English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For September 19/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.september19.20.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jew
John 18/33-38: “Then Pilate entered the headquarters again, summoned Jesus, and asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’Jesus answered, ‘Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?’Pilate replied, ‘I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?’Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.’Pilate asked him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.’Pilate asked him, ‘What is truth?’ After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, ‘I find no case against him.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on September 18-19/2020

Ministry of Health: 750 coronavirus cases, 18 deaths
Lebanon Sees 18 Covid Deaths and 750 Cases in 1 Day
Macron Holds Phone Talks with Aoun on Govt. Formation
Macron Steps up Lebanon Efforts as Reports Say Initiative Has No Deadline
Lebanese PM-designate waits as Paris negotiates with Tehran
US accuses Hezbollah of storing explosives in Europe, issues sanctions
U.S. blacklists Hezbollah official, Lebanon-based companies
Israel Charges East Jerusalem Woman with Aiding Hizbullah
Shiite Cleric Ali al-Amin Questioned over ‘Meeting Israeli Officials’
Address by President Michel Aoun at UN Sustainable Development Goals Moment
Aoun mourns soccer player Mohamed Atwi: Justice will take its course
UNHCR and UNICEF: Urgent need to address root causes of liferisking journeys from Lebanon and ensure swift rescue of people distressed at sea
Bazzi Says 'Shadow PMs' Want to 'Isolate Entire Sect'
Army Disposes of 1.3 Tons of Fireworks Found at Beirut Port
Jumblat Criticizes Advocates of 'Old Pact' and 'New Norm'
Geagea: Demands to Retain Finance Ministry Harm French Initiative
Footballer Mohamed Atwi Dies of Bullet Wound
Tensions over Lebanese cabinet revive old Christian rivalries
Despair in Lebanon Pushing Some to Flee to Europe in Boats
Text of Treasury Department press release: Treasury targets Hizballah executive council companies and official
Some call for federalist system in Lebanon, but such a system would fail/Rami Rayess/Al Arabiya/September 18/2020
 

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 18-19/2020

U.S. Treasury imposes sanctions on Iranian 'cyber threat group'
The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz receives fuel from the Henry J. Kaiser-)
Nuclear deal with Iran to be killed by Trump before UN speech
Britain, France, Germany say UN sanctions relief for Iran to continue beyond Sep 20
S. Africa Says No Evidence of Iranian Plot to Kill U.S. Envoy
EU to Sanction Three Companies over Libya Arms Supplies
Senior Iranian commander blames US for downing of Ukrainian plane
Erdogan 'Sad' Libya Unity Leader is Stepping Aside
Turkey extends hydrocarbon survey off Cyprus by one month
Libya’s Haftar says he will lift oil blockade, while GNA agrees on fair revenue share
Socotra figures in multiple threats to Israel following UAE, Bahraini pacts
Why UAE peace with Israel could be warmer than with Egypt, Jordan
China, Iran, Israel, and alliances: Foreign policy issues that divide Trump and Biden
US beefing up military assets in Syria to defend troops, weeks after Russian attack
US President Trump awards Kuwait's emir 'prestigious' decoration, White House says

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 18-19/2020

Islamism and the Pathological Derivatives of a Modern Evil/Charles Elias Chartouni/September 18/2020
Question: "Who am I in Christ?"/GotQuestions.org/September 18/2020
No, There is No ‘End in Sight’ to the Battle Against Al-Qaeda/Thomas Joscelyn/FDD/September 18/2020
If Biden, Then What, on Iran?/Behnam Ben Taleblu/FDD/September 18/2020
Trump can upend the status quo again by recognizing Taiwan in international organizations/Emily de La Bruyère and Nathan Picarsic/Washington Examiner/September 18/2020
The UAE-Israel Breakthrough: Bilateral and Regional Implications and U.S. Policy/Ebtesam al-Ketbi, Dore Gold, Barbara A. Leaf, and David Makovsky/The Washington Institute/September 18/2020
Heavy international pressure seen behind Sarraj’s resignation in Libya/Jemai Guesmi/The Arab Weekly/September 18/2020
Bahrain’s normalisation move driven by regional security concerns/Faith Salama/The Arab Weekly/September 18/2020

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on September 18-19/2020

Ministry of Health: 750 coronavirus cases, 18 deaths
NNA/September 18/2020
The Ministry of Public Health announced 685 new coronavirus infection cases, raising the cumulative number since February 21 to 27,518 cases.
18 deaths have been recorded over the past 24 hours.

