LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
October 11/2019
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.october11.19.htm

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

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

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on October 10-11/2019
Betrayal Of the Kurds In Syria: What a Shame On Trump, The Arab Countries and the European Union
Aoun, Berri meeting concludes at Baabda palace
Berri from Baabda: We’ll convene emergency committee if 2020 budget solutions are delayed
Public schools to open their doors to non-Lebanese students as of Monday
Lebanon Speaker: Proposal on Amending Electoral Law is Negotiable
Hezbollah threatens Europe with Syrian refugees
Report: International Institutions Criticize Lebanon’s Ability
Aoun Says Turkey Op 'Dangerous Development', Slams 'Financial Siege, Sanctions'
Hariri Denies UAE ‘Surprise’ is $1.4 Billion BDL Deposit
Union of Bakery Owners to Hold a Strike Against ‘Unmet’ Pledges
Jreissati Replies to Criticism over Trash Sorting Plants
Lebanese Cabinet Inclined to Approve Elderly Pension, Customs and Tax Laws
Ibrahim Says Firing Stray Bullets into the Sky Requires State Action

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on October 10-11/2019
Syrian Kurdish official warns of ISIS jail break
Syrian Kurdish Official: Turkish Attack Helps ISIS Detainees Escape
Turkish troops and Syrian rebels encircle two SDF-held towns: Rebel spokesman
Europeans on UN Security Council demand Turkey halt Syria offensive
Turkish offensive will not go beyond 30 km into Syria: FM
NATO ally Norway suspends new arms exports to Turkey
Six people killed, 70 wounded in SDF shelling of Turkish border towns
Turkey arrests online critics of Syria operation
More than 60,000 displaced by Turkey assault on Syria: Monitor
Erdogan Threatens EU with Refugee Influx
Syria Kurds Say SDF Fighters Repelling Turkish Ground Forces
Arab League to Hold Emergency Talks on Turkey's Syria Offensive
Syria Kurds Say Prison Housing IS Fighters Hit by Turkey
Libya: Tit-for-Tat Attacks on Aircraft
Indonesia's Security Minister Wounded in Stabbing by Suspected ISIS Radical
Egyptian Interior Ministry Denies Explosions in Cairo, Warns of Disorder
Iran Frees Detained Russian Journalist
Hamdok Pledges to Carry Out Radical Reforms to Attract Foreign, Arab Investments
Netanyahu: Israel ponders pre-emptive operation to prevent Iranian cruise missile strike
UK and Irish Leaders to Meet in Bid to Break Brexit Stalemate
North East Syria, the Inconsequences of Trump’s Policy Making and its Incriminating Sequels

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on October 10-11/2019
Betrayal Of the Kurds In Syria: What a Shame On Trump, The Arab Countries and the European Union/Elias Bejjani/October 10/2019
Hezbollah threatens Europe with Syrian refugees/Georgi Azar/Annahar/October 10/2019
Netanyahu: Israel ponders pre-emptive operation to prevent Iranian cruise missile strike/DEBKAfile/October 10/2019
Boris Johnson's Bold Brexit Proposal/Malcolm Lowe/Gatestone Institute/October 10/2019
Turkey Flooding Europe with Migrants/Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute/October 10/2019
For an ‘Iraqi’ and ‘Arab’.. Not an ‘Iranian’ Iraq/Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al-Awsat/October 10/2019
Analysis/The Seeds of Trump’s Abandonment of Syrian Kurds Were Sown by Obama/Elizabeth Tsurkov/Haaretz/October 10/2019
Opinion/Trump Is Complicit in Erdogan’s Ethnic Cleansing/Simon A. Waldman/Haaretz/October 10/2019
Analysis Turkey’s War on the Kurds: Quick Conquest or Quagmire?/Zvi Bar’el/Haaretz/October 10/2019
Are We Nearing a Stage Where Iran and Saudi Arabia Are Liable to Begin Negotiating?/Michaell Young/Carnegie Middle East/October 10, 2019
Putin’s Russia should not be underestimated/Cornelia Meyer/Arab News/October 10/2019
U.S. Pullout Is a Boon for Assad/Jonathan Spyer/Jerusalem Post/October 10/2019
Turkish assault aggravates Middle East tensions/Talmiz Ahmad/Arab News/October 10/2019
Iran hopes to ensure a Trump defeat in 2020/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/October 10/2019

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on October 10-11/2019
Betrayal Of the Kurds In Syria: What a Shame On Trump, The Arab Countries and the European Union
Elias Bejjani/October 10/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/79349/elias-bejjani-betrayal-of-the-kurds-in-syria-what-a-shame-on-trump-the-arab-countries-and-the-european-union/
History will throw in its Dustbin all those world leaders and politicians who either conspired and worked openly or covertly against the Syrian Kurds, or kept silent and did not take a courageous, loud and ethical stance in regards to the criminal Turkish invasion.
What is important and meaningful are the practical acts and not the rhetoric words.
What could make a difference is actually what is going on the ground, in the battlefield and not in the comfortable offices.
On the ground Erdogan’s Turkish Army is viciously invading North Syria in a bid to terrorise and subdue the Syria Kurds and if needed in accordance to his schemes to massacre them.
Erdogan’s invasion is taking place, while Mr. Trump, Europe and all the Arab countries are fighting him back rhetorically by mere words and empty statements.
Their rhetoric empty statements are meaningless and definitely would not stop the invasion, but on the contrary are blessing and hailing it.
Simply and as all the world is sadly witnessing Mr. Trump and the West did not only betray and abandon the Kurds in North Syria, but also conspired against them with no shame or gratitude.
They all with not even one exception gave a green light to the Turkish dictator, Erdogan to freely slaughter the Kurds and conquer their Syrian homeland.
In conclusion words and statements are not what the Kurds want and need and definitely all those world leaders who betrayed the Kurds in Syrian will end in the Dustbin of history.

Aoun, Berri meeting concludes at Baabda palace
NNA - Thu 10 Oct 2019
The meeting between President of the Republic, Michel Aoun, and House Speaker, Nabih Berri, concluded a while ago at the Baabda presidential palace, NNA correspondent reported.

Berri from Baabda: We’ll convene emergency committee if 2020 budget solutions are delayed
NNA - Thu 10 Oct 2019
House Speaker, Nabih Berri, indicated that he agreed with President Michel Aoun to convene the emergency committee which was formed on September 2 if solutions to the 2020 budget issue are delayed beyond next week.
Speaking from Baabda palace, Berri said he held "excellent" talks with President Aoun, that touched on the current financial and monetary situation in the country.

Public schools to open their doors to non-Lebanese students as of Monday
NNA - Thu 10 Oct 2019
The Ministry of Education and Higher Learning announced in a statement that Lebanon's public schools will open their doors to non-Lebanese students as of forthcoming Monday, October 14, allowing more than 150,000 foreign pupils to attend afternoon classes. The statement was issued by Minister Akram Shehayeb following his meeting yesterday (Wednesday) with UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator Philippe Lazzarini, UNICEF Deputy Representative to Lebanon Violet Warnery, and UNHCR Representative Mireille Girard.

Lebanon Speaker: Proposal on Amending Electoral Law is Negotiable
Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 10 October, 2019
Lebanese Speaker Nabih Berri has underlined the importance of a proposal submitted by his Development and Liberation parliamentary bloc on a new electoral law. He noted Wednesday that the proposal was subject to negotiations and amendments. “The proposal is full and complete, and is also negotiable,” Berri was quoted as saying. MP Ali Bazzi said following the bloc’s weekly meeting that the speaker wondered what had become of the 2020 state budget, “especially that the government and the concerned ministerial committees had held multiple meetings” in this regard. A statement said that Berri’s bloc discussed most recent political, financial and economic developments in the country, in addition to the items on the agenda of the upcoming legislative session, which Berri set on Oct. 15. On the current economic and social situation, the bloc renewed its support for the Lebanese people “in their defense of their daily livelihoods and social stability by all democratic forms and means guaranteed by law and the Constitution, in a manner that does not affect public order and does not tamper with civil peace.”The Development and Liberation bloc “highly valued efforts exerted by the presidency, and banking and trade unions, which have succeeded to a certain extent in curbing deterioration and confusion in the financial markets.”

Hezbollah threatens Europe with Syrian refugees
Georgi Azar/Annahar/October 10/2019
BEIRUT: In an attempt to draw European support for Lebanon as it grapples with financial unease, Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raed threatened the bloc with the sensitive issue of Syrian refugees. "All we have to do is wave the card of Syrian refugees and all the European countries will kneel before us," Raed said Tuesday, mirroring the comments of Turkish President Recep Erdogan who threatened to reopen the route for refugees and migrants into Europe if he does not receive adequate international support. Lebanon has been reeling under the burden of a protracted Syrian refugee crisis since 2011, which reached 1.5 million displaced persons at its climax, straining the country's deteriorating infrastructure and further aggravating an already weakened economy. Lebanon currently has the highest concentration of refugees per capita in the world - 1 million amid a Lebanese population of nearly 5 million according to estimates.
Lebanon is facing an austerity plagued year as it deals with soaring public debt, estimated at around 150 percent of GDP, coupled with a massive budget deficit and high unemployment.  Demonstrations have increased in recent weeks, as disgruntled citizens vent their frustrations with the government.
Throughout the year, Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil has led the campaign calling for the return of refugees, often using nationalist language, while rallying international assistance for Lebanon. The government has also intervened, shutting down shops owned by or employing Syrians without permits and ordering the demolition of anything in refugee camps that could be a permanent home. Last year, Lebanon secured $11 billion in soft loans and grants to revamp its infrastructure but the funds have yet to see the light of day as it fails to meet the requisite conditions, including slashing its deficit to around five percent of GDP.
- With AP

Report: International Institutions Criticize Lebanon’s Ability to Reform
Naharnet/October 10/2019
Following the “clarification” statement of the World Bank Group a few days ago urging reform of Lebanon’s troublesome energy sector, the bank has directly reaffirmed through its senior officials to Lebanese officials the importance of “immediately” initiating the required reform steps, al-Joumhouria daily reported on Thursday. The bank said its key for Lebanon to restructure its electricity sector and appoint the EDL regulatory authority and board members. The bank said any reform would be meaningless if Lebanon fails to regulate this sector which is causing 30 percent of the country’s state deficit, said the daily.
According to well-informed sources, the Bank's repeated advice has been accompanied by serious warnings from major international economic and monetary institutions. The sources said that “Lebanese officials have heard from international officials what can be considered high-pitched advice that the opportunity is still available to Lebanon, but it may run out if not grabbed as it should.”A senior official at a major international financial institution, speaking to members of the Lebanese economic community, expressed deep indignation at what he described as "the incomprehensible evasion by Lebanese authorities of trying to save their country,” the daily said quoting the source who spoke on condition of anonymity. “For years we have been expressing our willingness to help Lebanon, but unfortunately we have not yet seen any response. We have directly criticized Lebanese officials, and we told them that we really fear that the Lebanese do not want to save their country,” said the source.

Aoun Says Turkey Op 'Dangerous Development', Slams 'Financial Siege, Sanctions'
Naharnet/October 10/2019
President Michel Aoun on Thursday described Turkey’s military operation against Kurdish militants in northeast Syria as a “dangerous development in the war’s course in Syria.”“Lebanon is following up on the developments and it hopes that they won’t have repercussions on Syria’s unity and the situation of Syrian refugees,” Aoun told U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo in a meeting in Baabda. “The negative repercussions of the presence of Syrian refugees in Lebanon are negatively affecting its situations,” Aoun added. “Lebanon’s plight from the growing numbers of Syrian refugees is being aggravated by the financial siege and the sanctions, which are affecting the banking sector in particular and the economic situations in general, knowing that Lebanese banks are abiding by all the instructions and regulations and their banking operations are under the direct supervision of the central bank,” the president went on to say.

Hariri Denies UAE ‘Surprise’ is $1.4 Billion BDL Deposit
Naharnet/October 10/2019
Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Thursday denied a media report claiming that the United Arab Emirates intends to deposit $1.4 billion at Banque du Liban as part of a support package for Lebanon. “The MTV channel has quoted sources as alleging that the surprise that PM Hariri has spoken of might involve a $1.4 billion deposit at BDL without interest,” Hariri’s press office said in a statement. “The press office would like to stress that this report is totally baseless and untrue, and it urges everyone to halt speculations that might harm the positive results of PM Hariri’s successful visit to the UAE,” the office added. Hariri had on Tuesday announced that “the Emiratis have promised to make investments and offer Lebanon financial aid.”“Efforts are underway to fulfill the promise,” Hariri told reporters as he wrapped up an official visit to the UAE. “We are negotiating with them over the investments that they wish to make in the various sectors, in addition to financial investments in some banks or the central bank,” Hariri added. The UAE had on Monday announced that it will allow its citizens to again go to Lebanon, ending a yearslong ban on travel to the country. Emiratis had been banned from traveling to Lebanon over kidnapping fears amid neighboring Syria's civil war. The UAE also opposes Lebanon’s Iranian-backed Hizbullah. The announcement came during Hariri’s visit to the UAE. The premier is seeking financial support for Lebanon, which is going through an economic crisis. The country faces one of the highest debt ratios in the world, at $86 billion or more than 150% of the country's gross domestic product.

Union of Bakery Owners to Hold a Strike Against ‘Unmet’ Pledges
Naharnet/October 10/2019
The Union of Bakery owners announced a strike Monday "if no positive developments take a place."Head of the Union, Kazim Ibrahim said: “We don’t mean to starve the people,” pointing out that baker owners are selling their merchandise in Lebanese pounds but pay retail wheat merchants in dollars.
Ibrahim’s remarks came during the Union meeting that protested the government's unmet pledges to facilitate access to dollars for importers of petroleum products, wheat and medicine. Lebanon's central bank issued guarantees earlier in October to secure U.S. dollars for local banks at the fixed official rate that would cover imports of fuel, wheat and medicine, a move aimed at easing the demand for dollars amid a worsening economic crisis. The central bank said the imports of gasoline, wheat and medicine it would secure hard currency for are "only for local consumption." The move will cover only imports into Lebanon amid reports that gasoline and wheat are being smuggled to neighboring war-torn Syria, which is under U.S. and European sanctions. Last week, $1 could be purchased for 1,650 Lebanese pounds at exchange shops, after the currency had been stable at 1,500 to the dollar since 1997. Although the official price is still pegged at 1,500 pounds to the dollar, people find it difficult to get hard currency at this rate from local banks.

Jreissati Replies to Criticism over Trash Sorting Plants
Naharnet/October 10/2019
Environment Minister Fadi Jreissati on Thursday responded to criticism after telling citizens not to complain if they do not embark on sorting waste at home. “Sorting from source has become a law according to law 80 and is enshrined by decree 5605/2019 like the traffic law,” said Jreissati in a televised press conference. The Minister stressed that sorting garbage at home is the first step towards a comprehensive solution to tackle Lebanon’s long standing trash management problem. He assured that the entire Lebanese regions now have waste sorting plants unlike criticisms claiming otherwise. “It is not true that the state is not working. For the last four months, we have been training municipalities to sort at source,” he stressed. Encouraging Lebanese citizens to put their efforts with the State’s, he said: “It serves first and foremost the health and pocket of every Lebanese citizen.”

