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

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.july13.19.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you for ever.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint John 14/15-20:”‘If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you for ever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you. ‘I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on July 12-13/2019
Nasrallah Stands by Arslan, Says U.S. Seeking 'Communication' with Hizbullah
Western Diplomats Warn Lebanon Against Delay in Holding Cabinet Sessions
Lebanon’s Geagea: Bassil’s Tours Bringing Back Civil War Atmosphere
Hariri: Atmosphere Positive, Nothing Will Stop Cabinet Sessions
Berri Says Israel Wants to Create New ‘Shebaa’ Dilemma ‘at Sea’
Berri Urges Probe, Reconciliations in Qabrshmoun Incident
Arslan Says to Hand Over Wanted Men 'When Things Take Right Judicial Course'
Khalil: Lebanon Isn't Bankrupt… New Budget Is a Milestone for Reform
Tabbara: New US Sanctions Unlikely to Influence Lebanon, US-Iran War Unlikely
Airport Technicians, Civil Aviation Employees Protest Delayed Pay
Argentina to Designate Hezbollah as a Terror Group
US Sanctions Challenge Hezbollah's Duplicity
Deadly Clashes in Lebanon Are Indicative of a Power Struggle
Michael Young/The National/July 12/2019
US Has Given Lebanese Armed Forces a Pass with Hezbollah; Conditioning Aid Is Necessary
Assad Says Talks on Post-War Syria Constitution to 'Continue'

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on July 12-13/2019
Turkey receives first shipment of Russian S-400 missile defense system
Iran Calls on Britain to Immediately Release its Oil Tanker
UN Experts Voice ‘Serious Concern’ over Iran’s Denial of Treatment to Detained Activists
Saudi Arabia Urges Firm Stand against Iran’s Nuclear Program
OPCW Draws Up List of Syria Probes
UN Chief Strongly Condemns Strikes on Hospitals in Northwest Syria
Majority of US Vets Say Middle East Wars 'Not Worth Fighting'
Tension Prevails Ahead of Egypt's Delegation Arrival to Gaza
Turkey Drills off Cyprus in Bid for Regional Influence
Netanyahu Says No Uprooting of Settlements, Looks Forward to Deal of the Century
Iraqi Army Concludes ‘Will of Victory’ Operation against ISIS
Assad Says Talks on Post-War Syria Constitution to 'Continue'
Iran Demands Britain Release Oil Tanker Seized off Gibraltar
Turkey Receives First Delivery of Russian S-400 Missile System, Says Ankara
Kuwait Arrests 'Terrorist' Cell Linked to Muslim Brotherhood
Algerians Rally against Government, Spurred by Football Triumph
U.N. Drafts 'List of Shame' over Child Deaths in Yemen
U.N. 'Alarmed' at Death Sentences Given by Yemen Rebel Court

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 12-13/2019
Nasrallah Stands by Arslan, Says U.S. Seeking 'Communication' with Hizbullah/Naharnet/July 12/2019
US Sanctions Challenge Hezbollah's DuplicityThe National Editorial/July 12/2019
Deadly Clashes in Lebanon Are Indicative of a Power Struggle/Michael Young/The National/July 12/2019
US Has Given Lebanese Armed Forces a Pass with Hezbollah; Conditioning Aid Is Necessary/Richard Natonski and Thomas Trask/The Hill/July 12/2019
Is Iran’s influence in Iraq waning?/By Hamidreza Azizi/Al Monitor/July 12/2019
The Doha Agreement – Paving The Way For The Taliban's Takeover Of Afghanistan And Enforcement Of Shari'a-Based Governance/Tufail Ahmad/MEMRI/July 12/2019
The Sudanese Crossing Bridge/Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 12/2019
Erdogan and the Wisdom of Timely Exit/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 12/2019
Trump's Huawei Reprieve Is a National Security Debacle/Gordon G. Chang/Gatestone Institute/July 12/2019
Analysis/As Iran Tensions Flare, Israel Suspects Trump Aims for ‘Nuclear Deal 2.0’/Amos Harel/Haaretz/July 12/2019
Word on the Washington street is Trump will win in 2020/Dr. John C. Hulsman/Arab News/July 12, 2019

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on July 12-13/2019
Nasrallah Stands by Arslan, Says U.S. Seeking 'Communication' with Hizbullah
Naharnet/July 12/2019
Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Friday called for pacification in connection with the deadly Qabrshmoun incident but stressed that his party “stands by its ally” MP Talal Arslan. “From the very first moments after the Qabrshmoun incident, we started our contacts to pacify the situation,” Nasrallah revealed in an interview on al-Manar television. “Stability in Lebanon is in our interest,” Nasrallah added, describing claims that Hizbullah “wants to blow up the Druze arena” as “immoral.” “We call for pacification but we stand by our ally… Our ally was aggrieved and his men were killed,” he said, referring to Arslan and the slain bodyguards of State Minister for Refugee Affairs Saleh al-Gharib. Describing Arslan’s call for referring the incident to the Judicial Council as “logical,” Nasrallah said “the decision is in our ally's hand and we stand by him.”He also described Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s decision to postpone the latest cabinet session as “wise.”“We are against the suspension of the cabinet,” he said.
As for the relation with Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat, Nasrallah said: “We did not err against Jumblat; he is the one who started the problem with us when he spoke about the weapons.”Separately, Nasrallah revealed that the Trump administration is seeking “channels of communications” with Hizbullah through mediators. Turning to Syria, Nasrallah confirmed that Hizbullah has decreased the number of fighters supporting the Damascus regime. "We are present in every area that we used to be. We are still there, but we don't need to be there in large numbers as long as there is no practical need," he said. The head of the Iran-backed group, which has been fighting in Syria since 2013, did no quantify the extent of the reduction. Backed by Russia and Iran, the Damascus government has taken back large swathes of territory from rebels and jihadists since 2015, and now controls around 60 percent of the country. Nasrallah said none of his fighters were currently involved in fighting in Syria's northwestern region of Idlib, where regime and Russian forces have increased deadly bombardment on a jihadist-run bastion since late April. Nasrallah spoke after Washington announced fresh sanctions Tuesday against Hizbullah, targeting elected officials from the movement for the first time. "All dealings with the Syria file have nothing to do with the sanctions or the financial austerity," he said. Nasrallah also warned that U.S. ally Israel would not remain intact if a war broke out between the United States and Iran. "Iran is able to bombard Israel with ferocity and force," he said. His remarks came after weeks of increasing tensions between the United States and Iran as U.S. President Donald Trump steps up his war of words with the Islamic Republic. "When the Americans understand that this war could wipe out Israel, they will reconsider," Nasrallah said. "Our collective responsibility in the region is to work towards preventing an American war on Iran," he said. He also warned that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had no interest in a conflict erupting.

Western Diplomats Warn Lebanon Against Delay in Holding Cabinet Sessions
Beirut - Khalil Fleihan/Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 12 July, 2019
Western diplomats have warned against further delay in holding Lebanese government sessions that have been suspended over differences between political parties caused by a deadly shooting in the Aley region. Cabinet sessions have been stalled since the June 30 incident when two members of Talal Arslan’s Lebanese Democratic Party were killed in a shootout. Despite efforts made by President Michel Aoun, Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Saad Hariri no cabinet session was held in Lebanon this week. Aoun and Hariri agreed to suspend sessions pending a solution to the crisis that emerged over demands to refer to the Judicial Council the killing of the two aides of State Minister for Refugee Affairs Saleh al-Gharib. The diplomats warned that failure to hand over the shooting suspects to the authorities could lead to more tension and therefore paralyze the government.
“The economic and financial situation in the country ... needs a political and security atmosphere that would give confidence to investors,” they said, adding that Lebanon needs stability to encourage tourists to visit the country. A major power ambassador also said that “the cabinet needs to convene to pass the 2019 budget ahead of ... implementing the decisions reached at the CEDRE” conference held in Paris last year.

Lebanon’s Geagea: Bassil’s Tours Bringing Back Civil War Atmosphere
Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 12 July, 2019
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea has accused Free Patriotic Movement chief Gebran Bassil of bringing back the Civil War atmosphere during tours he has made to several regions in the country.
“A political official cannot say whatever he wants. ... Look how tense the situation became,” Geagea said at a news conference he held on Thursday. Bassil, who is Lebanon's Foreign Minister, has delivered controversial speeches on tours across the country, which have triggered strong reactions from other politicians. At his news conference Thursday, Geagea also criticized the draft 2019 state budget, saying it does not reflect the country’s need to effectively cut spending. The draft budget should have included reforms amid the ongoing economic crisis in Lebanon, said the LF chief. Taxes on imports will not affect prices, he said. Stopping the smuggling of goods through illegal crossings is one way to bring money to the treasury, he added. Parliament is set to meet next week to discuss the budget, which was approved by the government in May.

Hariri: Atmosphere Positive, Nothing Will Stop Cabinet Sessions
Naharnet/July 12/2019
Prime Minister Saad Hariri announced Friday that “nothing” will stop the cabinet sessions and that there is positivity regarding the efforts to contain the repercussions of the deadly Qabrshmoun incident.“The cabinet sessions will take place and won’t be stopped by anything,” Hariri reassured after meeting President Michel Aoun in Baabda. “General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim is exerting efforts and everyone is cooperating with him. The cabinet sessions have not been suspended and I was the one who demanded the postponement of the cabinet session due to the tense atmosphere. I opted for that to avoid tense exchanges,” he explained. “Everyone must offer concessions at some point, because the country cannot move forward if every party stands its ground,” Hariri warned. Noting that the Qabrshmoun incident was not a minor event, the premier stressed that “political confrontations do not lead anywhere.”“There is an initiative launched by Speaker Nabih Berri, there is positivity and the Lebanese are looking at the economy and the government’s work,” he added.

Berri Says Israel Wants to Create New ‘Shebaa’ Dilemma ‘at Sea’
Naharnet/July 12/2019
Speaker Nabih Berri stressed that the Resistance constituted a deterrent force and was an auxiliary factor in the political battle that Lebanon was waging on the axis of establishing sovereign land and maritime borders, the National News Agency reported on Friday. "The biggest threat to Palestine is the disintegration of Arabs," Berri said, noting that Syria has always been a strong support for the Resistance. Berri's stance came during his meeting with a delegation of the Arab Organization of Young Lawyers, who are currently participating in the Arab Oil and Gas Conference in Beirut, under his auspices. "Unfortunately, on the level of the Arab nation, the failure has been loud because we have jettisoned all our winning cards -- the question of Palestine, and oil-related issues. Our oil wealth has not been spent on sustainable human development and on building the nation's strength, neither on unity of position," said the Speaker. "Israel wants to create new Shebaa Farms, but this time at sea. For the last five years, Lebanon has been engaged in tough negotiations and the Lebanese position remains unchanged. Political battles are no less dangerous than military ones with the enemy," Berri added. "Al-Quds has been and will remain our political and national compass, yet unfortunately some have deviated from this path. Palestine and its cause, for as much as it belongs to the Palestinian people, remains the first Arab cause and the biggest threat to this issue is the division of Arabs," Berri warned, regretting that the whole matter has been transformed into an Islamic - Islamic conflict. "The deal of the century is a blow to the principle of land for peace; it is a trade deal."

Berri Urges Probe, Reconciliations in Qabrshmoun Incident
Naharnet/July 12/2019
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on Friday called for “conducting a probe into the Mt. Lebanon incident” and “holding political reconciliations” in order to “secure coexistence.”“Lebanon is facing an economic, refugee naturalization and Israeli threat, so what are we waiting for to unite and reconcile?” Berri warned.
He also called for shunning "the rhetoric of civil war" and criticized the bickering over whether or not the incident should be referred to the Judicial Council. Two bodyguards of State Minister for Refugee Affairs Saleh al-Gharib were killed and a third was wounded in a clash with Progressive Socialist Party supporters in the Aley district town of Qabrshmoun. The minister escaped unharmed as a PSP supporter was injured. The two parties have traded blame over the incident, with Gharib and his Lebanese Democratic Party describing it as an ambush and an assassination attempt and the PSP accusing the minister's bodyguards of forcing their way and opening fire on protesters. The LDP has insisted that the case should be referred to the Judicial Council, a top Lebanese court that looks into national security crimes, a demand opposed by the PSP and other forces.

Arslan Says to Hand Over Wanted Men 'When Things Take Right Judicial Course'
Naharnet/July 12/2019
Lebanese Democratic Party leader MP Talal Arslan on Friday announced that his party will hand over any wanted persons “when things take the right judicial course” regarding the deadly Qabrshmoun incident. “A small number of (Progressive Socialist Party) fugitives has been handed over and what happened was not a clash, (but rather an ambush), seeing as a public road was closed in the face of a minister and his private car was hit with 19 gunshots and all cars in the convoy were hit with bullets,” Arslan said after meeting Prime Minister Saad Hariri at the Grand Serail. He was referring to State Minister for Refugee Affairs Saleh al-Gharib, who accompanied him to the meeting with Hariri. “We are open to all solutions, but this does not mean that we will allow the martyrs and those who escaped death to be subject to political bargaining at the judicial and security levels,” Arslan added.
“Hariri is keen on the role that Maj. Gen. (Abbas) Ibrahim is playing and we hope results that fulfill justice will be reached,” he said. “We support the correct judicial course which entails referring the case to the Judicial Council,” Arslan went on to say, slamming the PSP for “downplaying” and “ridiculing” the incident. Two of Gharib’s bodyguards were killed and a third was wounded in a clash with PSP supporters in Qabrshmoun. The minister escaped unharmed as a PSP supporter was injured. The two parties have traded blame over the incident, with Gharib and Arslan describing it as an ambush and an assassination attempt and the PSP accusing the minister's bodyguards of forcing their way and opening fire on protesters.  Arslan has insisted that the case should be referred to the Judicial Council, a top Lebanese court that looks into national security crimes, a demand opposed by the PSP and other forces.

