could be an obstacle.
However, none of these countries have the extensive funds that will be required to rebuild Syria. The Russian and Iranian governments are hoping that other countries will pour money into Syria, allowing their businesses to benefit. In 2018, Russian officials tried to persuade the US, European countries and Arab Gulf states to fund reconstruction in Syria, but their efforts have been unsuccessful so far.
It is difficult to ask US or European taxpayers to spend money to help Assad rebuild what his regime often destroyed.
Under the current circumstances, the US is very unlikely to provide significant funding that could go to regime-held areas. President Donald Trump’s “America first” approach to foreign policy is particularly averse to spending US money abroad. Trump and other officials have been clear that countries closer to Syria should fund its reconstruction. Last year, Trump even halted US funding for stabilization efforts in areas where US allies had defeated Daesh. Furthermore, official US policy states that Washington will not provide reconstruction funds unless there is a UN-approved political transition in Syria.
European governments are also reluctant to provide reconstruction funds to areas under the Assad regime’s control. Key European leaders have said they will not invest until a political transition is underway in Syria. They might be more open to the idea that investing in Syria would allow refugees to return home and alleviate migration pressure on Europe, but many analysts warn that the Assad regime would likely pursue reconstruction in ways that are not conducive to refugee return.
Western governments have several objections to providing funds that would help the Assad regime. They do not want to provide benefits to a regime that has repeatedly violated international norms, such as using chemical weapons. It is difficult to ask US or European taxpayers to spend money to help Assad rebuild what his regime often destroyed. Western governments are not keen to see their money benefit Russian or Iranian firms either. Furthermore, at a time of nationalist politics, Western governments are, in general, reluctant to spend large sums of money abroad.
Some leaders — including Russian officials and Trump — have expressed the hope that Arab Gulf states will provide funds for reconstruction in Syria. Some such states, along with Western allies, have already provided funds for initial reconstruction in post-Daesh areas that are not held by the Syrian government. However, many Arab Gulf states are reluctant to fund the Assad regime and especially do not want reconstruction to benefit Iran. Many have other domestic and foreign policy priorities, including reconstruction in Yemen. China might be the one actor with the resources and interests to significantly fund reconstruction in Syria. It has already promised some funds and loans, though in limited amounts. If China chooses to provide significant funding, Beijing will very likely want Chinese firms to win many of the contracts. However, given China’s many other foreign policy priorities, it seems unlikely that Beijing would provide the extent of funding necessary to fully rebuild.
Without clear sources of funding, any benefits from reconstruction will be limited. The Syrian people are the likely losers. Without extensive reconstruction funds, it will be difficult for displaced people to return and for Syrians to rebuild their lives. However, even if funds are forthcoming, there is a very high risk that the Syrian and foreign companies who benefit will have a low bar for transparency, and many funds that are badly needed in Syria would likely end up elsewhere.
*Kerry Boyd Anderson is a writer and political risk consultant with more than 14 years’ experience as a professional analyst of international security issues and Middle East political and business risk. Twitter: @KBAresearch

Time for the UN to stand up to Houthi stonewalling
Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg/Arab News/February 25/19
It is now way past the 21-day deadline for the Houthi redeployment from Hodeidah that was stipulated in the Stockholm agreement mediated by the UN in Sweden last December. The cease-fire is also violated by the rebels on a daily basis; the coalition backing the government has recently reported that more than 1,100 violations had been committed by the Houthi militias since the agreement came into force on Dec. 18.
The Houthis have managed to stall the implementation of the Stockholm agreement with endless maneuvers. They cried foul when Patrick Cammaert, the Dutch general who led the UN force that was to oversee their redeployment, insisted on a timely and genuine redeployment of the Houthis from Hodeidah as agreed. They insisted that he be removed, just a month after he started, and the UN obliged. His replacement, Danish general Michael Lollesgaard, has also so far failed to get the Houthis to redeploy from Hodeidah.
The Houthis have learned that their shenanigans actually work. In 2017, when the previous UN mediator, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, pressed them on Hodeidah, they asked for him to be replaced. When that failed, they tried to assassinate him as he left Sanaa airport. He miraculously escaped death thanks to a strongly built armored car with bulletproof glass. The UN finally relented and replaced him.
In December 2017, the Houthis brutally murdered their ally, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, and killed many of his supporters. They had reached a nadir in their international standing, as well as within Yemen. But the UN again came to the rescue and rehabilitated the Houthis’ image. The organization bent over backwards to save Houthi forces in Hodeidah in the hope of getting a peace deal. Those hopes evaporated as the group postured and stonewalled.