Lebanon Sees 18 Covid Deaths and 750 Cases in 1 Day
Naharnet/September 18/2020
Lebanon on Friday reported record daily coronavirus deaths and cases according to a statement issued by the Health Ministry. The Ministry said the small country witnessed 18 deaths and 750 new virus cases over the past 24 hours.
It said 725 of the cases were recorded among residents and 25 among people coming from abroad. Ten of the local infections are among health workers.The new deaths raise the country’s overall death toll to 281 while the new cases take the tally to 27,518 -- among them 10,739 recoveries.

Macron Holds Phone Talks with Aoun on Govt. Formation
Naharnet/September 18/2020
President Michel Aoun received a telephone call on Friday from his French counterpart where talks focused on the hurdles delaying the formation of the government missing a French deadline. Aoun received a call from French President Emmanuel Macron. The two leaders stressed the need to “exert all efforts at all levels to ensure that a Cabinet is formed soon,” the National News Agency reported. The two men agreed that the formation process must be complete within a specific time-frame. NNA said Macron had urged Aoun “to exert utmost efforts to reach a positive result,” pointing out that he would in turn make contacts for this purpose.

Macron Steps up Lebanon Efforts as Reports Say Initiative Has No Deadline
Naharnet/September 18/2020
In addition to his phone talks with President Michel Aoun on Friday, French President Emmanuel Macron has also called Speaker Nabih Berri and ex-PM Saad Hariri, MTV said on Friday. “France has no intention to freeze its initiative, which is not confined to a deadline that expires on Sunday, as previously rumored,” MTV quoted unnamed sources as saying. “Solution are currently being sought for the governmental file, including highlighting the fact that the rotation of ministerial portfolios was not a part of the French initiative,” MTV added. Some ex-PMs, specifically Hariri and Fouad Saniora, are meanwhile refusing to budge on “the principle of rotating the ministerial portfolios,” the TV network said. Al-Jadeed television meanwhile reported that Macron’s talks on Friday will also involve PM-designate Mustafa Adib and Hizbullah.