Khalil: Lebanon Isn't Bankrupt… New Budget Is a Milestone for Reform
Naharnet/July 12/2019
Minister of Finance Ali Hassan Khalil stressed on Friday that Lebanon is capable of endurance and is not bankrupt as alleged in reports, noting that the new State budget is a milestone for reform. “Many possibilities exist to manage the financial and monetary situation in cooperation between the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance,” said Khalil in an interview with Alaraby TV station on Friday. “Rest assured that we are able to endure and continue, but this does not negate the responsibility of the government, the parliament and political forces in carrying out a group of reformative measures starting from the budget of 2019,” he added. The Minister noted that the general political situation needs to be strengthened so as not to shake the belief of investors and Lebanese expatriates. “I am not hiding the fact that Lebanon suffers from an economic crisis when I say we are confident of our ability to continue. The economic situation is very difficult and the public finances are in deficit, but we are not heading towards collapse,” he said, noting that the budget draft is a milestone towards a bigger reform project. On the US sanctions against Hizbullah, the Minister said there is “close cooperation between the Ministry and BDL to address the sanctions file. Although it targets Hizbullah, but it has a broader impact as it affects the economic and financial situation in Lebanon. “We expressed this position to all the delegations that came to Lebanon,” he said, adding that “there is no interest whatsoever in keeping the sanctions and spreading them further.”

Tabbara: New US Sanctions Unlikely to Influence Lebanon, US-Iran War Unlikely
Naharnet/July 12/2019
The former Lebanese Ambassador to Washington Riad Tabbara said the new round of US sanctions on Hizbullah are unlikely to have serious consequences on Lebanon, pointing out that a US-Persian war is “unlikely,” al-Joumhouria daily reported on Friday. In an interview with the daily, Tabbara said he “expects a kind of understanding between Hizbullah and the competent Lebanese authorities, as experienced in the previous US sanctions on Hizbullah, because the party is part of the Lebanese government and parliament. “An understanding was reached between Hizbullah and authorities in Lebanon when the US imposed the previous sanctions, mainly that the sanctions targeted the financial situation and the banking sector. Everybody remembers the Lebanese delegations that visited Washington earlier this year and the year before,” noted Tabbara. He said the “US policy towards Lebanon, so far, shows that it does not want political, economic or financial instability in Lebanon. That is why solutions are always available for any measure or sanction taken in this regard.”“It is unlikely for the US to impose sanctions on Hizbullah’s allies, such as the AMAL Movement and Free Patriotic Movement and others, because such a move leads to dramatic results,” he added. “The Americans usually study every measure they take in Lebanon, especially in terms of its impact on its economic situation.” He pointed out that the latest statements of the US State Department and Treasury “included no negative signals. The US does not want to threaten Lebanon’s stability.”“The United States is in the context of escalating pressure on Iran to subdue and bring it to the negotiation table. There is no war on the horizon,” he said. New U.S. sanctions on Hizbullah early this week targeted two of the group’s lawmakers and a security official allegedly suspected of using their positions to further the aims of the group and Tehran's “malign” activities.

Airport Technicians, Civil Aviation Employees Protest Delayed Pay
Naharnet/July 12/2019
Technicians and employees at Beirut’s airport Directorate-General of Civil Aviation staged a brief protest between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on Friday against a monthlong delay in the payment of working hours, the National News Agency reported. NNA said the protesters were keen not to disrupt the movement at the Rafik Hariri International Airport or the flight operations. The protesters complained that they had not been paid for working night hours and extra shifts in the first two trimesters of 2019, said NNA. They were only paid for the months of February and March.

Argentina to Designate Hezbollah as a Terror Group
Kataeb.org/ Friday 12th July 2019
Argentina’s government is preparing a decree to designate Hezbollah as a terror organization two weeks before the 25th anniversary of the bombing of AMIA (Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina), Argentinian newspaper La Nacion reported on Tuesday.
The AMIA bombing, which occurred July 18, 1994, targeted the Israeli embassy and the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, killed 85 people and injured 300 people, and has long been blamed by the Argentine government on Hezbollah. President Mauricio Macri tasked the Ministry of Security and the Financial Intelligence Unit to find the fastest solution to include Hezbollah in the terror organizations list. "We are evaluating different possibilities. One of them is to pass a decree. We do not have a majority in Parliament, and it would take too long to pass a law there," sources in the two entities noted.
"The list will be made up of organizations that have concrete pretensions, red alerts, concrete imputations to carry out attacks in argentine territory," Minister of Security, Patricia Bullrich, declared.
Hezbollah's designation corresponds with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit to Argentina to commemorate the AMIA bombing on July 18.

US Sanctions Challenge Hezbollah's Duplicity
The National Editorial/July 12/2019
With 13 seats in parliament, Hezbollah has sought to expand its presence across all sectors in Lebanon. Its roots run deep in Lebanese politics. Yet its claims of political legitimacy cannot be separated from the violence perpetrated by its militants, largely at the behest of Iran.
That is why the decision by the US Treasury to impose sanctions on two leading Lebanese MPs and a high-ranking security official is so important. One of the parliamentarians, Muhammad Raad, is the head of the Hezbollah bloc in parliament, in charge of ensuring representatives carry out Hezbollah’s agenda.
Having grown considerably in size and influence under Iranian patronage since it emerged in the 1980s to resist Israeli occupation, Hezbollah has spread like a virus through Lebanon’s political institutions. Long after the end of Israeli occupation of South Lebanon, Hezbollah ramped up its activities. By securing seats in parliament, the militia has created a facade of distinguishing between its terrorist and political activities. Following the decision by the British government to proscribe both wings earlier this year, these US sanctions have once again torn back the veneer, showing Hezbollah for what it really is: an extremist organisation. As the prototypical Iranian proxy, Hezbollah is turning Lebanon into a regional operating base for Tehran. Despite controlling three ministries in the Lebanese government, the group has sent some 7,000 fighters to prop up Syrian President Bashar Al Assad and money and weapons to Yemen, where Houthi rebels are waging war against the internationally recognised government of Abdrabu Mansur Hadi. Alongside millions of dollars from Iran, Hezbollah has funded its activities by trafficking narcotics and weapons across the globe. The group has also been accused of partaking in the devastating assassination of Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri. The late prime minister’s son, Saad, must now govern alongside Hezbollah ministers.
In 2013, the GCC designated Hezbollah a terrorist group. Since then, its terrorist activities have only increased – and so too has its political influence. The international community is waking up to the threat it poses.
The designation comes at a tense moment for US-Iran relations, as Tehran takes its regional destabilisation to new heights. Hezbollah might claim to be a powerful political force within Lebanon but the group stands ready to be activated by Tehran in the event of conflict.
As US Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Sigal Mandelker, said: “Hezbollah uses its operatives in Lebanon’s parliament to manipulate institutions in support of the terrorist group’s financial and security interests, and to bolster Iran’s malign activities.”
This is Iran’s modus operandi in the region: from Iraq and Yemen to Lebanon and Syria, proxies do the bidding of hardliners in Tehran, causing untold harm in the process. The only way to fight this is to debunk the distinction between Hezbollah’s political and military wings and to cut off the group’s revenue streams. The US’s targeted economic measures this week are a significant step in that direction.

Deadly Clashes in Lebanon Are Indicative of a Power Struggle
Michael Young/The National/July 12/2019
Last week a deadly encounter took place in the Lebanese mountain village of Qabr Shmoun, where two bodyguards of the Druze minister Saleh Al Gharib were killed in an exchange of gunfire with members of Walid Jumblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party (PSP).
Minister of State for Displaced Affairs Mr Gharib is close to Druze politician Talal Arslan and the incident has been seen as a reflection of Mr Arslan’s long-standing rivalry with Mr Jumblatt, the leader of the main Druze party in Lebanon. However, the role of Maronite Christian politician Gebran Bassil in events leading up to the violence cannot be overstated.
Foreign minister Mr Bassil, who heads the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) and is the son-in-law of Lebanese President Michel Aoun, is in the midst of a presidential campaign, although he won’t admit it. Mr Aoun is in his mid-80s. For his son-in-law, now is the time to transform himself into a bona fide presidential candidate by pressing the right populist buttons. This he has tried to do by challenging Mr Jumblatt in the mountain areas where he dominates and where Christian civilians were once victims of the PSP during the Lebanese civil war.
In the run-up to the Qabr Shmoun episode, Mr Bassil had planned to visit the village of Kfar Matta with Mr Al Gharib and meet a senior Druze religious figure backed by Mr Arslan. Mr Jumblatt supports a rival religious figure so he viewed this interference in Druze affairs as a red line. Mr Bassil also recently used language referring to Druze-Christian tensions during the war years in a way that ignored Druze sensitivities.
And most disturbing to Mr Jumblatt, both Mr Bassil and prime minister Saad Hariri have cut him out of state patronage networks. This has prevented him from having access to state institutions and distributing the spoils to his followers. Not surprisingly, Mr Jumblatt has seen this as an effort to undermine him politically. All this encouraged Mr Jumblatt to raise the stakes with Mr Bassil. With Jumblatt supporters gathered on the streets to protest the foreign minister’s visit to Kfar Matta, Mr Bassil got as far as Shemlan but called off the visit en route. Mr Al Mr Gharib’s convoy reportedly tried to drive through the blocked roads, leading to the armed altercation with PSP supporters, one of whom was killed in the clashes. Mr Al Gharib said it was an assassination attempt; Mr Jumblatt’s representatives have said the minister’s bodyguards fired at civilians first.
It is unlikely that Mr Jumblatt sought an armed confrontation with Mr Arslan. He has long sought to avoid inter-Druze clashes, largely because he has major influence over the community and this would only weaken his position. More probably, however, by putting his people on the streets, Mr Jumblatt sought to send a message to Mr Bassil that he could not humiliate him in his own region while also showing Mr Arslan who was the boss among the Druze.
The tensions with Mr Bassil are bound to grow. Mr Jumblatt has long had a complicated relationship with Maronite Christian politicians, who project themselves as strong communal leaders. Not only have they tended to influence Maronite voters in the Aley and Shouf regions where Mr Jumblatt is dominant and jealously guards his power but by virtue of their holding the presidency, such individuals have also been able to use the power of the state against the Jumblatts.
There are many who oppose Mr Bassil’s hunger to be president. The foreign minister’s perceived rapacity has alienated a bevy of politicians. Mr Jumblatt, as well as Nabih Berri, the parliamentary speaker, and Samir Geagea, the head of the Lebanese Forces, a Christian party that rivals the FPM, all oppose Mr Bassil. However, if the foreign minister can create the impression that he speaks for many Christians, he might be able to impose himself as a successor to his father-in-law.
A question mark hangs over Mr Hariri. When he returned to power in 2016, the prime minister did so on the basis of an understanding with Mr Aoun: Mr Hariri would support an Aoun presidency if he, in turn, were named prime minister by the new president. His political and financial fortunes had been in sharp decline since 2011 and Mr Hariri needed to return to office to reverse this situation. For a time, the quid pro quo worked. However, before long Mr Bassil realised that he held the strong cards in the relationship and started to bully Mr Hariri into accepting his conditions for the formation of the new government. He set conditions on the number of Christian rivals in the cabinet and hindered its progress to get his way. This cost Mr Hariri politically but he could not alienate Mr Bassil as his aim was to implement his plan to revive the ailing economy.
However, in recent weeks, Mr Hariri has suggested he might be willing to reconsider his options. Last week, Mr Berri hosted him and Mr Jumblatt for a reconciliation dinner, suggesting that Mr Hariri might have had enough of Mr Bassil’s provocations. The situation might not soon change but amid the politicking, it seems the fact that people have lost their lives is easily forgotten, with those in Lebanon’s political arena indifferent to the havoc they wreak.

US Has Given Lebanese Armed Forces a Pass with Hezbollah; Conditioning Aid Is Necessary
Richard Natonski and Thomas Trask/The Hill/July 12/2019
American diplomats have been quietly mediating a resolution to the Israeli-Lebanese maritime border dispute, an important step to avoiding another war between these two countries. However, even if American mediators can resolve the dispute, Hezbollah’s presence in southern Lebanon keeps alive the possibility of a devastating war.
In any future war with Israel, Hezbollah will likely rely on its growing arsenal of roughly 120,000 missiles and rockets that likely can overwhelm Israel’s air defenses. Both of us have participated in trips to the Israel-Lebanon border with the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) that demonstrated the next war between Israel and Hezbollah will yield unprecedented destruction on both sides.
Hezbollah’s ability to launch missiles against Israel has significantly improved since their last war in 2006. In the initial phases of another war in Lebanon, Israel will be forced to quickly destroy these missile sites, bringing itself into direct contact with troops from the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). These troops are distinct from Hezbollah, but their uncertain position and sheer proximity is a complicating factor since the United States has been providing aid to the LAF. Should fighting break out, the United States could find itself funding both sides of a major war involving our closest ally in the region.
The United States has provided the LAF with $1.7 billion since 2006, hoping substantial military aid would decrease Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon. During the 2006 conflict, the LAF demonstrably distanced itself from Hezbollah. In recent years, however, multiple factors indicate that ties between Hezbollah and the LAF are growing dangerously close. In their joint fight against ISIS on Lebanon’s northern border, the parties coordinated military operations and deployments, and shared intelligence.
In southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah’s influence is most pronounced, the LAF has ignored its obligation to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for the “disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon” other than the LAF. Despite increased LAF troop deployments to southern Lebanon in recent years, Hezbollah’s military capacity has continued growing there unchecked – including its development of offensive cross-border tunnels into Israel.
Political ties between Hezbollah and the LAF have grown alarmingly close as well. In 2018, Hezbollah won its first majority in the Lebanese parliament. Lebanese President Michel Aoun remains a loyal ally of Hezbollah and has repeatedly hailed Hezbollah’s “major” and “essential” role in Lebanon’s defense apparatus. Likewise, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah has referred to the LAF as a “partner” and “pillar” of defense against Israel. Hezbollah’s growing partnership with the LAF has alarmed many Lebanese political leaders, especially moderates who seek to free their country’s future from the grip of Iranian influence.
One of us argued in a February op-ed that American policymakers should revisit their decision to fund the LAF, given its growing connections with Hezbollah. Unless the United States begins to recognize the dangerous implications of its current policy, the Trump administration will likely continue this funding without placing appropriate checks on the LAF’s actions. Maintaining the current policy endangers U.S. national security and that of our ally Israel.
Members of Congress from both parties recently introduced the Countering Hezbollah in Lebanon’s Military Act of 2019. By setting conditions on 20 percent – rather than all – of U.S. aid to the LAF and Lebanese government, the bill seeks to pressure Beirut to distance itself from Hezbollah without compromising or eliminating American influence and leverage.
This bill is a welcome step in the right direction. Congress should also consider imposing additional conditions on the U.S. military aid package, including demands that the LAF attempt to restrict Iranian arms channels to Hezbollah.
For too long, the United States has given the LAF a free pass to expand its dangerous and enabling relationship with Hezbollah, a terrorist group that has served as a destabilizing force in the Middle East. If the trend continues, American taxpayers can expect more of their dollars to flow to an active and willing partner of Hezbollah. The LAF could serve as an effective ally against terror, and they undoubtedly demonstrated their military capabilities in the fight against ISIS. To protect U.S. interests in the Middle East, however, a critical reexamination of our relationship with the LAF ought to take place. Conditioning the aid that the U.S. provides to the LAF is a necessary first step in the process.