Lebanese Cabinet Inclined to Approve Elderly Pension, Customs and Tax Laws
Naharnet/October 10/2019
Prime Minister Saad Hariri chaired Thursday a cabinet meeting on the 2020 draft budget. “The Cabinet discussed all the proposals sent by the financial and economic reform committee. There is a positive inclination to approve the elderly pension law, the customs law and the tax law as soon as possible,” Information Minister Jamal al-Jarrah said after the session. “There is a study about the associations that take contributions from the state, to check which of them are useful and serve society, so that they continue to get contributions. For those that do not work, the contribution of the state will be reduced or canceled. The fuel spending for all state institutions and administrations in general was reduced,” Jarrah added. He said: “The Council of Ministers will hold a session at 4 pm next Monday and the reforms committee could hold a session before it. The issue of retirement has also been discussed and studies will be done on retirement and deductions. A decision was taken to place scanners at customs crossings to control the smuggling of goods into Lebanon. There is an almost complete agreement on laws on public procurement, tax liability, customs and elderly pension. Some figures in the budget were completed today.”

Ibrahim Says Firing Stray Bullets into the Sky Requires State Action
Naharnet/October 10/2019
General Security Chief Major General Abbas Ibrahim stressed on Thursday that celebratory gunfire in Lebanon is a “crime” requiring the State's action, the National News Agency reported on Thursday. “Celebratory gunfire is a crime because it threatens the lives of innocent people and requires an action by the Lebanese State,” said Abbas in remarks at a workshop entitled "Addressing the issue of celebratory gunfire in Lebanese events". “The media and municipalities have has a role and must shed the light on this crime because everyone is concerned,” Abbas said. “Celebratory gunfire is not a phenomenon, but a danger. Gunfire shooters are killers,” he added. Firing stray bullets into the air to celebrate holidays, wedding events and even during funerals is a popular deadly practice in Lebanon.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on October 10-11/2019
Syrian Kurdish official warns of ISIS jail break
Reuters, Beirut/Thursday, 10 October 2019
A senior Kurdish official warned on Thursday that ISIS extremists could break out of prisons in northeast Syria as fighting intensifies between Kurdish-led forces and Turkey. Badran Jia Kurd told Reuters the number of security forces guarding the militants will dwindle as Turkish forces step up an offensive they launched at the border on Wednesday. US officials have worried ISIS detainees would seize on such an opportunity for a prison break. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) hold thousands of the militants in prisons and tens of thousands of their relatives in camps, many of them foreigners. With the Kurdish YPG militia at its forefront, the SDF defeated extremists across much of north and east Syria with US air and ground support. “This attack will definitely reduce and weaken the guarding system for those Daesh militants in the prisons,” Jia Kurd said, using the Arabic acronym for ISIS. “This could lead to their escape or to behaviors that may get out of the control of the security forces,” added Jia Kurd, adviser to the Kurdish-led authority in the SDF region. “The number of forces guarding the prisons is reduced the more the battles intensify. This poses a grave danger.”The SDF says it has 70,000 foreigners in custody from around 60 nationalities, including militants, their wives and children, on top of thousands of detained Syrian and Iraqi fighters. Kurdish leaders have said they do not have the resources to bear this burden alone, pleading with governments to take their citizens back but most have turned a blind eye. US officials have said as many as around 2,000 of the ISIS e militants in detention are foreigners. A US official said the US military took custody on Wednesday of two high-profile British ISIS militants that the SDF was holding and moved them out of Syria. The official said the individuals were being held in a secure location but offered no further details.Turkey’s offensive into northeast Syria kicked off days after US forces withdrew from part of the border, opening up a dangerous new phase in Syria’s more than eight-year-old conflict.

Syrian Kurdish Official: Turkish Attack Helps ISIS Detainees Escape
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 10 October, 2019
A top Syrian Kurdish official said on Thursday that Turkish attacks weaken the ability of security forces in northeast Syria to guard prisons holding ISIS detainees. Badran Jia Kurd told Reuters that this may lead to the escape of militants and that the number of prison guards is reduced as fighting with Turkey intensifies. His remarks came after the Syrian Kurdish-led authorities accused Turkey of shelling a prison holding militants of more than 60 nationalities, calling this "a clear attempt" to help them escape.There was no immediate comment from Turkey.
The shelling on Wednesday night targeted part of Chirkin prison in the city of Qamishli, the Kurdish-led authorities said in a statement. "These attacks on prisons holding ISIS terrorists will lead to a catastrophe the consequences of which the world may not be able to handle later on," the statement said.

Turkish troops and Syrian rebels encircle two SDF-held towns: Rebel spokesman
Reuters/Thursday, 10 October 2019
Turkish troops and allied Syrian rebels have now encircled two border towns in northeast Syria held by Kurdish forces after a ground offensive that seized several villages around them, a spokesman for the rebels said on Thursday. Major Youssef Hamoud said the two towns of Ras al-Ain and Tel Abyad were now encircled after the Turkish army aided by fighters of the Syrian opposition group known as the National Army seized several villages around them. The two towns where Arab tribes are the majority of its inhabitants are a main goal of the Turkish military campaign to oust Kurdish-led fighters who control its area and where Ankara says it wants to set up a so-called safe zone.

Europeans on UN Security Council demand Turkey halt Syria offensive
AFP/Thursday, 10 October 2019
The five European members of the UN Security Council called Thursday for Turkey to halt its offensive against Syrian Kurdish forces. “We are deeply concerned by the Turkish military operation in northeast Syria,” the countries – France, Germany, Britain, Belgium and Poland – said in a joint statement after an emergency meeting. “We call upon Turkey to cease the unilateral military action.”

Turkish offensive will not go beyond 30 km into Syria: FM
Reuters/Thursday, 10 October 2019
Turkey’s incursion will not go further than 30 km into northeast Syria, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Thursday, as Turkish forces pressed on against Kurdish fighters on the second day of the operation. Speaking to broadcaster CNN Turk, Cavusoglu said that the security threat which Turkey says it faces from the presence of Kurdish fighters on its border would be eliminated if the area was cleared of militants. “When we go 30 km deep in the safe zone, terror there will be removed,” he said.Cavusoglu also said Turkey had the right to use air space over Syria as part of its campaign. “We have the right to use that air space,” he said. “That air space does not belong to the United States. It has no right to control that air space.”Cavusoglu also warned on Thursday that Turkey would retaliate if the United States imposed sanctions over its military incursion into northeast Syria, which is targeting Kurdish fighters backed by Washington. Ankara could face sanctions under proposals put forward by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and a Democrat colleague, which would target President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and top officials.

NATO ally Norway suspends new arms exports to Turkey
AFP/Thursday, 10 October 2019
Norway, a NATO ally of Turkey, announced Thursday it was suspending all new arms exports to the country after Ankara launched a military offensive against Kurdish forces in northern Syria. “Given that the situation is complex and changing quickly, the foreign ministry as a precautionary measure will not handle any new demands for exports of defense material or material for multiple uses... to Turkey,” Norwegian Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Soreide said in an email sent to AFP. She added that the ministry would also review all licenses for arms exportation that have already been issued. Syria’s Kurds, who were the West’s allies in the fight against ISIS, were battling Thursday to hold off a Turkish invasion as thousands of civilians fled air strikes and shelling that deepened fears of a humanitarian crisis and raised international alarm. Finland, which is not a member of the NATO alliance, announced on Wednesday the suspension of all new arms exports to Turkey or any other country involved in the fighting.

Six people killed, 70 wounded in SDF shelling of Turkish border towns
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English/Thursday, 10 October 2019
The death toll from Kurdish shelling of Turkish towns has risen to six people dead and 70 wounded, Al Arabiya’s correspondent on the ground reported. Earlier in the day, three people, including a child, were killed on Thursday in mortar fire that was fired from Syria to the Turkish border town of Akcakale, hospital and security source say. Seventeen people were wounded after rockets and mortar shells fired from Syria hit places in towns on the Turkish side of the border on Thursday, an Al Arabiya correspondent said. State-owned Anadolu news agency said the shells, believed to have been fired from areas controlled by a Kurdish militia in Syria being targeted by Turkish forces, hit sites in the Turkish towns of Akcakale, Birecik, Ceylanpinar and Nusaybin.Syrian state media also reported that clashes are taking place between Syrian Democratic Forces and Turkish forces in Tell Halaf n the Al Hasakah governorate of northeastern Syria.

Turkey arrests online critics of Syria operation
AFP, Istanbul/Thursday, 10 October 2019
Turkish police arrested more than 20 people on charges of “terrorist propaganda” on Thursday over their criticism of a military offensive launched against Kurdish forces in Syria. The head of opposition news site Birgun, Hakan Demir, was detained for “inciting the people to hatred and enmity” after it reported there had been civilian casualties in the offensive, which was launched on Wednesday. The government denied civilians had been hurt in its strikes on Kurdish militant positions in northern Syria. Demir was later released but had his passport confiscated. Police arrested 21 people in the Kurdish-majority city of Mardin in southeastern Turkey for “terrorist propaganda”, according to state news agency Anadolu. They had already announced that 78 cases had been opened against individuals nationwide.
Meanwhile, Ankara’s chief prosecutor said cases had also been opened against the leaders of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), Sezai Temelli and Pervin Buldan, and other members of the party. They had described the military operation as “an invasion” in a statement, and Temelli maintained his position on Thursday, saying it was an act of “aggression” and “attempted occupation.” Turkey launched “Operation Peace Spring” on Wednesday against the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, which it considers a “terrorist” offshoot of Kurdish insurgents in its own territory. Criticism of military operations in Turkey is fiercely taboo, with even opposition parties required to praise them. Turkey arrested online critics during previous offensives against Kurdish forces in Syria, accusing them of “terrorist propaganda.”Rights groups criticize the erosion of free speech under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, particularly in the wake of a failed coup in 2016 which was followed by tens of thousands of arrests of political opponents.

More than 60,000 displaced by Turkey assault on Syria: Monitor
AFP, Beirut/Thursday, 10 October 2019
Turkey’s military offensive on northeastern Syria has displaced more than 60,000 people in less than a day, a war monitor said Thursday. “Since Wednesday, more than 60,000 people fled border areas,” the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, adding that most of the displaced travelled east towards the city of Hasakeh. Rami Abdel Rahman, the head of the Britain-based monitor, said the biggest displacement was from the border areas of Ras al-Ain, Tal Abyad and Derbasiyeh. The Turkish military, supported by Syrian proxies, launched an offensive against Kurdish-controlled areas in northeastern Syria on Wednesday, despite widespread international warnings. After an initial phase of air strikes and artillery fire, troops moved across the border and attacked some of the key towns in the area. Ankara aims to create a buffer about 30 kilometers deep in Syria territory in which to send back some of the 3.6 million Syrians who found refuge on Turkish soil since the start of the war in Syria in 2011. Humanitarian organisations warned that this latest episode in the deadly eight-year-old conflict could once again have disastrous consequences on civilian populations. “An estimated 450,000 people live within five kilometers of the Syria-Turkey border and are at risk if all sides do not exercise maximum restraint and priorities the protection of civilians,” a joint statement said. The text signed by 14 humanitarian organisations warned that large numbers of civilians could soon be cut off from the vital aid they had been receiving.
“The life-saving humanitarian response will be threatened if instability forces aid agencies to suspend or relocate their programing and staff, as is already happening,” said the statement. Among the organisations that signed the appeal were several of the largest aid providers in the area, including the Norwegian Refugee Council and Mercy Corps. In a separate statement, the Save The Children charity warned of “an impending humanitarian disaster.” It emphasized the risks facing the children among the latest wave of displacement, which includes thousands of people who had already been uprooted multiple times since the start of the war. “With winter around the corner, they will face additional challenges as they search for shelter,” Save The Children said. Turkish forces are expected to move deeper into Syria, and the International Rescue Committee warned Wednesday that the operation could displace up to 300,000 people.

Erdogan Threatens EU with Refugee Influx
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 10 October, 2019
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned the EU on Thursday that Ankara would allow millions of refugees to head to Europe if the bloc criticized Turkey's military offensive in Syria. "Hey EU, wake up. I say it again: if you try to frame our operation there as an invasion, our task is simple: we will open the doors and send 3.6 million migrants to you," Erdogan said in a speech to parliament. Turkey launched an operation into Syrian territory on Wednesday, aimed at combating Kurdish fighters. Erdogan said 109 "terrorists" had been killed so far in the operation. "We have a message to those who were forced to join the YPG (Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units) ranks: If you leave now... our arms are wide open," he said. Turkey currently hosts 3.6 million refugees from the eight-year conflict in Syria -- the highest number in the world. Under a 2016 agreement with the EU, Turkey agreed to prevent refugees from leaving towards Europe in exchange for six billion euros and visa-free travel for its own citizens. But it has frequently criticized Brussels for being slow in providing the money and not doing more to help with the broader refugee problem. "You have never been sincere," Erdogan said, addressing the EU. "Now they say they will withhold three billion euros from us. Have you ever kept any promise you gave us so far? No."One of Ankara's aims for the military operation is to establish a "safe zone" in which at least one million Syrian refugees can be repatriated, after the long-term presence of refugees became an increasingly political liability.

Syria Kurds Say SDF Fighters Repelling Turkish Ground Forces
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 10 October, 2019
Turkish ground forces pressed their advance against Kurdish fighters in northern Syria on Thursday, Turkey's Defense Ministry said, launching airstrikes and unleashing artillery shelling on Syrian towns and villages the length of its border. But a Kurdish-led group and Syrian activists claimed that despite the heavy barrage, Turkish troops had not made much progress on several fronts they had opened over the past hours. Heavy clashes are under way in Syrian border villages between advancing Turkish forces and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) soldiers, an official in the Kurdish-led SDF said. "Fierce clashes are continuing in the villages that (Turkish forces) are trying to enter," said Marvan Qamishlo, an SDF media official. Residents of the border areas scrambled in panic on Wednesday as they tried to get out on foot, in cars and with rickshaws piled with mattresses and a few belongings. It was a wrenchingly familiar scenario for the many who, only a few years ago, had fled the advances on their towns and villages by ISIS. Turkey began its offensive in northern Syria on Wednesday with airstrikes and artillery shelling, before ground troops began crossing the border later in the day. US troops pulled back from the area, paving the way for Turkey's assault on Syrian Kurdish forces. The Kurds, who have been America's only allies in Syria fighting ISIS, stopped on Thursday all their operations against the extremists in order to focus on fighting advancing Turkish troops, Kurdish and US officials said. The Turkish Defense Ministry statement did not provide further details on the offensive but shared a brief video of commandos in action. The ministry said Turkish jets and artillery had struck 181 targets east of the Euphrates River in Syria since the incursion started. Mustafa Bali, an SDF spokesman, said their fighters have repelled Turkish forces ground attacks. "No advance as of now," he tweeted Thursday. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Turkish troops tried to push ahead on several fronts under the cover of airstrikes and artillery shelling but made no tangible progress. The Observatory said that since Turkey began its operation, seven civilians have been killed.