Lebanese PM-designate waits as Paris negotiates with Tehran
The Arab Weekly/September 18/2020
BEIRUT – After meeting with President Michel Aoun, Lebanese Prime Minister-designate Mustapha Adib decided to wait before officially declaring his inability to form a new government.
Political sources believe Adib’s decision is tied to a request from France that he wait before ending his cabinet formation quest. Indeed, Paris, which is negotiating with Tehran, still believes that it is possible to make Hezbollah take a more flexible position towards forming a new government, especially since its decision is in Tehran and not Beirut. A source close to Adib revealed that the Elysee Palace called the prime minister-designate while he was on his way to Baabda Palace, knowing that the letter of apology was in his pocket, and asked him to wait some more.
Adib acquiesced to the French request even though he had discovered that he will not be able to progress at all in forming a new government in light of the insistence of the “Shia duo” (Amal Movement and Hezbollah) to nominate Shia ministers in the government and have a Shia at the helm of the finance ministry, which is contrary to the French initiative that the pair had already agreed to. With the insistence of the “Shia duo” to impose their will on the prime minister-designate, the US Treasury announced sanctions on two construction companies affiliated with Hezbollah and Sultan Khalifa Asad, the deputy chairman of Hezbollah’s executive council headed by Hashem Safi al-Din. The two companies are Arch Consulting and Meamar Construction and are involved in implementing projects to benefit Iran and companies affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Lebanon.
Commenting on the new US sanctions, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote on Twitter, “Hezballah relies on corrupt self-enrichment to advance its agenda in Lebanon. Today we designated two Hezballah-linked companies and one official involved in illicit schemes. The people of Lebanon deserve better and the U.S. will continue to stand against corruption.”
Adib went to the presidential palace in a pessimistic atmosphere. Sources quoted him as saying, “The mission I was assigned, as a result of an understanding between the majority of the Lebanese political forces, was to form a government of non-political specialists, in a record period, and to start implementing reforms immediately.”“On this basis, the goal was not to monopolise the decision process, nor to target any of the Lebanese political components, but rather to form a government of specialists. Any other proposal will subsequently assume a different approach to the new government, and this does not correspond to the mission for which it was picked,” he added. Adib concluded, “Because I’m keen to keep the mission I’m performing in line with the spirit of the basic understanding on a government of specialists, I asked President Michel Aoun to postpone the meeting between us, for further contacts before determining the final position.”Adib did not give the timeline he had agreed on with Aoun. Last Tuesday was the deadline that Lebanese politicians had agreed on with Paris to form a new government of specialists. Hezbollah’s parliament bloc criticised “the extremely negative American role to strike down all efforts to form a government in Lebanon that would fulfil the tasks of the current stage,” in an attempt to evade accusations directed against the party and its ally, Amal Movement, of impeding Adib’s efforts. The bloc announced in a statement it would refuse to let “anyone else name the ministers who should be representing us in the new government or to ban the component to which we belong from being awarded a ministerial portfolio, especially the Ministry of Finance.”“Some of those who form the shadow government tend to confiscate the decision of the other components by preventing the prime minister-designate (Adib) from consulting with the blocs and by creating a new mechanism that prohibits the components from naming their ministers and breaks the balance by snatching the financial portfolio from us,” the statement said. On Wednesday, the French presidency expressed its “disappointment” that the Lebanese political class did not respect the pledge they made during Macron’s visit, namely to form a government within 15 days.According to the France-based EuroNews TV network, “It is still not too late for all to shoulder their responsibilities and finally work for the interest of Lebanon alone by allowing Prime Minister Mustafa Adib to form a government commensurate with the gravity of the situation.”

US accuses Hezbollah of storing explosives in Europe, issues sanctions
The Arab Weekly/September 18/2020
WASHINGTON –Tensions between Washington and Lebanon’s Hezbollah group entered a new phase Thursday amid a fiery exchange of accusations soon followed by the announcement of new sanctions. Washington’s new sanctions were imposed on a Hezbollah official and two Lebanon-based companies, with the United States talking about links to the Iran-backed Shia group. The US Treasury Department in a statement said it blacklisted Arch Consulting and Meamar Construction, building on sanctions imposed this month on two former government ministers Washington accused of enabling Hezbollah.
Also hit with sanctions was Sultan Khalifah Asad, who the Treasury said is a senior Hezbollah Executive Council official who provided project guidance to the companies. “The United States remains committed to targeting Hezbollah and its supporters as they corruptly abuse Lebanese resources to enrich their leaders while the Lebanese people suffer from inadequate services,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in the statement. The action freezes any US assets of those blacklisted and generally bars Americans from dealing with them. Those that engage in certain transactions with those designated are also at risk of being hit with secondary sanctions, the Treasury said. The Arch Consulting and Meamar Construction companies are leveraged by Hezbollah to conceal money transfers to the group’s own accounts, enriching Hezbollah leadership, the Treasury said.
The department added that Hezbollah conspired with Lebanese officials, including former Lebanese Transport Minister Yusuf Finyanus, blacklisted this month by Washington, to direct government contracts to the companies that are overseen by Hezbollah’s Executive Council. Lebanon’s Hezbollah, deemed a terrorist group by Washington, accused the US administration on Thursday of obstructing the formation of a new Lebanese government, as faltering efforts to form a cabinet have cast doubt on prospects for a French initiative to lift the nation out of crisis.
A senior State Department official, in return, accused Hezbollah of storing chemicals that can be used to make explosives in several European countries. He also appealed to countries in Europe and elsewhere to impose bans on the organisation.
Hezbollah operatives have moved ammonium nitrate from Belgium to France, Greece, Italy, Spain and Switzerland in recent years and are suspected to still be storing the material throughout Europe, said Nathan Sales, the State Department coordinator for counter-terrorism. Ammonium nitrate is a chemical compound commonly used as a fertiliser, but it can be used to make explosives. It can also be dangerous in storage, as demonstrated by the huge explosion last month in the Lebanese capital of Beirut.
Sales, without offering evidence, said the US believes that Iran-backed Hezbollah has since 2012 transported ammonium nitrate around Europe in first aid kits with cold packs that contain the compound. The United States believes these supplies are still in place throughout Europe, possibly in Greece, Italy and Spain. “Why would Hezbollah stockpile ammonium nitrate on European soil?” he said. “The answer is clear: Hezbollah put these weapons in place so it could conduct major terrorist attacks whenever it or its masters in Tehran deemed necessary.”
Sales made the remarks Thursday in an online forum hosted by the American Jewish Committee, which has called upon more countries to ban Hezbollah and its operations. Hezbollah is a “unitary organisation that cannot be subdivided into a military and so-called political wing,” he said. “Without a full ban, the group can still raise money and recruit operatives. “Hezbollah is one organization. It is a terrorist organisation.”Fifteen years after the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, heavily armed group Hezbollah has risen to become the overarching power in a country that is now collapsing under a series of devastating crises.Lebanon’s banks are paralysed, its currency has crashed and sectarian tensions are rising. On top of that, a huge port blast last month smashed a large swath of Beirut, killing more than 190 people and causing damage estimated at up to $4.6 billion.

