LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
May 21/2019
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.may21.19.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, saying, ‘I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters, in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.”.
Letter to the Hebrews 02/05-12:”God did not subject the coming world, about which we are speaking, to angels. But someone has testified somewhere, ‘What are human beings that you are mindful of them, or mortals, that you care for them? You have made them for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned them with glory and honour, subjecting all things under their feet.’ Now in subjecting all things to them, God left nothing outside their control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to them, but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. It was fitting that God, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, saying, ‘I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters, in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.”.

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on May 20-21/19
Satterfield Meets Berri, Hariri Anew over Maritime Border Demarcation
'Final' Budget Session Tuesday as Khalil, Abu Faour Slam Bassil over Delay
Bassil Threatens to Quit Govt.
Lebanon to Partake in ‘Urgent’ Arab Summit
Scuffles as Retired Servicemen Try to Storm Grand Serail
Cabinet Says Asmar Should Resign or Be Dismissed
Labor Confederation Accepts Asmar’s Resignation, Calls for His Release
Qassem Tells Kubis U.S., Israel to Blame for Regional Escalation
Cars Queue for Fuel as Customs Strike Sparks Shortage Fears
Jumblat Slams 'Chaos, Rejection of Reform' after Serail Scuffles
Lebanon’s Ailing Economy Shredded Further by Smuggling from Syria
Rai Saddened By Comments Harming Sfeir, Economy Minister Annuls Contract With Asmar
Hariri to Represent Lebanon at Mekkah’s 2 Urgent Summits
Washington Post: Trump’s sanctions on Iran are hitting Hezbollah, and it hurts

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on May 20-21/19
This Is The Promise Trump Just Made Iran Following A Rocket Landing In Baghdad
Rocket attack near US Baghdad embassy had Iran’s signature. Trump spurns Saudi bid for US strike on Yemeni Houthis
Reports: Iran Quadruples Production of Low-Enriched Uranium
IRGC Commander Deems US Forces ‘Combat Target’
Gulf Countries Strengthen Oil Coordination amid Tensions, Says Kuwait
Iraqi Shiite Figures Warn U.S.-Iran War Could 'Burn' Iraq
Arab League: Invitations to summits in Mecca were sent to all countries
Saudi Arabia intercepts Houthi missiles heading toward Mecca, Jeddah
Gulf countries strengthen oil coordination amid tensions: Kuwait
Yemen’s Houthi militia says will target UAE, Saudi vital military facilities
Netanyahu Demands Concessions from Allies to Form New Govt.
Russia Says it Repelled Nusra Attack on Hmeimim
12 Militants Killed in Security Raid in Cairo
Algeria's Former PM: No One Chose Me to Succeed Bedoui
Security Forces Arrest Terrorist Suspect West of Tunis
Libya: Sarraj Forces Receive Turkish Military Reinforcements Despite Int’l Ban

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on May 20-21/19
Lebanon’s Ailing Economy Shredded Further by Smuggling from Syria/Sanaa el-Jack/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 20/2019
Washington Post: Trump’s sanctions on Iran are hitting Hezbollah, and it hurts/Liz Sly and Suzan Haidamous/The Washinton Post/May 19/2019
Rocket attack near US Baghdad embassy had Iran’s signature. Trump spurns Saudi bid for US strike on Yemeni Houthis/DEBKAfile/May 20/2019
The Iran Crisis And Washington Strategic Miscalculation – Analysis/Robert G. Rabil/Eurasia Review/May 19/2019
How Iraq's Shia militias are reacting to the rocket attack on the Green Zone and US embassy area/MECRA/May 20/202019
Redeployment and Iran’s Only Choice/Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 20/2019
The US, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Major Revolt/Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 20/2019
Australia’s Political Shock Echoes From Ohio to London/David Fickling and Daniel Moss/Bloomberg View/May 20/2019
The Intrepid Duo: Pipes, Father and Son/Jiri Valenta and Leni Friedman Valenta/Gatestone Institute/May 20/2019
Trump’s plan doomed if it fails to address East Jerusalem/Osama Al-Sharif/Arab News/May 19/ 2019
US must not fall into Iran regime’s trap/Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami/Arab Bews/May 20, 2019
Tehran to increase pressure on Gulf states and their oil/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/May 19/ 2019
Iranian regime sets course for mutually assured destruction/Baria Alamuddin/Arab News/May 19/ 2019

Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on May 20-2119
Satterfield Meets Berri, Hariri Anew over Maritime Border Demarcation
Naharnet/May 20/2019/U.S. Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Satterfield held separate talks Monday with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Saad Hariri to continue discussions over the demarcation of Lebanon's maritime and territorial borders with Israel. Ain el-Tineh sources told LBCI TV that there is “progress” in the discussions. MTV meanwhile reported that Satterfield "warned Lebanese officials against any attack on U.S. interests in Lebanon" amid the escalating tensions in the region. Media reports had said that the atmosphere regarding the demarcation is positive and that an agreement sponsored by the U.N. and mediated by the U.S. will likely be reached soon. Satterfield had held similar talks last week in Beirut.

'Final' Budget Session Tuesday as Khalil, Abu Faour Slam Bassil over Delay
Naharnet/May 20/2019/Information Minister Jamal al-Jarrah announced Monday that the Cabinet will hold its “final session” on the 2019 state budget on Tuesday, as Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil was accused of “delaying” discussions. “I believe that tomorrow's session will be the final one and today the issue of ministers and MPs' salaries was discussed,” Jarrah said after Monday's session. "The salaries (of public employees) have not been touched," he added, in response to a question. “We will need more sessions and the atmosphere today was positive,” Bassil said as he left the session to meet with U.S. Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Satterfield. Finance Minister Ali Hassan Khalil meanwhile criticized Bassil, saying his remarks about further delay in the budget discussions are “unjustified, unreasonable and will keep the tensions on the streets.”“Prime Minister Saad Hariri said the delay is unjustified and that we should've finished today,” Khalil added.Industry Minister Wael Abu Faour for his part said that the discussions “could have been finalized today had it not been for some parties' appointments.”The cabinet held its session Monday as retired servicemen protesting feared salary cuts tried to storm the government's headquarters. The retirees and other public employees have staged several sit-ins in recent days to warn against any wage cuts. Lebanon has vowed to slash public spending to unlock $11 billion worth of aid pledged by international donors during an April 2018 conference in Paris. Last month, Hariri vowed to introduce "the most austere budget in Lebanon's history" to combat the country's bulging fiscal deficit, sparking fears among public sector employees that their salaries may be cut. Lebanon is one of the world's most indebted countries, with public debt estimated at 141 percent of GDP in 2018, according to credit ratings agency Moody's.

Bassil Threatens to Quit Govt.
Naharnet/May 20/2019/Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil threatened to resign from the government over accusations that he is delaying the approval of an already complicated state budget, media reports said on Monday. Bassil has waived his resignation over the weekend during a tour to the northern Koura district. He denounced blames holding him responsible for the delay to approve the 2019 state budget. MP Alain Aoun of the Strong Lebanon parliamentary bloc (of Bassil’s) told the daily that the Minister’s message aims to push the “government for a better performance.” “The issue of resignation will not happen today, but that does not mean that it is not possible. All the possibilities are open if the government performance remains as is,” he added. Last week, Bassil made suggestions during the Cabinet session which reportedly infuriated Finance Minister Ali Hassan Khalil at the end of the session expressing his dismay over having to repeat the draft budget several times. Bassil reportedly suggested lowering the prices of Middle East Airlines tickets by 30% to “encourage tourists and boost tourism.”He also suggested that revenues from some of the airport's activities go to the treasury rather than to MEA.

Lebanon to Partake in ‘Urgent’ Arab Summit
Naharnet/May 20/2019/Prime Minister Saad Hariri is scheduled to lead a delegation to Saudi Arabia to partake in “two emergency summits” in Saudi Arabia to discuss the escalating tensions in the Gulf, al-Joumhouria daily reported on Monday. “Lebanon had already received a Saudi invitation to participate in the 14th ordinary session of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit on the same date. It was decided that the delegation be headed by Hariri, which carries nothing new except that the name of the summit was changed from Islamic summit to Arab summit,” informed sources told the daily on condition of anonymity. Saudi Arabia had invited Gulf leaders and Arab states to two emergency summits in Mecca on May 30 to discuss recent "aggression and their consequences" in the region, according to the Saudi Press Agency. Tensions have soared in the Gulf with the US deploying an aircraft carrier and bombers to the region over alleged threats from Iran. Four ships including two Saudi oil tankers were damaged in mysterious sabotage attacks Sunday off Fujairah, an emirate located at the crucial entrance to the Gulf. That incident was followed by drone strikes Tuesday by Yemen's Huthi rebels on a major Saudi oil pipeline, which provided an alternative export route if the Strait of Hormuz closed. Iran has repeatedly threatened to prevent shipping in Hormuz in case of a military confrontation with the United States, which has imposed sanctions on Tehran in recent months. Despite international scepticism, the US government has been pointing to increasing threats from Iran, a long-time enemy and also a rival of US allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Scuffles as Retired Servicemen Try to Storm Grand Serail
Naharnet/May 20/2019/Scuffles broke out Monday between security forces and retired servicemen outside the Grand Serail during a cabinet session on the state budget. Riot police fired water cannons on the protesters after they crossed metallic barricades and approached the government's headquarters. Some protesters also burned tires as one of them was reportedly injured.The scuffles continued for around half an hour before calm was restored. Security forces have since reinforced their ranks in the area. Some protesters said they were seeking to meet with Defense Minister Elias Bou Saab to demand that their salaries do not get slashed as part of the government's new austerity measures. MTV meanwhile said Bou Saab was tasked by the government with negotiating with the protesters. “A lot of things that are worrying them are not being discussed,” Bou Saab said after meeting a delegation from the servicemen. The delegation meanwhile said that the minister told them that only 3% will be deducted from their medical care compensations in return for exempting them from the stamps that they pay for in this regard. A pensioner had tried to set himself on fire before he was stopped by other demonstrators, the National News Agency said. "They threaten our income and our benefits after we served our country for years," one pensioner said in a televised interview. Another protester said he regretted the clash between the demonstrators and security forces. "This is first time security forces confront (former) security forces," he said. The retirees and other public employees have staged several sit-ins in recent days to warn against any wage cuts. Lebanon has vowed to slash public spending to unlock $11 billion worth of aid pledged by international donors during an April 2018 conference in Paris.
Last month, Prime Minister Saad Hariri vowed to introduce "the most austere budget in Lebanon's history" to combat the country's bulging fiscal deficit, sparking fears among public sector employees that their salaries may be cut. Lebanon is one of the world's most indebted countries, with public debt estimated at 141 percent of GDP in 2018, according to credit ratings agency Moody's.

Cabinet Says Asmar Should Resign or Be Dismissed
Naharnet/May 20/2019/The Cabinet called for the resignation of Beshara al-Asmar, the chief of General Confederation of Lebanese Workers against the backdrop of his leaked insulting remarks about ex-patriarch Beshara al-Rahi, the National News Agency reported on Monday. In a session dedicated to complete the budget discussions, the Cabinet held an evening session which ended at 2:30 a.m. and chaired by Prime Minister Saad Hariri at the Grand Serail. “The Council of Ministers unanimously expressed its condemnations of what was said by the Head of the General Confederation of Lebanese Workers, Beshara al-Asmar, which should lead to his resignation or dismissal,” said Minister of Information Jamal Jarrah after the meeting. “On the budget, a detailed discussion took place on proposals of articles. An article was added to the budget. As for the other articles, committees were formed for more study, otherwise we will await for the legal texts to see if they will be included in the budget,” added Jarrah. “The Ministers will answer several questions regarding their ministries’ budgets during Monday’s Cabinet convention. The figures we have on the budget and deficit are almost final,” he concluded.

Labor Confederation Accepts Asmar’s Resignation, Calls for His Release
Naharnet/May 20/2019/The Labor Confederation on Monday accepted the resignation of Beshara al-Asmar, the chief of General Confederation of Lebanese Workers, after his leaked insulting remarks against revered late ex-patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir. The Confederation’s secretariat held a press conference saying that Beshara’s resignation was accepted as they called for his release. Asmar’s leaked remarks have sparked a storm of outrage in the country. He has been summoned for interrogation and was in detention, amid calls for stripping him of his post. A video went viral on social media on Friday showed Asmar mocking Sfeir, who passed away at the age of 99, shortly before a televised press conference. Asmar was unaware his microphone was on before the conference.

Qassem Tells Kubis U.S., Israel to Blame for Regional Escalation
Naharnet/May 20/2019/The United States and Israel are to blame for “the escalation and tensions in the region,” Hizbullah deputy chief Sheikh Naim Qassem told a U.N. official on Monday. “The rhetoric being used by this front is a rhetoric of threats and war and this might push things to the brink of confrontation,” Qassem said to U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Jan Kubis during a meeting. He added: “Hizbullah is working with all Lebanese parties to establish political stability, financial balance and economic recovery.”Qassem also pointed out that “Hizbullah's strength and readiness are only aimed at protecting Lebanon and its land and resources.”

Cars Queue for Fuel as Customs Strike Sparks Shortage Fears
Naharnet/May 20/2019/Lines of cars were seen queuing outside fuel stations in Lebanon on Monday as a customs strike threatened to spark a shortage crisis. A statement issued by the union of companies that import oil to Lebanon meanwhile said the firms have failed to deliver new stocks to gas stations due to the strike of customs employees. Urging officials to spare this “vital sector” the repercussions of supply interruptions, the union warned that some fuel stations will not be able to receive supplies as of Tuesday. “This will create confusion and disturbance among the ranks of citizens, who will suffer greatly,” the union warned. Customs sources meanwhile told LBCI television that the customs employees will suspend their strike on Tuesday. In early May, a strike by the employees of Banque du Liban had threatened a similar crisis. Large segments of civil servants are protesting plans to slash their benefits as part of a new austerity package being studied by Cabinet ahead of this year's budget. Lebanon has vowed to slash public spending to unlock $11 billion worth of aid pledged by international donors during an April 2018 conference in Paris. Last month, Prime Minister Saad Hariri vowed to introduce "the most austere budget in Lebanon's history" to combat the country's bulging fiscal deficit, sparking fears among public sector employees that their salaries may be cut. Lebanon is one of the world's most indebted countries, with public debt estimated at 141 percent of GDP in 2018, according to credit ratings agency Moody's.

Jumblat Slams 'Chaos, Rejection of Reform' after Serail Scuffles
Naharnet/May 20/2019/Progressive Socialist Party leader ex-MP Walid Jumblat on Monday criticized retired servicemen who tried to storm the Grand Serail during a cabinet session. “Is it reasonable when a part of the state watches another part storming the Grand Serail? Is it reasonable to reach this extent of chaos only because it is required to reassess Measure No. 3 in order to curb spending?” Jumblat asked in a tweet. “What are they asking for? Chaos, bankruptcy and the rejection of reform? What are they asking for, Measure No.3 or the lack of security?” Jumblat added. The so-called Measure No. 3 is related to beefed up compensations for servicemen operating in danger zones. Lebanon has vowed to slash public spending to unlock $11 billion worth of aid pledged by international donors during an April 2018 conference in Paris. Last month, Prime Minister Saad Hariri vowed to introduce "the most austere budget in Lebanon's history" to combat the country's bulging fiscal deficit, sparking fears among public sector employees that their salaries may be cut. Lebanon is one of the world's most indebted countries, with public debt estimated at 141 percent of GDP in 2018, according to credit ratings agency Moody's.