Arab League to Hold Emergency Talks on Turkey's Syria Offensive
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 10/2019
The Arab League is convening an emergency meeting on Saturday to discuss Turkey's offensive against Kurdish forces in Syria, the body said Wednesday. Following a request by Egypt, the region's foreign ministers will gather in Cairo on October 12 "to discuss Turkish aggression on Syrian territory", Hossam Zaki, the League's assistant secretary-general, said in a statement late Wednesday. The announcement came after Turkey launched airstrikes and artillery fire along the border with war-torn Syria earlier in the day, drawing international condemnation.  Backed by Syrian militants, it pushed on with a ground offensive in Tal Abyad, an area under the control of the Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG). Ankara's attack follows an abrupt US policy shift which saw America withdraw its troops from positions in northern Syria, effectively greenlighting Turkey's military operation. Zaki deemed the offensive "an unacceptable assault on the sovereignty of an Arab member state exploiting its situation... and violating international law".In another statement earlier Wednesday, the League warned that the burgeoning attack "could help Daesh (the Islamic State group) regain some of its force".

Syria Kurds Say Prison Housing IS Fighters Hit by Turkey
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 10/2019
Syria's Kurds said Thursday that Turkish bombardment had hit a prison they use to house captured Islamic State group fighters, despite Ankara's pledge to do nothing to undermine the campaign against the jihadists. "The Turkish regime... targeted a section of the Jerkin prison," in the Kurdish-majority city of Qamishli in the northeast, the region's autonomous Kurdish administration said. "The prison houses some of the most dangerous criminals from more than 60 countries, who committed all kinds of crimes when they were members of the IS group," it added. The Kurdish authorities have repeatedly talked up the threat they say Ankara's offensive poses to the US-led campaign against the jihadists. One of the beleaguered Kurds' last hopes is that the prospect of IS prisoners breaking out and regrouping with increasingly active sleeper cells will spur the world into action. But the Kurdish administration made no mention of any breakout from Jerkin prison and the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Turkish "artillery fire" hit the "vicinity" of the prison, and not the facility itself. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who were the principal ground partner in the US-led campaign against IS now hold thousands of captured jihadist fighters in jails across the northeast. Thousands of their relatives are also being held in Kurdish-run camps, where they have stabbed security forces, assaulted aid workers, and attempted to escape.

Libya: Tit-for-Tat Attacks on Aircraft
Cairo - Khalid Mahmoud/Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 10 October, 2019
Heavy clashes erupted Wednesday in the town of Azizia, 40 km south of Tripoli, amid tit-for-tat downing of aircraft between forces of Government of National Accord (GNA) and Libya’s National Army (LNA), led by Khalifa Haftar. Commander of the “Volcano of Rage” operations room, Major General Ahmed Abu Shahma, said the forces had downed an LNA warplane, west of Sabratha after it tried to land in al-Watiya airbase. Abu Shahma indicated that they targeted Haftar's forces on al-Tawaisha and Qasir Benghashir front-lines, adding that the forces also clashed with a number of Russian mercenaries on al-Azizia front-line. Meanwhile, Media Center of the LNA's Dignity Operations Room said it defenses shot down a reconnaissance plane in al-Azizia, stressing that the airforce launched strikes to target militias in the vicinity of Gharyan and Azizia front. The Center described statements of GNA forces about its victory in Tripoli as “mere fabrications,” asserting that their defeat is evident. The statement noted that Dignity Operations' forces are stationed on all axes and continue to advance. In other news, the head of GNA Fayez al-Sarraj demanded that all countries concerned with Libyan affairs, without any exclusion, should be invited to the conference that Germany plans to host for a peaceful solution to the Libyan crisis. According to a statement distributed by his office, Sarraj held a meeting with the head of the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) Ghassan Salame, and his deputy for political affairs, Ambassador Stephanie Williams, during which they discussed the ongoing consultations to hold a conference in Berlin. Sarraj also reiterated his determination to defeat the “aggression”, uphold national constants, and commit to building a democratic civil state. He also stressed the need to hold perpetrators responsible for war crimes and human rights violations against civilians. UNSMIL announced that Salame and Williams visited Sarraj to discuss the latest developments in Libya. “Salame briefed Serraj on the Mission’s efforts to stop the war & resume the political process as the only means to solve Libya's crisis.”For his part, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said his special representative Salame is working with all local, regional, and international partners to prevent an escalation of violence and support the return to the political process in the country. In other news, Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, UN Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator for Libya, Yacoub El-Hillo, strongly condemned all attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Libya. Two days ago, air strikes injured several children at the Equestrian Club in the Janzour neighborhood of Tripoli. The following day, a field hospital in Gaser Ben Gasher neighborhood was attacked, resulting in the death of one doctor and injury of two paramedics. Hillo stressed that attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure violate international humanitarian law. He urged international parties with influence in Libya to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and to do everything possible to protect civilians, especially children

Indonesia's Security Minister Wounded in Stabbing by Suspected ISIS Radical
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 10 October, 2019
An attacker allegedly "exposed to ISIS radicalism" stabbed Indonesian security minister Wiranto as he was stepping into a vehicle during a visit in Banten province Thursday, leaving two deep wounds, police said. "Someone approached and attacked him. The local police chief and Pak (Mr) Wiranto were injured," National Police spokesman Dedi Prasetyo said of the attack in Pandeglang on Java island, adding that a man and a woman had been arrested. Television images showed security officers wrestling the couple to the ground outside a local university after the attack on 72-year-old Wiranto, who like many Indonesians goes by one name. Berkah Hospital spokesman Firmansyah said the former military general suffered "two deep wounds", but was conscious and in stable condition, adding that he would be rushed to the capital Jakarta and may need surgery.

Egyptian Interior Ministry Denies Explosions in Cairo, Warns of Disorder
Cairo- Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 10 October, 2019
The Egyptian Interior Ministry denied on Wednesday rumors that explosions took place in different areas in Cairo. It said in a statement that no explosions took place, asserting that the situation is calm amid intensive security deployment in all areas.
The Ministry also warned of “hostile channels” aimed at provoking disorder and chaos in Egypt. It called on Egyptians and social media users to be check the credibility of news before spreading and circulating false information that aims to provoke panic among people. It is noteworthy that the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera channel has claimed that explosions targeted different areas in Cairo. On the other hand, the Cairo Criminal Court decided to postpone the re-trial proceedings of 73 defendants in the case of breaking up Rabea al-Adaweya sit-in to a hearing session on November 4. The court had previously issued a decision to execute 75 Muslim Brotherhood (MB) leaders in a the case of breaking up Rabea al-Adaweya armed sit-in during a trial that involved 739 accused MB members and loyalists. According to the probe, the defendants committed crimes of organizing and participating in an armed gathering in Rabea al-Adaweya Square, blocking roads, restricting people’s freedom of movement during the period between June 21 till August 14, 2013. They were also accused of premeditated murder of citizens and police forces in charge of breaking up their sit-ins and deliberately disrupting means of transport.

Iran Frees Detained Russian Journalist
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 10 October, 2019
Iran has released a Russian journalist, who has been detained for nearly two weeks, and she was on her way to Moscow, Russia's embassy in Tehran said on Thursday. Yulia Yuzik, 38, was arrested in Tehran last week. An Iranian government spokesman said she was being held over alleged visa violations but the Russian embassy said she had been accused of working for Israeli security services. "As a result of joint efforts of the Russian foreign ministry and the Russian embassy in Tehran, Iran decided to release Russian citizen Yulia Yuzik," the embassy said on Twitter. Journalist Boris Voitsekhovskiy, identified by Russian media as Yuzik's ex-husband, said on Facebook that she had landed in the Russian capital. Russia summoned the Iranian ambassador last week to clarify the circumstances of the arrest. Yuzik has worked for a number of prominent publications including the Russian version of Newsweek. She has written two books including "Beslan Dictionary", based on testimony from survivors of the 2004 school massacre that claimed at least 330 lives, more than half of them children. She had earlier posted photographs from her trip on Instagram, saying she loved being in Iran.

Hamdok Pledges to Carry Out Radical Reforms to Attract Foreign, Arab Investments
Khartoum - Mohammed Amin Yassin & Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 10 October, 2019
Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok pledged to stabilize economic policies, carry out radical reforms in investment laws and remove obstacles facing foreign investors. On the sidelines of his visit to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Hamdok highlighted the obstacles facing Gulf investments in Sudan
Hamdok and his accompanying delegation discussed bilateral relations with both countries, said spokesman of the Sudanese government Faisal Mohammed Saleh. Saleh noted that the talks focused on the economic situation in Sudan, describing the visits as positive. In press statements on Wednesday, the spokesman said Hamdok held a successful meeting with Saudi investors, during which they discussed the economic situation in Sudan. Hamdok also listened to the investors’ complaints on the unstable economic policies and obstacles facing them in regards to investment laws. “The Prime Minister promised Saudi and UAE investors to remove all these obstacles and reform laws in various fields of investment," he said. In an interview with Sky News Arabia on Tuesday, Hamdok stressed that aids provided by brotherly countries will contribute to solving the economic distress Sudan has been suffering. He noted that these aids will also allow his country to import raw materials, such as fuel, wheat, medicines and fertilizers in the short term, and in the long term will help it solve its economic issues. “We want to create an attractive environment for investment in Sudan, and we will develop laws to reassure investors,” Hamdok explained. He added that his country has begun restructuring the body responsible for investment, which is the Investment and Competitiveness Council, pointing to Sudan’s need for investments in infrastructure and agricultural sector. Hamdok affirmed that his government is striving to create added value in the Sudanese economy and expressed his ambition that its relationship with other countries could develop into investments since his country has the required potentials.

Netanyahu: Israel ponders pre-emptive operation to prevent Iranian cruise missile strike
DEBKAfile/October 10/2019
Israel’s quandary over whether to launch a pre-emptive strike to deter Iran from a missile assault, like its attack on Saudi Arabia, was revealed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Thursday, Oct. 10, at a memorial ceremony for the fallen in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. The pre-emptive option is very rarely mentioned publicly by the prime minister, who also serves as defense minister. This time, it indicated that Israel may decide not to wait for an attack before initiating a preventive strike against missile bases in Iran, where preparations are going forward to launch those weapons against Israel.
DEBKAfile’s military sources add: The IDF chiefs who attended the ceremony are fully aware that a preventive operation on those bases would unleash an all-out Israel-Iran missile and drone war that could go on for weeks or months, with deadly escalations. Iran’s satellites, Hizballah in Lebanon, Iraqi Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq and the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, would play active roles in this conflict.
Netanyahu went on to assert that, while we do note aspire to stand alone, we must remember our situation in the 1973 war when US assistance arrived only when it was nearly over. Today, too, while we appreciate the important US assistance, which has gained in recent years, and the immense economic pressure the US clamps on Iran, “at the same time, we must never forget to apply this fundamental guideline: Israel will defend itself with its own forces against any threat.”The IDF, he said, is fully prepared to stand up to any threat, whether by defensive or offensive action. “We are armed with overwhelming strength in weaponry and spirit. That is the immensely valuable legacy bequeathed to us by the generation that fought in the Yom Kippur war.”DEBKAfile: The prime minister may have derived encouragement for his fighting speech from the events leading up to the Turkish operation in northeastern Syria on Wednesday, Oct. 9. Ankara, Washington and Moscow were in close consultation ahead of this operation, but Tehran was strictly excluded.

UK and Irish Leaders to Meet in Bid to Break Brexit Stalemate
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will on Thursday meet his Irish counterpart for last-ditch Brexit talks, with just days left to strike an EU divorce deal and both sides blaming each other for an impasse. Johnson will sit down with Ireland's leader Leo Varadkar at an undisclosed location in northwest England for crunch conversations following several days of recriminations over the failure to find a compromise. "The prime minister and the Taoiseach will meet tomorrow at lunchtime in the north west of England to discuss Brexit," a spokesperson for Johnson's Downing Street office said, referring to the Irish leader.
"This will be a private meeting to allow both leaders and their teams to have detailed discussions."Several media reports said the pair will meet in Liverpool, which has strong connections to Ireland, including freight and ferry services between the two countries which could be severely impacted by a so-called hard Brexit. The talks come with time running out to sign off on any agreement at an October 17-18 European Union summit, ahead of Britain's scheduled departure from the bloc at the end of the month after nearly five decades of membership. Johnson has vowed Britain will leave on October 31 with or without a deal -- despite MPs passing a law last month that requires him to seek another Brexit delay if he fails to secure a pact at the summit. Varadkar told Ireland's parliament Wednesday that he would work "until the last moment" to get a deal, but added: "certainly not at any cost". After days of trading increasingly bitter accusations of inflexibility, Britain and the EU appear to be intensifying diplomacy in a late bid to find a breakthrough. Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay will meet his EU counterpart Michel Barnier in Brussels on Friday, with the visit put back 24 hours following Johnson's hastily arranged meeting with Varadkar. "We've put forward serious proposals and have been willing to be flexible. Now it's time for the EU to do the same," Barclay said. But Barnier struck a downbeat tone Wednesday, telling the European Parliament that "we're not on the point of envisioning and finding a deal".
Johnson and Varadkar are expected to focus their discussions on the contentious Northern Irish border, which has proved the key sticking point in the three years of tortuous Brexit negotiations. Johnson claims his proposals provide a new way to avoid a hard border between British province Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland after Brexit. It would take the province out of the EU's customs union but keep it largely aligned with the bloc's "single market" standards and regulations. The British leader's plans would also see Northern Irish politicians given a vote every four years on maintaining the agreed arrangements. Brussels is adamant it will not agree to any plan that undermines the single market or leaves Ireland exposed, and that hands hardline unionists in the north a veto.