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on July 12-13/2019
Turkey receives first shipment of Russian S-400 missile defense system
Reutera/July 12/2019
ISTANBUL: The first parts of a Russian S-400 missile defense system were delivered to NATO member Turkey on Friday, the Turkish defense ministry said, a development set to escalate tensions with the United States which has warned of sanctions over the deal. Russia’s Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation confirmed it had started delivering the S-400 to Turkey and that the deliveries would continue as per an agreed schedule, the RIA news agency reported. Turkey’s purchase of the Russian defense systems, which Washington says are not compatible with NATO’s defense network, is one of a series of issues which have put the allies at odds. The S-400 consignment was delivered to the Murted Air Base outside the capital Ankara, the ministry said in a statement which triggered a weakening in the Turkish lira to 5.712 against the dollar from 5.683 before the announcement. “The delivery of parts belonging to the system will continue in the coming days,” Turkey’s Defense Industry Directorate said separately. “Once the system is completely ready, it will begin to be used in a way determined by the relevant authorities.” A Russian Air Force AN-124 cargo plane had flown to Turkey early on Friday morning and was last tracked approaching Ankara, data from Flightradar24 website showed. Turkish broadcasters showed footage of the plane at the Murted Air Base. President Tayyip Erdogan said after meeting President Donald Trump at a G20 summit last month that the United States did not plan to impose sanctions on Ankara for buying the S-400s. Trump said Turkey had not been treated fairly but did not rule out sanctions. Washington says the S-400s could compromise its Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter jets, an aircraft Turkey is helping to build and planning to buy. Turkey could face expulsion from the F-35 program under the sanctions. Erdogan has dismissed that possibility, but Washington has already started the process of removing Turkey from the program, halting training of Turkish pilots in the United States on the aircraft. Investors in Turkey have been concerned about the impact of potential US sanctions on an economy which fell into recession after a currency crisis last year. Ankara and Washington are also involved in disputes over strategy in Syria east of the Euphrates River, where the United States is allied with Kurdish forces that Turkey views as foes. The Murted base, northwest of Ankara, was formerly known as Akinci Air Base. It was used by putschist soldiers in the attempted coup of July 2016.

Iran Calls on Britain to Immediately Release its Oil Tanker
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 12 July, 2019
Iran called on Friday Britain to immediately release an oil tanker than it impounded last week as Gibraltar said the vessel was suspected of breaching EU sanctions against Syria. “This is a dangerous game and has consequences ... the legal pretexts for the capture are not valid ... the release of the tanker is in all countries’ interest,” Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Abbas Mousavi, said. Tehran has warned of reciprocal measures if the tanker is not released. Gibraltar said its action to detain the Grace 1 was a decision it took on its own and not at the behest of any other state or third party. “All relevant decisions in respect of this matter were taken only as a direct result of the government of Gibraltar having reasonable grounds to believe the vessel was acting in breach of established EU sanctions against Syria,” the territory’s chief minister, Fabian Picardo, told parliament. “There has been no political request at any time from any government that Gibraltar should act or not act on one basis or another.”The vessel contained 2.1 million barrels of light crude oil, he said. Britain said on Thursday that three Iranian vessels tried to block a British-owned tanker passing through the Strait of Hormuz, which controls the flow of Middle East oil to the world, but backed off when confronted by a Royal Navy warship. Iran denied that its vessels had done any such thing. Commenting on the incident, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres again called for "maximum restraint" in the Arabian Gulf region and warning all parties that a new confrontation "would be a catastrophe."UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq reiterated Thursday the UN chief's plea to avoid any escalation. Responding to a question on whether the secretary-general supports US and other calls to safeguard ships passing through the Gulf, he reiterated Guterres' call to avoid escalation.
"We want, of course, for everyone to allow for the freedom of movement of vessels and we're hopeful that they will abide by that," Haq said. Tension between Iran and the West has increased a week after Britain seized the tanker and London said the British Heritage, operated by oil company BP, had been approached in the strait between Iran and the Arabian peninsula. Mousavi accused Britain of seizing the tanker under US pressure. “Such illegal measures could increase tensions in the Gulf,” he told IRNA. Police in the British territory of Gibraltar said on Thursday they had arrested the captain and chief officer of the Grace 1 supertanker accused of violating EU sanctions on Syria and seized documents and electronic devices from the ship. Britain is among European parties to Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with six major powers, which President Donald Trump pulled out of it last year, reimposing sanctions on Tehran. Washington sharply tightened sanctions against Iran since May with the aim of bringing its oil exports to zero. Iran responded by stepping up production of enriched uranium beyond limits in the nuclear deal. Britain’s seizure of the Grace 1 changed the diplomatic calculus after weeks in which Washington’s European allies have strained to appear neutral. They disagreed with Trump’s decision to quit the nuclear pact last year. Although EU states have not followed Washington in imposing sanctions on Iran, they have sanctions in place that forbid selling oil to Iran’s ally Syria.

UN Experts Voice ‘Serious Concern’ over Iran’s Denial of Treatment to Detained Activists
New York - Ali Barada
Eight human right experts at the United Nations have voiced “serious concern” over Iran’s detention of rights activists and of continuing to deny medical treatment to those detainees in what amounts to a consistent pattern. “Over several months we have communicated to the Iranian government our deep concern about the physical and mental integrity of detainees,” the experts said in a statement released in New York on Thursday. They added that despite government assurances, “we are frustrated to still receive reports of denial of medical treatment including in life-threatening situations.”The experts listed the case of human rights activist Arash Sadeghi, reportedly diagnosed with bone cancer and who has been denied care at the Raja’I Shahr Prison following an operation in September 2018. Sadeghi received a 15 year prison sentence in August 2015 on charges of “assembly and collusion in the form of propaganda against the state.” The UN experts also pointed to their grave concern for Ahmadreza Djalali, a Swedish-Iranian medical doctor, sentenced to death on corruption charges for allegedly spying in Iran. They said although tests indicate Djalali may have cancer, the doctor has been denied access to appropriate healthcare in the Evin Prison, where Austrian-Iranian dual national Kamran Ghaderi, who is serving a 10-year sentence for espionage and despite tumor in his leg, has also been denied appropriate medical treatment. The list of experts who issued the statement included Dainius Puras, Special Rapporteur on the situation of the right to health, Michel Forst, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, David Kaye, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Jose Antionio Fuevara Bermudez, Chari-Rapporteur, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Fion nuala Ni Aolain, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Agnes Callamard, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Nils Melzer Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Curel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Javaid Rehman, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran.

Saudi Arabia Urges Firm Stand against Iran’s Nuclear Program
Riyadh - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 12 July, 2019
Saudi Arabia has called on the international community to take a firm stand against Iran's nuclear program, stressing the importance of stopping Iran’s transgressions and breaches of international agreements and treaties related to its nuclear program. The Kingdom’s statement came at a special session of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors meeting in Vienna on Wednesday. During the meeting, the Saudi permanent delegation noted Riyadh's stance on the nuclear agreement struck between world powers and Iran in 2015.
The Kingdom expressed the importance of a comprehensive international agreement on Iran's nuclear program that would prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons in any way. It added that Iran continued to provoke unrest and intensify its activities destabilizing the region in particular and the whole world, with its insistence on the development of ballistic missiles, and support for terrorist groups in the region, including its threat to international navigation and maritime straits. The delegation highlighted the importance of the agreement to include a specific, strict and permanent inspection mechanism for all locations, including military sites, with a mechanism to re-impose sanctions quickly and effectively if Iran violates the agreement. Further, it referred to recent statements made by Iranian officials regarding the nuclear program, drawing the attention of member states to the statement by the Iranian president that his country would increase uranium enrichment to the extent it wants. Such statements and threats represent a clear challenge to the international community and reinforce doubts about Iran's intentions and the peacefulness of its nuclear program, continued the delegation. This is not the first time that Iran deceives the IAEA and the international community by concealing sensitive parts of its nuclear program.

OPCW Draws Up List of Syria Probes
The Hague - London - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 12 July, 2019
A new team set up by the global toxic arms watchdog to identify the culprits behind attacks in Syria has drawn up a list of its first investigations, the organization's chief has said. "A preliminary list of incidents for investigation has been established, and contact with member states and with international, regional, and local actors is being sought," the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Fernando Arias, said in his report to the member states, which are holding a four-day meeting that started Tuesday. He said the OPCW's Identification and Investigation Team given the task "is now fully operational". Nine incidents are to be probed in the next three years, he added. The states in 2018 agreed to give The Hague-based OPCW new powers to assign blame for attacks, despite opposition from Damascus and Moscow. Syria has already refused a visa to the chief of the team while Moscow and Damascus have accused the OPCW of becoming "politicized". The OPCW team aims to carry out three investigations in each of 2019, 2020 and 2021, according to the budget program that Arias presented separately to member states. He did not give details of the first incidents to be probed. But the West has called for the new team to quickly start work on identifying the culprits behind a deadly attack in the Syrian town of Douma in April 2018. The OPCW said in a report on March 2 that chlorine was likely used in the Douma attack, which it said killed more than 40 people. The watchdog did not apportion blame as it was not in its mandate at the time. The team can probe incidents going back to 2014. OPCW teams have identified 39 suspected chemical attacks in Syria since then. Blame for six of them was attributed by a joint OPCW-UN investigative mechanism, before Russia vetoed the renewal of its mandate in 2015. The watchdog's member states meanwhile expressed concerns that Syria may still possess chemical weapons, despite agreeing to give them up in 2013. Arias said in a report earlier this month that possible traces of a banned chemical were found at a facility in Syria. He also said that remnants of destroyed toxic arms and production equipment at another location were missing. Canada's OPCW ambassador Sabine Nolke said there was an "alarming likelihood that Syria continues to possess Schedule 1 chemicals" which include sarin and mustard gas. Britain's OPCW envoy Peter Wilson said the findings "underline our concern about the extent of Syria’s undeclared chemical weapons program". Damascus agreed to hand over its chemical arsenal in 2013, narrowly avoiding US and French air strikes in retaliation for a suspected sarin attack that killed 1,400 people in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. The OPCW won the Nobel Peace Prize that same year.

UN Chief Strongly Condemns Strikes on Hospitals in Northwest Syria
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 12 July, 2019
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres strongly condemned on Thursday airstrikes against hospitals in northwest Syria, saying civilian and civilian infrastructure must be protected. He voiced his concern after reports that four health facilities were hit during a single day of bombing.
An ambulance center, a clinic and two hospitals including one in Maarat al Numan that is among the largest in the area were attacked on Wednesday, according to the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations, a Syrian doctors' group. "Civilians and civilian infrastructure, including medical facilities, must be protected," said Guterres in a statement released by his spokesman. The United Nations had shared the coordinates of the hospital in Maarat al Numan with the warring parties, the statement said. "Parties to the conflict must respect their obligations under international humanitarian law," Guterres said, adding that those behind the attacks must be held accountable. Backed by Russia, Syrian regime forces have since late April ramped up bombardment of the Idlib region, which is controlled by the extremist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). The United Nations has warned that an all-out offensive to push out the opposition could lead to a bloodbath in the region where some three million people live. UN aid chief Mark Lowcock last month said he had asked Russia to explain how it uses data on the location of Syrian hospitals following a string of attacks on health facilities. More than 23 hospitals have been hit by strikes since late April in a campaign that Western powers have said is aimed at sowing terror among civilians. Russia has firmly denied that the bombing campaign has targeted hospitals and maintains the military operation is aimed at driving out "terrorists."At least 544 civilians have been killed and over 2,000 people injured since the Russian-led assault began two months ago, rights groups and rescuers said on Saturday. Residents and rescuers say the two-month-old campaign has left dozens of villages and towns in ruins. According to the United Nations, at least 300,000 people have been forced to leave their homes for the safety of areas closer to the border with Turkey. The war in Syria, now in its ninth year, has killed more than 370,000 people and displaced millions since it started with the brutal repression of anti-regime protests.