U.S. Accuses Hizbullah of Storing Explosive Chemical in Europe
Associated Press/Naharnet/September 18/2020
Hizbullah has stored chemicals that can be used to make explosives in several European countries, a senior State Department official said Thursday as he appealed to countries in Europe and elsewhere to impose bans on the organization.
Hizbullah operatives have moved ammonium nitrate from Belgium to France, Greece, Italy, Spain and Switzerland in recent years and are suspected to still be storing the material throughout Europe, said Nathan Sales, the State Department coordinator for counter-terrorism.Ammonium nitrate is a chemical compound commonly used as a fertilizer, but it can be used to make explosives. It can also be dangerous in storage, as demonstrated by the huge explosion last month in the Lebanese capital of Beirut. Sales, without offering evidence, said the U.S. believes that Iran-backed Hizbullah has since 2012 transported ammonium nitrate around Europe in first aid kits with cold packs that contain the compound. The United States believes these supplies are still in place throughout Europe, possibly in Greece, Italy and Spain. "Why would Hizbullah stockpile ammonium nitrate on European soil?" he said. "The answer is clear: Hizbullah put these weapons in place so it could conduct major terrorist attacks whenever it or its masters in Tehran deemed necessary." Sales made the remarks in an online forum hosted by the American Jewish Committee, which has called upon more countries to ban Hizbullah and its operations. The U.S. has designated Hizbullah as a foreign terrorist organization since 1997, but some countries distinguish between the organization's military wing and the political wing. The EU lists Iran-backed Hizbullah's military wing as a banned terrorist group, but not its political wing, which has been part of Lebanese governments in recent years. Some individual countries, including Germany and the U.K., have outlawed the group in its entirety. Sales called on more countries to do the same.Hizbullah is a "unitary organization that cannot be subdivided into a military and so-called political wing," he said. Without a full ban, the group can still raise money and recruit operatives. "Hizbullah is one organization," he said. "It is a terrorist organization."