Lebanon’s Ailing Economy Shredded Further by Smuggling from Syria
Sanaa el-Jack/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 20/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/75052/%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%83-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A8-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%B9-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7/
A great part of the economic quagmire drowning Lebanon can be traced back to the spillover of smuggled goods across border with Syria. Data showed that nearly $600 million slip past the Lebanese treasury due to trafficking.
Goods brought in illegally, sold at much cheaper prices, have created jaw-dropping profit margins of which the market suffered its fallout. But with Lebanon and Syria sharing a 375 km land border, taking border control to full-throttle may be too difficult to materialize with Lebanon’s current resources. Curbing this phenomenon is being discussed along with austerity and reform measures needed to salvage Lebanon’s economy from total collapse.
Asharq Al-Awsat toured the border regions and met with locals to discuss the smuggling operations and official efforts to curb them.
While transit at border customs gates appears quite normal, residents of mountainous highlands mock official statements, asserting that smuggling between Lebanon and Syria has never stopped, no matter what security measures are enforced.
“Mules know the way, and do not need official documents to cross customs. They are often used to bringing supplies across borders,” a Lebanese local, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Asharq Al-Awsat.
He explained that smuggled goods are loaded on the mules, which are left to wander in the barren terrain separating the two countries. The smugglers monitor the animals, which are either noticed and seized by security forces – marking the failure of the illegal operation – or they successfully wander into the neighboring country and seized by the smugglers.
Mules and small luggage are trifles compared to the ambitions of more powerful professional smugglers.
Convoys of trucks, led by their leader in a vehicle with tinted windows, regularly shuttle goods across legal and illegal border crossings into the Lebanese market. The operations are boosted by the absence of state control over vast parts of the border and the deployment of de facto forces in these regions. “Business is booming,” a smuggling ring coordinator, who operates from Lebanon’s Hermel, told Asharq Al-Awsat. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he admitted to making a few thousand dollars daily in brokerage fees for helping smugglers make their journey safely. They are being supported by a network of corrupt security officials and partisan forces that control border regions. “The model of smuggling that exists today can be traced back to the 70s, 80s and during the period of Syrian tutelage,” a retired military official told Asharq Al-Awsat.
At the Masnaa border crossing, goods are smuggled after pro-Syrian regime intelligence officers are bribed. The bribes are often paid in Syrian pounds. He added that smuggling from Lebanon into Syria is not illegal, as much as it is harmful to the economy. He also spoke of the smuggling of oil derivatives from Lebanon to its neighbor given a sharp shortage crippling Syria. A farmer in the town of Ferzol in the Bekaa told Asharq Al-Awsat that smuggled goods from Syria, such as fruits, vegetables, poultry, meat and cigarettes, are severely harming competition in Lebanon as they are often sold at much lower prices than local produce. As for government efforts to rein in smugglers, Lebanon’s Supreme Defense Council decided in April to tighten border control, whether by closing illegal portals or cracking down on culprits by customs center staffers.  Many security experts have, however, deemed shuttering borders implausible given geopolitical realities and the ongoing war in neighboring Syria.

Rai Saddened By Comments Harming Sfeir, Economy Minister Annuls Contract With Asmar
Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 20 May, 2019/Angry reactions continued on Sunday over a statement by the President of the General Labor Confederation Beshara al-Asmar, in which he insulted the late former Patriarch Cardinal Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir. Asmar was arrested on Saturday after he insulted Sfeir in a leaked video, at the beginning of a press conference. Asmar appeared in the video while mocking Sfeir, who passed away a few days before, as he was unaware the microphones were already turned on. In his weekly Sunday sermon, Patriarch Beshara al-Rai said he was deeply hurt by “the terrible harm” to Sfeir’s memory. Rai received on Sunday a delegation headed by Foreign Affairs Minister Gebran Bassil. In remarks following the visit, Bassil said: “Asmar’s words are evidence of a problem of morals and moral decadence.” “We are here today to stand by Bkirki in its national message to preserve Lebanon’s message,” he added. The minister also announced a boycott of the General Confederation of Lebanese Workers (GCLW) until its members make necessary review of the situation. Meanwhile, Economy Minister Mansour Bteish announced Sunday that the ministry would annul a contract with Asmar over his abusive remarks against late former Maronite patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir. “After his condemned moral fell and his detention by the judiciary, the Ministry of Economy and Commerce will, tomorrow, scrap a Beirut Silos work contract with Beshara al-Asmar,” Bteish tweeted.

Hariri to Represent Lebanon at Mekkah’s 2 Urgent Summits
Beirut - Khalil Fleihan/Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 20 May, 2019/Lebanese President Michel Aoun received on Sunday a written message from Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz inviting him to attend the two urgent summits in the holy city of Mekkah on May 30 to discuss ways to enhance regional security and stability. An informed source told Asharq Al-Awsat on Sunday that the cabinet is expected to task Prime Minister Saad Hariri to head the Lebanese delegation to the two summits. Lebanon’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Fawzi Kabbara will join the delegation. The summits will discuss means to enhance regional security and stability in the wake of the attacks on commercial vessels near UAE’s territorial waters and on two Saudi pumping stations by Iranian-backed terrorist Houthi militias. The sources said they would also tackle the dangerous repercussions of the recent attacks on peace, regional and international security and on the world oil market. “Lebanon is concerned with regional security because any US-Iranian military confrontation might expand to Lebanon, particularly if Tehran asks Hezbollah to support it against any US or Israeli targets, in case Tel Aviv participates in the confrontations,” the source explained. The two summits in Mekkah would also be an opportunity for Hariri to hold bilateral meetings with state leaders to inform them about the latest developments in Lebanon, particularly the Syrian refugee crisis and the 2019 austerity budget that Lebanon plans to approve to release aid pledged by donors at last year's CEDRE conference in Paris.Also in Makkah, the Kingdom will host the 14th session of the Islamic Summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on May 31 under the theme “Makkah Summit: Together for the Future.”

Washington Post: Trump’s sanctions on Iran are hitting Hezbollah, and it hurts
/تقرير من الواشنطن بوست: العقوبات على إيران تضرب حزب الله وتوجعه
By Liz Sly and Suzan Haidamous/The Washinton Post/May 19/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/75047/washington-post-trumps-sanctions-on-iran-are-hitting-hezbollah-and-it-hurts-%d8%aa%d9%82%d8%b1%d9%8a%d8%b1-%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%88%d8%a7%d8%b4%d9%86%d8%b7%d9%86-%d8%a8%d9%88%d8%b3/
BEIRUT — The powerful Lebanese Hezbollah militia has thrived for decades on generous cash handouts from Iran, spending lavishly on benefits for its fighters, funding social services for its constituents and accumulating a formidable arsenal that has helped make the group a significant regional force, with troops in Syria and Iraq. But since President Trump introduced sweeping new restrictions on trade with Iran last year, raising tensions with Tehran that reached a crescendo in recent days, Iran’s ability to finance allies such as Hezbollah has been curtailed. Hezbollah, the best funded and most senior of Tehran’s proxies, has seen a sharp fall in its revenue and is being forced to make draconian cuts to its spending, according to Hezbollah officials, members and supporters. Fighters are being furloughed or assigned to the reserves, where they receive lower salaries or no pay at all, said a Hezbollah employee with one of the group’s administrative units. Many of them are being withdrawn from Syria, where the militia has played an instrumental role in fighting on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad and ensuring his survival.
Programs on Hezbollah’s television station Al-Manar have been canceled and their staff laid off, according to another Hezbollah insider. The once ample spending programs that underpinned the group’s support among Lebanon’s historically impoverished Shiite community have been slashed, including the supply of free medicines and even groceries to fighters, employees and their families.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke to reporters April 22 about eliminating waivers that allowed exceptions on purchasing oil from Iran. (The Washington Post)
The sanctions imposed late last year by Trump after he withdrew from the landmark nuclear deal aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions are far more draconian than those that helped bring Iran to the negotiating table under the Obama administration, and they are having a profound effect on the Iranian economy, analysts say.
Trump administration officials claim they have wiped $10 billion from Iranian revenue since November, inflicting widespread misery on the lives of many poor Iranians, as well as the government’s own spending.
The tensions between Washington and Tehran spiked after further restrictions went into effect on May 2, eliminating waivers from eight countries that had previously been allowed to continue importing Iranian oil with the goal, U.S. officials say, of reducing Iranian oil exports to “zero.”
Many in the region say the ferocity of the sanctions offers an incentive to Tehran to push back against Washington, crossing a “red line” that will give Iran little choice but to retaliate, according to Kamal Wazne, a Beirut-based political analyst who is sympathetic to the Iranian and Hezbollah point of view.
“The Iranians are used to sanctions. But this level of sanctions will generate a different response. The Iranians will not be quiet about it,” he said. “They are a form of war more detrimental than actual war. . . . It’s the slow death of a country, the government and its people.”
Although it is too early to confirm that Iran was responsible for the sabotage attack on four oil tankers near the Persian Gulf in the past week, as U.S. officials claim, “Iran has a major incentive to put the squeeze also on the U.S. economy by making the price of oil jump,” he said. “The pain will be reciprocated.”
The austerity measures adopted by Hezbollah offer one indication of the breadth of their impact, not only on Iran’s economy but also on its capacity to support its regional proxies.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif meets with Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah in Beirut in February. (Hezbollah Media Relations Office/AP)
A senior Hezbollah official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in accordance with the group’s rules governing interactions with the media, acknowledged that income from Iran has fallen, obliging Hezbollah to cut its expenditures. “There is no doubt these sanctions have had a negative impact,” said the official. “But ultimately, sanctions are a component of war, and we are going to confront them in this context.”
Hezbollah is also grappling with a separate set of sanctions directed at companies, individuals and banks that do business with the group, which the United States designated as a terrorist organization after suicide bombings and kidnappings aimed at Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s. But Iran sanctions have had the biggest impact on the group’s funding, the official said.
The official would not say how much Iran has cut its financing for Hezbollah or how big it used to be. U.S. Special Envoy Brian Hook told reporters in Washington in April that Iran in the past has sent Hezbollah up to $700 million a year, accounting for 70 percent of the group’s revenue.
But Hezbollah has other sources of income and plans aggressively to seek out more, hoping to “turn this threat into an opportunity” to develop new revenue streams, the official said.
Those Hezbollah officials and full-time fighters who are still on the payroll are receiving their salaries, but benefits for expenses such as meals, gas and transportation have been canceled, according to another Hezbollah insider, who, like all the Hezbollah members and supporters interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
The families of Hezbollah’s “martyrs,” those who have died fighting for the militia in Syria and previously in wars with Israel, are also continuing to receive full stipends. The payments are considered sacrosanct and essential if Hezbollah is to sustain its effectiveness as a fighting force, drawing loyal and die-hard recruits, Hezbollah officials say.
Hezbollah has meanwhile embarked on a major campaign to compensate for the shortfall in Iranian funding by soliciting donations. The drive appears intended to rally supporters behind the group, but it also draws attention to its financial difficulties.
Since Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah urged followers in a speech in March to contribute to what he called “a jihad of money,” donation boxes have proliferated on the streets of Hezbollah-loyalist areas and beyond, carrying exhortations such as “Charity averts catastrophe.”
Pickup trucks with loudspeakers tour the streets of Lebanon’s Hezbollah-controlled Dahiya neighborhood, south of Beirut, with plastic boxes on their hoods, into which people are encouraged to deposit cash. Billboards have been erected along the road to the airport urging citizens to contribute to Hezbollah-run charities, and videos posted on the pages of Hezbollah-affiliated social media sites remind citizens of their “religious duty” to contribute to needy people.
The Hezbollah official insisted that the cutbacks have had no impact on the group’s standing in the Middle East or its military preparedness.
“We are still getting arms from Iran. We are still ready to confront Israel. Our role in Iraq and Syria remains. There is no person in Hezbollah who left because they didn’t get their salary, and the social services have not stopped,” he said.
The sanctions “won’t last forever,” he predicted. “Just as we were able to win militarily in Syria and Iraq, we will be victorious in this war, too.”
But Hezbollah is suffering, at least indirectly, from the separate sanctions aimed at the group’s activities, analysts say. Hezbollah has for years solicited donations from wealthy business executives, in Lebanon and abroad, but the sanctions serve as a deterrent to them, said Hanin Ghaddar, who researches Hezbollah at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The sanctions also deter companies and government agencies from doing business with the expansive network of Hezbollah companies and contractors that has arisen in tandem with the group’s political and military apparatus, according to Sami Nader, director of the Levant Institute for Strategic Affairs.
The cutbacks in Iranian contributions further coincide with a sharp downturn in the Lebanese economy. The recession is afflicting an extensive network of Hezbollah-affiliated companies whose activities help support the group, and Hezbollah’s ordinary Lebanese constituents, whose incomes and businesses are suffering.
Although the sanctions appear to be working from the U.S. point of view, there is growing concern that the pain being inflicted on ordinary people, including within Iran, will further destabilize the already violence-racked region, heighten anti-American sentiments and increase pressure on Iran to retaliate.
“The issue today is: What will be the price of continuing the sanctions and what will the collateral damage be?” Nader said. “There will be a lot of instability and hardship, and there could even be a new conflict.”
Hezbollah’s strategy is to identify alternative sources of income while riding out the Trump administration’s anti-Iran campaign, said Mohammed Obeid, a Beirut-based political analyst who is close to the group. Hezbollah recognizes that Trump may be in office until 2024 and is taking a long-term view, seeking out extra sources of revenue while reviving former ones, he said.
In the meantime, Iran will also try to secure new sources of funding. “Iran will go back to their old ways from before the [nuclear] accord, to the black market,” he said. “They have many alternatives for smuggling oil, through Iraq, through Pakistan, through Oman, through Afghanistan and even through Dubai.”
For Hezbollah, it is nonetheless a sobering moment after a string of successes.
Founded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in the 1980s as a shadowy guerrilla force dedicated to ejecting the Israeli troops who were then occupying Lebanon, Hezbollah has become the prototype for Iran’s subsequent proxy forces in the region. Its affiliate, Islamic Jihad, drove Americans out of much of Beirut by conducting suicide attacks against the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks and kidnapping American citizens, a model Iran might now follow elsewhere in the Middle East.
Hezbollah has since expanded to become a major regional power — with too much to lose by provoking conflict in Lebanon, many analysts say.
If a regional conflict were to erupt, Hezbollah could become one of Iran’s most feared assets, with its stockpile of tens of thousands of rockets and its highly disciplined fighting force extending Iran’s reach to the shores of the Mediterranean and to the borders of its arch enemy, Israel.
The group is also now the single most influential force in Lebanese politics, with seats in the parliament and ministries in the cabinet.
All the while, Hezbollah has relied overwhelmingly on Iranian largesse. In a speech in 2016 seeking to dispel concerns that the war in Syria would bleed Hezbollah’s revenue, Nasrallah assured his followers that Hezbollah had secured “all” of its funding from Iran.
“As long as Iran has money, we have money,” he said.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on May 20-21/19
This Is The Promise Trump Just Made Iran Following A Rocket Landing In Baghdad
Beth Baumann/TownHall/May 19/2019/Days after the Trump administration ordered American diplomatic personnel to leave the United States' embassy in Baghdad, a rocket attacked the very area they were in on Sunday, The Washington Times reported. The area that was attacked was the Green Zone in the Iraq capital. It's where the U.S. embassy and the main headquarters for combating the Islamic State sat. As of now, no casualties have been reported and no group or person has taken responsibility for the attack. Iraqi officials did, however, confirm that one rocket landed inside the diplomatic compound. Eyewitnesses say a second rocket landed inside the Green Zone but that has not been officially confirmed. British Major General Chris Ghika, the deputy commander of the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS publicly disagreed with America's assessment earlier this week, saying there was no increased threat.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said it's evident there is a growing threat from Iran but the United States is doing everything in its power to stop a war from forming. “We’re not going to miscalculate: Our aim is not war, our aim is a change in the behavior of the Iranian leadership,” Pompeo told CNBC. “The forces that we’re putting in place, the forces that we’ve had in the region before — you know, we often have carriers in the Persian Gulf — but the president wanted to make sure that, in the event something took place, we were prepared to respond to it in an appropriate way.”