Majority of US Vets Say Middle East Wars 'Not Worth Fighting'
Washington - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 12 July, 2019
A majority of US military veterans say the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were "not worth fighting," according to poll results released this week. "Majorities of both veterans (58 percent) and the public (59 percent) say the war in Afghanistan was not worth fighting. About four-in-ten or fewer say it was worth fighting," according to the Pew Research Center.The same held for the war in Iraq and the US military intervention against ISIS in Syria, with 64 percent of veterans saying the former was "not worth fighting," and 55 percent saying the latter was "not worth it.""Veterans who served in either Iraq or Afghanistan are no more supportive of those engagements than those who did not serve in these wars. And views do not differ based on rank or combat experience," the Pew Research Center said. The survey results come as the US and the Taliban engage in talks on bringing to a close the conflict which Washington launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. The polling had a margin of error of 3.9 percent for veterans and 3.1 percent for members of the general public.

Tension Prevails Ahead of Egypt's Delegation Arrival to Gaza
Ramallah- Kifah Zboun/Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 12 July, 2019
Tension has risen in Gaza with Israel killing a civil official in Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, amid escalating threats from both sides prior to the arrival of the Egyptian security delegation to the strip. Israeli soldiers shot dead a field leader near the border of northern Gaza. The Israeli army confirmed the forces fired on two "armed suspects approaching the fence in the northern Gaza Strip," refusing to provide further details. The health ministry in Gaza said that 28-year-old Palestinian Mahmoud al-Adham was shot and killed in Thursday’s incident near Beit Hanoun in the northern part of the territory. Al-Qassam said that it would not let the death go "unpunished" and that Israel "would bear the consequences of this criminal act," according to a statement. In response to this threat, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a meeting at city hall in the coastal city of Ashkelon: “I prefer that there be calm. But we are preparing for a campaign that is not only broad but also surprising." Interior Ministry spokesman in Gaza Iyad al-Bazm said that the ministry and the national security have conducted an emergency maneuver simulating an abrupt security threat – this falls under testing the readiness of the security bodies and forces. Officials from Hamas said that the exercise imitated Israeli special forces units' incursion. According to the ministry's statement, the maneuver was conducted due to the enemy’s attempts to subvert the security and the state’s ruling. Meanwhile, the Egyptian delegation has convened with Israeli security officials and is planning to meet Hamas officials in Gaza to discuss understandings with Israel and the Palestinian reconciliation. Before Gaza, the delegation arrived in Ramallah to discuss the dispute about the reconciliation issue.

Turkey Drills off Cyprus in Bid for Regional Influence
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 12 July, 2019
When Turkey dispatched a second ship to drill for oil and gas in disputed waters off Cyprus last month, it drew fire not just from rival Nicosia but also the rebuke of Western allies and threats of EU sanctions. Turkey's decision may have been a calculated risk, analysts say, as it looks to secure greater influence and energy resources in territory it claims as its own, and to counter what it sees as increasing encroachment by Cyprus and regional rivals. Already tense over divided Cyprus, the eastern Mediterranean has become increasingly sensitive after the discovery of potentially huge oil and gas reserves drew the United States, Greece, Egypt and Israel into an increasingly complex landscape. As it edges away from the EU, Ankara may now see European sanctions as less of a risk. And relations with the US are already frayed over multiple issues. The offshore area where the Turkish ships Fatih and Yavuz are exploring for gas is part of EU-member Cyprus's exclusive economic zone where it has invited Western giants like ExxonMobil and France's Total to drill in lucrative deals for Nicosia. That has riled Turkey, which backs the Turkish-speaking north of divided Cyprus, and claims the offshore area as part of its own continental shelf. Turkey says its drilling is within international law and that Nicosia's registered economic zone is not recognized by the north's Turkish Cypriots. Part of the Turkish move may be prompted by increasing energy cooperation between Cyprus, Greece, Israel, and Egypt.
"Beyond energy, this has to do with the power projection that Turkey is trying to introduce in the region," said Harry Tzimitras, director of the PRIO Cyprus Centre think tank. He added Turkey felt the need "to make itself heard". The EU has repeatedly lambasted Turkey over "illegal" drilling and last month threatened Ankara with sanctions if it did not stop. But President Recep Tayyip Erdogan defends Turkey's activities, as one of the guarantors of Cyprus' independence along with Greece and Britain, and has lashed out at outside actors for what he called interference. This week he said their "noise" would not deter Turkey from its goal.
Sanctions risk
Cyprus has been divided between the Republic of Cyprus and a northern third under Turkish military control since 1974 when Turkey invaded in response to a coup by a Greek military junta.Current tensions over gas drilling are also likely related to the collapse of peace talks in 2017, experts say. While negotiations to reunify the island have not restarted, Cyprus has moved to start gas and oil exploration by issuing licenses. Even with rising tensions, few see the possibility of an armed conflict. Both sides are keen to avoid an escalation despite the rhetoric. But Turkish pro-government newspapers say naval vessels and drones are providing protection to the drilling ships, just in case. In February, Turkish warships blocked the path of a drillship contracted by Italy's ENI, forcing its mission to be abandoned. "All parties will refrain from military clashes, even if there is still a risk of an accident," said Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, the Ankara director of the German Marshall Fund of the United States think tank. The EU could slap "symbolic" sanctions on Turkey, but not any measures that could hurt the Turkish economy, he added. The EU's "allure" and influence on Turkey is waning, said Tzimitras. "Losing the EU is not as important as it was in the past." Ankara has warned against sanctions, which Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said this week would "backfire". While the US has called for drilling to stop, Unluhisarcikli said Washington was unlikely to punish Ankara over gas exploration as it is already eyeing sanctions over a Russian S-400 missile defense system deal.
Energy and beyond -
Cypriot Energy Minister George Lakkotrypis last month said Cyprus would earn an estimated $9.3bn over 18 years from exploiting its Aphrodite gas field under a contract with Shell, US-based Noble and Israel's Delek. Turkey itself granted exploration licenses to Turkish Petroleum in 2009 and 2012. For now, Ankara buys gas mainly from Russia, Iran, and Azerbaijan. The size of the reserves and their future potential are unclear, but analysts say Turkey's actions offshore are more focused at boosting its regional influence and countering Cyprus. "What Turkey is doing is not in the perspective of economic gains, Turkey is doing this to disrupt the plan of the Republic of Cyprus," Unluhisarcikli said. Ankara this week slammed Greece as a "spoiled child" of Europe and Cyprus as its "hellion", adding that being an EU member did not give Nicosia the right to "usurp legitimate rights and interests of the Turkish Cypriots".

Netanyahu Says No Uprooting of Settlements, Looks Forward to Deal of the Century
Tel Aviv - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 12 July, 2019
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stressed in two separate speeches this week that Israel has no intention of evacuating any of the West Bank settlements in a peace plan despite announcing his eagerness to the White House’s so-called “Deal of the Century.”
Making remarks during an event at the settlement of Revava marking the 40th anniversary of the Samaria regional council in the West Bank on Wednesday night, Netanyahu said he will not allow evictions of any communities, likely referring in part to the evacuation of West Bank settlements as part of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. “We don’t forcibly evict people. We’re done with this nonsense. Israel under my leadership will not repeat the mistakes of the past,” he said. Later on Wednesday, Netanyahu spoke on the occasion of the Egyptian national day celebration at the residence of Egypt’s Ambassador to Tel Aviv Khaled Azmi. "I've been to war, peace is better, we're looking forward to see what President (Donald) Trump puts on the table and we will look at it with an open mind," Netanyahu said. The US blueprint to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians driven by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser, has been billed by the US president as the “Deal of the Century”. Its precise outlines have yet to be revealed. But Washington made a first formal outing of the economic components of the plan at a “Peace for Prosperity” workshop held in Bahrain last month.

Iraqi Army Concludes ‘Will of Victory’ Operation against ISIS
Baghdad - Hamza Mustafa/ Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 12 July, 2019
The Iraqi Army has concluded the operation dubbed as the ‘Will of Victory’, which was launched starting this week by Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi against ISIS in three provinces. This operation coincided with the 3rd anniversary of liberating Mosul on July 10 in 2017, which represented the key to military elimination of the group at the end of this year. In this context, Iraq's National Wisdom Movement Leader Ammar al-Hakim has called for putting a comprehensive political, security and community strategy to maintain the victory. In a statement issued Thursday, Hakim stressed that this historic achievement should be retained via setting a comprehensive strategy, especially in the liberated regions. He called on the Iraqi government and the parliament to exploit this occasion to reconstruct liberated cities and march towards development. The Joint Operations Command announced Thursday that the first phase of the ‘Will of Victory’ has been completed. Deputy of Army Chief of Staff for Operations Abdul Amir Rasheed Yarallah revealed in a statement that the military sectors participating in the operation managed to achieve the determined goals. During a press conference on Thursday, Member of Iraq's parliamentary Security and Defense Committee Nayef al-Shammari said that the committee held a meeting with the Iraqi PM. The meeting tackled the operation as well as the necessity of reinforcing it. While Mahdi promised to follow up the situation, Shammari highlighted the necessity of monitoring the Iraqi-Syrian border, especially that some ISIS members fled the battle to the Syrian side. Further, security expert Fadel Abu Raghef told Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper that the operation notably witnessed the participation of three commands. This operation wouldn’t have been yielding if it hadn't been exceptional because ISIS lives in an amebic manner – every time you divide it, the division comes back to life on its own.

Assad Says Talks on Post-War Syria Constitution to 'Continue'
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/July 12/2019
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad said Friday discussions would "continue" over the composition of a body to draw up a post-war constitution for the country. Meeting with Russian envoy Alexander Lavrentiev, the president discussed ongoing efforts towards "creating a committee to discuss the constitution", the presidency said. Assad and Moscow's representative "agreed to continue working and intensely coordinate between both sides on the next steps", it said in a statement. On Wednesday, the Syrian government and visiting UN envoy Geir Pedersen announced "progress" towards forming the body, whose composition has dragged for more than 17 months. Disagreements have raged over the names to be included in the committee, a third of which are to be nominated by the regime, another by the opposition, and a final third by the UN envoy. Damascus hopes to amend the current constitution, while the opposition wants to write a new one from scratch. The UN envoy met the Syrian Negotiation Commission opposition grouping late Thursday "to discuss the results of Pedersen's latest visit to Damascus", it said on Twitter, without further details. Pro-government newspaper Al-Watan on Tuesday reported that a body could start work as early as September if Damascus agreed to Pedersen's list. Last month, the United States said it was time to scrap the constitutional committee initiative and come up with other ways to end the war. Numerous rounds of U.N.-led peace talks have failed to end a war that has killed more than 370,000 people and displaced millions since it started in 2011 with the repression of anti-government protests. In recent years, a parallel negotiations track led by regime ally Russia and rebel backer Turkey has taken precedence. With key military backing from Russia, regime forces have retaken large parts of Syria from rebels and jihadists since 2015, and now control around 60 percent of the country.

Iran Demands Britain Release Oil Tanker Seized off Gibraltar
Associated Press/Naharnet/July 12/2019
Iran is demanding the British navy release an oil tanker seized last week off Gibraltar, accusing London of playing a "dangerous game."
Friday's comments from the Iranian Foreign Ministry come a day after police in Gibraltar, a British overseas territory on the southern tip of Spain, said they arrested the captain and chief officer of the supertanker suspected of breaching European Union sanctions by carrying a shipment of Iranian crude oil to Syria. Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi told Iranian state news agency IRNA that "the legal pretexts for the capture are not valid ... the release of the tanker is in all countries' interest." The tanker's interception on July 4 has stoked already high tensions in the region.

Turkey Receives First Delivery of Russian S-400 Missile System, Says Ankara
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/July 12/2019
Turkey received the first batch of Russia's S-400 missile defence system on Friday, the defence ministry said, despite repeated warnings from its NATO ally United States against the purchase. "The delivery of the first shipment of parts of the S-400 long range regional air missile defence system began as of July 12, 2019 to Murted air base in Ankara," the ministry said in a statement. The delivery, which was made by plane, is likely to escalate tensions with the US after Washington warned this week that there would be "real and negative" consequences if Ankara bought the Russian defence system. The US State Department has said that Turkish officials are fully aware of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, a law passed by Congress in 2017 that mandates sanctions for any "significant" purchases of weapons from Russia. Washington has threatened to remove Turkey from its F-35 fighter jet programme, giving Ankara until July 31 to cancel the S-400 purchase or have its pilots kicked off the training course and expelled from the US. But Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said after meeting US counterpart Donald Trump last month that he was confident Ankara would not face sanctions for buying the Russian missile system. Erdogan told Trump during their meeting on the margins of the G-20 meeting in Japan that former president Barack Obama did not allow Ankara to buy Patriot missiles -- an equivalent of the S-400s. Trump sounded convinced and said: "You can't do business that way. It's not good." The Turkish air force changed the name of the base in Ankara from Akinci to Murted after it was the centre of a 2016 failed coup attempt.

Kuwait Arrests 'Terrorist' Cell Linked to Muslim Brotherhood
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/July 12/2019
Kuwaiti authorities have arrested members of a "terrorist" cell linked to Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, the interior ministry said on Friday. A statement carried by the state-run news agency KUNA said the militants were allegedly members of a "terrorist cell", including some who have been "convicted of terrorism" and sentenced to jail in Egypt. "Those arrested carry Egyptian nationalities and belong to the Muslim Brotherhood organisation," the ministry said. The suspects, it said, are wanted by Egypt where some of them have been sentenced to up to 15 years in jail. The interior ministry did not disclose how many people were arrested and said investigations were ongoing. Egyptian authorities have led a crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood members after the military overthrew Islamist president Mohamed Morsi in 2013.Later that year Egypt outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood and declared it a "terrorist organization." Egypt and its allies, including Gulf powerhouses Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, consider the Muslim Brotherhood a "terrorist" organization.