U.S. blacklists Hezbollah official, Lebanon-based companies
Daphne Psaledakis/Reuters/September 18/2020
The United States on Thursday imposed sanctions on a Hezbollah official and two Lebanon-based companies as the country experiences a deep economic crisis, accusing them of being linked to the Iran-backed Shi’ite group.
The U.S. Treasury Department in a statement said it blacklisted Arch Consulting and Meamar Construction, building on sanctions imposed this month on two former government ministers Washington accused of enabling Hezbollah.
Also hit with sanctions was Sultan Khalifah As’ad, who the Treasury said is a senior Hezbollah Executive Council official who provided project guidance to the companies. “The United States remains committed to targeting Hizballah and its supporters as they corruptly abuse Lebanese resources to enrich their leaders while the Lebanese people suffer from inadequate services,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in the statement. The action freezes any U.S. assets of those blacklisted and generally bars Americans from dealing with them. Those that engage in certain transactions with those designated are also at risk of being hit with secondary sanctions, the Treasury said. The Arch Consulting and Meamar Construction companies are leveraged by Hezbollah to conceal money transfers to the group’s own accounts, enriching Hezbollah leadership, the Treasury said.
The department added that Hezbollah conspired with Lebanese officials, including former Lebanese Transport Minister Yusuf Finyanus, blacklisted this month by Washington, to direct government contracts to the companies that are overseen by Hezbollah’s Executive Council. Lebanon’s Hezbollah, deemed a terrorist group by Washington, accused the U.S. administration on Thursday of obstructing the formation of a new Lebanese government, as faltering efforts to form a Cabinet have cast doubt on prospects for a French initiative to lift the nation out of crisis.
Fifteen years after the assassination of Lebanon’s Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, heavily armed group Hezbollah has risen to become the overarching power in a country that is now collapsing under a series of devastating crises.
Lebanon’s banks are paralyzed, its currency has crashed and sectarian tensions are rising. On top of that, a huge port blast last month smashed a large swath of Beirut, killing more than 190 people and causing damage estimated at up to $4.6 billion.
*Reporting by Daphne Psaledakis; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Marguerita Choy and Jonathan Oatis

Israel Charges East Jerusalem Woman with Aiding Hizbullah
Associated Press/Naharnet/September 18/2020
An Israeli court on Friday charged a Palestinian woman from east Jerusalem with membership in a terrorist organization after Israel's internal security service said the Lebanese group Hizbullah had recruited her five years ago.
Yasmine Jaber was arrested in early August. The Shin Bet internal security service said she was recruited by Hizbullah operatives at a conference in 2015 and asked to recruit others in east Jerusalem. It said she traveled to Istanbul on a number of occasions to meet Hizbullah operatives and communicated with them via social media. Her family issued a statement denying the allegations. They said the length of her interrogation and the fact that Israel has not named any other members of the alleged cell show that the allegations are false. Israel views Hizbullah as its most immediate military threat. The two sides fought to a devastating stalemate in 2006. Since then, Hizbullah has vastly expanded its arsenal of rockets and is now believed to be able to strike virtually anywhere in Israel.Israel captured east Jerusalem in the 1967 war and annexed it shortly thereafter. Israel considers the entire city to be its unified capital, while the Palestinians want east Jerusalem to be the capital of their future state.

Shiite Cleric Ali al-Amin Questioned over ‘Meeting Israeli Officials’
Naharnet/September 18/2020
A hearing session kicked off at Mount Lebanon's Justice Palace to question anti-Hizbullah Shiite scholar Ali al-Amin over accusations of "meeting Israeli officials” during a conference in Bahrain. In June, a lawsuit was filed by the public prosecutor’s office in Mount Lebanon against al-Amin for “meeting Israeli officials” and a host of other charges during a conference he attended last year.The accusations also include “attacks on the Resistance and its martyrs, inciting strife between sects, sowing discord and sedition, and violating the Sharia laws of the Jaafari sect.”Besides Israel, the 2019 dialogue conference among religions in Bahrain was attended by religious clerics from different countries including Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan. Al-Amin had assured there was no personal meeting with any Jewish people who attended the conference, and that he “was not aware of their attendance.” Al-Mustaqbal Movement leader ex-PM Saad Hariri had described the move against al-Amin as “a blatant attack on the dignity of the Lebanese.”