North East Syria, the Inconsequences of Trump’s Policy Making and its Incriminating Sequels
New York Times/October 10/2019
The Turkish offensive against the Syrian Northeastern territory, and the hollow rhetoric of President Trump testify, once again, to the utter recklessness of the US President, his lack of strategic acumen, and the erratic political course he made possible. This impromptu decision is ill timed, incoherent and totally blind to the disastrous outcomes of the ongoing Turkish aggression. This is a non calculated solipsistic move acted by a President who has no sense of political priorities, constitutional and situational constraints, consensual decision making and the need for a calibrated and coordinated policy crafting. How would he take such an ill advised decision at a time of profound political crisis internally, and engage a malevolent dictator who is determined to upend the political dynamics in his country and the region, in order to strengthen his grip at both ends.
The paradoxes of this Presidency are evolving at a pace which questions its overall political projections and consistency. The forecasted causatum of the Turkish military aggression is wreaking havoc in a region which fails to stabilize, evolve endogenous reformist undertakings, and overcome the pitfalls of its deep seated ethno-religious fractures, well entrenched authoritarianism and corollary violence. The competing power rivalries have immediately resurfaced, the downfall of the Rojava is going to rekindle the momentum of Islamic totalitarianism, its genocide-prone civil wars and cortège of human tragedies, destroy the Kurdish autonomy, and jump start a new wave of international terrorism with thousands of terrorists on the loose.
The short sighted electoral calculations of President Trump, ensuing political imbroglios and heedless fallouts are inevitably going to change the internal political dynamics in the USA, and prompt the Republicans to reconsider their alignment behind the President, recover their autonomy, force him to back down on his disastrous policy course, and issue an immediate ultimatum to Erdogan assorted with proportionate retorsions. The forthcoming hours are decisive to forestall the ongoing debacle, rein in Trump’s irrationality, forestall humanitarian tragedies and redress the strategic imbalances. The case for the impeachment is likely to become a joint claim and elicit a new political course, since the Ukrainian egregious political blunder matched with the thoughtless political move in Northeastern Syria are fatal mistakes that impel major political revisions, and a sense of patriotism which transcends partisan politics and its skewed sense of political and civic priorities. Otherwise, The U.S has to restore its international leadership, remand its damaged credibility among its allies and coalition members and reengage the World Community on its basis.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on October 10-11/2019
Boris Johnson's Bold Brexit Proposal
Malcolm Lowe/Gatestone Institute/October 10/2019
It must be acknowledged that Johnson's proposal for a replacement Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland has evident merits. But if EU leaders do agree – even against expectations – that Johnson's proposal is the way forward, why rush to complete all the legal complexities of that agreement in a few days instead of gratefully accepting an extension of time in order to let a good job be done?
If Johnson's approach does not get off the ground, the UK could still fall back to one last attempt to leave without no-deal. It is to demand a change to Article 20 of the original Protocol, the so-called "Backstop," such that instead of enduring for ever unless both sides agree to terminate it, the Protocol will endure for only an initial year, but can be renewed annually if both sides agree to continue it. If the EU refuses even this minimal demand, then it will have made it clear to the UK government, Parliament and the public that no-deal is indeed the UK's only way of escape.
In the turbulent weeks since Boris Johnson became prime minister of the United Kingdom, he has registered his first comparative success with his proposal for a change in Theresa May's Brexit deal.
In the turbulent weeks since Boris Johnson became prime minister of the United Kingdom, he has registered his first comparative success with his proposal for a change in Theresa May's Brexit deal. On the one hand, he has forced the EU negotiators to abandon their adamant refusal hitherto to reopen the wording of that deal; on the other, his proposal – with its firm emphasis upon the UK's essential interests – has united almost all Conservative MPs behind it.
The contrast with his previous missteps is striking. There was his unprecedented, unlawful and unnecessary attempt to prorogue Parliament for a whole month instead of the customary few days. This, in turn, prompted opponents of a no-deal Brexit to rush through legislation on the one day left before the prorogation: the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019, which orders Johnson to request from the EU a deferral of the looming Brexit day from October 31 to January 31 if there is still no agreed Brexit deal on October 19. Johnson then expelled from the party 21 Conservative MPs who voted for that legislation – also unprecedented in recent times. Remember that dozens of Conservatives, including Johnson himself twice, had voted against May's deal earlier in the year, yet she did not even think of punishing them. With their expulsion, moreover, Johnson lost a majority in the Commons for anything.
What can be the explanation? Maybe it depends on whom Johnson listens to. Those missteps involved advisors in Johnson's office, the naïve Nikki da Costa and the cunning (but not so clever) Dominic Cummings. A different team, led by David George Hamilton Frost, prepared the Brexit proposal.
How We Got Here
Let us briefly recall where we are. After the election of June 2017, Theresa May's Conservative government lacked a majority in the Commons and made an agreement with the ten MPs of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland (DUP) in order to survive. Her major task was to implement the referendum of June 2016, in which the public voted by 17.41 million against 16.14 million to leave the European Union. Negotiations resulted in a Brexit deal in November 2018, consisting of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA, 584 pages + index) and the Framework for the Future Relationship (FFR, 26 pages).
This deal failed to pass the Commons three times because the DUP voted against it along with a number of Conservative MPs (34 the third time round on March 29, 2019). Opposition centred on the so-called "Backstop" (Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, 174 pages), a part of the WA designed to prevent the emergence of a hard border between the two parts of Ireland during negations to turn the FFR into a full-scale treaty defining future relations between the UK and the EU. May secured an extension to the deadline for leaving the EU from March 31 to October 31, 2019, but later resigned. The Conservative Party national membership chose Boris Johnson to replace her. He became Prime Minister promising to leave the EU on October 31 with or without a deal.
As things stand, Johnson cannot leave without a deal. The Act mentioned above not only orders Johnson to request a further Brexit extension if no deal is agreed by October 19; it even specifies the wording of the letter that he is required to deliver to Brussels. The EU will likely grant the extension, because on September 18 the European Parliament already approved it in principle by a very large majority (544 to 126 with 38 abstentions).
Johnson's advisors, led by Dominic Cummings, are seeking for loopholes whereby he can evade the Act. These are the same advisors who concocted the unlawful prorogation. Should he follow their advice, the issue will again go to the Supreme Court, which is likely to take a much more severe view of the matter than even in its Judgment on the prorogation. Johnson could be found "in contempt of Parliament," for which an offender normally goes straight to prison. We hope that Johnson will not follow that path, but we saw how Johnson followed those advisors from one misstep to another.
Indeed, Johnson has claimed paradoxically that he will both obey the law and never request the EU for an extension. A way out of the paradox seems to be forming. EU officials have said that, from their viewpoint, they do not need to receive the request from Johnson in person; any authorized representative of the UK will suffice. It is surmised that if Johnson's refusal to implement the Act is taken to the Supreme Court, the Court can order a civil servant of sufficient seniority to take the request to the EU for an extension of the deadline.
That this may be the way forward is suggested by a government lawyer's statement to a court in Scotland on October 4: the prime minister accepts "he is subject to the public law principle that he cannot frustrate its purpose or the purpose of its provisions. Thus he cannot act so as to prevent the letter requesting the specified extension in the act from being sent." (The newspaper headlined this story "Johnson will write to EU requesting article 50 extension, court told." But the enigmatic "so as not to prevent the letter..." suggests the continuation "brought by whomever.")
Johnson's Five Elements
So does Johnson have a viable approach to obtaining a fresh deal with the EU before the middle or even the end of October? At first he said that he could accept all of May's deal, provided that the EU agreed to remove the "Backstop" from the WA. Obviously, the excision without replacement of 174 pages of the WA was an impossible demand.
Soon after he became PM, Johnson, during quick visits to European leaders, obtained a concession from some, notably German Chancellor Merkel, that if he could formulate a plausible alternative to the Backstop, the EU should consider it. The EU negotiating team reluctantly agreed. Reluctantly and amazingly, because up to then the EU negotiators had insisted relentlessly that not a word of the WA could be changed; only changes to the accompanying FFR could be envisaged. It is astonishing to think that if the EU had shown even a minimal readiness to consider just small changes to the WA ten months ago, when Theresa May was PM, the UK might have left the EU on the original deadline of March 31.
Now Johnson has sent a 40-page document to the EU which defines his proposal for a new Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. An accompanying letter to Jean-Claude Juncker, outgoing President of the European Commission, summarized the proposal as "five elements":
First and foremost, our proposal is centred on our commitment to find solutions which are compatible with the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. This framework is the fundamental basis for governance in Northern Ireland and protecting it is the highest priority for all.
Second, it confirms our commitment to long-standing areas of UK/Ireland collaboration, including those provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, but also others, in some cases predating the European Union: the Common Travel Area, the rights of all those living in Northern Ireland, and North/South cooperation. These were set out in the previous Protocol and should be maintained in the new one.
Third, it provides for the potential creation of an all-island regulatory zone on the island of Ireland, covering all good including agrifood. For as long as it exists, this zone would eliminate all regulatory checks for trade in goods between Northern Ireland and Ireland by ensuring that goods regulations in Northern Ireland are the same as those in the rest of the EU.
Fourth, this regulatory zone must depend on the consent of those affected by it. This is essential to the acceptability of arrangements under which part of the UK accepts the rules of a different political entity. It is fundamental to democracy. We are proposing that the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly should have the opportunity to endorse those arrangements before they enter into force, that is, during the transition period, and every four years afterwards. If consent is not secured, the arrangements will lapse. The same should apply to the Single Electricity Market, which raises the same principles.
Fifth, and finally, under these arrangements Northern Ireland will be fully part of the UK customs territory, not the EU Customs Union, after the end of the transition period. It has always been a fundamental point for this Government that the UK will leave the EU customs union at the end of the transition period. We must do so whole and entire. Control of trade policy is fundamental to our future vision.
Good News and Not So Good
The good news is that there is a better prospect of obtaining a majority in the Commons for Johnson's version of the Protocol. The DUP is in favour of it and so are all, or almost all, of the Conservative MPs who voted against Theresa May. Johnson will need the support of the Conservative MPs whom he expelled, though he has not welcomed them back into the party. In the meantime, the 21 have dwindled to 17, since four of them in disgust (along with a fifth Conservative MP) have decided never to return. So whereas, had he not expelled them, he could have had a ready majority, now he will have to hope that a few Labour Party MPs will vote for his proposal, although Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has denounced it.
The bad news is that while EU negotiators have not rejected Johnson's proposal out of hand, the most favourable response from any of them was Juncker's statement that the proposal included "positive advances" while still containing "problematic points." Most negative was Guy Verhofstadt, head of the European Parliament's Brexit steering group, who described the proposal as "not a serious attempt at reaching a deal but an effort to shift blame for failure to Brussels."
An intermediate position was taken by chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier, who said publicly that the proposal should be taken seriously but is reported to have said privately that "The EU would then be trapped with no backstop to preserve the single market after Brexit." This report is strange. Johnson's third "element" would apply the EU single market ("regulatory zone") to the whole island of Ireland. His fourth "element" would make the single market subject to initial approval, and then renewal every four years, by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, but approval is guaranteed because the DUP has already agreed to Johnson's proposal.
Whether Johnson's proposal is taken up seriously, however, will depend not on the EU negotiators but on the EU leaders, who are due to hold a summit on October 17. The only one to react so far was Irish PM Leo Varadkar, who caused annoyance in the UK not merely by his cold reception of the proposal but by claiming that the UK public now wants to remain in the EU:
"All the polls since Prime Minister Johnson became prime minister suggest that's what the British people actually want, but their political system isn't able to give them that choice."
Like so many politicians who quote polls selectively and misleadingly in their own favour, Varadkar is half-right and half-wrong. What the polls show is a very complex state of public opinion that cannot be summed up in a slogan, as we noted previously. A majority of interviewees constantly agree that the UK must leave because of the referendum. They may even agree that a no-deal Brexit is better than a Corbyn government, but this is like asking San Franciscans whether a tornado is better than an earthquake. (When asked in a poll, only 22% said that a no-deal Brexit was their top preference.) Yet, when asked how they would have voted if the referendum had been held not in 2016 but today, a long series of polls conducted from 2016 until today shows that on most occasions "Remain" had a lead over "Leave," albeit by fluctuating percentages and with large numbers of "Don't know/undecided."
It must be acknowledged that Johnson's proposal for a replacement Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland has evident merits. We just do not understand why he nevertheless insists that negotiations with the EU on its acceptance must finish by October 31. That might make some sense if EU leaders do not agree, by their summit on October 17, to take his proposal seriously and to seek an agreement based on it. But if EU leaders do agree – even against expectations – that Johnson's proposal is the way forward, why rush to complete all the legal complexities of that agreement in a few days instead of gratefully accepting an extension of time in order to let a good job be done?
On the other hand, the case against a no-deal Brexit is much stronger than is admitted by its cheerful champions, such as Nigel Farage. (His recent article in the Daily Telegraph is entitled: "Boris Johnson's Brexit plan is an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. Far better to walk away now.") The Bank of England has warned against expected long-term damage to the UK economy, to which one must add entirely unforeseen disruptions of unpredictable magnitude. Add to this also sudden recent indications of a recession in the UK economy, where the FTSE 100 lost £87.6 billion (4.7% of its value) in four days to October 3, annulling a recovery that had begun in mid-August. The possible causes of a recession include not merely Brexit uncertainty but also new worldwide factors, such as US President Trump's decisions to raise tariffs sharply both on Chinese merchandise and on EU merchandise. What if the very grounds on which the champions of no-deal feel so cheerful vanish exactly around October 31?
An Alternative Approach
To understand what Johnson is proposing, we must go back to the original Protocol in the WA of November 2018 and remember what its role was meant to be. Article 1.4 of the Protocol emphasized that "the provisions of this Protocol are intended to apply only temporarily." Consequently, says Article 2.1: "The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours to conclude, by 31 December 2020, an agreement which supersedes this Protocol in whole or in part."
The problem discerned immediately by many MPs was therefore Article 20 of the Protocol, which says that the Protocol "shall cease to apply, in whole or in part," only when "the Union and the United Kingdom decide jointly within the Joint Committee that the Protocol, in whole or in part, is no longer necessary to achieve its objectives." In other words, "temporarily" means for as long as the EU (or the UK) refuses to replace the Protocol with any alternative.
(The "Joint Committee" referred to here is defined in Article 164 of the WA as a body "comprising representatives of the Union and of the United Kingdom" and "co-chaired by the Union and the United Kingdom," with the purpose of being "responsible for the implementation and application" of the WA. It can take decisions only by consensus.)
Moreover, as long as "temporarily" continues, Article 6 of the Protocol specifies that "a single customs territory between the Union and the United Kingdom shall be established." This prevents, or at best heavily restricts, the UK from entering into advantageous trade deals with countries outside to EU for as many years as the EU chooses to let "temporarily" continue.
Johnson's new Protocol is then, firstly, an immediate jump to a virtually permanent replacement for the "temporary" original Protocol (since automatic renewal by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly can be taken for granted, as we pointed out). Second, according to Johnson's fifth element, "Northern Ireland will be fully part of the UK customs territory, not the EU Customs Union, after the end of the transition period." Article 126 of the body of the WA specifies that the transition period shall "end on 31 December 2020," so the UK's complete freedom to enter into trade deals with countries outside the EU can begin right then.
Johnson and his team are to be congratulated on this cutting of the Gordian knot and their defence of the UK's just and vital interests. But what if the EU leaders either reject Johnson's approach outright or, more likely, prevaricate in an attempt to whittle away those interests of the UK? We think that there is still one alternative approach to be tried before the UK is reluctantly pushed into no-deal.
This approach is based, first, on the fact that EU leaders have obliged the EU negotiators to abandon their insistence on the impossibility of changing the WA. Second, there have also been rumours that some EU countries, including Germany and France, are considering the addition of a time limit to Article 20: the Protocol would expire automatically after several years. That is, a change that would ensure that "temporarily" cannot mean "forever."
Several years, however, is too long for the maintenance of a customs union with the EU that cripples the UK's ability to enter into trade deals with other countries. Rather, if Johnson's approach does not get off the ground, the UK could still fall back to one last attempt to leave without no-deal. It is to demand a change to that Article 20 of the original Protocol, the so-called "Backstop," such that instead of enduring for ever unless both sides agree to terminate it, the Protocol will endure for only an initial year, but can be renewed annually if both sides agree to continue it. This would end the justified fear that somehow the UK could remain trapped in the Protocol – and in the EU – indefinitely.
Indeed, we have already formulated a possible wording for such a change (see here and here), using the precise terminology employed elsewhere in the WA:
"The application of this Protocol shall end after twelve months unless the Joint Committee decides to extend its application in whole or in part. The extension shall last for a period of not more than twelve months and any further extensions shall likewise require a decision of the Joint Committee and last for a period of not more than twelve months."
That is, if the negotiations on the Framework for the Future Relationship between the UK and the EU are making progress, then both sides will readily prolong the application of the Protocol because it is in their joint interest. But if the negotiations collapse irreparably, the Protocol will automatically lapse within not more than one further year.
Note that Article 20 occupies a mere page and a half of the Withdrawal Agreement, but is the ultimate insuperable stumbling block to acceptance of the entire document. Changing it in the way described is both a minimal change of the document and the very minimum over which the UK cannot compromise. If the EU refuses even this minimal demand, then it will have made it clear to the UK government, Parliament and the public that no-deal is indeed the UK's only way of escape.
There is one more piece of advice that Johnson should take, if he hopes to continue on a successful track. It is to learn from his colleague Jacob Rees-Mogg that it is possible to formulate an elegant and compelling argument while never reviling an opponent but rather showing respect for whoever disagrees with oneself. (A composite video of Rees-Mogg in action is here.)
Johnson's first session of Prime Minister's Questions in the Commons was marked by the hurling of ludicrous epithets ("chlorinated chicken," "great big girl's blouse") at the Leader of the Opposition, making Corbyn – who was regularly refuted by Theresa May – look better for once. In his speech to the Conservative Party Conference, Johnson derided the very institution of Parliament before the public, potentially an invitation to mob rule. When opposition MP Paula Sherriff begged him to tone down his rhetoric because she and others were getting death threats, his response was the mere cliché "I have never heard such humbug in my life!" Following that, she received five more death threats, 1,000 abusive messages and two police visits (to discuss her security). All this echoes the style of Dominic Cummings and is the very contrary of the style of Rees-Mogg. The exit of the UK from the EU, possibly without a deal, requires a PM whose language seeks a maximum of national unity and the elimination of mutual hostility.
In the meantime, the readiness of EU leaders to consider a time limit to the Protocol has turned into an unofficial counterproposal to Johnson's proposal. Unfortunately, the counterproposal contains exactly the same fault as the original Protocol. The suggestion is to allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to vote after three or four years on whether to end the application of the Protocol, but to make the vote conditional on the agreement of both Unionists and Republicans in the Assembly. Once again, this is a procedure in which two sides must agree to terminate the Protocol, whereas what is needed is to require agreement by both sides to continue the Protocol, without which the Protocol will automatically lapse.
*Malcolm Lowe is a Welsh scholar specialized in Greek Philosophy, the New Testament and Christian-Jewish Relations.
© 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.