Algerians Rally against Government, Spurred by Football Triumph
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/July 12/2019
Crowds of Algerians defied a massive police deployment Friday to protest against the government, buoyed by the national football team's qualification for the Africa Cup of Nations semi finals. After celebrating all night their side's defeat of Ivory Coast on penalties, Algerians flooded the streets of the capital to once again press their demands for an overhaul of the North African country's political leadership. Mass protests forced longtime president Abdelaziz Bouteflika to resign in early April, but demonstrators have kept up the pressure, calling for all regime insiders to step aside. The protest movement -- now in its 21st week -- is also demanding the establishment of independent institutions to oversee fresh elections. Calling for a "civilian, not military, state" the demonstrators flooded the streets of central Algiers, despite the deployment of large numbers of police from early morning. Long lines of police vans were parked on either side of the road where protesters marched, significantly reducing the space available for demonstrators. Engine oil was poured on steps, railings and other areas where protesters have been known to gather, AFP reporters said, apparently to keep them at bay. Police also detained a dozen demonstrators for no apparent reason, as in past rallies, reporters said. "There is a clear will (by the police) to stop peaceful marches in Algiers," tweeted Said Salhi, vice president of the Algerian League for the Defense of Human Rights, known by its French acronym LADDH. He denounced an "impressive police deployment" which he said included "roadblocks" at the entrances to the capital to check the identities of protesters, carry out searches and detain demonstrators. Protester Aicha Sahli said "I'm fed up with a government that is imposing itself on the people." "The authorities must understand that we refuse elections (organised) by the kings of fraud," she told AFP. Friday's protest comes as interim President Abdelkader Bensalah remains in post, in the absence of elections after his mandate expired on Tuesday. Bensalah last week called for a national dialogue without the involvement of the state or the military to pave the way for presidential elections, after polls planned for early July were scrapped. Algerian army chief Ahmed Gaid Salah, who has emerged as the country's key power broker since Bouteflika stepped down, backs Bensalah. On Wednesday Gaid Salah said that Bensalah's proposal was a "sensible approach" to end Algeria's crisis, adding that elections should take place as soon as possible. He also warned against portraying Algeria as as a nation that was no longer a "civilian state."

U.N. Drafts 'List of Shame' over Child Deaths in Yemen
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/July 12/2019
An upcoming U.N. report featuring a blacklist of child rights violators is expected to refrain from toughening criticism of the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen despite a bus bombing last year that killed scores of children, according to diplomats. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is due to release the annual list of shame later this month ahead of a Security Council meeting on children and armed conflicts scheduled for August 2. The coalition was put on the U.N. blacklist in 2016 and later removed after Saudi Arabia reacted furiously, threatening to cut funding to U.N. programs. To appease Riyadh, the United Nations split the list into two sections in 2017 and put the coalition on "Section B" -- which highlights efforts by the Saudi-led group to avoid killing and maiming children in Yemen. According to diplomats with knowledge of the report, Guterres has received a draft recommendation from his UN envoy who determined that the coalition should remain on the separate section of the list that recognizes measures taken to avoid targeting children. This recommendation comes after 40 children were killed in August last year when their bus was attacked in Saada governorate. The coalition admitted that "mistakes" were made in targeting. The UN envoy for children and armed conflict, Virgina Gamba, also recommended that the armed forces of Myanmar, Syria and South Sudan be moved to the sub-section of the list to recognize measures that they have taken to protect children, according to the diplomats.
Empty promises
It remains unclear if Guterres will endorse the recommendations of his envoy in his final report, but rights groups expressed dismay. "Secretary-General Guterres should not mince words when it comes to calling out the perpetrators behind these crimes and must put all violators on a single 'list of shame'," said Adrianne Lapar, program director at Watchlist on Children and Conflict, a coalition of NGOs. "As long as Saudi- and Emirati-led airstrikes keep killing and maiming children in Yemen, the coalition doesn't deserve any praise for its empty promises to protect them," she said. "In 2018 and into 2019, the Saudi-led coalition continued to carry out well-documented attacks on schools and hospitals, as well as other grave violations against children in Yemen," said Louis Charbonneau, U.N. director for Human Rights Watch. The coalition "should not receive undeserved praise through inclusion in section B" of the list of shame, he added. A spokesperson from Gamba's office declined to comment, saying the final report had yet to be published. Gamba reported to the Security Council in April that the number of verified rights violations against children in Yemen was "staggering," blaming the coalition and the Huthi rebels for the violence. More than 3,000 children have been recruited as child soldiers and at least 7,500 children have been killed or maimed between April 2013 and the end of 2018. The U.N. has verified 350 attacks against schools and hospitals in Yemen during that period, she said. The coalition intervened in Yemen in March 2015 to back the internationally-recognized government against the Iran-aligned Huthis, escalating a war that has led to the world's worst humanitarian crisis, according to the U.N.

U.N. 'Alarmed' at Death Sentences Given by Yemen Rebel Court
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/July 12/2019
The United Nations said Friday it was "alarmed" at death sentences given by a court run by Yemen's Huthi rebels to 30 academics, trade unionists and preachers for alleged spying. "The U.N. Human Rights Office has received credible information suggesting that many of those convicted were subjected to arbitrary or unlawful detention, as well as torture," rights office spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani told reporters. Those condemned were accused of spying for the Saudi-led coalition, which intervened in Yemen in March 2015, shortly after the Iran-backed Huthis seized the capital Sanaa. Shamdasani noted the group will likely appeal to a higher court, which is also under Huthi control. The rights office urged the appeals court to consider "the serious allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, and of violations of the fair trial and due process rights of the convicted people," Shamdasani said. The Huthis have been accused by rights groups of using Sanaa's courts to target opponents and critics. Yemen's conflict has killed tens of thousands of people, many of them civilians, relief agencies say, and left millions displaced and in need of aid.

 Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 12-13/2019
Is Iran’s influence in Iraq waning?
By Hamidreza Azizi/Al Monitor/July 12/2019
Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi issued a decree July 1 obliging the overwhelmingly pro-Iran Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) to fully integrate into the Iraqi armed forces. The move came amid growing concerns among Iraqi leaders that their country might turn into a battleground between Iran and the United States.
Referring to the increasing tensions between Tehran and Washington, Iraqi President Barham Salih said June 26 that his country is not willing to be dragged into a new conflict in the region. “We have had four decades of challenge and turmoil. We do not want to be embroiled in another war,” Salih said.
Meanwhile, US officials have accused Iran of being responsible for a rocket attack on an area close to the American Embassy in Baghdad and of using Iraqi soil to conduct drone attacks against a Saudi Arabian oil pipeline in May.
Against this backdrop, Abdul Mahdi’s decision on the PMU was interpreted by some media and experts as a step toward limiting the influence of Iran and its allied groups in Iraq. However, this is not how the move and relations with Baghdad in general are seen in Tehran.
Indeed, the fragmented and noncentralized nature of the PMU is believed to be one of the main factors enabling Iran to maintain its influence in Iraq by actively supporting the more pro-Iranian factions of the organization, like Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba or Asaib Ahl al-Haq. As such, uniting all those factions under a formal umbrella would restrict Tehran’s ability to maneuver between them to preserve its interests in the neighboring country.
However, as the United States has doubled down on its efforts to restrain the role of pro-Iran groups in Iraq through moves such as designating them as terrorist organizations, there was a fear they might be eventually weakened as a result of American pressures. In this vein, integrating those groups into the Iraqi armed forces would make it harder for Washington to target them directly without the risk of undermining Iraq’s overall military and security apparatus.
Moreover, the general understanding in Iran is that Abdul Mahdi’s decree has more to do with recognizing the PMU as a legitimate part of the Iraqi armed forces than with trying to restrict its role. Conservative political analyst Saadollah Zarei believes the decree would give the PMU an “independent identity.”
“The [possible] merge of the PMU into the army’s structure would have created restrictions for the activities of the PMU. With the new decree issued by the Iraqi prime minister, we will witness a real mobilization in that country,” Zarei said in an interview with Tasnim News Agency.
Iran’s former Ambassador to Baghdad Hassan Danaeifard shares this view, saying Abdul Mahdi’s decree is in line with the “progressive path the PMU is going through.” According to him, the move would “enhance coordination and remove inconsistencies” among the PMU factions.
More importantly, as the Iraqi army used to be mostly dominated by Sunni commanders, the integration of the PMU while preserving its own chain of command would change the internal balance of the armed forces in favor of Shiites, which would, in turn, enhance Iran’s influence among them. Mostafa Najafi, a Middle East analyst at Tehran’s Tarbiat Modares University, believes the PMU’s integration would bring more religious orientations into the Iraqi military. “It would shift the Iraqi military away from being a classic and pan-Arab force,” Najafi told Al-Monitor.
Apart from the above-mentioned points, some other developments in Tehran-Baghdad relations could provide further proof that Iran’s influence in Iraq is not on a declining path.
On the same day that Abdul Mahdi’s decision on the PMU was announced, Iran’s military attache to Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Mostafa Moradian, met with newly appointed Iraqi Defense Minister Najah Hassan Ali al-Shammari. In the meeting, the Iraqi minister appreciated Iran’s role in fighting terrorism in Iraq, while calling for the deepening of defense and military cooperation between the two countries. It’s also worth mentioning that shortly after the shooting down of an American drone by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in June, Deputy Commander of the Iraqi Army Tariq Abbas Ibrahim Abdulhussein called for enhanced cooperation with Iran in the area of air defense.
The economic aspect of relations between the two neighboring countries has recently witnessed some important developments as well. On July 2, it was announced that Iraq is about to unveil a special financial mechanism that will let the country continue importing gas and electricity from Iran despite US sanctions against the Islamic Republic. The move was seen in Iran as Washington’s failure to cut Iraq’s ties with Iran in the energy sphere within the framework of US President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy against Tehran.
Meanwhile, during a trilateral meeting of the Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian transportation officials in Tehran on July 1, it was announced that the construction of a railway connecting Shalamcheh border crossing in southwestern Iran to Basra in southern Iraq will begin in three months. The agreement to construct the railway was finalized during Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s visit to Baghdad in March. Once materialized, the railway would link Iran’s transportation network to those of Iraq and Syria, providing Iran with land access to the Syrian coasts of the Mediterranean. It would also greatly contribute to expanding Iran’s trade ties with Iraq and Syria.
All these developments suggest that Iran’s influence in Iraq is not waning but is, in fact, taking a more formal and institutionalized shape. In this vein, while Iran is expected to maintain its close ties with the PMU factions even after their integration into the Iraqi armed forces, Tehran still sees developing ties with Baghdad as a crucial aspect of its strategy to diminish the negative economic and political effects of increasing American pressure.
*Hamidreza Azizi is an assistant professor of regional studies at Shahid Beheshti University and a member of the scientific board at the Iran and Eurasia Studies Institute (IRAS) in Tehran. On Twitter: @HamidRezaAz