Rocket attack near US Baghdad embassy had Iran’s signature. Trump spurns Saudi bid for US strike on Yemeni Houthis
DEBKAfile/May 20/2019
Both sides said they don’t seek war, yet US-Iranian war tensions were notched up again on Sunday, May 19, by a single rocket that missed the US embassy in Baghdad’s Green Zone. US President Donald was furious: “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!” he tweeted. A few hours earlier, Iran’s new IRGC chief Gen. Hossein Salami piled on the anti-US provocations by commenting on Iranian TV: “The difference between us and them is that they are afraid of war and don’t have the will for it.” His comment, DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report, came after President Trump turned down a request from Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz to launch direct US air strikes on Yemeni Houthis, in response to this Iranian ally’s explosive drone attack on two Saudi oil pumping stations on May 14. The king argued that Washington could not afford to continue its policy of non-response to Iranian attacks on Gulf oil infrastructure, including four tankers opposite the UAE’s Fujairah port. He proposed that the Washington punish Tehran through its Yemeni ally so as to avoid directly confronting Iran. However, the US President, loath to expand US intervention in the Yemen war, insisted on holding it down to supplying Saudi and UAE warplanes with intelligence, bombs and fuel. This passive response, plus the US administration’s consent to hold low-key, non-binding, tentative talks with Iranian officials, without demanding that Tehran desist from its attacks, appears to be egging the Iranians on to carry on with a form of brinkmanship. Iran precisely calculated its sabotage attacks on the four tankers to fall short of sinking them or causing casualties; it likewise computed the drone attacks to damage without destroying the Saudi pumping stations. In the same way, the Katyusha rocket launched against Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone on Sunday night had a shock effect without causing real harm. The rocket “missed” the US embassy to strike an empty building nearby that once housed a security detail. But the rocket was fired from Baghdad University in the center of the Iraqi capital and so could not be blamed on a local Shiite militia. Iran’s campaign of indirect, miss-rather than-hit strikes on America are taking their toll on US deterrence. They have spread out from the Gulf into Syria to locations opposite Israel. The accounts of an Israeli missile strike on Friday night, May 17 on Iranian and Hizballah forces at Al-Kiswah, south of Damascus, were overblown. Just a few missiles were fired, and their target was a very small Iranian facility being put in place at the Syrian Army’s 1st Division headquarters opposite Israel’s Golan border. That target was hit and destroyed.
As the escalation continues, the US and its allies may soon be forced to answer some hard questions: For how long can Iran’s low-key, indirect pinprick attacks go on without spiraling to a more dangerous level? And how will Washington, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi or Jerusalem react for the first casualties?

Reports: Iran Quadruples Production of Low-Enriched Uranium
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 20/2019/Iran has quadrupled its production of low-enriched uranium amid tensions with the U.S. over Tehran's unraveling nuclear accord, two semi-official news agencies reported Monday, an announcement just after President Donald Trump warned Iran it would face its "official end" if it threatened America again. While the reports said the production is of uranium enriched only to the 3.67% limit set by the 2015 nuclear deal that Tehran reached with world powers, it means that Iran soon will go beyond the stockpile limitations established by the accord. This follows days of heightened tensions sparked by the Trump administration's deployment of bombers and an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf over still-unspecified threats from Iran. While Trump's dueling approach of flattery and threats has become a hallmark of his foreign policy, the risks have only grown in dealing with Iran, where mistrust between Tehran and Washington stretch back four decades. So far this month, officials in the United Arab Emirates alleged that four oil tankers sustained damage in a sabotage attack; Yemeni rebels allied with Iran launched a drone attack on an oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia; and U.S. diplomats relayed a warning that commercial airlines could be misidentified by Iran and attacked, something dismissed by Tehran. All these tensions are the culmination of Trump's decision a year ago to pull the U.S. out of Tehran's nuclear deal with world powers. While both Washington and Tehran say they don't seek war, many worry any miscalculation could spiral out of control. Both the semi-official Fars and Tasnim news agencies reported on the quadrupled production quoting Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesmen of Iran's nuclear agency. He said the increase in production of 3.67% enriched uranium does not mean Iran increased the number of centrifuges it has in use, another requirement of the deal.
He said Iran "in weeks" would reach the 300-kilogram limit set by the nuclear deal. Kamalvandi said Iran had informed the International Atomic Energy Agency about its move. The IAEA did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. Trump's tweet early Monday came just hours after a Katyusha rocket fell in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone near the statue of the Unknown Soldier, less than a mile from the U.S. Embassy, causing no injuries. Iraqi military spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Rasoul told The Associated Press that the rocket was believed to have been fired from eastern Baghdad. The area is home to Iran-backed Shiite militias. "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran," Trump tweeted. "Never threaten the United States again!"
Trump did not elaborate, nor did the White House.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif responded by tweeting that Trump had been "goaded" into "genocidal taunts." Zarif referenced both Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan as two historical leaders that Persia outlasted. "Iranians have stood tall for a millennia while aggressors all gone," he wrote. He ended his tweet with: "Try respect - it works!"He also used the hashtag #NeverThreatenAnIranian, a reference to a comment he made in negotiations for the atomic accord. Trump campaigned on pulling the U.S. from the 2015 nuclear accord, which saw Iran agree to limit its enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Since the withdrawal, the U.S. has re-imposed previous sanctions and come up with new ones, as well as warning other nations they would be subject to sanctions as well if they import Iranian oil. Iran has said it would begin backing away from terms of the deal, setting a July 7 deadline for Europe to come up with new terms or it would begin enriching uranium closer to weapons-grade levels. Tehran long has insisted it does not seek nuclear weapons, though the West fears its program could allow it to build them. British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told journalists in Geneva that Iran should not doubt the U.S. resolve, warning that "if American interests are attacked, they will retaliate.""We want the situation to de-escalate because this is a part of the world where things can get triggered accidentally," Hunt said. Meanwhile, Oman's minister of state for foreign affairs made a previously unannounced visit Monday to Tehran, seeing Zarif, the state-run IRNA news agency reported. The visit by Yusuf bin Alawi comes after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Oman's Sultan Qaboos bin Said last week. Oman long has served as a Western backchannel to Tehran and the sultanate hosted the secret talks between the U.S. and Oman that laid the groundwork for the nuclear deal negotiations. In Saudi Arabia, the kingdom's military intercepted two missiles fired by the Iranian-allied Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen. The missiles were intercepted over the city of Taif and the Red Sea port city of Jeddah, the Saudi-owned satellite channel Al-Arabiya reported, citing witnesses. The Saudi government has yet to acknowledge the missile fire, which other Saudi media also reported. Hundreds of rockets, mortar rounds and ballistic missiles have been fired into the kingdom since a Saudi-led coalition declared war on the Houthis in March 2015 to support Yemen's internationally recognized government. The Houthis' Al-Masirah satellite news channel denied that the rebels had any involvement with this round of rocket fire. Between the two targeted cities is Mecca, home to the cube-shaped Kaaba that Muslims pray toward five times a day. Many religious pilgrims are in the city for the Muslim holy fasting month of Ramadan.

IRGC Commander Deems US Forces ‘Combat Target’
London - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 20 May, 2019/Head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Hossein Salami listed for the second consecutive day the points of disagreement between recent US moves and Tehran’s options in light of the current tension. In a lengthy speech before IRGC commanders on Sunday, Salami said US forces near Iran are no longer “strategic” targets, but “combat targets”, hinting that they might face a threat from “jihadist groups.”“When a threat is posed from afar, we think about it [only] on a strategic level, but when it comes close, we become active on operational levels as well,” he said. Salami acknowledged what the US considers “territorial threats against its forces,” leading it to mobilize in the region. Despite that, he slammed Washington's “political philosophy,” which “generates war and creates enemies rather than power.”Salami also said US threats are the reason behind the IRGC’s growing power, adding that having enemies such as the US is required to possess power. He pointed out that the IRGC is in direct contact with the "enemy" and hinders its advance everywhere. US fears have turned the region into an effective battlefield for American forces, he remarked. Moreover, “they fear the attacks of jihadist groups” as a result of what he described as “young people’s obsession in Muslim countries to fight the United States and Israel.”Iran usually names the groups it sponsors as “resistance” and groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS as “jihadists.”
On Saturday, Salami said Tehran’s latest decisions and measures have refuted the hypothesis, which says Iran would not respond if it came under pressure. He did not elaborate on what those decisions and measures were, but said they were an attempt to push “enemies, such as the United States, to decrease pressure on Iran.”He did, however, refer to developments that had taken place recently in the Palestinian territories. He said “they showed the enemies’ real size,” adding that “Israelis retreated as soon as they felt a war was going to be waged on their territory,” which in turn “provoked” the US. The White House has been tightening its grip on Iran since its withdrawal from the nuclear deal in May 2018 due to Tehran’s violation of the deal by pursuing its ballistic program and due to the IRGC Quds Force’s malign regional behavior.

Gulf Countries Strengthen Oil Coordination amid Tensions, Says Kuwait
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 20/2019/Kuwait's deputy foreign minister said countries in the Gulf have strengthened coordination to provide oil to global markets amid increased regional tensions. "It is normal amid this escalation that Kuwait and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries take these steps," Khalid al-Jarallah told reporters late Sunday on the sidelines of a Ramadan sit-down organised by the Iraqi embassy. "There is cooperation and coordination between Kuwait and the Gulf countries to provide guarantees for oil tankers and continuous supply of energy to global markets."Jarallah's comments come days after sabotage attacks against tankers in highly sensitive Gulf waters and the bombing of a Saudi pipeline -- the latter claimed by Iran-aligned Yemeni rebels. Both attacks targeted routes built as alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz, the conduit for almost all Gulf exports. The US Fifth Fleet headquartered in Bahrain said the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council began "enhanced security patrols" Saturday in international waters, in "tight coordination with the US navy". Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the strait in case of war with the United States, which earlier this month announced it was sending an aircraft carrier and strike group to the region. Kuwait's deputy foreign minister said "tension was escalating quickly" but he remained hopeful. He added Kuwait was in "constant contact" with its ally, the US. On Saturday, OPEC giant Saudi Arabia called for urgent meetings of the GCC and the Arab League to discuss recent "aggressions and their consequences" in the region. The two summits are scheduled to be held in Mecca on May 30. Jarallah welcomed the kingdom's invitation, saying Kuwait was keen to take part in discussions on issues "potentially dangerous" to the region.

Iraqi Shiite Figures Warn U.S.-Iran War Could 'Burn' Iraq
Associated Press/Naharnet/May 20/2019/Leading Iraqi Shiite figures warned Monday against attempts to pull their country into a war between the U.S. and Iran, saying it would turn Iraq into a battlefield yet again, just as it is on the path to recovery. The warning came hours after a rocket slammed into Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, landing less than a mile from the sprawling U.S. Embassy. No injuries were reported and no group immediately claimed the Sunday night attack. Shortly after, President Donald Trump tweeted a warning to Iran not to threaten the United States or it will face its "official end."Last week, the U.S. ordered the evacuation of nonessential diplomatic staff from Iraq amid unspecified threats from Iran and rising tensions across the region. The White House has also sent warships and bombers to the Persian Gulf to counter the alleged Iranian threats. Iraqi military spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Rasoul tweeted Monday that the army command in Baghdad is working "day and night" to guarantee the security of citizens, foreign missions and international and local companies. On Monday, two influential Shiite clerics and a leading politician — all with close ties to Iran — warned that Iraq could once again get caught in the middle. The country hosts more than 5,000 U.S. troops, and is home to powerful Iranian-backed militias, some of whom want those U.S. forces to leave. Populist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said any political party that would drag Iraq in a U.S.-Iran war "would be the enemy of the Iraqi people." "This war would mark the end of Iraq," the black-turbaned al-Sadr warned. "We need peace and reconstruction." The influential cleric's statements were echoed by the Shiite militias, which appeared to distance themselves from Sunday's attack. Qais al-Khazali, the leader the Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq, or League of the Righteous group, tweeted that he is opposed to operations that "give pretexts for war" and added that they would only "harm Iraq's political, economic and security conditions."A spokesman for Kataib Hezbollah said the rocket attack was "unjustified" and suggested a third party was trying to provoke a war, citing Israel or Saudi Arabia. For the Shiite-majority Iraq to be a theater for proxy wars is not new. It lies on the fault line between Shiite Iran and the mostly Sunni Arab world, led by powerhouse Saudi Arabia, and has long been the setting where Saudi-Iran rivalry for regional supremacy played out. After America's 2003 invasion of Iraq to oust dictator Saddam Hussein, American troops and Iranian-backed militiamen fought pitched battles around the country, and scores of U.S. troops were killed or wounded by sophisticated Iranian-made weapons. The office of Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of a coalition of Shiite paramilitary forces backed by both Baghdad and Tehran, released a statement calling on Iraqis to work together "to keep Iraq and the region away from war." "If war breaks out ... it will burn everyone," al-Amiri warned.

Arab League: Invitations to summits in Mecca were sent to all countries
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English/Monday, 20 May 2019/Invitations to two regional summits called by King Salman bin Abdulaziz to discuss attacks on Saudi oil assets were sent to all countries, SPA cited an Arab League official as saying, after Qatar said that it had not received an invitation. Saudi King Salman on Saturday proposed holding the two meetings in Mecca on May 30 to discuss implications of last week's drone strikes on oil installations in the Kingdom and attacks on four vessels, including two Saudi oil tankers, off the coast of the United Arab Emirates.
The Arab League official explained that this comes within the framework of the implementation of Article 3, which stipulates the periodic convening of the council at the summit level once a year in March. It also stipulates that if developments relating to the security of Arab nations emerge, the league shall hold sessions if one of the member states submits a request, which must be approved by two-thirds of the other member states.

Saudi Arabia intercepts Houthi missiles heading toward Mecca, Jeddah
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English/Monday, 20 May 2019/Saudi Arabia’s air forces on Monday intercepted two Houthi ballistic missiles over Taif, one heading for Mecca and the other for Jeddah, according to eyewitnesses. The Kingdom's air defense forces were able to destroy the ballistic missiles. Saudi authorities are expected to issue a formal statement later. In light of the attack, the Yemeni government said that it strongly condemns the Houthi attempt to target Mecca, adding that the attack on the holy site is “a full-fledged terrorist act”. According to an Al Arabiya correspondent, the fragments of the missile landed in Wadi Jalil, which extends to Mecca, noting that this is the second time the Houthi militias attempt to target the holy city. Earlier in March, Yemen’s Houthi militias warned they could launch attacks against the capitals of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. “We have aerial photographs and coordinates of dozens of headquarters, facilities and military bases of the enemy,” Houthi militia spokesman Yahya Saree had said in comments carried by the militia’s Al-Masirah channel. “The legitimate targets of our forces extend to the capital of Saudi Arabia and to the emirate of Abu Dhabi,” he said. The Iran-linked Houthi militias have targeted Saudi border towns and Riyadh with ballistic missiles and also claimed drone attacks on the airports of Abu Dhabi and Dubai in the past.

Gulf countries strengthen oil coordination amid tensions: Kuwait
AFP, Kuwait City/Monday, 20 May 2019/Kuwait’s deputy foreign minister said countries in the Gulf have strengthened coordination to provide oil to global markets amid increased regional tensions. “It is normal amid this escalation that Kuwait and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries take these steps,” Khalid al-Jarallah told reporters late Sunday on the sidelines of a Ramadan sit-down organized by the Iraqi embassy. “There is cooperation and coordination between Kuwait and the Gulf countries to provide guarantees for oil tankers and continuous supply of energy to global markets.” Jarallah’s comments come days after sabotage attacks against tankers in highly sensitive Gulf waters and the bombing of a Saudi pipeline -- the latter claimed by Iran-aligned Yemeni Houthis. Both attacks targeted routes built as alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz, the conduit for almost all Gulf exports. The US Fifth Fleet headquartered in Bahrain said the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council began “enhanced security patrols” Saturday in international waters, in “tight coordination with the US navy”. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the strait in case of war with the United States, which earlier this month announced it was sending an aircraft carrier and strike group to the region. Kuwait’s deputy foreign minister said “tension was escalating quickly” but he remained hopeful. He added Kuwait was in “constant contact” with its ally, the US. On Saturday, OPEC giant Saudi Arabia called for urgent meetings of the GCC and the Arab League to discuss recent “aggressions and their consequences” in the region. The two summits are scheduled to be held in Mecca on May 30. Jarallah welcomed the kingdom’s invitation, saying Kuwait was keen to take part in discussions on issues “potentially dangerous” to the region.