Turkey Flooding Europe with Migrants
كورين سورين/معهد كايتستون: تركيا تغرق أوروبا بالمهاجرين
Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute/October 10/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/79362/%d9%83%d9%88%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%86-%d8%b3%d9%88%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%86-%d9%85%d8%b9%d9%87%d8%af-%d9%83%d8%a7%d9%8a%d8%aa%d8%b3%d8%aa%d9%88%d9%86-%d8%aa%d8%b1%d9%83%d9%8a%d8%a7-%d8%aa%d8%ba%d8%b1%d9%82-%d8%a3/
The Greek government has said that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan personally controls the migration flows to Greece and turns them on and off to extract more money and other political concessions from the European Union. In recent months, the Turkish government has repeatedly threatened to open the floodgates of mass migration to Greece, and, by extension, to the rest of Europe.
"If they [the European Union] do not give us the necessary support in this struggle, then we will not be able to stop the 3.5 million refugees from Syria and another two million people who will reach our borders from Idlib." — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
"If we open the floodgates, no European government will be able to survive for more than six months. We advise them not to try our patience." — Turkish Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu.
More than six million migrants are believed to be waiting in countries around the Mediterranean to cross into Europe, according to a classified German government report leaked to the newspaper Bild... More than three million others are waiting in Turkey.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other members of his government have repeatedly threatened to flood Europe with migrants. On September 5, Erdoğan said that Turkey plans to repatriate one million Syrian migrants to a "safe zone" in northern Syria and threatened to reopen the route for migrants into Europe if he does not receive adequate international support for the plan: "This either happens or otherwise we will have to open the gates." Pictured: Erdoğan speaks at the UN on September 24, 2019. (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)
Greece has once again become "ground zero" for Europe's migration crisis. More than 40,000 migrants arrived in Greece during the first nine months of 2019, and more than half of those arrived during just the past three months, according to new data compiled by the International Organization for Migration (IOM).
The surge in migrant arrivals to Greece during the third quarter of 2019 — 5,903 arrivals in July; 9,341 in August; and 10,294 in September — has coincided with repeated threats by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other members of his government to flood Europe with Muslim migrants.
Although the number of migrant arrivals to Greece is still far below the number of arrivals at the height of the migration crisis in 2015, when more than a million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East poured into Europe, the recent surge in newcomers suggests that Erdoğan's threats to resume mass migration are becoming a reality.
In March 2016, European officials negotiated the EU-Turkey Migrant Deal, in which the EU offered Turkey a series of economic and political incentives in exchange for a pledge by Ankara to halt the flow of migrants from Turkey to Greece.
European officials, negotiating in great haste, promised Turkey more than they were able to deliver — in particular a controversial pledge to grant visa-free travel to the European Union for all of Turkey's 80 million citizens.
Since the agreement's entry into force, Turkey and the EU have accused each other of failing to honor key parts of the deal, and Erdoğan has repeatedly threatened to allow potentially millions more migrants to pour into Greece.
In practice, the EU-Turkey deal substantially reduced the flow of migrants from Turkey to Greece. As a result, migration routes shifted westward from Greece to Italy, which in 2016 replaced Greece as the main point of entry for migrants seeking to reach Europe.
After former Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini announced hardline immigration policies in June 2018, the number of arrivals to Italy fell dramatically — from 119,369 in 2017 to 23,370 in 2018, a drop of 80%, according to the IOM.
As a result of Italy's clampdown on illegal immigration, the migration flows to Europe shifted farther westward to Spain, which in 2018 replaced Italy as Europe's main gateway for illegal migration. More than 65,000 migrants arrived in Spain during 2018, according to the IOM.
The resurgence of mass migration from Turkey to Greece, however, has reverted Greece to its previous role as the main European gateway for mass migration. Greece received twice as many migrants during the first nine months of 2019 as did Spain, according to the IOM.
Greece received more migrants — 25,538 — between July and September than in the first six months of the year combined. The migrant flows have jumped by almost 180%, from an average of 100 arrivals per day during the first half of 2019, to an average of 277 arrivals per day during the third quarter.
The Greek government has said that Erdoğan personally controls the migration flows to Greece and turns them on and off to extract more money and other political concessions from the European Union. In recent months, the Turkish government has repeatedly threatened to open the floodgates of mass migration to Greece, and, by extension, to the rest of Europe.
On February 19, Erdoğan claimed that Turkey had spent $37 billion caring for displaced Syrians since 2011, and accused the EU of not doing enough to shoulder the burden. He added that if the 3.6 million Syrians in Turkey cannot be repatriated, they will end up in Europe.
On June 22, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said that Turkey had suspended a bilateral migrant readmission agreement with Greece because Athens released eight Turkish soldiers who fled to Greece after the July 2016 failed coup in Turkey. Ankara has demanded they be extradited, but Greek courts have rejected the request. The soldiers have denied wrongdoing and say they fear for their lives.
On July 21 Turkish Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu accused European countries of leaving Turkey alone to deal with the migration issue. In comments published by the state news agency Anadolu Agency, he warned: "We are facing the biggest wave of migration in history. If we open the floodgates, no European government will be able to survive for more than six months. We advise them not to try our patience."
On July 22, Çavuşoğlu said that Turkey had suspended the EU-Turkey Migrant Deal because the EU had not approved the visa liberalization for Turkish citizens. He also linked the suspension to a July 15 decision by EU foreign ministers to halt high-level talks with Ankara as part of sanctions over Turkish oil and gas drilling off the coast of Cyprus.
On September 5, Erdoğan said that Turkey plans to repatriate one million Syrian migrants to a "safe zone" in northern Syria and threatened to reopen the route for migrants into Europe if he does not receive adequate international support for the plan. "This either happens or otherwise we will have to open the gates," Erdogan said.
On September 8, Erdoğan threatened to flood the European Union with 5.5 million Syrian refugees unless he received international support for the establishment of a "safe zone" in northern Syria. "If they do not give us the necessary support in this struggle, then we will not be able to stop the 3.5 million refugees from Syria and another two million people who will reach our borders from Idlib," Erdogan told a rally in Malatya, Turkey's Eastern Anatolia region.
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis called on Turkey to stop "bullying" Greece. "Mr. Erdoğan must understand that he cannot threaten Greece and Europe in an attempt to secure more resources to handle the refugee issue," he said. "Europe has given a lot of money, six billion euros in recent years, within the framework of an agreement between Europe and Turkey and which was mutually beneficial."
Erdoğan, however, appears to have the upper hand in this dispute. On August 29, for instance, 16 boats carrying a total of 650 migrants reached the Greek village of Skala Sykamineas on the island of Lesvos, according to the non-profit group, Aegean Boat Report. All of the boats were new and arrived at the same location within less than an hour, which suggests that the mass influx was a coordinated operation by people-smuggling gangs, presumably with the tacit approval of the Turkish government. It was the largest mass arrival of migrants arriving at Lesvos from the Turkish coast since the migration crisis in 2015-2016.
The mass arrivals to Greece have continued unabated: 2,441 migrants arrived during the first week of September; 1,781 arrived during the second week; 2,609 arrived during the third week; and 3,463 arrived during the fourth week.
"We are seeing huge waves being brought in by traffickers using new methods and better and faster boats," Greece's Civil Protection Minister, Michalis Chrysochoidis, said. "If the situation were to continue we would have a repeat of 2015. We are going to take measures to protect our borders and we are going to be much stricter, much faster in applying them."
On September 30, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis announced a series of measures to deal with the migration flows. He said that his government wants to return 10,000 migrants to Turkey by the end of 2020. The plan presupposes that Turkey will take them back. Mitsotakis also said that the government will tighten border controls, increase naval patrols in the Aegean, close centers for migrants who are refused asylum, and overhaul the asylum system.
Migrants using people-smuggling routes that originate in Turkey are also reaching other EU member states, including Bulgaria, Italy and Cyprus, which experienced a 700% increase in migrant arrivals during the first nine months of 2019, compared to the same period in 2018, according to the IOM.
Cypriot Interior Minister Constantinos Petrides said that the surge in migrant arrivals from Turkey was linked to tensions between Ankara and Nicosia over Turkey's drilling for offshore oil and gas in the economic zone of Cyprus.
Most of the migrants arriving in Cyprus do so by land. Petrides explained that Turkey has visa-free agreements with numerous countries in Africa and Asia, and that many migrants are able to enter mainland Turkey without restrictions. From there, they travel, often with the help of people-smugglers, by air or by sea, to Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus. They are then bussed to the UN Green Line and illegally cross over into the Republic of Cyprus, the Greek-speaking southern part of the island which is an EU member state.
Speaking to reporters in Brussels, Petrides elaborated: "The newest trend is even more alarming. It's the arrival of third-country nationals, who fly directly from Turkey by plane to the occupied airport of Timvu [its Greek name] or Ercan [as it is known today in Turkish], and then they enter the government-controlled area on foot.
"This new method of sending refugees by planes and buses could not be carried out without at least the tolerance of the Turkish authorities. And it's not just tolerance. I mentioned the practices regarding the visa-free regime, regarding these policies which encourage this phenomenon to happen. It's very clear that here we have an institutional kind of smuggling."
More than six million migrants are believed to be waiting in countries around the Mediterranean to cross into Europe, according to a classified German government report leaked to the newspaper Bild. The report said that one million people are waiting in Libya; another million are waiting in Egypt; 720,000 in Jordan; 430,000 in Algeria; 160,000 in Tunisia; and 50,000 in Morocco. More than three million others are waiting in Turkey.
*Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.
© 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.

For an ‘Iraqi’ and ‘Arab’.. Not an ‘Iranian’ Iraq
Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al-Awsat/October 10/2019
“Baghdad is Arab”, a resonating cry that shook me to the bones, when uttered by Iraqi men and women as they rose against hegemony and submission.
Some may rush to regard this as some kind of ‘chauvinism’ in brandishing Arab identity. I can understand that those may have lingering bad memories and reservations about the outcome of past ultra-nationalist attitudes. However, what is before us now is a painful state of affairs that any rational individual must not only reject but also strive to change.
Other friends may confront me with a rejection of ‘change’ in principle. They may point out how certain groups ‘rode the wave’ of the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011, and then ventured to divert the main thrust of the peoples’ uprisings to their own ends. That is also understandable, as I share with them their refusal to condone exploiting the masses’ natural tendency to rise against despotism, stifling freedoms, and corruption to serve ideological or theological agendas unrelated to these masses’ grievances.
Well, my response to the issue of ‘Chauvinism’ is that the ‘Arab Identity’ is neither an accusation nor a problem if espoused with open mindedness, acceptance of diversity, and respect for non-Arab populations. On the issue of ‘change’, I also see no problem if it brings to power tolerant, ambitious, young, and ‘institutionalist’ leaders, who govern fairly, and shun dogmas, narrow-mindedness, and time-buying ‘problem-management’.
In all advanced countries, there are broad consensuses as regards the national identity. Sometimes, they are shaken, as we see around us today. However, in general, they are there to provide a ‘safety net’ to constituent groups and social classes. Also, in these advanced countries smooth change through devolution of power alleviates political, sectarian, and economic grievances, and dissipates accumulated disagreement before they become deep and painful grudges that when explode could destroy society. Thus, if a certain brand of despotism is unacceptable, counter-despotism, especially one whose raison d’etre is bitter and revengeful, must neither be tolerated nor allowed to continue.
There are people who claim that ‘The Iraqi Character’, due to its complex geographic, demographic, religious, and political environment, has always been prone to violence and bloodshed.
Throughout the centuries, they have claimed that the land of today’s Iraq has witnessed wars, revolts, fall of ruling dynasties, and the rise of intellectual movements, ideologies, and radical currents. Some of these died out, others simply went underground awaiting a more suitable time to resurface.
In this context, Iraq has passed through various eras that provided many opportunities for cultural coexistence and exchange; although, some brought about serious conflicts up until the late 20th century, and even, after the US-led invasion of 2003. Perhaps, many still remember a pro-Tehran Iraqi Prime Minister calling the population of the once-richly diverse city of Mosul as ‘The descendants of Yazid’. (Yazid Ibn Mu’waiya, the caliph many Shi’ites accuse of ordering the murder of the Prophet’s grandson Al-Hussein Ibn Ali).
In truth, neither Iraq nor any neighboring Arab state, will have a future in the presence of those who allow themselves what they prohibit to others, who use religion and historic injustices as an excuse to plunder their respective countries and people, and who accumulate wealth through corruption. If the latest popular uprising has provided any ray of hope, it is that despite 15 years of dominance secured by foreign intervention, blatant sectarian incitement has failed to hide corruption and abuse of power. Relying on sectarian militias and imposing them as de facto ruler, along the lines of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), is not enough to shield and protect the ‘thieves’ under the banner of making right the old wrongs, and ending injustice.
The Shiites of Iraq have been in the center of the uprising. Most likely, they are the ones who know most about why it has erupted, and how the regional expansionist conspiracy is hell-bent impoverishing one of the Middle East’s richest countries.
Following the US invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime, many things have taken place, among which are certain realities that should always be kept in mind:
1- Despite Saddam’s tragic mistake of invading Kuwait, most Arab states – including those friendly to Washington – were against the US ‘inept’ and geopolitically damaging invasion; given that Iraq is the Arabs ‘Eastern’ border gate, opening to two major non-Arab powers, i.e., Iran and Turkey.
2- Both Iran and Turkey have always had territorial ambitions and historical interests in Iraq. These only effectively ended with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the end of WW1. Furthermore, Iraq’s two largest religious sects are Shiite and Sunni Islam; thus, Iraq’s two great neighbors, Shiite Iran and Sunni Turkey, have always had enough excuses to interfere and meddle in the country’s internal affairs.
3- In Iraq exists an important constituent that dominated the country’s north and northeast; which is the Kurds. In fact, the Kurds have provided the Iranians and Turks and with a rare, if not the only, common goal; as it is in the strategic interest of Iran and Turkey to prevent the emergence of a single independent Kurdish state. Such a state would effectively threaten the national unity of both countries, as there are around 15 million Kurds in Turkey and around 8 million in Iran, in addition to about 6 million in Iraq. Actually, many analysts believe that the strongest reason for not partitioning Iraq, after the US-led ‘Coalition Provisional Authority’ had systematically destroyed the Iraqi state institution – including the army – , was Ankara’s strong opposition to Kurdish independence, which would also further marginalize the Turkmen minority.
4- Despite the ‘Death To America’ and ‘Great Satan’ slogans, and as soon as Baghdad fell to the invading US troops, exiled pro-Tehran Iraqi leaderships flew from Iran back to Iraq, where they took over as ‘victors’. Moreover, within a very short time of Washington’s acceptance of the ‘victors and vanquished formula’, Iran’s followers and henchmen assumed power in Iraq. Later on, to make matters worse, former US President Barack Obama decided that handing over Iraq alone was not enough; so he allowed Iran’s ‘Mullahs’ to take over Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, through a nuclear deal that focused only on technicalities, while leaving Tehran free to expand and invade at will.
Given the above, Iraq’s recent uprising is entirely ‘Iraqi’, as it really should be. It is necessary to stop the major regional collapse throughout the area extending from Iraq to the Mediterranean and Red Sea, whether the major world powers are still unaware, or are in full collusion!