The Doha Agreement – Paving The Way For The Taliban's Takeover Of Afghanistan And Enforcement Of Shari'a-Based Governance
Tufail Ahmad/MEMRI/July 12/2019
The July 7-8 talks between the Taliban and Afghan delegates in Doha.
Introduction
At the July 7-8 talks in Doha, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban organization), backed by Qatar and the U.S., emerged victorious, extracting major advantages from Afghan delegates and the international community. A key Taliban advantage was that they held on to the Islamic Emirate's long-standing position of not recognizing the elected government of Afghanistan as a legitimate entity. While the Afghan delegates, including those from the government, were forced to attend the talks in their personal capacity, the Taliban representatives came to the table as the Taliban.
As per a statement issued by Qatar, Dr. Mutlaq bin Majid Al-Qahtani, the Qatari Special Envoy for Counterterrorism and Mediation in Conflict Resolution, announced the "success" of the talks, stating: "We are very pleased today to reach a joint statement as a first step to peace."[1] The "success" and the "first step to peace" which Al-Qahtani spoke of belong to the Taliban and shari'a, not to the democratic government in Kabul, not to Afghan women who suffered under the Taliban's shari'a rule during the 1990s, and not to common Afghans whose civil liberties are at stake in Doha.
The Afghan Taliban – as a result of the Doha talks which were sponsored jointly by Qatar and Germany – marched closer to their stated objectives of enforcing Islamic shari'a rule in Afghanistan and of restructuring the Afghan government institutions, including the military, to their liking. As discussed below, the Taliban's realization of their objectives at the Doha talks are clearly seen in four versions of the so-called joint statement agreed to, perhaps under the U.S. pressure, by the Afghan delegates.
Three Versions Of The Doha Agreement And The Taliban's Own Version
At the official level, there are three versions of the joint statement (henceforth, Agreement) in Pashtu, Dari, and English. However, the Islamic Emirate also published a fourth version in Urdu on its official Urdu-language website.[2] In Point 3 of the Agreement, the Urdu version inserts a sentence – which does not exist in the English version – noting that Afghans made sacrifices "so that all international, regional, and national parties [to the Afghan situation] should become respectful toward the great tenets of our millat [Islamic Ummah]."[3]
The seventh round of the ongoing U.S.-Taliban negotiations were paused to accommodate the July 7-8 talks between the Taliban and the Afghan delegates. In Point 4-b, the English version says that the participants support the U.S.-Taliban negotiations and believe that "an effective and positive outcome from the negotiations will be fruitful for Afghanistan."[4] Contrary to this, the Urdu version says the participants believe that the U.S.-Taliban talks are an "effective and positive step toward ending the ongoing war thrust upon Afghanistan."[5]
The English version has nine points, with Point 4, Point 5, and Point 8 having respectively two, four, and eight sub-points. Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation, released the "unofficial translation" of the Agreement via Twitter[6] and acknowledged in a tweet that there was "some confusion about translations..."[7] In a tweet to Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan student of international relations expressed concern that the original Pashtu statement has "ten points."[8] In the Urdu version, Point 6 and Point 7 have been combined, making it an eight-point document.
Shaheen, the spokesman of the Afghan Taliban based in Doha, Qatar
The Doha Agreement – A Blueprint For Shari'a Rule
All the versions of the Agreement have some differing points. Point 6 of the English version assures Afghan women of their fundamental "rights in political, social, economic, educational, cultural affairs" of Afghanistan as per Islamic values.[9] It does not "contain any reference to one of the key issues for the Taliban – their demand for the withdrawal of all foreign military forces..."[10]
On the contrary, the Pashtu version of the Agreement includes "references to the withdrawal of foreign troops as part of the roadmap," but it does "not include any reference to guarantees for women's rights."[11] The Dari version, like the English one, includes "references to guaranteeing women's rights," but does "not mention the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan."[12] Suhail Shaheen, the spokesman of the Islamic Emirate's Political Office in Doha, has said that the Pashtu version is the original.[13] The Agreement is non-binding.[14]
Since the Pashtu version does not talk of women's rights, it leaves the Afghan Taliban ample space to implement their own view of what women's rights are. The Urdu version, which is the Taliban's official version published on their website, mentions "women's rights" and "protection of the rights of religious minorities" in accordance with "Islamic principles."[15]
Both these rights are understood by jihadi groups differently from the way they are understood by democratic nations. For example, women's rights mean segregation of women in offices, schools, colleges, and all other spheres of public and home life. Similarly, jihadi groups agree to the "protection of the rights of religious minorities" only in such situations when Islam is in power and minorities live as dhimmis, second-class citizens, and agree to pay jizya, a tax on non-Muslims.
In Doha, the Taliban did not agree to a long-standing demand from the Afghan government that they agree to a ceasefire for meaningful progress to be made in Afghanistan. However, in all versions, the parties are committed to "minimiz[ing] the civilian casualties to zero."[16] This is an important point, but it is also a surrender to the Taliban. Effectively, it means that the Islamic Emirate has declined to agree to any form of ceasefire.
The Taliban website published an Urdu version of the agreement.
This point also means that after the U.S.-Taliban negotiations, the Islamic Emirate will continue to fight against Afghan soldiers, as it does now. Also, the fact that the Islamic Emirate forced the delegates not to attend the event as representatives of the Afghan government means that the Taliban are unwilling to adopt a flexible approach on vital points. A day before the talks, the Islamic Emirate issued a statement in which it insisted that the Afghan delegates would participate "in their personal capacities."[17]
There are points indicating that the Taliban have won this round of the talks with the Afghan delegates. For example, Point 8-a of the English version of the agreement commits the parties to "institutionalizing [an] Islamic system in the country for the implementation of comprehensive peace" – effectively planting the seeds for shari'a rule in Afghanistan.[18] In Point 2, the agreement talks of "Islamic sovereignty" for Afghan people.[19] As per Point 8-d, the participants also agreed to "reform in the preservation of fundamental institutions, defensive [sic, defense] and other national entities" of Afghanistan, effectively demanding a restructuring of Afghan government institutions to suit the Taliban's ideological objectives.[20]
The Inclusion Of Moscow Declaration
In Point 9, the Agreement says: "We acknowledge and approve the recent resolution of intra-Afghan conference held on 5 and 6 Feb 2019 in Moscow."[21] So, the Doha Agreement incorporates the Moscow resolution. In Moscow, the Taliban delegation had refused to accept a woman as the head of the state of Afghanistan because Islam does not permit women to head a state. At that time, Fawzia Koofi, a female Afghan lawmaker who attended the Moscow conference, had welcomed the Taliban's promise that "women would not be stripped of their rights and would be allowed to serve as prime minister — though not as president."[22]
The story does not end here. In the Islamic Emirate's view, the actual peace process will start sometime later, the timing of which is unclear. For it, the U.S.-Taliban negotiations and the talks between the Taliban and the Afghan delegates do not constitute the beginning of the peace process. In Moscow, the Taliban delegation had made this point clear, stating "before the beginning of the peace talks, some preliminary steps must be taken that are essential for peace."[23] This point from the Moscow talks is retained in the Doha Agreement.
It says the participants agree "on a roadmap for peace based on following conditions," one of which, in Point 8-b, being the "Start of the peace process simultaneously with the accomplishment of all terms and conditions set forth."[24] While Al-Qahtani, the Qatari special envoy who announced the "success" in Doha, sees the Agreement as the "first step to peace," the Islamic Emirate does not see it even as the "start" of the peace process in Afghanistan.
Two Mornings After The Doha Agreement
On July 10 – two days after the Doha Agreement – the Afghan Taliban returned to their usual tactics and accused the Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani of supporting the Islamic State (ISIS), using U.S. private security firm Blackwater (now known as Academi) to kill civilians, and "trying to prolong the U.S. invasion" of Afghanistan.[25] "The ground beneath the feet of Ashraf Ghani is shrinking not just militarily but also diplomatically [as a result of the Doha Agreement]," the Islamic Emirate wrote in a statement and celebrated the exclusion of the Afghan government from the Doha talks, saying: "The decision to not include the regime in the peace talks is a slap in the face to the regime leadership..."[26]
Vowing to establish shari'a rule in Afghanistan, it wrote: "No matter what the puppet regime does, the stance of the mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is clear which is to strive for the cause of Allah and to remove the rule of tyrants and overthrow the disbelief and ignorance and re-establish the rule of shari'a in Afghanistan which is the will of Afghan nation."[27] The Islamic Emirate especially singled out democracy as an obstacle to peace in Afghanistan, stating: "[I]t is not possible to escape from the physical barriers that the enemies have placed in our country... by embracing democracy."[28] It added: "The solution lies in the change of the cruel system [democracy] built by the occupiers."[29]
It reaffirmed commitment to jihad: "Military and political jihadi action is the effective remedy for demolishing the walls of the external occupiers and... [their] internal clients in Afghanistan."[30] It added: "Every Afghan knows that jihad against the current regime is the shortest and most correct way to change the situation."[31] The Doha Agreement shines for one outstanding point: it does not meet any demands by the Afghan government and the international community, while it becomes an instrument for the enforcement of the Taliban's shari'a-based objectives in Afghanistan.
* Tufail Ahmad is Senior Fellow for the MEMRI Islamization and Counter-Radicalization Initiative
[1] Mofa.gov.qa, July 9, 2019. The original English of the quoted texts in this dispatch has been lightly edited for clarity and standardization.
[2] Alemarahurdu.net, July 9, 2019.
[3] Alemarahurdu.net, July 9, 2019.
[4] Hpc.org.af, July 9, 2019.
[5] Alemarahurdu.net, July 9, 2019.
[6] Twitter.com/US4AfghanPeace, July 9, 2019.
[7] Twitter.com/US4AfghanPeace, July 9, 2019.
[8] Twitter.com/ MustafaNoori94, July 9, 2019.
[9] Rferl.org, July 9, 2019.
[10] Rferl.org, July 9, 2019.
[11] Rferl.org, July 9, 2019.
[12] Rferl.org, July 9, 2019.
[13] Rferl.org, July 9, 2019.
[14] Rferl.org, July 9, 2019.
[15] Alemarahurdu.net, July 9, 2019.
[16] Hpc.org.af, July 9, 2019.
[17] AlemarahEnglish.com, July 6, 2019.
[18] Hpc.org.af, July 9, 2019.
[19] Hpc.org.af, July 9, 2019.
[20] Hpc.org.af, July 9, 2019.
[21] Hpc.org.af, July 9, 2019.
[22] The New York Times (U.S.), February 6, 2019.
[23] MEMRI JTTM report, At Moscow Conference, Afghan Taliban Official Outlines Demands To Be Met 'Before The Beginning Of The Peace Talks', February 8, 2019. Also see, MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series No. 1444, U.S.-Taliban Talks Yielding A Lasting Role For Turkey And Iran In Afghanistan, February 27, 2019.
[24] Hpc.org.af, July 9, 2019
[25] AlemarahEnglish.com, July 10, 2019.
[26] AlemarahEnglish.com, July 10, 2019.
[27] AlemarahEnglish.com, July 10, 2019.
[28] AlemarahEnglish.com, July 10, 2019.
[29] AlemarahEnglish.com, July 10, 2019.
[30] AlemarahEnglish.com, July 10, 2019.
[31] AlemarahEnglish.com, July 10, 2019.

The Sudanese Crossing Bridge
Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 12/2019
When the Sudanese parties sign the final agreement document to manage the affairs of the country for three years during the transitional period, it will represent the peak of the decisive phase needed by the Sudanese people to move to a new era of security and stability.
The state will shift from a dark period, during which many violations and injustices have occurred with severe shortages of the basic needs of the citizens, towards a new phase of unity of state organs that will alleviate the suffering of the Sudanese people.
Throughout the past few months, the Sudanese have offered a rare lesson on how to make compromises from all sides, hoping to reach a historic moment that many peoples in the region have in vain longed for, due to the prevailing language of blood and destruction over understanding and national interests. The Sudanese succeeded in offering a different lesson.
However, is the mere signing of the final agreement enough?! Of course not, it is only a crossing bridge to a better Sudan, which everyone dreams of, especially in the light of the semi-collapsed economic situation that the country has witnessed over the past years.
One does not exaggerate when saying that saving the Sudanese economy requires a miraculous process. Inflation rose again last month, reaching 47.78 percent, which places a lot of burden on the new sovereign council. It is not appropriate for the council to be preoccupied with internal differences aimed at implementing narrow agendas, while the country needs the consensus of all and the focus of all and concerted efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Sudanese citizens.
It is true that the Kingdom and other brotherly countries will not abandon Sudan, but the political forces’ preoccupation with minor issues will harm the Sudanese people first and foremost, and prevent state institutions from achieving the people’s living aspirations.
It is important to mention here a question raised in a malicious manner, especially in Western circles: did Saudi Arabia stand with the military council in Sudan?! Yes, but it also stood with the “Forces of Freedom and Change”, and with all political forces. But most importantly, Saudi Arabia stood with the Sudanese people, which constituted the main shield in preventing the country’s fall into violence and chaos.
This was reflected in the Saudi role in the reconciliation between the Sudanese parties. The Saudi support - which started from the early days of the isolation of Omar al-Bashir - was directed towards the Sudanese people as the most affected by the difficult economic conditions experienced by the country.
Saudi Arabia’s most important message is that its support was not directed at any particular group or forces. The Riyadh stand is not just a matter of Sudan, but rather a complement to its role in achieving regional security and stability, as well as maintaining historical ties with the Sudanese people.
By bringing the views of the various Sudanese forces closer on the one hand, and easing the tension with major Western capitals on the other, Saudi Arabia’s diplomacy has perhaps helped Sudan significantly to overcome one of the most critical stages in its history, and then reach the final agreement.
The real interest of Saudi Arabia lies in the stability of a neighboring country that will ensure the preservation of its interests; and most importantly, that such stability is based on an internal Sudanese decision, without any foreign tutelage, contrary to the ambitions of some foreign powers that brought, through their alliance with Sudan, only destruction and evil.'

Erdogan and the Wisdom of Timely Exit
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 12/2019
If we regard history as a stage, on which the drama of human existence is played, we may pay heed to a piece of advice to actors by Max Reinhardt, the legendary German theater director: How and when you leave the stage is as important as when and how you enter it!
Imagine Julius Caesar bowing out of the stage just a year before his assassination in 44 BC. He would have been remembered as the leader who healed the wounds of Rome’s bloodiest civil war, and laid the foundations of an empire destined to dominate the world for centuries. And, what about Winston Churchill? Had he retired in 1945 after leading Great Britain to victory over Nazi Germany he would have avoided a humiliating defeat in the first post-war general election. Other putative timely exits could be cited: General Charles De Gaulle, handing in the keys to the Elysee in 1967 instead of 1968. Iran’s Muhammad-Reza Shah stepping down in 1977. And, to return to present-time, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2015.
The problem is that Erdogan may have already missed the ideal when and how of his eventual exit. But, one thing is certain: the sandglass of his career has started flowing down faster.
As in other cases of leaders missing the exit time, Erdogan is a man of remarkable achievements. It would be no exaggeration to claim that, leaving Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) aside, he is the leader who has most affected modern Turkey’s destiny. Some of Erdogan’s achievements are too well known to need detailing here. Among these are the almost doubling of the size of the Turkish economy in just two decades is one. The partial end to a generation long internal war with ethnic Kurds is another. Despite recent turmoil, especially the abortive coup of 2016, Turkey today is more prosperous and more at peace than almost any other time since the creation of the republic in the 1920s.
However, I think the most significant event during the Erdogan’s era is the firm establishment of the ballot box as the ultimate source of power in Turkey. This may have happened in spite of Erdogan’s wishes as seen in the recent municipal election in Istanbul that he tried hard to twist and turn to his party’s advantage.
The republic that Ataturk established without securing grass-root understanding let alone active support was more of an autocracy with a democratic veneer than a functioning pluralist system. In the first quarter of a century of its existence, the Turkish Republic was a one-party state with Ataturk’s People’s Republican Party winning four-fifth of seats in successive general elections. In those elections, rural and still religious Turkey was all but marginalized in favor of the growing urban and increasingly secular half of the nation. “Backward” Turkey managed to stage a dramatic entry center stage in the 1950 general election when the Democrat Party won four-fifth of the seats in the Grand National Assembly (parliament) and, for the first time, formed the national government.
“Backward” Turkey repeated that spectacular success in 1954 by increasing its majority and in 1957, fomenting fears in the top brass and many Turkey-watchers that the modernizing Kemalist would never return to power. Those fears inspired the military coup of 1960, General Cemal Gursel, the Chief of Staff, against President Celal Bayar’s government.
The top brass had already agreed on the formation of an interim government sanctioned by the Republican People’s Party (CHP) before the tanks were ordered to roll in Ankara.
A similar pattern was observed in 1971 when the coup leader, General Memduh Tagmac, in effect ordered the politicians, in a pronunciamento, to form a new government under the military’s supervision. The 1980 coup, led by General Evren produced a largely technocratic government but enjoyed significant political support nonetheless.
The Turkish military always avoided direct rule, claiming only the presidency of the republic that remained a largely ceremonial position until Erdogan gave it executive power.
The events of 1960 to 1980 created the impression that Turkey’s modernizing forces, largely led by the CHP, would never win power without the backing of the military.
The recent mayoral election in Istanbul, the nation’s largest city, cultural capital and home to almost a quarter of the population, may help change that perception. For the first time in a long while, leading an opposition alliance, the CHP’s mayoral candidate Ekrem Imamoglu won a convincing electoral victory without as much as a nod and a wink from the military. Also, that victory was secured with a theme of hope, reconciliation and reform rather than despair, revenge and conspiratorial fantasies so common in recent Turkish elections. More importantly, perhaps, Erdogan managed, or forced to, contain take his chagrin and eventually accept his Justice and Development Party’s(AKP) defeat.
Erdogan’s opponents insist that he had to swallow defeat in Istanbul because he lacked the strength to continue challenging the results.
They may be right. But, what if Erdogan has converted to the idea of alternation of power through elections?
Erdogan may be intelligent enough to understand that things do not always go the way one likes. He led a remarkable economic resurgence in Turkey but is now presiding over what looks like an economic meltdown with rampant inflation, falling productivity and shrinking job opportunities. Rather than calming things down, his authoritarian moves, including the sacking of the Central Bank Governor, have intensified the crisis. His trademark “no-enemies” foreign policy has been replaced by a policy that seems designed to turn everyone, including NATO allies and European Union partners not to mention Arab states, against Turkey. Another of his signature successes, cooling down the Kurdish cauldron, seems to be a thing of the past.
His party’s claim of being “whiter than white” is hard to sustain as his entourage sinks deeper in the grey of corruption. More importantly, his success in persuading the “backward” half of Turkey that it could gain power through elections no longer enjoys the same level of support it once did even in deep Anatolia.
Good or bad, the once successful Erdogan recipe seems not to be working anymore. The bashkhan has read his text, played his part and has nothing new to utter. The play has to go on but, for him, the finger may be pointing to exit.