Yemen’s Houthi militia says will target UAE, Saudi vital military facilities
Reuters, Cairo/Monday, 20 May 2019/Yemen’s Houthi militia said targeting Saudi Aramco’s installations last week was the beginning of military operations against 300 vital military targets, Houthi-controlled SABA news agency said on Sunday, citing a source in the Houthi militia. Targets included vital military headquarters and facilities in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, as well as their bases in Yemen, SABA quoted the source as saying. Saudi Arabia said armed drones struck two oil pumping stations last Tuesday, after Houthi-run Masirah TV earlier said the group had launched drone attacks on Saudi installations. On Wednesday, the Houthi’s leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi said that the militia is developing more military capabilities, which have “proven their effectiveness,” but what’s to come is “bigger and greater.”

Netanyahu Demands Concessions from Allies to Form New Govt.
Tel Aviv - Nazir Magally/Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 20 May, 2019/ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Sunday his allies from the right-wing parties, demanding them to “come down to the ground” to facilitate efforts to form a government. His comments were made during a cabinet session and in response to political and materialistic conditions imposed on him. He said that he still has not agreed with any party to form his new government. “I hope that the way will soon be found to bring them down to the ground, so that together we can establish a strong and stable government for Israel, which will continue to lead the country to new heights,” he said. During a meeting with close associates, Netanyahu said that head of the Russian Jewish party, Yisrael Beiteinu, Avigdor Lieberman, who has been demanding to again hold the security portfolio in the next government, is the main obstacle to forming the government. Lieberman has put difficult conditions and declared he is not willing to give them up, Netanyahu stressed. Among them is a demand to have absolute privileges in dealing with Hamas, including the right to order the military to assassinate rulers of the movement in Gaza.
According to sources close to Netanyahu, Lieberman’s terms come in retaliation against the premier for how he treated him when he served as minister of defense in the outgoing government. Lieberman had expressed his frustration from restrictions imposed by Netanyahu, sources said, in reference to the PM’s rejection, along with the majority of MPs, for his calls to launch heavy strikes against Hamas last year. “I am not willing to enter the ministry of defense again without receiving a clear pledge from Netyanyahu not to interfere in my decisions,” Lieberman was quoted as saying. “Netanyahu is committing a grave mistake when he says that Israel benefits from maintaining the Hamas regime in Gaza, which creates isolation between Gaza and the West Bank, weakening the Palestinian Authority and preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state,” said CEO of the World Yisrael Beiteinu Alex Selsky. He explained that Netanyahu’s strategy relies on assuming that overthrowing Hamas and the Palestinian Authority’s return to Gaza will necessarily force Israel into a political process towards forming a unified Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, adding that he sees this assumption as no longer valid.
“Israel and its premier receive exceptional support from the White House. International institutions traditionally hostile to Israel, such as the European Union and the United Nations, are weakening while Israel is growing geo-politically, economically and technologically,” he noted.

Russia Says it Repelled Nusra Attack on Hmeimim
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 20 May, 2019/Russia's Ministry of Defense said on Monday that it had repelled a drone and missile attack on its main air base in Syria's Latakia Province and accused former Nusra Front militants of being behind the assault. The RIA news agency cited the ministry as saying it had shot down six missiles fired at the Hmeimim air base. Syrian regime forces have unilaterally ceased fire in the northern Idlib province, the last major opposition stronghold, Russia said Sunday, while activists reported continued shelling and airstrikes. Fighting erupted in Idlib late last month, effectively shattering a ceasefire negotiated by Russia and Turkey that had been in place since September. In a brief statement on Sunday, the Russian Defense Ministry's Center for Reconciliation of the Warring Sides in Syria said regime forces had ceased fire as of midnight. It described the move as unilateral, but did not give details. But the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported an airstrike on the town of Khan Sheikhoun, saying it inflicted casualties. The opposition's Syrian Civil Defense also reported shelling near the town of Jisr al-Shughour without reporting any casualties. Syrian regime forces intensified their attacks as of April 30 on Idlib. The area is home to some 3 million people, many of whom are internally displaced.

12 Militants Killed in Security Raid in Cairo
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 20 May, 2019/Security forces in Egypt killed 12 suspected militants in raids near Cairo, announced the Interior Ministry on Monday. The development took place a day after a bomb blast injured 17 people, including tourists, near the Giza pyramids. The ministry said seven of the militants, who were affiliated with the banned Muslim Brotherhood, were killed in a firefight when police raided their hideout in the Sixth of October suburb. In another such raid in Cairo's Al-Shorouk neighborhood against the Hasm group, an armed affiliate of the Brotherhood, the ministry said five suspected extremists were killed in an exchange of fire. Weapons and ammunition were seized in the two apartments, the ministry said. "As part of the ministry's efforts to tackle the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization, information reached national security services" of attacks being prepared by Hasm, the ministry said. The statement did not directly link the raids to Sunday's attack. There was no claim of responsibility. The Hasm group emerged in 2016 and has in the past claimed responsibility for several attacks.

Algeria's Former PM: No One Chose Me to Succeed Bedoui
Algiers - Boualem Goumrassa/Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 20 May, 2019/Former Algerian Prime Minister Ahmed Benbitour denied reports claiming that the army chose him to succeed Noureddine Bedoui as prime minister, meanwhile the Interior Ministry stopped issuing candidacy forms for the presidential elections scheduled for July 4. Benbitour told Asharq Al-Awsat that friends and journalists called him to inquire about the candidacy news which circulated through online platforms. He asserted that it was a rumor and that no one in the army discussed with him the issue, adding that even if happened, he would not accept it.“As I said before, I have a vision or a roadmap to get out of the current impasse,” said Benbitour without going into details of his plan. Several names were put forward for the transitional period as successors of President Abdelkader Bensalah and the Prime Minister, who were “remnants” of former President Abdelaziz Bouteflika's regime. Former Information and Diplomatic Minister Abdelaziz Rahabi refused to have any role unless it is a project that achieves the democratic transition. Former Foreign Minister Ahmed Taleb Ibrahimi called the army leadership for “an open and honest dialogue with representatives of the movement, parties and social forces.”Lawyer and political activist Mustafa Bushashi asserted that he does not see himself other than being a lawyer, but he hinted that if the country needed him, he will be ready to help. It is understood from Bushashi’s words that he would not reject a potential request from the de facto authority, the army, to lead the country in the transition period. The movement activists are expected to agree on names for a forthcoming dialogue with the authority to prepare for the next stage and organize the elections. Of the 100 people who took the candidacy forms from the Interior Ministry, only one person is publicly known, head of the Future Front and 2014 presidential candidate, Abdelaziz Belaid. In practice, the army's leadership, which adheres to the constitutional solution, cannot organize a ballot that is not credible. On the other hand, it does not want to intervene directly and be forced to cancel it with military order, thus confirming the notion that it is in control of the country. The army will most likely leave Bensalah to complete his term, which according to the constitution, ends on July 9, 3 months after the President’s resignation. The country, will then, face an institutional vacuum.
With that, the military institution has tried the constitutional solution and it didn’t work out, forcing it to resort to political solutions, suggested by opposition leaders, which constitutes of reaching consensus on a person, or a group of persons, to lead the country for two years. During this period a referendum on a new constitution will be organized and the electoral law will be amended. Nominations for a new presidency will then open by an independent committee. The army could have cut the corners instead of postponing the desired democratic transition for three months, according to observers.

Security Forces Arrest Terrorist Suspect West of Tunis
Tunis - Mongi Saidani/Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 20 May, 2019/A security patrol in Hai al-Tadamon in western Tunis arrested a dangerous suspect, who has been wanted for committing terrorist acts, according to Tunisian security sources. They said the suspect had arrived in the capital from terrorist hideouts in the country’s western mountainous areas to reach Hai al-Tadamon, a densely populated neighborhood west of Tunis, to visit his family. The patrol arrested the suspect in an ambush and without resistance, sources added, crediting good planning for the success of the operation. He is expected to be referred to the relevant judicial authority for investigation over the details of how he managed to reach Hai al-Tadamon, traveling hundreds of kilometers and evading intelligence services and patrols deployed at the entrances of most cities. Counter-terrorism experts stressed that the arrest is an important security success, but more significantly, it revealed that besieged terrorist elements were falling one after to the other in the hands of military and security forces. On May 13, national security forces in the central city of Bouhajla arrested a terrorist fugitive, who is facing a prison sentence of 30 years.
The Interior Ministry reported that a high-risk stake out allowed the forces to capture the suspect as he attempted to leave a terrorist hideout to visit his sick mother in Sidi Bou Zid city. Security sources reported that the suspect, 27, was riding in a light truck at the time of the arrest. He will appear before a specialized court, where he is expected to divulge information about the activities, locations and plots of terrorists he was in contact with.

Libya: Sarraj Forces Receive Turkish Military Reinforcements Despite Int’l Ban
Cairo - Khalid Mahmoud/Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 20 May, 2019/The Libyan National Army (LNA) vowed to destroy the Turkish military reinforcements, sent to forces loyal to the Government of National Accord (GNA) headed by Fayez al-Sarraj, in the clashes taking place on the outskirts of the capital Tripoli. There have been sharp differences between pro-Sarraj militias over the reinforcements that are aimed at confronting the “Fatah Mubeen” operation launched by the LNA led by Marshal Khalifa Hafter to liberate the capital, a military source told Asharq al-Awsat. The source, who asked not to be named, explained that not all militias received armored vehicles. Misrata had the largest share, followed by al-Nawasi brigade, which includes extremists, then the militias of Usama al-Juwaili. “Burkan al-Ghadab” operation launched by Sarraj’s forces, announced on its Facebook page that the government provided its forces defending Tripoli with armor and ammunition, in preparation for what it described as “an extensive process" to restore security in Libya. The GNA did not disclose the source of the military supplies, but pictures and video recordings showed dozens of Turkish-made armored vehicles, as well as military vehicles being unloaded from a cargo ship named “Amazon”, which according to VesselFinder website, carried the flag of Moldova and arrived from Samson port in northern Turkey. While there was no official comment from the government, a spokesman assured to Agence France Presse (AFP) the arrival of military reinforcements without disclosing their source. A GNA spokesman announced earlier this month that the government contacted Turkey to obtain necessary supplies to stop Haftar’s offensive. However, the LNA played down the delivery of the armored vehicles, saying they could be easily targeted with RPGs. Karama operations media center said in a statement that the armored vehicles were originally anti-riot vehicles, and can be destroyed with anti-armor weapons. Their large size makes them easy targets in the streets, said the center. The National Security and Defense Parliamentary Committee condemned the “strange and unacceptable” silence of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) towards the violation of the international arms embargo. The committee also denounced the unlimited support of Qatar and Turkey for ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorist organizations in Tripoli, calling on the United Nations and the UN Security Council to take urgent action to stop blatant interference by these countries in Libyan affairs. In order to allow the entrance of weapons into the country, a United Nations Group of Experts must approve that. However, the United Nations confirms that the ban is repeatedly violated by various forces in Libya, where Haftar accuses Turkey and Qatar of sending weapons to his opponents in Sarraj’s government. Burkan al-Ghadab operation issued a press statement saying that after 44 days of what it described as a “failed coup attempt”, Sarraj’s forces are steadfast in defending Tripoli. The operation explained that Central Military Zone forces stationed in the southern and eastern axes continue their operations, claiming LNA is responsible for chaos and instability in the south. It also called on civilians in areas of clashes to communicate with them to facilitate their evacuation in coordination with humanitarian organizations. Burkan al-Ghadab spokesman Mustafa al-Majei told Xinhua news agency that the air force targeted LNA sites, adding that the situation was relatively stable except for an infiltration attempt by Haftar’s forces on the airport road axes. In other news, LNA announced that 20 ISIS fighters were killed in the attack on the checkpoint near the entrance of the oil-rich town of Zillah. Murada fighting brigade tasked with securing the Zillah oil basin announced that Zillah Martyrs Brigade was able to kill 20 ISIS terrorists who attacked the oil field. In addition, two brigade members were slaughtered in the attack, and four of the oilfield guards were kidnapped.

Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on May 20-21/19
The Iran Crisis And Washington Strategic Miscalculation – Analysis
Robert G. Rabil/Eurasia Review/May 19/2019
Washington’s policy of exerting maximum pressure on Tehran, in response to its spoiler regional role and weapons development, is putting the two capitals on a confrontational path entailing dire consequences. Though the Trump Administration has affirmed that its aim is not regime change, its actions and rhetoric belie this affirmation. Ominously, this policy is virtually dismissive of the growing strategic Iran-Russia relationship, which would dreadfully derail an American victory.
National Security Advisor John Bolton has been intractably headstrong about his desire to change the regime in Iran. In 2018, before joining the administration, he asserted to his hosts the cult-like Mujahedeen Khalq, the exiled Iranian group in Paris, that “The declared policy of the United States should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran.” He added. “The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself.” This attitude was reiterated recently when he warned the Ayatollahs, on the 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution: “I don’t think you’ll have many more anniversaries to enjoy.” This drum beat of war is echoed by some Republicans and close advisors of the President.
Evidently, the back-to-back U.S. sanctions against the Iranian regime, meant to isolate Iran from the world economy, pauperize the Ayatollahs and therefore incite an unstoppable oppositional wellspring, are apparently devised to provoke a direct or indirect Iranian military reaction, which would serve Washington as a pretext to attack Tehran. As it turned out, Washington rushed an aircraft carrier task force to the Persian Gulf in response to what Bolton characterized as “a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings.” Max Boot perceptively observed that the current hyping of the Iranian threat “reminds some analysts…of the run-up to the Iraq War,” and that Bolton “may be trying to provoke Iran into striking first.” Raising the brinkmanship, the White House recently ordered an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons.
This march to war is grounded in an incoherent foreign policy based more on hawkish attitudes and dismissive of significant regional and international developments, potentially plunging the U.S. in a catastrophic quagmire. Chief among those developments that Washington has neglected to take into account are the evolving Iranian-Russian relations and their ramifications for Washington’s policies in the greater Middle East. In other words, U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran is not only turning the Iranian-Russian relationship into a strategic alliance but also enhancing Russia’s power at the expense of that of United States.
Iran and Russia had a historic conflicted relationship. Tsarist Russia fought consequential wars with Iran. The Persian Qajar Dynasty, under Fath Ali Shah, was forced to sign the notorious Treaty of Gulistan (1813) following the outcome of the Russo-Persian war of 1804-13. The Persian dynasty lost what is modern-day Dagestan, Georgia, and a big chunk of Azerbaijan. Before long, the Persian dynasty was forced again to sign the Treaty of Turkmenchay (1828) following the outcome of the Russo-Persian War of 1826-28. The dynasty lost modern-day Armenia and the remainder of the Azerbaijan Republic, save granting Russia several capitulatory rights.
Iranian historical grievances against Russia only heightened following Tsarist Russian military intervention against the Iranian Constitutional Revolution in the early twentieth century and the forced division of the country in 1907 by Russia and Britain into three areas, whereby Tsarist Russia gained control over the northern areas of Iran, which included the cities of Tabriz, Tehran, Mashad, and Isfahan.
Notwithstanding that the Bolshevik Revolution forced thousands of Russians to flee to Persia, the Soviet Union supported secessionist movements in northwestern Iran, at the end of both World War I and World War II. Accusing Iran of supporting Germany and Italy, the British and Soviets invaded Iran in 1941 and forced the abdication of Shah Reza Pahalvi in favor of his son. In 1945-1946, Soviet leaders supported the short-lived creation of the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad, which concluded the last efforts by the Soviet Union to foment communism in Iran.
In fact, the end of WWII ushered American dominance into Iran’s political realm until the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Although, in principle, the new Khomeini regime pursued neither West nor East policy, the Soviets supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). However, Iran, which suffered heavily from Iraq’s use of conventional and unconventional weapons, inched gradually closer towards the Soviet Union and then Russia as Tehran sought to become militarily strong and self-sufficient.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s transformed the Iranian-Russian relationship, which became more or less affected by the triangular Iran-Russia-U.S. relationship. Moscow subordinated furthering its relations with Tehran to the priority of normalizing its relationship with United States. The Clinton Administration pursued a “First Russia” policy to bring Moscow into the Western Camp. But this policy suffered setbacks in response to the first Chechen War (1994-1995) and to the Bosnia-Herzegovina War (1992-1995). Whereas Moscow grudgingly sat out the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict in which their Serb allies were forced to walk back their transgressions, Washington was not happy with Russian heavy handed policy in Chechnya. Nevertheless, the collapse of “First Russia” policy stemmed more from the ingrained distrust U.S. policymakers felt about Moscow and their outlook that U.S. security would be better served with NATO eastward expansion.
In the meantime, Iran and Russia’s concerns intersected whereupon Iran sought conventional and unconventional weapons from Russia and the latter sought stability in Central Asia and the Caucuses. Apparently, Russia and Iran made an agreement according to which Moscow would help Tehran revive its nuclear program and in turn Tehran would not meddle in its former territories, the Caucasus and Central Asia, and to help Russia maintain stability there.
Before long, Russia and Iran signed a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement in August 1992. And in 1995, Russia agreed to complete construction of the Bushehr-1 nuclear power plant and to secretly supply Iran with a large research reactor, a fuel fabrication facility, and a gas centrifuge plant. Nevertheless, Russian agreements with Iran were not unqualified. In fact, once Washington expressed its concerns about these overt and covert agreements to Moscow, the later eventually scaled back Russian-Iranian nuclear cooperation. More so, Washington and Moscow signed the 1995 Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement (named after the U.S. vice president and Russian prime minister at the time), whereby Russia agreed to limit the amount of nuclear know-how and weaponry it provided to Iran.
But NATO’s advance into Russia’s sphere of influence, especially towards the Baltic states, coupled with Washington’s invasion and occupation of Iraq, heightened U.S.-Russian tension. Conversely, Iranian non-intervention in the second Chechnya War (1999-2000), unlike in Bosnia, convinced Russia to deepen its relationship with Tehran. Correspondingly, from the mid to late 2000s, Russia deepened its military and diplomatic cooperation with Iran, albeit with certain conditions on Iran’s nuclear program. Russia supported UNSC Resolutions that sanctioned and compelled Iran to comply with IAEA guidelines. Even when U.S.-Russian tensions rose over Georgia’s crisis in 2008, Moscow supported the international community in opposing any attempt by Iran to weaponize its nuclear program. Significantly, when the Obama administration pursued a “reset” policy with Russia and scuttled plans to place long-range missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, Moscow reneged on its promise to deliver the S-300 air-defense missile systems to Tehran.
No doubt, Moscow was more interested in having an understanding with United States over its national security concerns than in supporting Iran’s military and nuclear program. Clearly, Moscow wanted Washington to take into consideration Moscow’s concerns and apprehension about a U.S. antimissile defense system in Eastern Europe, Western support of anti-Russian movements and leaders in the Caucasus and Central Asia, and NATO’s presence in the Baltic states. In return, Moscow was ready to cooperate with U.S. over Iran and other issues.
However, the unfolding of events following the Arab uprisings and Russia’s annexation of Crimea and involvement in Ukraine brought to an end any Russian hope that the U.S. will ever heed Moscow’s national security concerns. Barring Russian reservations about the Arab uprisings, the most galling development for Russia (and China) was the West’s ouster of Libyan leader Mu’amar Qaddhafi and its feeling of betrayal by the West. Russia and China were furious that a UNSC Resolution meant to protect the Libyan people from Qadhhafi’s potential aggression was transformed by the U.S. into a military vessel to oust the Libyan leader. This anger and feeling of betrayal was expressed by Yevgeny Y. Satanovsky, an influential analyst, president of the Institute of the Middle East in Moscow: “We were naïve and stupid…The Chinese were the same. Trust this: That was the last mistake of such type.”
Western sanctions against Russia in response to its annexation of Crimea and military involvement in Ukraine only hardened Russian attitudes toward the West, especially United States. No longer would Russia entertain any beneficial hope from cooperating with the U.S. To be sure, Russia set about to curb American hegemony in world affairs, deepening its cooperation with China, Iran and Turkey and trying to drive a wedge between United States and its European allies.
At this critical juncture, Iran and Russia has perceived that the U.S. is instigating a war with Iran. The U.S. abandonment of the Iran’s nuclear deal, U.S. decision to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, Washington’s policy of putting “maximum pressure” on Iran to entirely halt Iranian oil exports and isolate it from world economy, and US efforts to significantly reinforce its military presence in the Persian Gulf region all point to an American design to strike at Iran. No doubt, the U.S., in the event hostilities broke out, will exact a heavy cost on Iran. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean a regime change would follow. Rather, Washington may get stuck with a proxy or direct confrontation with Iran whose denouement would be difficult to predict and whose medium and long term cost to the U.S. may be difficult to sustain. Going to war with Iran without designing a strategy taking into a consideration Russian potential involvement, against a background in which Washington is fighting an expansive war on terrorism and is involved in a great power competition with Russia and China, Washington would be setting itself up for another interventional costly debacle.
To be sure, Washington has virtually dismissed important geostrategic ramifications of its crisis with Iran, chief among them the growing strategic cooperation between Iran and Russia. Iran emerged as a country of note to support Russia’s revanchist foreign policy, grounded in restoring Russian global influence and some bastions of former Soviet power. Iran shares Russia’s view that U.S. global hegemony should be curbed, especially in their spheres of influence. Significantly, Russia and Iran’s interests have converged on many geopolitical and economic matters. Both countries are deeply concerned about and involved in negotiations over their economies, Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Iraq, Syria, Central Asia, Caspian Sea, drug and human trafficking, cross border crimes and terrorism. What’s making these issues paramount to both Moscow and Tehran is their broader impact on their security and societies, thereby casting American actions against them as harmful to their national security.
Obviously, Iran is no longer a weak state at the mercy of the West or Tsarist Russia. Iran today is a regional power wielding more or less influence from the Mediterranean Sea in the west to Afghanistan in the east, and to the Caucasus in the north. Not only is a big chunk of these areas falls in Russia’s sphere of influence, but also the stability of these areas is paramount to the security of Russia.
As Russia seeks to expand its trade with the Middle East, North Africa and the Indian subcontinent, Iran has emerged as a key transit country. At a trilateral summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, in August 2016, Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia, Hassan Rouhani of Iran, and Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan agreed to develop a 7,200-kilometer-long North-South trading corridor linking St. Petersburg, Moscow, Baku, Bandar-Abas and Mumbai. Iran, as an observer member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, has had warm bilateral cooperation on economic, transit and security issues with China, Russia, India and Pakistan. True, Russia is not a top trading partner with Iran; nevertheless, Iran provides Russia significant economic opportunities given its population size and potential for technological, educational, and cultural growth. In addition, in as much Iran needs Russian weapons as Russia seeks not only to increase its arms sales, but also to use the sales as a means to foster strong alliances. Confirming the end of its ambivalent relationship with Iran and the beginning of a strong alliance, Russia, in early 2016, finally delivered the S-300 air defense system to Iran, and left the door open for selling to it the most sophisticated S-400 system.
Iran and Russia have cooperated in Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power in 1996. The two also collaborated with the United States to defeat the Taliban in 2001. As the U.S. seeks to conclude an agreement with its former nemesis the Taliban and prepares to reduce its military presence in Afghanistan to a minimum, the Iranians and the Russians have every incentive to cooperate closely together to curb the staggering drug production in Afghanistan and to prevent Salafi-jihadi organizations there, such as ISIS, al-Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan from threatening their security.
Similarly, the Syrian crisis and the allure of the Islamic State as representing the long awaited for Islamist ideal have mobilized Chechen, Ingush and other north Caucasus Islamists to join ranks with the Emirate of the Islamic Caucasus to evict Russia from the North Caucasus. This is so with Central Asian Uzbeks, Turkmen, Tajiks, Kazahks, Kyrkyz and Uighurs who joined ranks with the Islamic Movement of Central Asia, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and the East Turkestan Islamic Movement to create an Islamic Emirate in Central Asia and sever Xinjiang province from China. This has heightened the concerns of not only Russia and Central Asian leaders, but also Chinese leaders. Central Asian leaders have urged Putin to help protect Central Asia from the rising threat of Salafi-jihadism as U.S. forces draw down their numbers in Afghanistan and the Islamic State and al-Qaeda reinforce their presence alongside the Afghan-Pakistan border. Sounding this alarm back in 2014, Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov asserted: “Central Asia, a resource-rich and mainly Muslim region nestled between Russia, China and Afghanistan, could face a fate similar to that of Iraq, swathes of which have been taken over by Islamic State insurgents.”
Facing the threat of the rise of radical Islamism, Central Asian countries and Russia have perceived Iran as a bulwark against the rise of transnational Salafi-jihadism. From their standpoint, Iran is not only cooperating with Russia in Syria to defend the Syrian regime from Salafi-jihadis, many of whom hail from Central Asia and Russia, but also protecting their societies by cooperating with their governments to eliminate this threat. For example, in 1997, Moscow and Tehran joined forces to end the brutal civil war in Persian-speaking Tajikistan between the Tajik government and a coalition of opponents led by a radical Islamist group called the Islamic Renaissance Party (IRP). Although as of late some friction has surfaced between Russia and Iran in Syria, Moscow has asserted the significance of its strategic cooperation and solidarity with Iran in so far Tehran does not attempt to build military bases in proximity to the Golan Heights.
No less significant, in the South Caucasus, Iran has stayed on the sidelines of the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Taken all this under consideration, one could safely argue that Russia will not stand idly by in the event hostilities broke out between Iran and United States. In fact, reports are circulating in the Middle East that Russia has already prepared arms shipments to Iran and beefed up its military and intelligence cooperation with the latter. This is in line with the reported promise Putin gave to the Supreme Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during the Russian leader visit to Tehran in November 2017: “I will not betray you.” Putin also confirmed: “We consider Iran a strategic partner and a great neighbor, and we will take advantage of every opportunity to expand and consolidate relationships in all dimensions.”
How will Iran, and by extension Russia, respond to what it perceives America’s instigation of war? The recent attacks on two large Saudi crude oil tankers and smaller Emirati and Norwegian tankers in the Gulf on May 12, followed by drones, sent by pro-Iranian Houthis in Yemen, striking Saudi Aramco oil pumping stations at Afif and al-Duwadimi on May 14, provide a fair assessment of Iran’s most likely response.
Apparently, these well calculated and executed attacks carried double messages. They showed that Iran could disrupt oil exports in both the Persian Gulf and in highly important overland locations. They also revealed Iran’s multifaceted military reach via its proxy forces without getting engaged in a headlong confrontation with the U.S. It follows from this that Tehran has apparently substituted its strategy of “strategic patience” with Washington since it abandoned the Iranian nuclear agreement for a strategy of “gradual escalatory response.” No doubt, this strategy is a response to and a growth of Iran and Russia’s growing strategic collaboration and shared objective of curbing American power.
However that may be, the threat of a devastating war has never been higher between Washington and Tehran. Ominously, this is happening at a time the U.S. is dealing with multiple crises, while remaining virtually dismissive or ignorant about the geopolitical landscape in which Iran and Russia would certainly and strategically collaborate to afflict on the U.S. heavy and unsustainable costs on several fronts.
President Donald Trump should remain faithful to his initial cautious impulses about the Middle East and rein in the dangerous actions and rhetoric of his advisors, who clearly are irresponsibly and reflexively taking the U.S. on a path of a doubly devastating war than the one they supported with Iraq.
*Robert G. Rabil is professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University. He is the author of Embattled Neighbors: Syria, Israel and Lebanon (2003); Syria, United States and the War on Terror in the Middle East (2006); Religion, National Identity and Confessional Politics in Lebanon: The Challenge of Islamism (2011); Salafism in Lebanon: From Apoliticism to Transnational Jihadism (2014); The Syrian Refugee Crisis in Lebanon: The Double Tragedy of Refugees and Impacted Host Communities (2016); and most recently White Heart (2018). The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of FAU. He can be reached @robertgrabil.

How Iraq's Shia militias are reacting to the rocket attack on the Green Zone and US embassy area
MECRA/May 20/202019
On May 19 a Katyusha rocket fired from near Baghdad's Technological University landed near the monument to the Unknown Soldier not far from the US Embassy in the city's Green Zone. The rocket fire comes amid tensions between Washington and Tehran. It is important to examine the differing reactions among Iraq's Shi'ite paramilitary militia groups to gauge how they view the tensions with the US and to analyze if they will escalate the situation.
On May 5 National Security Advisor John Bolton said “any attack on the United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force. The US is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the IRGC or regular Iranian forces.” On May 13 Brian Hook, Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of State and Special Representative for Iran, reiterated US policy: “Tehran will be held accountable for the attacks of its proxies. They cannot organize, train, and equip their proxies and then expect anyone to believe that they had no role. And so we will not make a distinction between the Iranian Government and its proxies.”
In the wake of the rocket attack members of the Hashd al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilization Forces) have begun to respond. The PMU is a group of several large mostly Shi'ite militias that have up to 100,000 men in their ranks. They played a key role in the war on ISIS. Some of the militias are relatively new in their foundation, while others have roots going back to the 1980s war between Iraq and Iran where their commanders served alongside the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In March 2018 the PMU were formally inducted into the Iraqi Security Forces. As official members of the security forces, and with members in parliament, the paramilitary militias no longer release statements only in a vacuum. Their actions and views have links directly to the leadership in Baghdad and Tehran.
Kata'ib Hezbollah ( كتائب حزب الله‎ )
On May 20, 2019 Kata'ib Hezbollah said that "the shelling of the Green Zone by a Katyusha rocket does not serve the public interest" or is not justified.
The group has a long history of opposition to the US presence in Iraq. Kata'ib Hezbollah was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 2009 by the US as well as its leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. "The U.S. Department of the Treasury targeted Iran-based individual Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Iraq-based Shia extremist group Kata'ib Hizballah for threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and the Government of Iraq," the US Treasury wrote at the time.
The group was angered by an airstrike in June of 2018 that it initially blamed on the US. The group has upped its rhetoric in the last two years against the US presence. In July 2018 anti-Iran protesters burned a Kata'ib Hezbollah office in southern Iraq. In September katyusha rockets were fired at the US consulate in Basra, although Kata'ib Hezbollah was not implicated.
Initial reports on May 20 indicated that the group called the rocket attack inappropriate, the subsequent statement, published by Aletejah TV indicated they felt it could harm the public interest. This statement was reiterated on the night of May 19, with claims the attack was not justified and its "timing" inappropriate, and similar language used on the morning of May 20, when it said it did not serve the public interest. Aletejah TV was the first to show images of the Katyusha attack and the TV station is linked to Kata'ib Hezbollah.
Around noon the group came out with more statements about the serious situation, claiming the attack showed that the attacked revealed "parties working to put pressure on the resistance," meaning they believed it was a conspiracy or "false flag" that would be used against them.
Badr Organization (منظمة بدر)
Badr Organization leader Hadi al-Amiri said on May 20 that Iran and the US do not want war. He accused "only the Zionists of pushing for war." He argued that a national and religious responsibility was incumbent on everyone to remove the looming conflict from Iraq. He hinted at the alarming proximity of war. He also said that only the "ignorant" supported conflict. He made two statements on May 20. His second statement said he was concerned about a war that would harm everyone.
Amiri is the leader of the Fatah (Fateh) Alliance which contested the 2018 elections and received 48 seats in parliament. The alliance has numerous members of the PMU. Badr is therefore a leader of a large political party and also a large and historic armed group. It was formed by Hadi al-Amiri in 1983 as the armed section of the the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI later ISCI), splitting from it become its own unit. Amiri was considered a potential Prime Minister candidate last year. Badr has also controlled the Interior Ministry in Iraq, placing its loyalists in the Federal Police and elsewhere.
After the US designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization in April, Badr condemned the US. "This is laughable coming from the No. 1 sponsor of terrorism, America," said a spokesman for the Badr Organization. Amiri's Fatah also condemned it "We reject this action from America and say we have honor to be in the Islamic resistance that fought and beat terrorism."
Asaib Ahl al-Haq (عصائب أهل الحق)
Qais Khazali and Asaib Ahl al-Haq have been frequent critics of the US presence and threatened the US in the past. Just before the rocket strike the group had indicated that US apologies for a recent friendly-fire incident in which Iraqi forces were targeted was not sufficient.
Like Badr and Kata'ib Hezbollah, AAH also sought to prevent tensions from growing after the rocket attack. Khazali, leader of AAH, argued that the war is not in the interests of the US or Iran. He also claimed that only Israel was interested in conflict. "We urge caution against confusion that could lead to pretexts and conflict that would damage Iraq's political, economic and security situation."
US Senator Marco Rubio has directly warned AAh and Kata'ib Hezbollah against any provocations, arguing that an attack by either one would be seen as a direct attack by Iran.
Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba ( حركة حزب الله النجباء‎ )
Designated a terrorist group in February 2019, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba has consistently threatened the US in Iraq. In the wake of the rocket fire Tasnim news reported that it said it would respond to any attack by the US and that it would continue to struggle against the US "until the end of their occupation."
The group also said that "the Iraqi government must not forget that in the most difficult period, when most of our countries, and most of all, the United States left us alone in fighting ISIS, Iran was helping us."
Amid the tensions with the US on May 7 Akram Abbas al-Kaabi of Harakat Hezbollah said that "we will not take off the clothes of war until we have cut off the head of the snake America, the factory and source of terrorism."
Its May 20 statements make it appear it thinks the rocket attack was planned by the US as an excuse to strike at groups like it or Iran.