Analysis/The Seeds of Trump’s Abandonment of Syrian Kurds Were Sown by Obama
اليزابت تسوركوف/هآرتس: بزور تخلي ترامب عن اكراد سوريا كان زرعها اوباما
Elizabeth Tsurkov/Haaretz/October 10/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/79369/%d8%ab%d9%84%d8%a7%d8%ab%d8%a9-%d8%aa%d8%ad%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%8a%d9%84-%d9%88%d8%a3%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d8%b3%d9%8a%d8%a7%d8%b3%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%87%d8%a2%d8%b1%d8%aa%d8%b3-%d8%aa/
Like the Democratic incumbent before him, President Donald Trump seems to believe that conflict is the natural state of things in the Middle East.
The looming Turkish offensive on northeastern Syria is the culmination of incoherent U.S. policy concerning the conflict in Syria, which has prioritized finding short-term fixes over attempting to address any of the dynamics driving the violence.
The scope of the Turkish invasion, made possible through the withdrawal of U.S. troops from parts of the border region, remains unclear. The offensive will likely precipitate mass displacement, and if the military action extends beyond the takeover of a few border towns, it could also result in demographic re-engineering, empower Iran and the Syrian regime, and deprive the United States of whatever leverage it had left in trying to shape the outcome of the civil war in Syria.
The Turkish operation is driven by fears of the growing strength of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the umbrella of militias that gained control of much of northeastern and eastern Syria owing to U.S. backing. The SDF is led by the Syrian Kurdish militia, the YPG (the People’s Protection Units, part of the Öcalanist-armed movement that has waged an insurgency against Turkey since the 1980s). According to the SDF, the force lost over11,000 fighters, men and women, in the campaign to liberate almost a third of Syria from ISIS control.
The outlines of the Turkish operation are unclear at this stage and hence the overall consequences are murky. Multiple fighters in the ranks of the Syrian factions that are set to participate in the offensive alongside Turkish forces told Haaretz that the scope of the operation will likely be limited to the capture of the town of Tel Abyad and possibly Ras al-Ayn.
Such an offensive is expected to involve the use of heavy artillery and lead to mass flight of the local population. The Syrian factions set to participate in the offensive, operating under the name the Syrian National Army, a Turkish creation, carried out large-scale looting in towns they have previously captured in northern Aleppo. This damage, however, will be nothing in comparison to what a deeper Turkish invasion would precipitate.
Turkey has threatened to carry out a much wider operation, effectively taking over the most densely populated towns and cities along the Syrian-Turkish border. The Turkish drums of war began beating louder after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan used his annual UN General Assembly speech to promote a plan for the return of 1 to 2 million Syrian refugees to northeastern Syria.
Such a return, he argued, could be made after Turkey creates a so-called “safe zone” in the region, 30 kilometers (19 miles) wide and 480 kilometers (about 300 mile) long. Turkey would take over the area and construct massive housing complexes that could house the refugees sent back from Turkey.
An offensive 30 kilometers deep into northeastern Syria would entail grave human rights abuses. Civilians will flee en masse to avoid being killed by artillery and street battles. My interviews with locals indicate that the civilians who do not pick up weapons to defend their homes will attempt to flee to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, which is already hosting 1.1 million registered displaced Iraqis and Syrian refugees. Based on past experiences in Efrin, a Kurdish enclave captured by Turkey and its Syrian factions in 2018, Turkey will likely allow or encourage Arabs to settle in homes once owned by Kurds, altering the demographic makeup of the region.
Such a deeper offensive will also serve as a boon for the Bashar Assad regime, Iran and ISIS. The SDF would be forced to withdraw forces from the southern provinces it currently holds, particularly oil-rich Deir Ezzor, allowing the regime and Iran to advance into the area. Alternatively, the prospect of a deeper Turkish invasion may cause the YPG to hastily reach a “reconciliation” agreement with the Assad regime, allowing the Syrian Army and Iranian-backed militias to take over this resource-rich region.
In either scenario, ISIS — which is already launching daily hit-and-run attacks in SDF-held Deir Ezzor and imposing protection taxes on trade — will be able to reassert itself. Areas under regime control in Deir Ezzor and the Homs desert witness even greater violence, with sophisticated and highly deadly ISIS attacks.
A regime and Iranian takeover of northeastern Syria and its oil will effectively end whatever leverage the United States still possessed in trying to shape the outcome of the war in Syria. The Americans will have nothing to offer to the regime in return for concessions on issues the U.S. cares about such as an Iranian presence in Syria or the fate of the tens of thousands of political prisoners languishing in regime prisons. Trump, who likes to consider himself a great negotiator, unilaterally disarmed the U.S. of its pressure tools.
How did America reach a situation in which it is about to squander most of the gains it made in the war on ISIS? The U.S. administration, both under Barack Obama and Trump, did not attempt to develop a long-term strategy concerning Syria. After muddling through the first years of the uprising and war, the Obama administration settled on a policy solely focused on defeating ISIS in the battlefield. The root causes that allowed ISIS to flourish in Syria and Iraq, such as the oppressive, corrupt and discriminatory regimes ruling these countries, were apparently deemed too complicated to be addressed or mitigated.
The seeds for Trump’s decision to allow for the Turkish invasion were sown under the Obama administration, when the Democratic president and his team decided to limit their involvement in the civil war. Only after ISIS invaded Iraq in mid-2014, carried out a genocide against the Yazidi community and beheaded foreign hostages did the Americans decide to directly intervene in the war in Syria by backing the YPG, starting in September 2014. The United States abandoned the plan to rely on Arab rebels to take on ISIS — in part due to the rebels’ refusal to commit themselves to fighting ISIS alone — while ignoring the Assad regime, responsible for most civilian casualties and destruction in Syria.
The tactical assistance to the YPG shifted to a partnership, with the Americans deploying special forces in areas under the control of the group. The United States encouraged the YPG to include non-Kurdish fighters in their ranks — leading to the creation of the SDF, which now counts about 70,000 fighters in its ranks. The growing strength of the SDF increasingly became a source of great concern for Turkey, particularly after domestic political changes and the breakdown of peace talks in 2015 between Ankara and the PKK (the Turkish, and leading, branch of the Öcalanist movement). The Americans attempted to partially assuage Turkish fears, but did not invest much effort in trying to restart talks between the PKK and Turkey, which could have reduced Turkish-YPG tensions.
Trump initially pursued Obama’s policies, despite coming into office promising to end costly entanglements abroad. The only change was to double down on sanctions against the Syrian regime. Rhetorically, the Trump administration adopted a bellicose position toward Iran, unlike Obama, but U.S. policies on the ground in this regard remained largely identical to Obama’s, leaving it to Israel to deal with the Iranian buildup in Syria.
In December 2018, however, even as ISIS continued to hold territory in Syria, Trump tweeted that the United States would be pulling its forces out of Syria. This decision was then largely reversed by the State Department and the Department of Defense, which are overwhelmingly opposed to such a pullout due to its disastrous repercussions. The bureaucrats were able to reign in Trump’s worst impulses on Syria and tried to mitigate the effects of the reduction in U.S. forces in the region and the elimination of all stabilization funding to the war-affected region. But as Trump’s recent declaration shows, earnest bureaucrats cannot forever keep a petulant president from re-inserting himself into the decision-making process.
But even the logic pursued by the Obama administration of narrowly focusing on the counter-ISIS mission would have led to a U.S. withdrawal once ISIS’s territorial “caliphate” was destroyed, leaving the SDF in the lurch. Even if the United States had mediated negotiations over autonomy between the Assad regime and the SDF, as advocated by former Obama administration officials, the regime’s track record shows that under Russian pressure, it has only allowed limited autonomy inside a handful of formerly rebel-held towns in Daraa.
Rebels who have left these towns have been arrested by the regime and assassinated. This experience is unlikely to be repeated in an area covering a third of Syria. The regime could have just waited out the United States and retaken SDF-held areas, reinstituting its full control over internal security — a top priority of the regime.
TRUMP: “When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition. I was told by a top general, maybe the top of them all, ‘Sir, I’m sorry sir, we don’t have ammunition.’ I said, I will never let that happen to another president.”
Trump, similarly to Obama, seems to believe that conflict is a natural state in the Middle East, unsolvable. Kurds and Turks are “natural enemies,” he said Monday, and conflict between them can only be “held off.” Obama infamously stated that “the Middle East is going through a transformation … rooted in conflicts that date back millennia.” Such a cynical and essentialist perspective provides Western elites with an easy excuse for inaction or empowerment of strongmen. The resulting policy means that none of the root causes of instability and violence in the Middle East are addressed, namely the kleptocratic and oppressive regimes of the region, forcing the United States to launch occasional interventions when violence begins spilling over.
The United States has been humbled by its experience in Iraq. But the trauma from a misguided war of choice should not lead it to resort to myopic, short-term policies, which at times produce great violence and suffering, as the looming Turkish invasion shows.
*Elizabeth Tsurkov is a Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a Research Fellow at the Forum for Regional Thinking. Follow her on Twitter: @Elizrael

Opinion/Trump Is Complicit in Erdogan’s Ethnic Cleansing
سيمون ولدمان/هآرتس: ترامب متواطئ مع اردوغان في عملية التطهير العرقي
Simon A. Waldman/Haaretz/October 10/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/79369/%d8%ab%d9%84%d8%a7%d8%ab%d8%a9-%d8%aa%d8%ad%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%8a%d9%84-%d9%88%d8%a3%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d8%b3%d9%8a%d8%a7%d8%b3%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%87%d8%a2%d8%b1%d8%aa%d8%b3-%d8%aa/
What Turkey’s president is openly planning is the forced exchange of one ethnic population for another. That’s Ethnic Cleansing 101. And Trump rolled over to let it happen
The Trump administration’s decision to immediately withdraw U.S. forces from the Syrian border and allow Turkish troops to invade is not merely the abandonment of the West’s Kurdish allies, but a warrant for ethnic cleansing.
Trump’s mind was apparently made up after a telephone call with Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Trump’s press secretary then released a statement which read, “Turkey will soon be moving forward with its planned operation into northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and the United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial “caliphate,” will no longer be in the immediate area.”
And with those words, the White House washed its hands of the fate of Syria’s Kurds and the future of the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the Kurdish forces who lost thousands of soldiers while fighting to defeat ISIS, the scourge of the civilized world.
The rise of ISIS was made possible by Ankara’s inaction when, from 2013-14, hordes of international militants, fanatics and psychopaths, not to mention truckloads of weapons, crossed Turkey’s border into Syria, on the so-called Jihadi Highway.
Now, the U.S. is handing over ISIS duties to Turkey. However, it is doubtful whether the West’s fair weather friend has either the willingness or the competence to take effective control over rowdy jails overcrowded with battle-hardened ISIS prisoners, desperate to escape and re-establish their medieval empire.
Before Trump’s decision, the U.S. and Turkey had agreed to establish a security corridor, a “safe zone” inside the Syrian-Turkish border. The U.S. wanted the zone to be just a few kilometers inside of Syrian territory along a 480km border stretch with Turkey. However, Ankara insisted it be a full 30km deep, and was incensed by U.S. foot-dragging. Turkey threatened unilateral action – and Trump rolled over.
Why the need for a 30km “safe zone”? Turkey wants to push the YPG as far back as possible to prevent, or at least have a buffer, against an autonomous Kurdish enclave dominated by the YPG’s political arm, the Democratic Union Party.
Ankara sees these groups as one and the same as the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), an internationally proscribed terrorist group waging a decades-long war against the Turkish state which claimed over 40,000 lives.
However, another reason for Turkey’s zeal for establishing a large buffer zone is so it has room to resettle millions of Arab Syrian refugees currently living in Turkey. The presence of these refugees while Turkey experiences its worst economic crises in decades is deeply unpopular across Turkish society. It was even a contributing factor for the unprecedented hammering of Erdogan’s ruling party at local elections last spring.
What is Erdogan and his government’s answer to the YPG Kurdish forces security question and the political problem of hosting millions of Syrians? A good old dose of ethnic cleansing.
In 1993 Andrew Bell-Fialkoff defined “ethnic cleansing” in a seminal Foreign Affairs essay, written as the world was left reeling by the return of concentration camps to Europe, only this time against Bosnian Muslims rather than Jews.
According to Bell-Fialkoff, ethnic cleansing is the “expulsion of an ‘undesirable’ population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations.”
The UN fears that a Turkish incursion into Syria would lead to the mass displacement of the region’s Kurds, which would in effect open up space for Turkey’s plan to resettle two million Syrian refugees in this “safe zone” and perhaps another one million in territory beyond. However, the vast majority of Syrian refugees in Turkey are Sunni Arabs and not originally from the area of the planned resettlement, which is mainly Kurdish.
In other words, what’s being planned is the forced exchange of one ethnic population for another. That’s Ethnic Cleansing 101.
And nobody can plead ignorance. This is exactly what happened last year when Turkish backed forces invaded Afrin. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled while Turkey, by its own admission, Arab Syrian refugees into the area, as many as 300,000.
And yet, Turkish authorities are energetically working to promote the resettlement “safe zone” plan. President Erdogan even announced the idea at the United Nations while other leading Turkish officials have called for U.S. and European support for what is essentially a project of ethnic cleansing.
Although Western officials have not endorsed the plan, they need to universally, unequivocally and publicly condemn it.
Sure, Trump is now warning Turkey that he will wage an obliterating economic war if in his “great and unmatched wisdom” Turkey does anything untoward, but the damage has already been done. Ankara’s biggest deterrence for invading, the presence of U.S. forces, has gone.
If implemented, Erdogan’s ethnic cleansing campaign in Syria is sure to be remembered alongside Saddam Hussein’s genocidal al-Anfal campaign in Iraq, and Hafez Assad’s Arab resettlement policies and Baathist denials of Kurdish rights, not to mention Turkey’s attempts to demographically reengineer Kurdish regions during the 1920s and 1930s and the brutal nature of Turkey’s war with the PKK.It will also be remembered that the White House was complicit.
*Dr Simon A. Waldman is an associate fellow at the Henry Jackson Society and a visiting research fellow at King’s College London. He is the co-author of “The New Turkey and Its Discontents” (Oxford University Press, 2017).