On Feb. 14, British Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt sounded optimistic after a meeting in Warsaw between the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the UK and US (the so-called “Yemen Quad”). Hunt said: “The basic situation is that it’s possible that Hodeidah could finally be cleared of Houthi troops in the next few days, and that will be an important step forward in the implementation of the Stockholm agreement.” But Hunt then warned: “However, if it that doesn’t happen, there is real frustration and impatience that it is taking so long. So this is really a crunch moment in the Yemen process.”
The Houthis protested loudly against Hunt’s mild commentary because they object to the idea of clearing their forces from Hodeidah. The UN smoothed the Houthis’ ruffled feathers and announced another “breakthrough” in the implementation of the Stockholm agreement; not about Hodeidah mind you, but about other ports nearby. That breakthrough has also yet to materialize.
Many Yemenis, aid workers and others have spoken out recently against this one-sided approach, if not outright appeasement, of the Houthis by some UN officials, who are usually quick to criticize the Yemeni government and the coalition.
The UN bent over backwards to save Houthi forces in Hodeidah in the hope of getting a peace deal.
Abdulkader Alguneid, a pediatrician and university professor from Taiz, has been scathing in his critiques of the UN. In a recent social media post entitled, “The UN, the West, Hodeidah and the new meddling in Yemen,” he said that the UN special envoy had ignored the plight of Taiz — where hundreds of thousands of people have been suffering under Houthi siege and daily bombardment for nearly four years — while working hard to save the Houthis every time Yemen’s national army and its allies began to close in on Hodeidah. Alguneid, who endured 300 days of detention and torture at the hands of the Houthis, wrote that the UN has unwittingly protected their access to supplies of Iranian weapons, fuel and money. The UN’s actions were undertaken in the name of safeguarding the passage of humanitarian aid and food imports, despite the fact that it has done very little to protect UN food storage facilities in Hodeidah, where the Houthis have for months blocked access to badly needed food supplies.
Fatima Alasrar, a Yemeni architect and political analyst based in the US, recently lamented the UN’s lack of interest in reining in the Houthis’ excesses. She mentioned, as a case in point, the Houthis’ ruthless suppression of tribes in areas under their control. Commenting on recent reported “breakthroughs” in the implementation of the Stockholm deal, she said: “In reality, the deal is staggering: No movement on the humanitarian corridor, continued ‘skirmishes,’ Houthi landmines not removed. So much focus on process and not implementation.”
Humanitarian workers operating in areas under Houthi control have warned that they were being increasingly targeted by militiamen and feared for their lives. Aid workers last week told Foreign Policy magazine that they believed the rebels were “testing the international community to see how much harassment and intimidation they can get away with.”
The Houthis have long used Yemen’s humanitarian crisis to line their pockets, solidify their control over a largely starved population, and embarrass the internationally recognized government and its allies. They have frequently prevented UN access to its own food stores because they want to control the delivery of that aid, to sell it on the black market or use it as a means for rewarding their allies and followers, while punishing populations they suspect of disloyalty. Amnesty International also believes that the Houthis may be looking to use aid workers as hostages and potentially exchange them for prisoners or for political concessions.Yemeni critics and others have warned that the UN should take a more assertive approach toward the Houthi rebels and call them out when they misbehave, as they are now by delaying the implementation of the Stockholm agreement, manipulating or blocking aid, and brutally suppressing their opponents.Without a firm stand by the UN, the Houthis will continue to test the will of the international community and succeed.
*Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg is the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) assistant secretary-general for political affairs and negotiation, and a columnist for Arab News. The views expressed in this piece are personal, and do not necessarily represent those of the GCC. Twitter: @abuhamad1

Iran’s constitution at the heart of regime’s aggressive policies
Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami/Arab News/February 25/19
Many are raising questions concerning the nature and reality of Iranian foreign policy, particularly how it is decided and its impact on the regime’s expansionist plans. Most of the analyses discussed previously focus on the practical aspects of Iranian foreign policy without any effort to examine the basis of the regime’s policies and orientations. To truly understand the principal motive of Iranian foreign policy, we need to study the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, written at the time of Ruhollah Khomeini and amended during the rule of Ali Khamenei. Several articles in the constitution focus on foreign policy and its formulation, and numerous clarifications and interpretations have been presented by Iranian politicians in this regard.
In its preamble, the constitution states: “With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian revolution, which has been a movement aimed at the triumph of all the mustad’afun (oppressed) over the mustakbirun (proud/arrogant), the constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the revolution at home and abroad. In particular, in the development of international relations, the constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community.”