Redeployment and Iran’s Only Choice
Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 20/2019
While the world is waiting for the outbreak of war in the Gulf, especially after the attacks on four vessels off the port of Fujairah and on two pumping stations in Saudi Arabia, the US-Gulf alliance surprised everyone with a tactic that is very different from Iran’s escalation path, through the redeployment of US forces in the region, as revealed by Asharq Al-Awsat on Sunday. It was a brilliant scenario indeed. No one imagined, or even expected that the Iranian impulse would be faced by a bigger step that prevented it from pushing for a new war. The goal is to avert war and prevent Iran from continuing its provocations and reckless behavior, especially that the region was on the verge of an all-out confrontation. After the redeployment, Iran will not dare to take any foolish or provocative action. It sees the severity of the expected response as a catastrophe, in addition to the mounting pressure of the economic sanctions, the effects of which proved to be faster than expected.  There are nine military bases in the Gulf - Five of them are American (including the Central Command headquarters in Qatar), two British bases, a French base, and a Turkish base, as well as 54,000 US troops in 12 military bases across the Middle East. This means that the American military presence in the region is not recent.
What is new, however, is the presence of US troops along with the Gulf military forces in the bases and ports of Gulf States, with their approval and coordination. This means that the redeployment will be a sword against Iran, as it will prevent it from maintaining its provocative actions and will thwart its attempt to escalate the situation militarily or to attack Gulf States or US interests in the region. Recent developments have necessitated a redefinition of the elements of security and the rearrangement of priorities in the region. What is important here is that redeployment is not meant to ignite war, but rather to deter it. It is a strong pressure on Iran to make it respond to demands for a renegotiation of the nuclear agreement and to accept to become a natural state, like its neighbors, no more and no less. After the liberation of Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion in the early nineties, the first US-Gulf military strategic alliance was established to ensure the security of the Gulf against any direct threats. Given the partial fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime at a first stage, and its complete collapse in 2003, this strategic alliance was directed against the Iranian regime, which alone threatens the stability of the region.
It is true that the American presence is much older, but the strategic alliance has become more rooted and stronger during the last two decades, given the continuous tensions in the region and Tehran’s aggressive behaviors, which grew to an unbearable stage. This has created a common vision between the United States and its Gulf allies on the need to raise the red card in the face of Iran, as no side had so far been more patient with its behavior than its neighbors. Iran is facing two problems: the first lies in its domestic situation which is about to explode due to the unprecedented economic sanctions, while the second is the negative attitude of its allies (Russia and China) and the trivial position of the Europeans on the nuclear agreement. The war is in front of it and the economic catastrophe behind it. With the redeployment of US troops and the prevention of any reckless military move, there is no solution for Tehran but to rush to negotiate a new deal to replace the lifeless agreement. A deal that would be similar to that of North Korea when it was at a loss of solutions. This might take a while to achieve, but it is Tehran’s only choice after it has exhausted all other options for more than 40 years.

The US, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Major Revolt
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 20/2019
History does not always loom large over relations between countries. France and Germany overcame the bloodshed between them. As did Japan and the Koreas. As did Russia and Turkey, who fought more than ten wars against each other. History is an illness that can be cured if it is reread and if its lessons are understood. Its injuries can be treated and its toxins can be controlled. History can be manipulated, but geography, in contrast, cannot. It is one’s fate to accept one’s geography. It picks your neighbors for you and you have no say in the matter.
This is the fate of the Middle East. Arabs, Persians, Turks and Kurds. Religions, sects and old and new wounds. An old memory and a mine of dreams and disappointments. Groups that have grown tired of their borders and dreamed of empires. They went forth, attacked, fought, won and prevailed. They were then defeated and had to endure disappointments within borders that they view as chains and narrow prison cells. From time to time, a revolt, idea or ruler emerges that seeks to retaliate against history that has clipped the nails of empires and agendas to eliminate the other or usurp their voice. Fate has it that the Middle East also happens to lie on the crossroads of continents and for its land to boast massive wealth that is necessary for the global economy.
The current crisis in the Gulf is not a passing development. It cannot be written off as simply a standoff between Washington and Tehran. It is also a deep crisis between Iran and its neighbors. This is how local and regional affairs become intertwined with international ones. It is not enough to announce that no one wants to head to war. Underneath it all lies a difficult and deep problem that creates crises. It can be described as a difficulty to reach an understanding with the current Iran.
Every once in a while, Iran declares that it wants to peacefully coexist with its neighbors and that it is ready to reach an understanding with them and ensure that each side safeguards its interests. This diplomacy, which was promoted through the smiles of the likes of Mohammad Khatami and Mohammed Javad Zarif, could not convince countries in the region that it was not just a front for the actual policy that is being carried out by the Revolutionary Guards. It is a policy of constantly revolting against the traditional balances of power in the Middle East.
Since its victory, the Khomeini revolution launched the major revolt that aims to transform Iran into a major power in the region. Iran believed that it had three obstacles hindering its goals: The first was the American presence in the region. Iran believed that creating big holes in the American umbrella over the region will force the countries there to accept Tehran’s hegemony over them. The second obstacle was Saddam Hussein’s regime that forced the Iranian regime to defend its territories instead of pushing forward into the region. The third obstacle is Saudi Arabia’s clout on the Gulf, Arab, Islamic and international scenes.
After the demise of the Saddam regime, Iran escalated its moves in the major revolt to capture areas of American influence in the region and surround Saudi Arabia from more than one side. It relied in its efforts on a mix of ideology, weapons and money. It succeeded in infiltrating borders and threatening others. It lured Shiite minorities out of their national environment and merged them with its Wilayet al-Faqih agenda through militias, small mobile armies, rockets and drones. The rockets sought to convince countries that they were jeopardizing their stability if they chose to oppose or obstruct the major revolt.
Had these words been written a few years ago, they would have been dismissed as exaggeration. But we are dealing with facts. The timing of the latest Houthi aggression on Saudi installations confirmed what is already known: The Houthis are being ordered by the Revolutionary Guards. This does not need evidence. The generals in the Guards themselves boast about having four capitals in their Iranian circle of influence. An observer realizes that the formation of a government in Iraq is not possible without Tehran’s approval. The same goes for Beirut. In Syria, field developments have forced Iran to accept the Russian partner or competitor.
Amid all this, the Arabs find themselves confronted with a major coup. The real conditions for stability in the region demand that Yemen belong to the Yemenis and that they have the first and final word in shaping their future. Iraq for the Iraqis. Syria for the Syrians. Lebanon for the Lebanese. It is not normal for the Iranian ambassador in these countries to wield greater power than their prime minister or that Qassem Soleimani be vastly more powerful than their generals. By quitting the nuclear deal, Donald Trump completely reopened the file of Iran’s behavior. The problem regional countries have with Iran is linked more to the major revolt than its nuclear ambitions. Europe is also concerned about the Iranian rocket program. Washington speaks about links between Tehran and terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda. Placing the Revolutionary Guards on the American terror list has returned the spotlight on Iran’s destabilizing regional policy.The current Gulf crisis is the product of the objection to the major revolt and an attempt to prevent it from creating new hotspots. We can therefore understand the Saudi and Gulf decision to accept the redeployment of American forces in the Arabian Gulf and some of its countries. We can understand Saudi Arabia’s call to hold a series of Gulf, Arab and Islamic summits in Makkah to reach a clear stance that sends a frank message to Iran that it must halt its agenda. These steps are not a precursor to war because everyone knows it will be costly. They aim to convince Iran that maintaining its attack, as part of its major revolt, will lead to unprecedented pressure that would deprive its economy from the ability to finance its vast destabilizing agenda. The region cannot constantly live on the edge of war. Easing the tensions begins by having Iran go back on its major revolt in the region. Regional countries cannot accept to have their borders violated by rockets or militias or drones. The US cannot accept for straits to become hostages to the Revolutionary Guards. Altering military balances on the ground in the region places Iran before a clear choice: It can either continue to take major risks or open channels to return to the negotiations table with lesser illusions. The strict measures in the Gulf are an attempt to revolt against the major coup that has stolen the voice of decision-making capitals, breached borders and depleted resources.

Australia’s Political Shock Echoes From Ohio to London
David Fickling and Daniel Moss/Bloomberg View/May 20/2019
Australia likes to think that its electoral system is immune to the sort of shock outcomes seen elsewhere in recent years.
Voting is compulsory, so there’s never a surprise driven by turnout. A system that requires voters to nominate multiple candidates means that insurgent third-party campaigns have little purchase, because people can have their protest vote and still choose a mainstream candidate too.
While nearly a quarter of the electorate placed a minor party first on their ballot on Saturday, nearly 90 percent put either the governing Coalition of Prime Minister Scott Morrison or the opposition Labor Party first or second. As a result, the Coalition and Labor will account for all but six or seven seats in the 151-member House of Representatives. The government looks certain to lack a controlling majority of the House, but the deals it will have to cut will be with a handful of centrist independents and single-seat minor parties, rather than a powerful populist fringe.
At the same time, Saturday’s election result is a political shock scarcely less expected than the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 US Presidential election, or the triumph of the anti-European vote in the UK’s Brexit referendum earlier that year.
It’s been almost 18 months since any opinion poll showed Morrison’s Liberal-National Coalition 1 with a shot at victory. Newspoll – the most closely followed survey, whose poor showings were used as justification for the internal party coups that removed Morrison’s predecessors Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull in recent years – has put the Coalition behind in 56 consecutive polls since 2016. An exit poll by Nine Entertainment Co. news Saturday night had Labor ahead 52% to 48%. 2
Even the parties’ own polling (which should generally be treated with a health warning) doesn’t appear to have been immune to error. Leaked Liberal polls had indicated heavy losses of as many as 11 seats in the southeastern state of Victoria; in the event, the only two that are likely to switch sides were more or less handed to Labor thanks to redrawn electoral boundaries.
Yet while the result is a surprise, it’s hardly a revolution. The Coalition gained seats and drastically outperformed expectations, but owing to by-elections and redistricting it actually ended up with fewer constituencies than it did after the last election in 2016. Governing from a minority will present formidable challenges, too.
That’s particularly the case around the politics of climate, which has claimed the careers of three Australian prime ministers in the past decade. The Coalition seems certain to be dependent on at least three of six minor-party and independent candidates to command a majority. Five of that group have campaigned hard on stepped-up climate action that will alienate much of the government’s heartland vote. Bridging the gap won’t be easy.
That’s no reason for Labor to be feeling comforted. Some of the biggest swings away from it were in coal-mining areas in northern Queensland and north of Sydney which will lose jobs as domestic generators close and exports decline over the coming terms of parliament. That risks creating a soot belt of disillusioned working-class electorates serving a similar role to the US midwest in the 2016 election.
Indeed, one way in which the result reflects what’s been happening in the US was the growing gulf between increasingly liberal and affluent big cities and more conservative and hard-bitten regional areas.
Despite some claims that the Coalition won on the basis of wealthy and older voters turned off by Labor’s promise to increase taxes on shares and investment property, some of the biggest swings to the Coalition were in lower middle-class suburbs and exurbs that have some of the youngest demographic profiles in the country.
The traditional urban-rural maps on which Australia’s major parties have built their majorities are being scrambled.
Just as in Texas and west London, right-of-center slices of its cities are growing more liberal; just as in Ohio and northeast England, left-of-center regional areas are becoming more conservative. Which side is better able to capitalize on those trends will decide the direction of politics for the coming decade, not just in Australia but across the world.