Analysis Turkey’s War on the Kurds: Quick Conquest or Quagmire?
زيفي برئيل/هآرتس: الحرب التركية على الأكراد هل هي فتح واحتلال سريعين أم أنها مستنقع سيغرقون فيه؟
Zvi Bar’el/Haaretz/October 10/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/79369/%d8%ab%d9%84%d8%a7%d8%ab%d8%a9-%d8%aa%d8%ad%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%8a%d9%84-%d9%88%d8%a3%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d8%b3%d9%8a%d8%a7%d8%b3%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%87%d8%a2%d8%b1%d8%aa%d8%b3-%d8%aa/
An effective war of attrition can enlist public opinion in Europe and the United States, and above all, stoke a mass protest in Turkey itself as its number of soldiers killed rises.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s declaration of the launch of a campaign against the Kurdish districts in northern Syria was accompanied by airstrikes on the city of Tal Abyad east of the Euphrates. The tactical plan of the war is still unclear, but starting it at Tal Abyad shows that the strategic intent is to take over the regions east of the Euphrates and from there continue west to link up with the Turkish forces that took control of the city of Afrin in March 2018.
Thus Turkey crossed the Americans’ red line, which so far has meant an attack-free zone as determined by agreements between Turkey and the United States.
Turkey is wasting no time, and with the departure of the American forces and President Donald Trump’s backtrack on his commitment to the Kurds, the Kurdish zone has become a hunting ground. Thousands of Kurds are fleeing their homes and the Kurdish political and military leaders have declared an emergency and a general call-up.
According to reports by Kurdish spokespeople, Kurdish forces have stopped fighting the Islamic State, and they have no intention of continuing to hold thousands of ISIS male and female prisoners who have been in custody for months in temporary detention centers in the Kurdish area.
Shortly after the Turkish operation inside Syria had started, Turkish soldiers stand at the border with Syria in Akcakale, Sanliurfa province, southeastern Turkey, Wednesday, Oct. 9, 2019.
According to Mazloum Kobani Abdi, commander of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, the largest armed militia that was established with U.S. assistance, the war against the Islamic State and the guarding of the detention camps has become a “secondary goal.” His soldiers, Abdi said, are now committed to fighting the Turkish occupation and protecting their families in the villages and towns in danger of falling to the Turks.
The military option for Abdi’s forces is to persuade the Syrian army to join the Kurdish forces to fight Turkey, but Syria probably won’t want or be able to open a new front against Turkey, especially with Russia indifferent to the Turkish invasion. Russia did promise to try to mediate between the Kurds and Turkey to prevent massive bloodshed, but as far as Russia is concerned, a temporary Turkish occupation could later ensure the transfer of the conquered area to Syrian President Bashar Assad and spur the political process that Moscow is promoting.
Turkey’s Vietnam?
A more realistic option is for the Kurds to start a broad guerrilla campaign against the Turkish forces, one that will turn the Kurdish region into Turkey’s Vietnam. This modus operandi is the specialty of the Kurdish forces, which are facing Turkey with no air support and limited armored strength. It may also be expected that the Kurds will try to move the fighting into Turkey via mass attacks and direct hits in Turkish population centers, like the attacks the PKK, a Kurdish guerrilla movement, has carried out in recent years.
Time is a significant factor in this battle, especially for the Turks. The more massive the campaign and the quicker it reaches a decisive conclusion, the easier it will be for Turkey to evade growing international pressure. But the Kurds are in no hurry. A long and effective war of attrition can enlist public opinion in Europe and the United States, and above all, can stoke a mass protest in Turkey itself as its number of killed soldiers increases.
To avoid casualties in a ground war, Turkey has given the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army the mission of taking the territory, and according to spokesmen for this militia, the Kurds are to be hit with “a heavy hand and major firepower.” But this territory has a border more than 450 kilometers (280 miles) long and a depth of about 30 kilometers; thus there will be no choice but to bring in Turkish armored forces and infantry.
The chance of a quick diplomatic solution depends on the intensions of Russia, the only power that can effectively pressure Turkey and halt the onslaught. But Russia has so far issued watered-down statements calling for a diplomatic solution. It has promised, but not committed itself, to bring the Kurds into diplomatic talks from which they have so far been excluded by Turkey’s demands.
Russia may be waiting to see how the military campaign proceeds, which has so far been roundly criticized by Iran, to decide whether it will side with the Kurds and the Syrian army. Or it might wait to see if Turkey will take over the northern districts and then negotiate for Turkey’s withdrawal, and bring in Assad’s army to take over without a fight, if the Kurdish forces are defeated.
U.S. policy 2.0
While the United States, which has renounced its commitment to the Kurds, has threatened to destroy the Turkish economy if it crosses the red lines agreed on by Trump and Erdogan in their strange phone conversation, this threat is apparently hollow, just like Trump’s warnings to punish Turkey for purchasing S-400 missiles from Russia.
The American policy, if it can be called that, is almost completely a quote of the policies of President Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger toward the Kurds in the early ‘70s. A report by the Pike Committee, established by Congress in 1976 to investigate the CIA’s conduct vis-a-vis the Kurds, noted at the time: “The president, Dr. Kissinger and the foreign head of state [the shah of Iran] hoped that our clients [the Kurds] would not prevail. They preferred instead that the insurgents simply continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap the resources [of Iraq]. This policy was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue fighting … ours was a cynical enterprise.”
Ford wasn’t the last U.S. president to deliver a resounding slap to the Kurds. George H.W. Bush called the massacre of Shi’ites and Kurds by Saddam Hussein an “internal matter.” The desperate letters sent by Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani to the American president and to Kissinger went unanswered. Now, too, the Kurds have no one to appeal to in the United States, whose president has said that his country should “get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars,” and that entry into the Middle East was the biggest mistake the United States ever made.
Not only has American backing disappeared, the Kurds in Syria can’t depend on Kurdish solidarity from outside Syria to help them. There is a deep ideological rift between the Kurdish leadership in Iraq and the leadership of the Syrian Democratic Party, the party of the Kurds in Syria, which suspects that the Kurdish leaders in Iraq intend to take over the Kurdish movement in Syria. The Kurdish region in Iraq has strong economic and diplomatic ties with Turkey and its leaders have joined the Turkish struggle against the PKK.
The Kurds in Syria don’t seek to establish an independent state, and the Kurdish government in Syria has adopted a system of direct democracy, unlike the patriarchal hierarchy in Iraq. At the beginning of the war against the Islamic State, the Kurdish leaders in Iraq offered to send forces to help the Kurds in Syria, but the latter refused out of fear that such forces would become a permanent garrison.
The Kurds’ concern now is that the Turkish war against them will be dubbed an “internal war,” or at most will win the Kurds international sympathy because of the expected harsh humanitarian implications. Thus it could turn “the Kurdish problem” in Syria into an episode that will take away their ability to negotiate over their rights and standing when the time comes for negotiations and discussions begin on a new Syrian constitution.

Are We Nearing a Stage Where Iran and Saudi Arabia Are Liable to Begin Negotiating?
Michaell Young/Carnegie Middle East/October 10, 2019
A regular survey of experts on matters relating to Middle Eastern and North African politics and security.
Fareed Marjaee | Former member of the executive committee of the New Democratic Party of Toronto, writer and commentator
The U.S. embargo and the biting sanctions against Iran have created severe economic hardships for the country. There is always a concern that such economic hardship may lead to popular unrest. Therefore, Iranian leaders would welcome a deescalation on different fronts.
In Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is one of the few princes who did not pursue a higher education abroad. That is why most likely his perspective has been shaped only through the authoritarian Saudi domestic prism. The issue with absolutist rulers is that they never have to face pushback at home, hence don’t develop a good sense for negotiations. But the kingdom’s strategic initiatives have not led to victory. Saudi policies in Yemen, Syria, and Qatar, plus the current low price of oil, not to mention the bombshell that was Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination, may have changed minds in Riyadh.
It is very likely that Iran and Saudi Arabia will begin a process of dialogue that may lead to some form of detente and a deescalation of the Yemen conflict. However, in-depth negotiations that would lead to a comprehensive rapprochement will be challenging. Ultimately, any Saudi initiative cannot take place in isolation of the overall U.S. regional policy architecture, namely the alliance between certain Arab states, Israel, and the Trump administration that has undermined the nuclear agreement with Iran. At the same time, it is unlikely that Iran will change its long-held strategic approach toward total American and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
Fatiha Dazi-Heni | Senior researcher on Arabian Peninsula and Gulf issues at the Institute for Strategic Research of the Ecole Militaire (IRSEM), Paris, assistant professor at Sciences Po Lille
Tensions between Iran and Riyadh have risen dramatically in recent months. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s assertive regional policy is now under high scrutiny in the Saudi Royal Court. In addition to the failed war in Yemen, the cordial alliance between Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, has had a high cost in terms of the rift with Qatar that has divided the Gulf Cooperation Council and heightened strains with Iran. All this has played against Saudi interests.
The attack of September 14 against vital Saudi oil installations appeared to target a strategic priority for Mohammed bin Salman, namely the IPO of Aramco. The absence of a U.S. military response to the attack, likely orchestrated by Iran, could result in a new security approach in the Gulf. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran need to urgently agree, with the help of political actors other than Washington, to measures that would reduce the possibility of aggressive actions. With Russian President Vladimir Putin scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia in mid-October, Russia could help in this regard, against the more antagonist U.S. approach to Iran.
Thomas W. Lippman | Author and former journalist, author of Saudi Arabia on the Edge: The Uncertain Future of an American Ally
A new conventional wisdom about tensions in the Gulf has suddenly developed. It says that Saudi Arabia, frightened by the recent attacks against its oil facilities, disappointed by President Donald Trump’s response, and weakened by the United Arab Emirates’ drawdown in Yemen, and Iran, crippled by sanctions, are groping for a formula that would lead to a warming of their relations.
Maybe—third countries have said they have been asked to help—but don’t hold your breath. The two countries have irreconcilable visions of the Middle East’s future. Neither wants all-out war, because neither could win. However, that does not mean that they can reach an accommodation over what divides them—Yemen, Iran’s support for trouble-making regional proxies, Iran’s nuclear program, and many other issues. Moreover, neither side believes the other’s regime is legitimate, which makes negotiating all the more difficult. Besides, the Iranians who do international negotiating, President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, do not have decisionmaking power.
Firas Maksad | Adjunct professor at George Washington University’s Elliott School for International Affairs
Saudi Arabia and Iran are talking, at least according to some well-placed sources in Washington. If true, this should not come as a surprise in light of the parameters set by the current U.S. policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran and the many recent attacks on oil infrastructure in the Gulf region, for which Iran is widely believed to be responsible. By continuously warning Tehran that attacks on U.S. personnel or interests will be met with a harsh response, the Trump administration has been implicitly messaging that attacking Washington’s Arab Gulf allies is fair game. The lack of a U.S. military reaction, particularly after the targeting of Saudi oil facilities a few weeks ago, only reinforced this vulnerability. Given the shortcomings of the current U.S. policy, which reflect a president who wants to confront Iran but not risk war, American officials understand the need that their Arab Gulf allies might feel to try to limit their exposure. However, any such Saudi-Iranian backchannel will likely be limited, would not include Yemen, and would take place in coordination with Washington.
Marc Lynch | Nonresident senior fellow in the Carnegie Middle East Program
Recent reports that Saudi Arabia has reached out to Iran for quiet discussions about deescalating regional tensions represent a rare moment of common sense. However, there is little reason to believe that those talks would prove fruitful anytime soon. There are good reasons for such talks. Iran has long sought such engagement. For Saudi Arabia, the recent military escalation in the Gulf, and the limited U.S. response, has driven home the risks of endless confrontation. While the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign has inflicted serious economic damage on Iran, it is increasingly clear that it has failed to achieve strategic objectives. Riyadh may as well be staring down the prospect of a post-Trump future that may arrive sooner than expected, in which a broad spectrum of U.S. opinion remains deeply angry over the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the Saudi military campaign in Yemen.
But for all the logic of a rapprochement, it will be difficult to achieve much more than perhaps some deconfliction and limited restraint. The last decade unleashed a toxic brew of state failure, sectarianism, proxy warfare, and unpredictability that defy any actor’s ability to control events. Confronting Iran across the region is a key part of the extreme nationalism that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has mobilized to consolidate his power internally, while the shredding of the nuclear deal with Iran and the imposition of U.S. sanctions have allowed Iran’s conservatives to enjoy greater support than they have in years. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have good internal reasons to prefer confrontation over rapprochement—as long as a confrontation can be kept within limits. Quietly negotiating those limits to avoid an escalation that could prove disastrous for both may be the best that talks can accomplish for now.