In Article 2, the constitution stipulates that the Islamic Republic negates “all forms of oppression, both the infliction of and the submission to it, and of dominance, both its imposition and its acceptance.” Article 3 states that, in order to attain such objectives, the government has the duty of directing all its resources to 16 goals, including that Iranian foreign policy should be formulated “on the basis of Islamic criteria, fraternal commitment to all Muslims, and unsparing support to the mustad’afun of the world.” This article is revealing since it indicates that the Iranian government’s foreign policy is based on bypassing governments and focusing instead on non-state entities.
The most famous article in the constitution, which focuses mainly on the identity of the state and its tenets at home and abroad, is Article 12. It enshrines the regime’s sectarianism and exclusive nature.
Article 144, meanwhile, details the means of implementing the provisions of Article 12, which provides the doctrine for the Iranian military. It stipulates: “The army of the Islamic Republic of Iran must be an Islamic army, i.e., committed to Islamic ideology and the people, and must recruit into its service individuals who have faith in the objectives of the Islamic revolution and are devoted to the cause of realizing its goals.”
To directly clarify Iranian foreign policy as defined by the Iranian constitution, Article 152 says: “The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based upon the rejection of all forms of domination, both the exertion of it and submission to it, the preservation of the independence of the country in all respects and its territorial integrity, the defense of the rights of all Muslims, non-alignment with respect to the hegemonic superpowers, and the maintenance of mutually peaceful relations with all non-belligerent states.”
The revolutionary doctrine of the Islamic Republic relies on spreading destruction, subversion and permanent war.
The application of this and Article 144 appears clearly in Article 154, which legitimizes meddling in the affairs of other countries. This article states: “The Islamic Republic of Iran has as its ideal human felicity throughout human society, and considers the attainment of independence, freedom, and rule of justice and truth to be the right of all people of the world. Accordingly, while scrupulously refraining from all forms of interference in the internal affairs of other nations, it supports the just struggles of the mustad’afun against the mustakbirun in every corner of the globe.”
To expound all this in more detail, Iran’s regime divides the world’s population into two main camps: The arrogant and the oppressed. The arrogant forces, according to the Iranian regime’s worldview, consist of several, mostly Western, nations, including the US, some European countries, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain. The oppressed nations, meanwhile, include Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Venezuela, Yemen, Sudan, Bolivia and Zimbabwe, amongst others. Through this classification, Iran seeks to achieve subversive aims, including exploiting religious and sectarian minorities, targeting the interests of the major powers in the “arrogant” enemy category, and destabilizing regional countries.
Iran’s regime ultimately seeks to lead the Islamic world. The revolutionary doctrine of the Islamic Republic relies on spreading destruction, subversion and permanent war to form a single global community based on the ideology of Wilayat Al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), and on providing financial and military support for all those who request it in any fight against those categorized by Iran as being among the forces of arrogance in the world. This is a deep-rooted foundational value that shapes all key policy decisions and is legitimized by the Iranian constitution.
In other words, the contents of the current Iranian constitution are based mainly on a theocratic ideology and sectarian supremacism, whether at home or abroad. In its constitution, the Iranian regime generally focuses on three main principles: The first of these is pride, which is achieved through conflict with external parties, according to the ideology that is the core and foundation of the regime’s worldview. Second is wisdom, which is attained by achieving pride through pragmatism and realpolitik. Third is benefit or reward, which is attained through achieving the supreme aims of the revolution, exporting it, proselytizing for and spreading its principles, and working to target and weaken adversaries.
In conclusion, these aggressive policies will ultimately lead this neighboring nation, with its deep-rooted history and civilization, to the abyss, as well as posing a threat to the regime in Tehran. The current crisis in Venezuela, where the world is ready to accept the opposition and endorse it speedily despite its weakness, is a precedent in international relations, offering an indirect admonition to the Iranian regime to suggest that it reconsiders many of its policies and orientations.
The only real way to begin changing these policies should be to start with the Iranian constitution, which, in its current form, incites conflict, hate and exclusion at home and abroad. Changing the constitution would affect Iran’s internal, regional and international policy and rectify its path, as well as sparing the world and the region the woes of war and bloodshed. It would also provide an opportunity for Iran’s real coexistence with the rest of the world based on international covenants and treaties, as well as based on mutual respect as neighboring states.
*Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami is Head of the International Institute for Iranian Studies (Rasanah). Twitter: @mohalsulam