The Intrepid Duo: Pipes, Father and Son
Jiri Valenta and Leni Friedman Valenta/Gatestone Institute/May 20/2019
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14246/richard-pipes-daniel-pipes
"My main contribution was revealing the flaws in the détente policy and urging a policy designed to reform the Soviet Union through a strategy of economic denial." In other words, the USSR could be changed from within by raising the costs of its aggression. — Richard Pipes.
Daniel Pipes argues that, ironically, the Palestinians would actually fare far better if they were defeated: they could end their fantasies of genocide and, like post-WWII Germany, finally start to build a constructive and flourishing civil society.
"The hardest thing for Westerners to understand is... the nature of the enemy's ultimate goal... to apply the Islamic law (Sharia) globally. In U.S. terms, it intends to replace the Constitution with the Qur'an.... Now, it has become widely accepted that, in Bernard Lewis's words, "Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century." — Daniel Pipes, "The Islamic States of America?", FrontPageMagazine.com, September 23, 2004.
"Although the moderate Muslims appear -- and in fact are -- weak, they have a crucial role to play, for they alone can reconcile Islam with modernity..." — Daniel Pipes, Introduction, Militant Islam Reaches America.
Two iconoclasts, the intrepid duo, are the late Baird Professor Emeritus of Harvard University, Richards Pipes, and his son, Daniel Pipes.
Whereas Richard Pipes, a "world authority" or the doyen of historians of Russia, set as his life's priority analyzing and debunking to Western civilization the naïve romantic utopia of Bolshevism and its Soviet Pied Pipers of tyranny, Daniel Pipes, a global expert on the Middle East, similarly analyses another civilization. His mission has been, through voluminous writing and various projects in defense of Western civilization, to awaken Americans to the modern-day threats of Islamist terrorism, religious coercion and mass-immigration.
The late Richard Pipes, who died a year ago last week at the age of 94, served as a National Security Council staffer to President Ronald Reagan, and was considered by many as the architect of Reagan Doctrine. His son, Daniel Pipes founded and heads the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia-based think tank, currently celebrating its 25th anniversary. He is also the publisher of the Middle East Quarterly.
Richard and Daniel Pipes are widely regarded as intrepid as neither ever joined the academic herd or became apologists of foreign or domestic leaders. They remained impartial scholars -- even loners -- committed to writing about facts as they discovered them. Both have often been misunderstood and maligned. Richard Pipes was labeled an "anti-Soviet hardliner" and "cold warrior," even while his policy recommendations were realistic and, at times, even soft line.
Daniel Pipes has unjustly and incorrectly been called an "Islamophobe" while, in fact, he supports those who seek to reform Islam and encourages them as free world allies.
Richard Pipes and the Making of Reagan Doctrine. Richard Pipes, a Harvard historian and prolific writer, demonstrated in several of his books that the October 1917 Russian "Revolution" had actually been a militant coup d'état, conducted by a tightly organized group of Jacobin-like conspirators -- with almost no involvement of the masses. Unfortunately, the Utopian dreams of many well-meaning communists -- who envisioned a classless society with social justice -- actually resulted in the tyrannical, Stalinist system that, with its genocides, gulags, cossacks, and official anti-Semitism under the dictator Josef Stalin, resulted in the deaths of 20 million people and rivaled the horrors of Nazi Germany.
Until 1982, the U.S. views of how to deal with the Soviet Union were embodied in a "policy of containment" by U.S. senior diplomat George Kennan. First outlined in 1947, it urged countering Soviet pressure through the "adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy."
Richard Pipes, however, Director of Soviet and East European Studies for the National Security Council at his White House desk in 1981-82, had another vision. To him, it was necessary not just to seek co-existence with the Soviet Union but also a deep change in the Soviet system.
He wrote a memorandum to President Ronald Reagan discussing his finding of a profound economic crisis in the Soviet Union caused by Russia's militarization and geopolitical over-expansion. "My main contribution," he noted later, "was revealing the flaws in the détente policy and urging a policy designed to reform the Soviet Union through a strategy of economic denial." In other words, the USSR could be changed from within by raising the costs of its aggression.
As he foresaw, Russia, with its weak economy and Reagan's mammoth military program (similar to that of U.S. President Donald J. Trump's) and the use of economic instruments such as lowering the price of oil, as proposed by CIA Director William Casey -- but above all America's support for anti-Soviet fighters in several conflicted regions (for instance, in Afghanistan, Nicaragua and Angola), would so hurt the Russian economy, that it would encourage the rise of Soviet reformers. These would then, "...press for modest economic and political democratization," Thus, "...the successors of Brezhnev," Richard Pipes predicted, "are likely in time to split into 'conservative' and 'reformist' factions."
President Ronald Reagan agreed with him. and issued a presidential directive in January 1983 under the heading "NSDD-75," radically altering the fundamental U.S. foreign policy objectives pursued by previous administrations since the days of U.S. President Harry S. Truman.
The most prominent members of liberal-minded Russian specialists in America, particularly those associated with Columbia University, sharply disagreed with Richard's bold and revolutionary forecast. Said Robert Legvold, professor at Columbia University in 1982, "Pipes is wrong on assuming there is a clear-cut division between two camps [in the Soviet Union]. Any U.S. policy designed to assure that some nonexistent group of moderates will come to power is a chimera."
Pipes proved to be right.
Despised challenger, Boris Yeltsin. When other Soviet scholars finally accepted that Pipes had been right and a genuine group of reformers had arisen in the late 1980s, the leaders of Russian studies at Columbia and Princeton became entranced with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Wrote Legvold, "A key factor in the ending of the Cold War was Gorbachev's decision that he would not use force to suppress reformist aspirations in Eastern Europe."
This assessment, however, is not entirely correct. In dozens of interviews conducted with Alexander Yakovlev (in September 2000) and other prominent Russian democrats, for a forthcoming book, Russia's Democratic Revolution, Yakovlev revealed that, as the eastern European pressure against the USSR in Hungary and Poland was mounting, he and a few other Soviet consultants had proposed getting rid of the Berlin wall months earlier. The Russian opposition in the Congress of People's Deputies -- led by Andrei Sakharov and Boris Yeltsin -- were also demanding support for dramatic changes in Eastern Europe. President Reagan, of course, a year earlier had said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
Even after Yeltsin, surrounded by radical reformers and Western donors, had become the leader of post-Soviet Russia, many of Gorbachev's apologists continued to worship their man.
Pipes Unearths Alexander Yakovlev. If you want to understand what really happened in the Soviet Union, you must read Pipes's final book, Alexander Yakovlev, the Man Whose Ideas Saved Russia from Communism. Then read Yakovlev's memoirs, available in Russian: Omyt Pamiati: Ot Stolypina do Putina [Maelstrom of Memory: From Stolypin to Putin] Moscow: Vagrius, 2001.
As Richard Pipes demonstrated, the true architect of perestroika, glasnost (reduced censorship) and a "new thinking" that included disarmament and rejected the goal of a worldwide communist revolution, was not Gorbachev, who remained a reform communist. It was his chief adviser: the low-key Yakovlev, who presided over three commissions dealing with the new concepts.
As stated by the National Security archive, "Recently released documents from the Yakovlev Collection of the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF) show the unprecedented scope of issues on which Alexander Yakovlev exerted influence within Soviet decision-making circles under Gorbachev. Although one usually associates Yakovlev with glasnost and democratization, it has become clear that he was also a key reformer when it came to arms control ("untying" the Soviet "package" position on nuclear arms control negotiations), and the Soviet economy."
The scope of Yakovlev's work and his achievements as Gorbachev's main adviser are to this day sadly unappreciated, possibly because of Gorbachev's apologists. There was not even a single full biography of Yakovlev until Pipes undertook the project. A true statesman, Yakovlev advised world leaders not only on foreign affairs but also domestic ones, and in addition chaired a prestigious Commission on authenticating Russian history. Possibly because Gorbachev kept him in the shadows, his preeminence took time to emerge.
Gorbachev seems to have been a centrist who swung uneasily between reformers and reactionaries and sometimes played both sides against each other. Unfortunately, the same group of experts who seem to have worshipped Gorbachev and despised Yeltsin, abandoned Yakovlev when he left Gorbachev to join Yeltsin's camp. They continued to cling to Gorbachev even when the 1991 putschists sought to reclaim the empire and Yeltsin stopped them.
Pipes's support of Yakovlev over Gorbachev was quite possibly the reason that Pipes had such a hard time finding a publisher.
Pipes was apparently deeply disappointed that his last book was not widely or well received or reviewed. Yet, the final message of his book is that if a man such as Yakovlev can emerge in the Kremlin, we must never give up hope on Russia. Pipes will most likely be vindicated by a new generation of scholars who, looking further into Yakovlev, will be amazed at what they find.
Daniel Pipes: Modernizing Islam Globally is the Ultimate Aim of the War on Terror. Unlike his father, who remained a renowned historian despite his stakes in the U.S. government, Daniel Pipes, a Harvard graduate, left the ivy towers of academia and shaped his life as one of activism. After the 9/11 attack on America, Daniel took to the airwaves and predicted the arrival of asymmetric warfare, including terrorist groups that might not again attack the American bastion of democracy from afar, but would seek to infiltrate all areas of our society and destroy it from within.
"The hardest thing for Westerners to understand," wrote Daniel Pipes, "is not that a war with militant Islam is underway but that the nature of the enemy's ultimate goal. That goal is to apply the Islamic law (the Shari'a) globally. In U.S. terms, it intends to replace the Constitution with the Qur'an."
"This aspiration," he continued, "is so remote and far-fetched to many non-Muslims, it elicits more guffaws than apprehension. Of course, that used to be the same reaction in Europe, and now it's become widely accepted that, in Bernard Lewis' words, 'Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century.'"
Backing up Daniel Pipes is the National Center for Constitutional Studies which discusses the many ways that Sharia law "rejects the fundamental premises of American society and values.
As head of his Middle East Forum, Daniel divides his work into two key subjects. First, the crucial difference between Islam, the faith, which is a venerable religion, and militant Islam, based on sharia law, which, according to him, is not. He also notes that there is a battle for the soul of Islam among Muslims themselves.
While Richard Pipes, a supporter of democratizing the totalitarian Russian regime, was often and predictably labeled as a Russophobe, his son is sometimes wrongly cast as an "Islamophobe." Nothing could be further from the truth. He, in fact, supports moderate Muslims: "...Although the moderate Muslims appear -- and in fact are-weak [as they were Yakovlev's democrats in Russia], they have a crucial role to play, for they alone can reconcile Islam with modernity..."
Militant Islam Reaches America is one of Daniel Pipes's most important and engaging books about some of the great issues that now confront America. In the book he reveals that militant Islam has much in common with fascism and communism and that, "Significant elements within the United States must necessarily undertake the difficult task of "...modernizing Islam globally -- the ultimate aim of the war on terrorism." How to do so seems the challenge.
Operationally, Daniel Pipes's think tank, the Middle East Forum, sponsors several important projects, such as Campus Watch, which seeks to expose "...the politicization and biases of Middle East studies in North American universities," as well as it providing a Campus Speakers Bureau and a Student Internship Program. Other projects include Islamist Watch, which tracks terror worldwide, and the Legal Project which seeks to protect researchers and analysts who report on "topics of terrorism, terrorist funding, and radical Islam, from lawsuits designed to silence their exercise of free speech. Some lawsuits have seemingly been undertaken to "...bankrupt, distract, intimidate, and demoralize defendants.
Blueprint for Israel Victory. While Richard Pipes's NSDD-75 was the blueprint for American victory in the Cold War, Daniel Pipes has developed a blueprint for the Israel Victory Project (2017, today the Forum's most high-profile campaign.) It calls for the defeat of the lost Palestinian cause to displace Israel, thereby shifting away from the thus far useless negotiations. "Conflicts generally end," he reasons, "when one side gives up."
Daniel Pipes argues that, ironically, the Palestinians would actually fare far better if they were defeated: they could end their fantasies of genocide and, like post-WWII Germany, finally start to build a constructive and flourishing civil society. Like his father, Daniel Pipes has encountered much resistance. His Israel Victory Project is not likely to prove an exception. A cool look at such a proposal will doubtless not be welcomed in many quarters.
He is apparently used to that. He has found himself barred from a NATO ally, Turkey, for speaking his mind. Addressing a think tank in Sofia, Bulgaria, in 2017, he was asked whether Turkey -- meaning its President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan -- was "a partner or a threat."
"I dare not go back to Turkey," he answered, "because I am critical, as you may have heard, of the government and, in particular, I supported the July 15th coup attempt [a position] which is absolutely an outrage in Turkey."
"Erdoğan," he explains elsewhere, "is an Islamist who initially played within democratic rules. As time wore on, however, he grew disdainful of those rules, specifically the electoral ones. He monopolized state media, tacitly encouraged physical attacks on opposition-party members, and stole votes."
Daniel Pipes then reports how he turned to the Turkish Ambassador: "And so, let me ask you, Mr. Ambassador, would it be it safe for me to go to Turkey and spend some time there or just go through the airport? ...Would I be safe going to Turkey?"
Kemal Ökem, replied, "If you say that you support the failed coup attempt... I would rather advise you not to go there because you be an accomplice, considered an accomplice. [laughter] ... I mean, I would advise you to find good legal advice before you travel to Turkey." [Emphasis added.]
Conclusions: To Richard Pipes, we shall be forever grateful for helping to debunk the "socialist" fantasies of many on the American left, who still often promote them, especially among the young. Radicals from the 1960s such as U.S. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders come to mind. In tracing Yakovlev's path from apparatchik autocrat, to supporter of reform communism, to genuine democrat, Richard Pipes envisaged that Yakovlev's path will hopefully be followed by new generations of Russian democrats.
To Daniel Pipes, we owe a cry of alarm that still has not been appreciated. The extent of America's infiltration by purveyors of Sharia law is still not recognized or even acknowledged. The previous U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, in fact, sought actively to snuff it. It has become even more difficult today to address such issues – as may well have been the plan from the start: to neutralize all discussion of Islam before it can even begin. Daniel Pipes has been labeled an "Islamophobe" by some ignorant Americans to whom Islamists are just another group of Lady Liberty's "huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Sadly, many of those masses seem to be just that. As can be seen in Europe however, a considerable number apparently are not.
In an on-line tribute to Richard Pipes on his 90th birthday, Richard was politely ridiculed by Soviet scholars and vilified by his American colleagues. Yet, as Yakovlev put it, "Pipes was basically right."
On one occasion, Richard's wife of 72 years, Daniel Pipes's mother, Irene, tall, still-beautiful, and a prominent supporter of Polish-Jewish publications, proudly added, "Daniel is also right."
*Dr. Jiri Valenta, a non-resident senior research associate with the BESA Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv, is a member the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations. He and his wife, Leni, a playwriting graduate of the Yale School Drama, spent two days with the late Alexander Yakovlev in 2000 reviewing his not-yet published memoir. Richard Pipes kindly revealed that they shared their private notes with him. In 2016 the Valentas published, "How Would Yakovlev Advise Putin Today on Ukraine and ISIS." Full disclosure: two of the Valentas' articles have been published in Daniel Pipes's Middle East Quarterly.
© 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.

Trump’s plan doomed if it fails to address East Jerusalem
Osama Al-Sharif/Arab News/May 19/ 2019
Members of the Israeli security forces walk past the Dome of the Rock in the Haram al-Sharif compound in the Old City of Jerusalem on July 27, 2017 as clashes erupted at the site after thousands of Muslim worshippers entered to end a boycott of the compound over new Israeli security measures. (File/AFP)
One of the most complex issues that threatens to derail the much-touted US plan to settle the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and beyond will be the fate of East Jerusalem. In fact, that very issue, which President Donald Trump and a few of his aides had naively suggested was off the table of negotiations following the White House’s unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December 2017, is likely to shoot down the US initiative even before it takes off.
The fate of East Jerusalem challenged the negotiators of the Oslo Accords back in the 1990s and it was designated as one of the final status issues, to be resolved at a later stage. When interlocutors dallied with the challenge again, especially the 2000 Camp David talks between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak, and again in 2008 between Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert, disparity over the future of East Jerusalem emerged as the main deal-breaker.
Pretending to take it off the table of negotiations will change nothing for Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims and the majority of nations. East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed soon after the 1967 war, will remain as the crux of the conflict. While negotiators may agree on land swaps in the West Bank, border lines, settlements, security and even the right of return for refugees, Jerusalem, and in particular the Old City, will remain the most insurmountable of final status issues.
The destiny of East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians insist is the capital of their future state, presents multifaceted political, legal and demographic challenges. Politically, it is at the heart of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and liberation; it always has been and will continue to be. No leader, not Arafat, Abbas or his successor, will agree to end the conflict if East Jerusalem’s fate is not settled. Without East Jerusalem, the Palestinians would lose the compass that has guided their struggle for generations.
The destiny of East Jerusalem presents multifaceted political, legal and demographic challenges.
Legally, East Jerusalem remains an occupied territory under international laws and UN resolutions. Its fate should be decided through negotiations and goodwill. And there are two main issues here: The status of the Old City with its holy Muslim and Christian sites, and the future of Arab neighborhoods outside the walled city. Decades of anti-Arab Israeli policies have tampered with the status of both in a bid to change the reality and enforce a new one.
In addition to legitimate Palestinian claims, Jordan also has a stake in the future of the Old City and its holy sites. Israel’s right-wing government has been testing Amman’s resolve over its custodianship of these Muslim and Christian holy places. Against all agreements and under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the government has been encouraging almost daily incursions into Al-Haram Al Sharif by Jewish zealots in a bid to force a new reality — one that allows sharing of the Muslim shrine with Jewish worshippers. Needless to say, these provocations threaten not only the shaky peace treaty between Jordan and Israel, but also massive Palestinian reaction, as we saw with the events of 2017.
Israel’s irresponsible disregard for religious sensitivities, both Muslim and Christian, underlines its inability to recognize Jerusalem as equally important to the followers of the three Abrahamic faiths.
Demographically, East Jerusalem remains mostly Arab, despite decades of persistent colonization by Israel and plots to expel Palestinians, the 350,000 of whom make up about 38 percent of Jerusalem’s total population. Despite Israel’s illegal annexation of the eastern part of the city, more than 95 percent of the Arab inhabitants are not Israeli citizens.
Israel has been intentionally biased against East Jerusalem’s Arab residents — failing to provide adequate services, denying them building permits, canceling their residency cards, discriminating against them in courts, and overtaxing them — in a bid to drive them out. Haaretz newspaper revealed last year that 75 percent of Palestinians in Jerusalem live below the poverty line, as opposed to 29 percent of the Jewish population. Still, the Israeli annexation of West Bank land as part of Greater Jerusalem is meant to play the demographic card by ensuring a Jewish majority.
The fate of East Jerusalem is not limited to territory, the Old City, holy places and legal jurisdiction. It is also about people, particularly generations of Palestinian residents. It is those residents, through their steadfastness, that continue to protect the identity and character of the eastern part of the city.
By ignoring these complex political, legal and demographic issues, the Trump peace team is guaranteeing the failure of its proposed plan. No final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians will come to pass without a fair resolution of the fate of East Jerusalem. This is not only the position of the Palestinians, but of 1 the billion-plus Muslims whose leaders will be meeting at the end of this month in Makkah for an Islamic summit. The message from there, over East Jerusalem in particular, will be resounding and resolute.
*Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman. Twitter: @plato010