Putin’s Russia should not be underestimated
Cornelia Meyer/Arab News/October 10/2019
Next month will see the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall — a moment that rang in three turbulent decades for Russia. The Soviet Union was dissolved and several Central Asian and Baltic states achieved independence, while it also prompted the birth of the Russian Federation.
These have been stormy years in Moscow, as the presidency went from Mikhail Gorbachev to Boris Yeltsin to Vladimir Putin. The last two decades have been forged by the strong hands of Putin. He had his work cut out for him, because the country he inherited from Yeltsin had reached an economic low. Spirits were also low and oligarchs dominated. Putin has ruled with an iron fist and restored national pride. The West looked at the goings-on in Russia with increasing skepticism. But that was a two-way street. While the West bemoaned the lack of democratic values, Russia eyed NATO with an increasing sense of unease.
After the Warsaw Pact was dissolved in the summer of 1991, there was an implicit understanding that NATO would not expand eastward. Alas, that did not happen. NATO counted 16 members in 1989, but it has now swollen to 29 and all of the new members were either part of the former Soviet Union or members of the Warsaw Pact. Another four countries officially recognized as aspiring members — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, North Macedonia and Ukraine — all fall in the same category.
It would be an understatement to call the enlargement of NATO a thorn in Moscow’s side. Putin has taken countermeasures over what he sees as the encirclement of his country by NATO. Defense spending and research are up — markedly so after US President Donald Trump canceled the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. We have entered the age of a new full-blown (nuclear) arms race. In 2001, Russia teamed up with China and four Central Asian republics to form the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), whose remit spans the full bandwidth from economic to military cooperation. Its military maneuvers can increasingly be seen as a counterweight to NATO.
Russia’s divisions with the West go well beyond the defense space. After the incursion into Ukraine and subsequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, Russia was kicked out of the then-G8 mechanism, where the major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economies conferred about the state of the global economy. At the same time, the West also imposed severe economic sanctions.
After the trauma of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it took time for Russia to find its feet again. The West too often underestimated the country’s pride and resilience. It did not resonate well with Moscow and the Russian people when President Barack Obama said the country was “a regional power that is threatening (Ukraine), not out of strength but out of weakness.” Whichever political side Russians are on, they have one thing in common: Pride in their country and its long history, from Ivan the Terrible to Catherine the Great and today.
We are now seeing an increasingly confident Russia on the international stage. Russian diplomats have been able to gain ground against the backdrop of a US foreign policy that seems to be abandoning the multilateral architecture that it helped build in the aftermath of the Second World War.
Nowhere is that more apparent than in the Middle East. Russia had lost all of its allies in the region, as well as access to Mediterranean ports, but it used the civil war in Syria with skill to further its own strategic interests. By backing the Assad regime, it has managed to get a naval base in Tartus, an airbase in Khmeimim and many other forward bases. The meetings between Putin, Iran’s Hassan Rouhani and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan have become defining gatherings, where Putin and Rouhani in particular are able to assert themselves over Syria.
It was also the Russian president who visited European capitals in the summer of 2017 to discuss how an eventual reconstruction of Syria could be financed. If anything, the withdrawal of US troops from Syria will only strengthen Russia’s hand. For sure, they will have to deal with the fallout, such as a potential resurgence of Daesh, but we can count on Russia filling the void left by the Americans.
Russia had lost all of its allies in the Middle East but it used the civil war in Syria with skill to further its interests.
Interestingly, while Russia sided with Iran on Syria, its government was able to forge a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia on other matters. The pre-eminent example is OPEC+, where Russia leads 10 oil-producing nations that have built an alliance with OPEC to ensure oil markets are adequately supplied. While Russia’s contribution is minor in terms of quantity, the strategic might of Russian cooperation is considerable. There is also Russo-Saudi cooperation on other economic and diplomatic fronts. Indeed, Russia is one of the few countries that works with both sides of the Saudi-Iran schism in the Middle East, seemingly without offending either. The West may be skeptical of Russia’s attitude toward democracy and despise some of its foreign policy choices, particularly in Ukraine and Syria, and it may also be wary of the new arms race, but Russia has played its diplomatic cards well. President Putin is strong and has a vision. He is supported by one of the world’s most skillful diplomats, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov can be compared to Charles Maurice de Talleyrand in terms of longevity and statecraft.
Wherever one stands on the matter of Russia, it would be unwise to underestimate its determination, diplomatic skill and global reach.
*Cornelia Meyer is a business consultant, macroeconomist and energy expert. Twitter: @MeyerResources

U.S. Pullout Is a Boon for Assad
Jonathan Spyer/Jerusalem Post/October 10/2019
Excerpt of article originally published under the title "Some Further Thoughts on the Situation in Northern Syria."
The way appears to have been cleared for an invasion of north east Syria by Turkey and its allied Sunni Islamist militias. If such an invasion takes place, it will end one of the more successful partnerships achieved by US military diplomacy in recent years- namely that between the United States Armed Forces and the Kurdish Peoples' Protection Units (YPG). It will also have profound implications, both strategic and tactical, for the US in the Middle East, and for the strategic balance in the region as a whole.
In June, I sat with a senior Syrian Kurdish official in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Suleymaniya. Did he expect, I asked him, that US forces would withdraw from the area under de facto joint US-Kurdish control? The man's answer avoided emotionalism or rhetoric. 'I don't know. We hope not. But they may well leave,' he said, before adding: 'If they do, we have made it clear that the following day we will make a deal with the regime.'
The White House has ended one of the most successful US military partnerships ever.
In April 2017, I asked a Palestinian activist supporter of the Syrian regime in Aleppo how Damascus would secure the return of the lands then and currently under the control of the Syrian Kurds and the US. 'We don't know,' was his honest reply. 'But we know that we will be returning there.'
Both men now have an answer to the questions that were perplexing them. Only the regime supporter is likely to be pleased with the outcome.
If Turkish and allied forces enter northern Syria, the immediate Kurdish concern will be at the prospect of widespread ethnic cleansing. The fear is well founded. Around 200,000 Syrian Kurds fled the advancing Turkish army and its Sunni allies when Erdogan destroyed the Kurdish Afrin canton in north west Syria in January, 2018. The Kurds expect that a repeat of this operation on a larger scale is currently brewing to the east.
To avoid it, they are likely (as my interlocutor in Suleimania suggested) to permit the Russians, the Assad regime and its Iranian allies to enter the areas presently under their control.
Kurdish civilians flee the city of Afrin in northern Syria in March 2018.
There is no love lost whatsoever between the Assad regime and the Syrian Kurds. But Assad, the Russians and the Iranians have no interest in a large scale ethnic cleansing of Kurds, of the type a Turkish invasion is likely to produce.
Following the US announcement, there were already reports of a movement of regime and Russian forces toward the city of Manbij. An unseemly race for the spoils between the regime/Russians/Iranians and the Turks/jihadis appears set to start. The latest confused reports from the area suggest that a Turkish force has already penetrated the border in the Tel Abyad-Ras al-Ain area. ISIS, meanwhile, has emerged in Raqqa and is attacking SDF positions in the city.
Should the southern part of the area east of the Euphrates fall to the regime and its allies, the result will be the consolidation by Iran of its 'land bridge' from the Iraq-Iran border to Lebanon, the Mediterranean and the border with Israel. With pro-Iranian militias currently suppressing dissent in Baghdad, this will leave the Iran-led regional alliance as the major victor of the turbulent events in the Levant over the last decade.
*Jonathan Spyer is director of the Middle East Center for Reporting and Analysis, and is a fellow at the Middle East Forum and at the Jerusalem Institute for Security and Strategy.

Turkish assault aggravates Middle East tensions
Talmiz Ahmad/Arab News/October 10/2019
Piously titled “Operation Peace Spring,” Turkey’s assault on northeast Syria, which began on Wednesday, is aimed at clearing the border area of the largely Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which Turkey describes as “terrorists,” and creating a “safe zone” for the resettlement of about 2 million of the 3.6 million Syrian refugees currently in Turkey.
This is Turkey’s third military incursion into Syria since 2016, the earlier two have given it control over 3,500 square kilometers of territory in the north of the country. The latest attack has been condemned in Middle East and European capitals, while the Red Cross has warned of a humanitarian disaster. US President Donald Trump has called it a “bad idea.”Ironically, the ground for this attack was prepared three days earlier in Washington, when the White House issued a statement saying that, following a telephone call between the US and Turkish presidents, Turkey would soon be moving into northern Syria and that US armed forces “will not support or be involved in the operation.”
Trump then tweeted about the “endless and ridiculous wars” inherited from the Barack Obama era, and said it was time to “bring our soldiers home.” He added that it was up to Turkey, Russia, the Kurds and Europe “to figure the situation out.” Trump said he had consulted widely at home and abroad and that most parties were “thrilled by the decision.” There are doubts about the veracity of both of these assertions. This appears to be a unilateral Trumpian initiative, with no consultations with the State Department, the Pentagon or allies. Indeed, “thrill” was a feeling clearly missing from responses to the president’s remarks. Sen. Lindsey Graham described the plan as “impulsive,” “shortsighted” and “irresponsible.” The US’ Kurdish allies in the SDF described northeast Syria as a “mechanism of death,” while Middle East allies spoke of betrayal.
In an attempt at damage control, Trump warned he would “totally destroy and obliterate the economy of Turkey” if it were to do anything that he, in his “great and unmatched wisdom, (would) consider to be off limits.” But, a day later, he announced that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would be his guest on Nov. 13.
The implications of this latest Turkish attack are not clear. It could be a limited operation to shape the proposed safe zone, which stretches about 350 kilometers along the border and up to 35 kilometers into Syrian territory. However, the SDF could view this as an existential threat. Having fought Daesh forces successfully and taken 11,000 casualties, they could decide to give the Turks a hard fight.
The Kurds enjoy considerable support in the US and in European capitals, where the Turkish military action will be closely scrutinized for possible war crimes. More immediately, the Pentagon, having worked hard to organize the SDF to fight Daesh, will resist Turkey’s plans to decimate the force and occupy the region, even if it is presented as a fight against Daesh.
Then there is the problem of how to handle the near-70,000 Daesh militants who are presently in SDF custody. A conflict could lead to many of them getting free and re-emerging as the formidable and cruel fighting force they once were. US officials say they will move into Turkish custody, though no discussions have been held with the SDF. Trump has confirmed that two prominent Daesh militants, linked with the beheadings of foreigners, are now in US custody.
There are grave doubts about the viability of Erdogan’s plan to relocate 2 million refugees to newly built villages and towns in northeast Syria. This is likely to cost more than $26 billion and has not evoked much enthusiasm in Europe, where the latest Turkish incursion has been sharply criticized. A US official has described this idea as “crazy.”
Having fought Daesh forces successfully and taken 11,000 casualties, the SDF could decide to give the Turks a hard fight.
Most importantly, Turkey’s partners in the Astana peace process — Russia and Iran — have serious reservations about Ankara’s military plans. For Russia, the priority now is the recently set up constitutional committee for Syria; it would not like to see this committee’s deliberations jeopardized by a war initiated by Turkey. Russia and Iran are also committed to Syria’s territorial integrity and will not countenance Turkey’s occupation of a large part of the country.
The US clearing the way for the Turkish attack appears to be a last-ditch effort to wean Turkey away from the Russian embrace and get it back as a full-time NATO member. This is delusional, given Erdogan’s single-mindedness in matters relating to the Kurds and in asserting Turkey’s premier status in regional matters.
The outlook for Syria is unclear, since Turkey’s ambitions are likely to clash with those of its allies, while some Kurds might even see advantage in working with the Assad government, as is being promoted by Iran and Russia.
As the 2020 presidential election looms, Trump is not going to give up his interest in getting US troops home. This is creating power vacuums that could aggravate regional tensions and even lead to ill-considered military activity.
The Middle East can be expected to remain on the cusp of uncertainty and suffused with a sense of imminent crisis, which has been its hallmark for some years now.
*Talmiz Ahmad is an author and former Indian ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE. He holds the Ram Sathe Chair for International Studies, Symbiosis International University, Pune, India.

Iran hopes to ensure a Trump defeat in 2020
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/October 10/2019
Ever since the ruling clerics of Iran hijacked the revolution in 1979, one of the foreign policy dilemmas for the governments that have been negatively impacted by Iran’s aggression is whether or not to pursue a policy of regime change in Tehran.
Some governments have instead sought to contain the Islamic Republic, some have preferred deterrence, and others have simply taken the path of inaction. For almost four decades, one of the most powerful rivals of the Iranian regime, the US, has decided to pursue a combination of containment and imposing pressure through sanctions, rather than seeking regime change.
Those who seek regime change in Iran have generally been sidelined or heavily criticized. Meanwhile, little attention has been given to Iran’s policies and its blatant attempts to change governments and administrations in countries such as Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq.
The latest developments point to the idea that Tehran’s leaders are also taking concrete steps to try to change the current US administration by making it suffer a loss in the 2020 presidential elections. But how can Iran do that?
Iran’s power in influencing US elections, American public opinion and making President Donald Trump a one-term president should not be underestimated. The first tool that Tehran possesses is smearing and scuttling the administration’s foreign policy objectives, particularly toward Iran and the Middle East.
The Iranian regime succeeded with this in the past by making former US President Jimmy Carter a single-term president. When the mullahs came to power, they made it clear that one of their core foreign policy objectives was opposition to the US, which the theocratic establishment labeled the “Great Satan.” Due to fears that the US government might topple the clerical regime — with the Islamic Republic recalling the crucial role the CIA played in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mosaddegh in 1953 — the mullahs took measures to ensure Carter’s defeat.
With Iran taking American diplomats hostage and refusing to release them, Carter was perceived as a failure in his re-election bid against Ronald Reagan. As Kai Bird wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “The Iranians dragged out the negotiations over the release of the hostages. President Carter believed these negotiations were nearly successful in late September 1980, but suddenly new demands were made that stalled the talks. Polls showed Carter within single digits of catching Reagan until about 10 days before the election. Carter lost decisively, and the hostages were inexplicably released minutes after Reagan was sworn in as president.”
When it comes to foreign policy, how can Iran depict Trump as a failure ahead of the presidential elections next year? By increasing its aggression in order to destabilize the region. Tehran has already succeeded in escalating tensions by acts such as harassing and seizing ships in the Strait of Hormuz and shooting down an American drone.
Little attention has been given to Iran’s policies and its blatant attempts to change governments in other countries.
The second tool that Tehran can use to try to ensure Trump’s defeat is to negatively impact the US economy. It can do this by pushing up the price of gasoline, which many Americans are dependent on. One of the reasons for last month’s attacks on Saudi Arabian oil infrastructure was most likely to impact the global energy market and cause an increase in oil prices. When gas prices go up, many Americans will likely point a finger at Trump and his failure to contain or deal with Iran and the Middle East. Gasoline prices went up across the US in the aftermath of the attacks.
The third tool that has become available to the Iranian leaders in the modern age is cyberwarfare. According to a statement released by tech giant Microsoft last week, hackers linked to the Iranian government have targeted the 2020 US presidential election, specifically the Trump re-election campaign, through thousands of hacking attempts in the last two months. It said: “Today we’re sharing that we’ve recently seen significant cyber activity by a threat group we call Phosphorus, which we believe originates from Iran and is linked to the Iranian government... The targeted accounts are associated with a US presidential campaign, current and former US government officials, journalists covering global politics and prominent Iranians living outside Iran.”
The Iranian regime is investing significant capital in attempting to get Trump defeated in the 2020 election. Phosphorus, also known as APT 35, is “highly motivated and willing to invest significant time and resources engaging in research and other means of information gathering,” according to Microsoft.
Iran appears to be taking steps to try to change the US government by ensuring Trump loses the 2020 presidential election. Will the US take action? Or will Iran succeed in making Trump a one-term president, as it seemingly did with Carter?
*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