Trump's Huawei Reprieve Is a National Security Debacle
Gordon G. Chang/Gatestone Institute/July 12/2019
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14534/trump-huawei-exemptions
Huawei is in no position to resist Beijing's demands to illicitly gather intelligence. For one thing, Beijing owns Huawei. The Shenzhen-based enterprise maintains it is "employee-owned," but that is an exaggeration. Founder Ren Zhengfei holds a 1 percent stake, and the remainder is effectively owned by the state. Moreover, in the Communist Party's top-down system, no one can resist a command from the ruling organization.
The concern is that the Chinese government and military will be able to use Huawei equipment to remotely manipulate devices networked on the Internet of Things (IoT), no matter where those devices are located. So, China may be able to drive your car into oncoming traffic, unlock your front door, or turn off or speed up your pacemaker.
On Tuesday, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross echoed earlier administration comments when he promised his department would only issue exemptions "where there is no threat to U.S. national security." That sounds reassuring, but it is not possible to divide Huawei into threatening and non-threatening components. Huawei management can take profits from innocuous-looking parts of the business to support the obviously dangerous parts. Money is fungible, so the only safe course would be to prohibit all transactions with the company.
Beijing, buoyed by the talk of the American climb-down, is now fast selling Huawei equipment around the world, which means, in the normal course of events, the Chinese will soon control the world's 5G backbone.
Huawei Technologies, the Chinese telecom giant, is in no position to resist Beijing's demands to illicitly gather intelligence. For one thing, Beijing owns Huawei. Moreover, in the Communist Party's top-down system, no one can resist a command from the ruling organization.
Tuesday, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross outlined the scope of exemptions to be granted to sales and licenses to Huawei Technologies, the Chinese telecom giant.
At the end of last month, President Donald Trump publicly promised to give the Chinese company a reprieve from newly implemented U.S. restrictions.
Trump's move, announced after his meeting with Chinese ruler Xi Jinping at the conclusion of the Osaka G20 summit, was a strategic mistake. Moreover, it was a humiliation for the United States, almost an acknowledgment of Beijing's supremacy.
The U.S. Commerce Department, effective May 16, added Huawei, the world's largest networking equipment manufacturer and second-largest smartphone maker, to its Entity List. The designation means that no American company, without prior approval from the Bureau of Industry and Security, is allowed to sell or license to Huawei products and technology covered by the U.S. Export Administration Regulations.
Beijing then demanded the Trump administration withdraw the designation. On June 27, the Wall Street Journal reported that Huawei's removal from the Entity List was one of China's three main preconditions to a comprehensive trade deal.
Trump, incredibly, complied with the demand from Beijing. At his June 29 press conference, the American president said he was granting the reprieve.
Trump was not specific about the reprieve's scope, and since then administration officials have tried to walk back his comments. Trade advisor Peter Navarro, for instance, this month told CNN that sales to Huawei for its 5G products — 5G is the fifth generation of wireless communication — would be forbidden. Earlier, there were suggestions that waivers for smartphones would be allowed.
Should any waivers be granted? "It is their mechanism for spying," Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), referring to Huawei, told Fox News on Sunday.
She is right. Huawei is in no position to resist Beijing's demands to illicitly gather intelligence. For one thing, Beijing owns Huawei. The Shenzhen-based enterprise maintains it is "employee-owned," but that is an exaggeration. Founder Ren Zhengfei holds a 1 percent stake, and the remainder is effectively owned by the state. Moreover, in the Communist Party's top-down system, no one can resist a command from the ruling organization. Furthermore, Articles 7 and 14 of China's National Intelligence Law, enacted in 2017, requires Chinese nationals and entities to spy if relevant authorities make a demand. Ren has maintained the company would not snoop on others, but that claim, in view of the above, is not credible.
Huawei has, in fact, been implicated in stealing tech almost from the moment it was formed in 1987. The company was built on stolen Cisco Systems technology, and according to recent allegations, Huawei has never stopped stealing. The Justice Department in January unsealed an indictment against the company for the theft of intellectual property from T-Mobile. The FBI, according to a Bloomberg report, is investigating Huawei for pilfering smartphone glass technology from Akhan Semiconductor, an Illinois-based firm.
Huawei's rampant theft has been effective in injuring its competition. For instance, many consider the company's campaign to take tech was largely responsible for the 2013 failure of Nortel Networks, the Canadian company.
Additionally, Beijing has used Huawei servers to surreptitiously download data from others, most notably the African Union from 2012 to 2017.
Not surprisingly, Huawei is laying the groundwork for grabbing tomorrow's data. First, Christopher Balding's study of résumés of Huawei employees reveals that some of them claim concurrent links with units of the Chinese military, in roles that look as if they involve intelligence collection. As he writes in his study, "there is an undeniable relationship between Huawei and the Chinese state, military, and intelligence gathering services."
Second, recent analyses show Huawei software to have an unusually high number of security flaws. According to Finite State, a cybersecurity firm, a scan of nearly 10,000 Huawei firmware images showed that "55% had at least one potential backdoor. These backdoor access vulnerabilities allow an attacker with knowledge of the firmware and/or with a corresponding cryptographic key to log into the device." Huawei, according to the survey, ranked the lowest among its competitors in this regard. Theft is not the only risk. As Sen. Blackburn pointed out to Fox News, Huawei will also serve as Beijing's mechanism for controlling the networks operating the devices of tomorrow. The concern is that the Chinese government and military will be able to use Huawei equipment to remotely manipulate devices networked on the Internet of Things (IoT), no matter where those devices are located. So, China may be able to drive your car into oncoming traffic, unlock your front door, or turn off or speed up your pacemaker.
On Tuesday, Secretary Ross echoed earlier administration comments when he promised his department would only issue exemptions "where there is no threat to U.S. national security."
That sounds reassuring, but it is not possible to divide Huawei into threatening and non-threatening components. Huawei management can take profits from innocuous-looking parts of the business to support the obviously dangerous parts. Money is fungible, so the only safe course would be to prohibit all transactions with the company.
Ross on Tuesday implied that licenses would be granted for items available from other countries, saying "we will try to make sure that we don't just transfer revenue from the U.S. to foreign firms." At first glance, sales of those items appear non-objectionable, but, as the New York Times reported on Tuesday, U.S. companies seeking exemptions acknowledge that their products are often more advanced than those from Japan, South Korea, and other countries.
Therefore, the better course would be to get all American suppliers to stop all sales and licenses and to rally Tokyo, Seoul, and other capitals to do the same. That would severely disrupt Huawei, perhaps forcing it out of business or at least impeding its progress. In short, Ross is underestimating America's leverage.
As Eli Lake, writing on the Bloomberg site, points out, American policy on Huawei looks like it had "collapsed" after the bilateral meeting with Xi. Lake is right. Beijing, buoyed by the talk of the American climb-down, is now fast selling Huawei equipment around the world, which means, in the normal course of events, the Chinese will soon control the world's 5G backbone.
Think of the consequences. "Imagine a world dominated by China," Jonathan Bass of PTM Images told Gatestone. "Close your eyes and pretend to wake up in a world controlled by Xi Jinping, militarily, economically, politically, culturally."
This is the world, thanks to Huawei, that we will soon face.
*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.