US must not fall into Iran regime’s trap
Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami/Arab Bews/May 20, 2019
The Middle East is in the grip of high and escalating tensions, with observers expecting a fierce war to break out in the not-too-distant future, particularly given the increasing US military buildup in the Arabian Gulf region. Initially, most observers expect a small-scale strike against Iran’s proxy militias in Iraq or against the regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Recent days have seen angry statements from various senior Iranian regime officials. On Thursday, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, the chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, wrote on Twitter: “Increasing US military presence would lead the region to suicide (self-destruction). Thousands of non-Iranian fighters who have lost at least one member of their family by American weapons will welcome the United States and its allies.”
Despite such angry statements, Iranian officials still refuse to tone down their rhetoric, continuing instead to issue fiery statements and to make major threats against the US, Israel and the Arabian Gulf nations, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In recent remarks on Saudi Arabia, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said: “The Western nations are providing nuclear capabilities to this state, and have announced they will build a nuclear reactor and a center for producing missiles there. There is no problem as Saudi Arabia is a dependent state, and it belongs to the West. If they do this I won’t be annoyed because I know that they will be captured by the mujahideen soon.” It is clear that Khamenei was using the word “mujahideen” to refer to the militias loyal to the clerical regime in Tehran.
The threats that are heard now were first uttered by President Hassan Rouhani during a trip to Switzerland several months ago. His comments were welcomed by Khamenei and the commanders of the IRGC at the time, with various senior regime officials making a number of similar statements since.
The Iranian regime continues to pursue its policy of hiding behind its proxy terrorist militias that are spread across the region
As inferred by Khamenei, the Iranian regime continues to pursue its policy of hiding behind its proxy terrorist militias that are spread across the region, all of which implement the directives of the IRGC. Through this strategy, Iran avoids taking direct responsibility for the militias’ crimes, the most recent of which was the Houthis’ drone attack on Saudi oil facilities last week. The aim was to hike oil prices by disrupting supplies to the global market. This was a clear message from the clerical regime that, if Iran is prevented from exporting its oil, other regional countries will face the same problem.
The Iranian regime’s refusal to acknowledge its responsibility for these militias, along with the international community’s inaction toward their operations and inability to take the appropriate and necessary steps to curb their attacks, means Tehran will continue using the same strategy, which has a severely damaging effect on international safety and security. If the international community continues to turn a blind eye to these violations, it will inevitably lead the Middle East down a path toward dangerous options, which could lead to widespread destruction in the entire region, including in Iran. While the region’s countries are still honoring their commitments under global treaties and covenants, as well as pursuing policies of good neighborliness, the international community ignores Iran’s destabilizing actions and refuses to confront the regime.
The question that arises is whether the international community will perform its moral, security and military duty before it is too late? We hope so. The Iranian regime’s strategy of depending on militias requires a global response that is clear and direct, as well as focused on the proxy militias being an integral part of its apparatus and not separate from it. They are established, funded, armed and trained specifically to help Tehran implement its subversive agenda in the region. If the international community does not perform its duty and no global response is forthcoming, regional states could adopt more strident options based on reciprocity in order to force Iran’s leaders to reconsider their calculations. There is no doubt that this will be the first and least risky step, since the other options are more dangerous.
Meanwhile, the US and Israeli press have mentioned the possibility of both Switzerland and Oman mediating between Washington and Tehran to de-escalate tensions between the two countries. If any such mediation efforts are to pay off, it is vital that the resumption of negotiations be tied to practical steps on the ground by the Iranian regime as an expression of goodwill, while the negotiation period must be kept short to thwart any Iranian schemes to play for time.
The Iranian regime’s strategy is clear — it is based on procrastinating until the 2020 US elections in the hope of a more friendly president coming to power. In the meantime, the regime seeks to keep the door open for possible negotiations to ease sanctions and pressures as a tactical maneuver. Any efforts by the Trump administration to reach a better deal with Iran’s regime could result in Washington falling into Tehran’s trap, with Khamenei’s regime offering no substantial concessions.
Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami is Head of the International Institute for Iranian Studies (Rasanah). Twitter: @mohalsulami

Tehran to increase pressure on Gulf states and their oil
د.ماجد رافيزادا: تعمل طهران لزيادة الضغط على دول الخليج ونفطها
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/May 19/ 2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/75059/%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%AF-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84-%D8%B7%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B6%D8%BA/
Some policy analysts and politicians doubted that the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal would have any impact on Tehran’s economy. But, since the Trump administration quit the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action a year ago, the Iranian leaders have been under significant pressure.
In a short period of time, the ruling mullahs have seen a significant loss in revenues, since the US has imposed sanctions on the regime’s energy and financial sectors. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Iran’s oil exports may this month plunge to the lowest level in decades.
The Iranian authorities were hoping that oil prices would increase and compensate for the regime’s declining exports. But, to the regime’s dismay, prices have not increased substantially due to the fact that other oil producers have agreed to prevent any disruption by increasing their production and filling the vacuum in the market. As the IEA stated: “There have been clear and, in the IEA’s view, very welcome signals from other producers that they will step in to replace Iran’s barrels, albeit gradually in response to requests from customers.”
These developments have infuriated the Iranian authorities because Tehran cannot continue much longer without the required revenues from oil sales. The Iranian regime depends heavily on oil money to fund its spending. All signs show that it has already become extremely difficult for the authorities to continue funding, sponsoring and supporting its militias, proxies and terror groups across the Middle East.
In such a situation, what strategy will the Iranian leaders pursue?
Firstly, the theocratic establishment will likely attempt to target oil-producing states in the Gulf by disrupting their exports. The hardline Iranian newspaper Kayhan — whose editor-in-chief Hossein Shariatmadari is a close adviser and representative of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — clarified that not only the US but also Gulf states must be targeted. It said: “America is waging an economic war against us… the solution for us in this economic war with the enemy is to strike at the enemy that is taking a battle formation against our economy and businesses. In striking an economic blow to the enemy, we have open hands. The countries who depend on the US, or better say, the storekeepers of America’s oil are Saudis and the Emiratis.”
Iran generally resorts to asymmetric warfare by deploying its proxies and militias to accomplish its objectives.
In addition, Shariatmadari pointed to the exact tactics and locations Iran must utilize in order to target the “enemies” and inflict harm on their economies, without directly going into war with them. He wrote: “We must strike hard and deep at the oil export capabilities of these two countries (Saudi Arabia and the UAE). Oil is their economic artery. We can do this in the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. This is not something that would lead to a war… this solution is doable and safe, despite some calling it the prerequisite for war. Those who call it war should take a look at the common international theories and the US-Russia experience during the time that the world was divided between two poles, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.”
From the perspective of the Iranian regime, such a tactic would change the political calculation of Gulf states and tip the balance in its favor. “Such a move would undoubtedly drive the Saudis and the Emiratis to negotiate peace with us,” Kayhan summed up.
Iran generally resorts to asymmetric warfare by deploying its proxies and militias to accomplish its objectives. Just last week, two Saudi oil tankers and two oil pumping stations in Saudi Arabia were the target of Iran-backed militias. According to the Kingdom’s Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih, the former incident caused “significant damage” to the two tankers, one of which was due to be loaded with oil in Saudi Arabia to be shipped to the US. Al-Falih condemned the attacks in a statement and pointed to the repercussions that such acts can have. “The latest acts of terrorism and sabotage in the Arabian Gulf... not only target the Kingdom but also the security of oil supplies to the world and the global economy. These attacks prove again that it is important for us to face terrorist entities, including the Houthi militias in Yemen that are backed by Iran,” he said.
Iran has again issued threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, which nearly a third of the global oil supply traded by the sea passes through.
In a nutshell, as Iran’s oil exports and revenue continue to decline, the regime will likely ratchet up its aggression toward Gulf states and their oil shipments through its proxies and militia groups. The international community must hold the Iranian regime accountable for endangering regional security and the global economy, and unnecessarily increasing tensions in the region.
• Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman, and president of the International American Council. Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh

Iranian regime sets course for mutually assured destruction
بارعة علم الدين: النظام الإيراني يمهد لمسار مؤكد من التدمير المتبادل
Baria Alamuddin/Arab News/May 19/ 2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/75062/%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%87%D8%AF-%D9%84/
Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani recently traveled to Iraq and summoned together leaders of the Iran-affiliated Al-Hashd Al-Shaabi paramilitary forces. His message to them was crystal clear: Prepare for war.
According to US intelligence reports, Soleimani instructed Iraqi proxies to target American troops. A similar message was passed to Lebanese and Yemeni proxies, with Houthi rebels last week noisily proclaiming responsibility for drone strikes against Gulf oil pipelines. Iran was also inevitably behind sabotage attacks against oil tankers in Gulf waters, possibly via its proxies.
Most Western politicians I speak to are wholly ignorant of who Al-Hashd Al-Shaabi and its sister forces are. Officials with responsibility for Iraq radiated complacency that we shouldn’t worry about these paramilitaries, which a decade ago slaughtered more than 600 coalition troops. Hashd commander Hadi Al-Amiri — a Western diplomat reassured me — “is first and foremost an Iraqi nationalist.” How recently were we hearing similar platitudes about Hezbollah’s commitment to Lebanese sovereignty, stability and territorial integrity?
Yet, in recent days, Britain and the US have raised threat levels or scrambled to withdraw non-essential staff from embassies in Iraq, as intelligence reports belatedly acknowledged that these militias do indeed pose an immediate threat. Aviation companies were warned that overflying commercial airliners could be “misidentified.”
Tehran spooked US intelligence by loading rockets onto dhows circling in Gulf waters. Meanwhile, a large missile convoy was apparently the target of Israeli airstrikes against Damascus, renewing fears of conflict across Lebanon and Syria. With so many balls in play — even if Tehran doesn’t want war — a miscalculation could pitch these belligerent antagonists into mutually escalatory confrontation. US National Security Adviser John Bolton’s saber-rattling may leave America looking isolated, but NATO allies will rapidly fall into line when faced with Iranian provocations.
A Washington Post analysis concluded that Tehran had chosen the path of confrontation because “waiting out the Trump administration wasn’t working. Sanctions were squeezing too hard, and Trump looked as though he might be re-elected.” I hear observers comment how “cunning” the Iranians are in wreaking such mayhem and panic against the mighty Americans. By ruthlessly exploiting the limited means at its disposal, Tehran is indeed tactically very clever, but strategically exceedingly stupid and rash.
Iran is like a tiny bug provoking an aging and irascible sleeping lion, which will eventually extinguish its microscopic persecutor with a lazy swipe of its paw.
Yes, the Trump administration is ridiculous and incompetent in so many ways; yet Iran is like a tiny bug provoking an aging and irascible sleeping lion, which will eventually extinguish its microscopic persecutor with a lazy swipe of its paw. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif is gloating that his engagement with China and Russia has resulted in endorsements of good behavior concerning the nuclear issue, but will these states shield Tehran after it goads the American lion into hostilities?
Caught up in their own overheated rhetorical delusions of regional supremacy, the ayatollahs have never tried to hide their ambitions to deploy their transnational paramilitary mercenaries in the cause of regional dominance and striking Western interests. Soleimani hubristically declared: “The Red Sea is no longer secure for the American presence... Trump should know that we are nation of martyrdom and that we await him.”
Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal led to the unfreezing of tens of billions of dollars, with European multinationals queuing up to invest in Iran. Instead of pouring this fortune into the Syrian meat grinder and bankrolling regional militancy, Iran could have overhauled its economy and revolutionized its citizens’ well-being, bolstered by massive influxes of oil wealth. Yet this rogue regime only knows how to survive in a frenzied atmosphere of confrontation. Leaders who came of age amidst the Islamic Republic’s 1980s logic of “exporting the revolution” can’t resist frittering away their wealth, sponsoring militants to inflict anarchy and sectarian bloodshed upon neighboring nations.
Daesh was always highly skilled at getting itself into the news through gruesome and spectacular violence. Iran’s proxies are equally skilled at staying out of the media. Both Al-Qaeda and Shiite death squads were responsible for sectarian cleansing in Baghdad around 2006, yet Iran-backed entities were more systematic in murdering tens of thousands of civilians and terrorizing hundreds of thousands of Sunnis into exile. Within 18 months, they ensured that most of Baghdad’s 66 demographically mixed neighborhoods became exclusively Shiite. Yet it was Al-Qaeda that dominated the headlines thanks to its conspicuous and indiscriminate bombings that terrorized Sunnis and Shiites alike. After 2014, the world also conveniently ignored Hashd war crimes in the Sunni cities of Fallujah, Ramadi, Tikrit and Mosul — as long as this was all in the good cause of combating Daesh (although Hashd leaders left the toughest urban fighting to the regular army).
Donald Trump, who is desperate to avoid conflict, rejects perceptions that Bolton is steamrolling him toward war. The US president is reportedly pursuing communications channels to Tehran via the Swiss. A call by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to the Sultan of Oman may have had the same purpose. Trump deludes himself that the ayatollahs are on the verge of begging for talks; showing how little he understands Iran.
Centrists like President Hassan Rouhani and Zarif were undermined by Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal. Hardliners cite this as proof that America can’t be trusted. Iran’s political spectrum is thus united in vociferously defying renewed US pressures, making capitulation politically impossible — at least for now. Rouhani compared the hardship imposed by new sanctions to the ravages of the Iran-Iraq War. Just as Ruhollah Khomeini supped his “cup of poison” to end the 1980s conflict, the regime may be eventually forced to capitulate; but let’s remember that this previously took eight years of senseless bloody stalemate, leaving a million dead.
With Trump’s desperate pleas for talks, the 2018 closure of the US Basra Consulate (after being shelled by proxies), the draw-down of US staff in Baghdad, and the Syria pullout, this all looks to Tehran like proof that Americans respond to pressure by running away. They may interpret Trump’s obvious distaste for conflict, and policy disarray in Washington, as evidence that they can terrorize the US president into a humiliating U-turn; just as Kim Jong Un can nowadays run rings around America and continue testing missiles, while Trump proclaims undying love and friendship (having earlier threatened to rain down “fire and fury” on Pyongyang). US officials promise zero tolerance for Iranian provocations but, after failing to respond to attacks on Gulf shipping and oil infrastructure, Tehran has clearly noticed that the emperor in Washington is wearing no clothes.
Yet, in this explosive and unpredictable status quo, Iran’s hubristic stupidity in deploying paramilitary assets to goad and provoke the Americans can ultimately only end with Tehran being reduced to rubble and the region again being caught in the crossfire.
The world can no longer feign ignorance about the proxy paramilitary threat. There is no peace for the Middle East as long as these regionalized militia hordes are wielded like a sword above our heads. Decisive action must be taken by the international community to curtail this militant menace, before Tehran’s kamikaze regime and a war-crazed Bolton set us on a course of mutually assured destruction.
**Baria Alamuddin is an award-winning journalist and broadcaster in the Middle East and the UK. She is editor of the Media Services Syndicate and has interviewed numerous heads of state.