Analysis/As Iran Tensions Flare, Israel Suspects Trump Aims for ‘Nuclear Deal 2.0’
عاموس هاريل/هآرتس: مع توسع التوتر مع إيران فإن إسرائيل تشكك بهدف ترامب بما يخص الإتفاق النووي رقم 02
Amos Harel/Haaretz/July 12/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/76613/%d8%b9%d8%a7%d9%85%d9%88%d8%b3-%d9%87%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%84-%d9%87%d8%a2%d8%b1%d8%aa%d8%b3-%d9%85%d8%b9-%d8%aa%d9%88%d8%b3%d8%b9-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%aa%d9%88%d8%aa%d8%b1-%d9%85%d8%b9-%d8%a5%d9%8a%d8%b1/
Economic sanctions may give Trump better bargaining chips ■ An Iranian provocation may occur much closer to Israel than the Gulf ■ Why Israel’s botched Gaza op was more John Le Carré than James Bond.
The summer months in the Middle East will pass in anticipation of developments in the most important strategic clash of all, the one that could also affect matters farther afield – the conflict between the United States and Iran. The impression in Israeli intelligence is that the Iranians are conducting themselves cautiously. In the series of incidents in the Persian Gulf in recent months, from attacks on oil tankers, airports and oil fields to the decision to shoot down an American drone, not a single hair on the head of a single American soldier or civilian was harmed. This was not at all by chance.
At the moment Tehran is tugging at the rope in a relatively restrained way. Even the incident on Wednesday, in which Iranian boats tried to stop a British oil tanker in the Gulf, was a direct response to the British takeover of an Iranian tanker that was transporting oil to Syria near the Straits of Gibraltar last week.
It’s the conduct of the Americans that remains somewhat puzzling. Apparently U.S. President Donald Trump made a reasonable decision when he cancelled a planned punitive attack at the last minute after, according to him, his general told him that it could cost the lives of 150 Iranians. Subsequently reports were leaked to the American media about American cyberattacks on Iran, but without specifying their nature and extent. Israeli sources are haven’t yet determined whether the move gave the United States the last word. However, it is clear that additional escalation in the Gulf could also affect what happens on other fronts, from Syria and Lebanon to Yemen and the Gaza Strip.
Last week we wrote here about the new Washingtonian discourse, in which the hawks in administration circles are trying to peddle “regime collapse” as a laundered alternative for calls for regime change in Iran. In the American capital, this talk is eliciting unpleasant echoes of the last bloody adventure in the region, the 2003 war in Iraq. Even though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s 12-point plan does not explicitly use either of the two expressions, its subtext is clear: It aims at replacing the regime. However, the president himself, even though he directs tweets with threatening language at the Iranians now and then, remains within a narrow range that focuses on changing the conditions of the nuclear agreement.
In Israel this approach by Trump, who is definitely shying away from another regional war, arouses the suspicion that he is aiming for “Agreement 2.0,” a return to negotiations culminating in a new nuclear arrangement with the Iranians that imposes greater demands on them. In the meantime both Israel and the United States are having difficulty assessing the extent to which Iran, which is interested in renewing the talks, will be prepared to be more flexible in any future negotiations beyond what it agreed to give Barack Obama’s administration. The main thing that has changed is the Iranian economy. Its situation under the steamroller of the sanctions is grim – and possibly this will provide the American authorities with powerful bargaining chips.
The next crucial test, if there is no escalation prior to it, could come in September, when the Iranians are threatening they will go back to enriching uranium to a concentration of 20 percent, which would enable them to progress toward producing a nuclear weapon. In Israel they are hoping this will be the stage when the three Western European signatories to the agreement, Britain, France and Germany, will wake up and tell the Iranians, “no more.” However, Europe is currently in the throes of its own intramural troubles, from the Brexit to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s apparently frail health, and is not showing much toughness toward Iran.
Another question that could affect the development of the crisis has to do with the Iranian assessment of the chances of Trump’s reelection. At the moment, the strong American economy and the Democratic Party’s difficulty in coalescing around a candidate who will be acceptable to all its factions are leaving the president in a pretty comfortable position. From the perspective of the Middle East, the outcome of the American presidential election in November of 2020 becomes critical with regard to a number of issues, from the Iranian atom bomb to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Possibly in light of the uncertainty, the Iranians will ultimately choose to wait.
There are hidden interrelationships between the election in Israel this coming September and the 2020 election in the U.S. On Wednesday Ben Caspit reported in the daily newspaper Ma’ariv that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is examining the possibility of renewing the talks on establishing a mutual defense treaty with the Americans.
The political rationale behind the move is clear: On the eve of the previous election here, Netanyahu leveraged his good relations with the leaders of the United States, Russia, India, Brazil and other countries – very much to his advantage. Tump was the most munificent of all in his declaration of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which joined his previous decisions to withdraw from the nuclear agreement with Iran and move the American Embassy to Jerusalem.
But now Netanyahu’s and Trump’s political needs have become mutual. With his status in the public opinion polls limping, Netanyahu needs a resounding move in the strategic arena. And Trump can make use of Netanyahu ahead of the U.S. election as a character witness among his evangelical supporters, most of whom are fans of Israel. The treaty could ultimately amount to a general defense pact or no more than a declaration of principles, but if Trump comes to Israel before the election to declare this, he will be doing his pal a great favor.
In the defense establishment, opinions on the issue of the defense treaty have been divided for more than two decades. The main question is whether Israel would be sacrificing a part of its freedom to maneuver, for example, in case of the need to initiate action against Hezbollah, in return for an American commitment to come to its defense in a time of war.
A few weeks ago a number of cabinet ministers were somewhat panic-stricken after intelligence officials sketched out scenarios concerning the possibility of an Iranian provocation on one of Israel’s borders in an attempt to spur the Americans to return to talks. In a later, sober assessment, it appears the main risk lies in the Gaza Strip, due to a combination of external and internal circumstances.
The Iranians have a great deal of influence on the members of Islamic Jihad there. They can exploit a dangerous free electron for their own purposes: the commander of Islamic Jihad’s northern brigade, Baha Abu al-Ata, whom Israel has already accused of attempts to wreck the truce last April. The man is likely to try to renewed the escalation once again, either of his own volition or as instructed from afar.
This week the Israel Defense Forces revealed an 18th attack tunnel leading from Gaza into Israel, which was discovered during construction of the underground barrier along the border. Apparently it is an offshoot of the most strategic of all the tunnels, the one through which Hamas operatives infiltrated into Israel and captured the soldier Gilad Shalit in June 2006.
Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’ leader in the Strip, was one of the 1,027 Palestinian prisoners the Netanyahu government decided to set free in the deal to release Shalit five years later. The Intelligence branch assessment is that Sinwar is continuing to lead his organization’s sober line in Gaza, and although he is demanding an ease of the blockade, he is nevertheless not eager for a war with Israel.
This week Haaretz reported an additional concession secretly arranged by Israel: an increase in the number of workers and merchants permitted to enter into Israel from Gaza from 3,000 to 5,000. Sinwar, who spent 22 years in prison in Israel, speaks fluent Hebrew and believes he understands Israeli society very well. For now, he is confining himself to launching incendiary balloons to achieve his aims.
The opposite effect
The recent regional developments presage a broader process for the IDF. Worrisome signs are accumulating on a number of fronts, signaling the closing of a window of relatively convenient times from a security perspective that opened after the Gaza war in the summer of 2014, made possible for Israel in the context of the shake-up in the Arab world, the civil war in Syria and calm on the Gaza border.
Gaza is once again in agitation since the end of March 2018, when Hamas began the mass demonstrations along the border fence. Since then, it’s been hanging by a thread. Iran is back in a contrarian position vis-a-vis the West following the American withdrawal from the nuclear agreement and the renewal of sanctions. In Syria, Iran is not giving up its efforts to dig in its army, despite the extensive aerial attacks against it.
At the same time, Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime has re-established its control over most parts of the country and he is beginning to rebuild his army. Russia has provided Syria with two advanced anti-aircraft S-300 missile system batteries, which will challenge Israel Air Force actions over Syria and Lebanon, along with the most advanced S-400 system, which Russia itself operates. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has brought most of its forces back from Syria and is again concentrating on preparations for a future conflict with Israel (though not initiating it).
On all these fronts, Israel is continuing to pursue its “between the wars” campaign. For years, the IDF has been selling the campaign as an effort to discourage conflict – the varied attacks damage the enemy’s capability and deter it from starting an all-out war.
However, the effort could also work in the opposite direction: The attacks strengthen the sense of constant hostility and a failed attack (or one that is more devastating than intended) is liable to drive the region to the brink of a war. This nearly happened on one occasion already. In January of 2015, after the killing of an Iranian general and a senior Hezbollah figure in an attack in the Syrian Golan Heights, which was attributed to Israel, Hezbollah responded by killing an Israeli officer and an Israeli soldier at the foot of Har Dov; the sides nearly found themselves in a war they hadn’t planned and didn’t want.
This is quite a grim picture. However, it’s not possible to dissociate entirely from what is waiting around the corner: the ambitious multi-year plan being formulated by Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi and the expected showdown with the Finance Ministry, which is planning a considerable budget cut in light of the deficit after the completion of the second election Netanyahu has imposed on the country this year.
Dozens of military teams are still working on the planning, without the slightest notion of what the budget at their disposal will be. Some of the sources for funding the plan are supposed to be based on internal diversions of funds within the IDF. Among other things, the intention is to establish a large system of simulators in the ground forces that will enable more effective and inexpensive training maneuvers along with live exercises in the field, which is what the air force has been doing for years.
At the General Staff they have the impression that the prime minister is familiar with the plans and attentive to the army’s needs but Netanyahu has already promised many things to many people in his lifetime. There is no knowing for certain where he will be after the election and whether he will make it safely through his legal troubles. However, it is perfectly clear that the military’s honeymoon with the Finance Ministry is over.
The understandings reached by the Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon and the previous chief of staff, Gadi Eiszenkot, have passed their expiration date. For four years these understandings enabled the sides to the avoid the power struggles that had characterized them in the past. Economic growth is dwindling, the deficit is increasing and the treasury is warning that it needs to close a gap of about 25 billion shekels in the budget. The Defense Ministry will have to grapple over its share with the Social Services, Health and Education ministries.
A failed operation
At the beginning of this week the military published unusually detailed data and conclusions regarding the special operation that went wrong in Gaza’s Khan Yunis in November of last year, in an incident in which seven Hamas operatives and Lt. Col. M. were killed. The special operations officials at the Intelligence Directorate thought that what happened at Special Operations should stay in Special Operations and held that the army, too, can hide behind the cover of secrecy, just like the Shin Bet security service and the Mossad do in similar circumstances. Kochavi and Intelligence Directorate head Maj. Gen. Tamir Hayman decided to reveal the details on the grounds that the army is obligated to report on such a serious and dramatic incident to the pubic, as long as the security damage that might be caused by the publication is controlled and limited. This brought about articles in some newspapers on Monday that described the incident as “heroism and fiasco” – the courage of the special forces soldiers who managed to escape under fire after encountering a Hamas agent and the blunder, by implication, when M. was killed by friendly fire.
In fact, the officer who fired at the Hamas operatives was the one who apparently also hit his comrade in arms. This is not a fiasco, but rather functioning in extremely difficult conditions, which an outsider probably cannot judge. According to senior IDF sources, the decision to open fire saved the lives of the rest of the people in the operation and prevented the capture of some of them. In the near future the Central Command citation committee will convene in order to decide how many and which decorations will be awarded to the fighters who took part in the mission. The media outlets competed among themselves in publishing the James Bond story about the operation, but however fascinating and amazing these descriptions may be, the process of the decision-making and the preparation for the action belongs to the world of John le Carré, not that of Ian Fleming.
The special forces operation, the IDF now admits, did not achieve its aim. Therefore, the exposure of the soldiers and the losses they took reflect a resounding failure, which will certainly cause a seismic upset that will affect the entire Israeli intelligence community. It will have aftershocks that will be felt for a long time. It is not by chance that senior officers are departing now, among them the platoon commander, Brig. Gen. G., and another commander in the program with the rank of lieutenant colonel. The severity of the crisis was also documented in Kochavi’s exceptional decision to reinstate Brig. Gen. (res.) A. to the position of brigade commander, which he held until three years ago and then retired from the army.
For years, the Gaza Strip was the lowest priority for intelligence. At Netanyahu’s direction, most of its efforts and resources were invested in the struggle with Iran and its regional agents, first and foremost Hezbollah. The intelligence with which the IDF approached the 2014 Gaza war, as revealed in journalistic investigations and subsequently in the State Comptroller’s Report, was only partial. After that war the army set about trying to make things right but apparently this too entailed high-risk operations. Presumably the crowded, blockaded and suspicious Gaza Strip has become more difficult territory for deep action than other areas. Any test that is successfully passed in one place is not necessarily valid in another place. Whoever decided to send the fighters into the action, at the time and in the place that were chosen, apparently also took those considerations into account.
According to the description released by the army, M. successfully withstood 45 minutes of aggressive and sometimes violent interrogation by his Hamas captors, until his comrades at arms came to the conclusions that there was no alternative but to open fire in order to extricate themselves. The detailed military investigations, in which top people from the other intelligence branches participated, reverse engineered the conduct of the soldiers, their preparation and their decision-making process.
Because of the exceptional circumstances, Brig. Gen. A will return to the army as a civilian employed by the IDF and only after he signs a conflict of interest agreement. After their release from the army, many graduates of the platoon continue to work in the shadow world of tech: intelligence and cyber companies. This is a possible opening for ethical conflicts and one hopes that this time they will be in the hands of the military advocate general himself and not remain under the auspices of someone lower ranking.
A. is a courageous fighter and an officer with much to his credit, who at the beginning of this decade was called upon to rehabilitate an elite intelligence unit that was in crisis. However, in this case too it is best to remember: le Carré, not James Bond. The names of some of the heroes of the current event were already entangled in a seismic affair in the past, surrounding the friendship between Lt. Col. Boaz Harpaz, a graduate of the platoon, and the man who admitted forging the document that gave rise to the affair named after him. From the State Comptroller’s Report on that affair they emerged by the skin of their teeth, after Kochavi, the head of the Intelligence Branch at the time, stood up for them. This fact, too, must serve as a reminder that we aren’t talking about superheroes or saints here, as some articles tend to depict them, but rather flesh and blood human beings who act in a complex reality.

Word on the Washington street is Trump will win in 2020
Dr. John C. Hulsman/Arab News/July 12, 2019
Since leaving the capitol after a decade’s work in 2006, I have continued my ongoing love affair with Washington. For one thing, it is always great to see that the friendships forged in that crucible of pressure and power have endured (it is sort of like having war buddies), leading to me having very candid conversations with comrades who have now risen through the ranks to positions of power and trust in the most powerful country in the world.
A second point is that, as I worked in think tanks on the left, right and center of the political spectrum there — something that simply could not be done today — I know rather uniquely the goings-on in all of Washington’s very different political tribes, and have a trusting relationship with very different people in what has become a politically toxic town.
Lastly, and most importantly, I am a Washington insider who has lived for the past 13 years far away from the epicenter of global power. As I run my own global political risk consulting firm, that means I am never a competitor for a job with the many people in the city that I regularly see. As I am known but not a rival, it is safe to talk to me in a city where, as President Harry Truman put it, if you want a friend you should buy a dog.
To sum up my competitive advantage in assessing Washington: I intimately know all the foreign policy tribes, I spent years working with friends who have now risen in the foreign policy and political establishment, and I am not looking for a job there. All these factors lead to my visits and talks having a level of candor that is the great prize of my idiosyncratic background.
So what have my close political contacts told me during my recent visit about the upcoming 2020 presidential election? The arresting detail is that, off the record, they have all — to a person — said much the same thing, from their very different political perches: Donald Trump, for all the controversy swirling around him, is the odds-on favorite to be re-elected for another term as president.
Beyond the president’s significant advantages, the Democratic Party seems to have a death instinct.
First, everyone acknowledges that the president is eminently beatable. While it is true that his polling approval rating average has risen to a four-year high of 45 percent recently, there has never been a day in Trump’s entire administration where even half the country has been for him. The Trump revolution is a genuine political phenomenon, but it has always been one with minority support.
Worse for the Trump campaign team, the 2018 midterm election results in the crucial Upper Midwest Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — the vital former Democratic Party fiefdoms that provided Trump with his decisive margin of victory in his shock 2016 win — illustrates that these states have, at this point in time, turned against him in electing Democratic senators and governors. The president must find a way to win them back over the next 16 months if he is to have a hope of re-election.
But the second point that was made clear in my talks with Washington insiders is that, if Trump is beatable, he is also underrated. Presidential incumbency itself is a gigantic political advantage. Governing at a time of great prosperity — US gross domestic product grew at a highly impressive 3.1 percent in the first quarter of 2019 — is another. The Trump White House has also kept its word and stayed out of further “stupid wars,” ushering in an era of general peace in a country exhausted by both Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, the president has the decisive and unified support of his party, with a February 2019 Gallup poll showing that Trump had an astounding 89 percent approval rating among Republicans. These are all formidable political advantages that simply cannot be ignored.
Lastly, beyond the president’s significant advantages, the Democratic Party seems to have a death instinct, moving toward what was described to me as “the full Trotsky” — adopting radical left-wing positions in its presidential primary in what remains a center-right country.
Whether the issue is government-subsidized abortion in the third trimester, a Green New Deal estimated to cost an eye-watering $90 trillion, reparations for the descendants of slaves, decriminalizing illegal immigration, or providing free health care for illegal immigrants, you do not need to be a rabid Trump supporter to see that these Democratic positions are entirely outside the American political mainstream. The paradox is that, in going ever leftward, the unheeding Democrats seem to be inviting another term in office for the man they most despise.
What was most striking in my conversations is that my Democratic friends did not contradict this (for them) apocalyptic assessment, but rather wholeheartedly embraced it. While a year remains an eternity in politics and Trump’s serial inability to avoid endless controversy is also likely to remain, the odds — for all the cold, hard, factual reasons listed above — must be on another against-the-grain Trump presidential victory. If the Washington insider view holds, this amounts to one of the biggest political risk stories of the coming years.
**Dr. John C. Hulsman is the president and managing partner of John C. Hulsman Enterprises, a prominent global political risk consulting firm. He is also senior columnist for City AM, the newspaper of the City of London. He can be contacted via www.chartwellspeakers.com