Address by President Michel Aoun at UN Sustainable Development Goals Moment
NNA /September 18/2020
Your Excellencies, I would like to thank you for organizing this conference, the first in the frame of the action plan for the coming ten years, in view of achieving the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030, these goals to which our peoples aspire, and to which Lebanon renews its commitment despite the dire circumstances that the country is going through, till we all reach a better world for us and for the generations to come. Undoubtedly, our world is facing today tremendous challenges that have directly impacted all countries, notably Lebanon which has had its large share of them, being shaken by consecutive tremors: from the massive Syrian displacement crisis lingering for ten years and thrusting upon us a pressing development reality whereas the displaced amount to nearly one third of Lebanon’s population, to the acute economic and financial crisis caused by decades of accumulated corruption and mismanagement. In the middle of our fight against the Covid-19 pandemic, Lebanon has been stricken by the Beirut Port explosion which has hit the hearto the capital, causing huge human and physical damages, and tremendous adverse effects that will not only contribute to aggravating the recession of the economic activity, but will also exacerbate poverty rates which were already 45% prior to the Beirut blast, according to the assessment of the World Bank which has estimated the material damages at around 4.5 billion U.S. dollars, the economic loss at around 3.5 billion dollars, and the reconstruction needs at around 2 billion dollars. As I avail myself of this opportunity to thank the brotherly and friendly States and international institutions for which we are grateful for rushing to support Lebanon and provide immediate and humanitarian assistance, and contribute to healing the wounds, I would like to draw your kind attention to the fact that all these tremendous challenges that Lebanon is struggling with have affected the course of prioritization, thus making it imperative for us:
First: to work on the quick response in order to address the most pressing crises, in line with the principle called for by the UN Agenda, namely “leaving no one behind”, by delivering aid to the most needy, the poorest, the most marginalized and the most affected categories.
Second: to repair around 200.000 residential units which were damaged - some totally demolished - causing the displacement of 300.000 citizens, especially that we are on the verge of winter. Third: to rebuild the port of Beirut, the vital artery of the Lebanese economy, and to address the severe damages that have affected all sectors: health, education, food, construction, tourism…Ladies and gentlemen, Lebanon stands today at a crucial intersection between, on one hand, its aspiration to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal during the next decade and, on the other hand, the economic, financial, monetary and social crises it is enduring. It greatly needs further support from the international community and the UN organizations to help it overcome these urgent circumstances, though an oriented action and close cooperation between them and the governmental bodies, by programming humanitarian aid to ensure economic and social stability, and by pressing for the desired sustainable development, in order to address the problems of the present and get ready for the requirements of the future.
Thank you. -- Presidency Press Office

Aoun mourns soccer player Mohamed Atwi: Justice will take its course
NNA/September 18/2020
President of the Republic, General Michel Aoun, mourned the international soccer player, Mohamed Atwi, who died this morning from being hit by a stray bullet last month. President Aoun tweeted: "It is painful that the international player, Mohamed Atwi, joined the convoy of young people whom Lebanon lost as a result of the lack of awareness of some of the dangers posed by their irresponsible behavior. He was distinguished by his performance and raised the name of his country high. Justice will be served. All consolation to his family, and may God have mercy on his soul."--Presidency Press office

UNHCR and UNICEF: Urgent need to address root causes of liferisking journeys from Lebanon and ensure swift rescue of people distressed at sea
NNA /September 18/2020
UNHCR Lebanon, the Refugee Agency, and UNICEF are deeply concerned by the spike in self-organized movements by boats to Cyprus in recent weeks and distraught by the deaths and dangerous situations that many vulnerable men, women and children are put into as they desperately search for means of survival. On 14 September, the UNIFIL Maritime Task Force rescued a boat off the coast of Lebanon with 37 individuals on board, including 12 children. Several passengers had passed away during the 7-day journey at sea under the scorching sun, including children and one woman. When the boat finally reached Beirut several of the other passengers were in a critical condition and had to be rushed to hospital. This incident is a tragic reminder of the desperation that an increasing number of people in Lebanon are feeling as they see no way of survival.
The impact of the deep economic and financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and most recently the Beirut blast are pushing many to the brink. "In desperate situations, whether in search of safety, protection, or basic survival, people will move, whatever the danger. Addressing the reasons of these desperate journeys and the swift collective rescue of people distressed at sea are key." said Mireille Girard, UNHCR representative in Lebanon. Immediate life-saving care, medical assistance and psychological first aid was collectively provided by UNIFIL, the Lebanese Red Cross, UNHCR, UNICEF and the Lebanese authorities to the deeply distressed passengers. Search and rescue efforts continued to find other passengers from the boat who went missing at sea during the journey. "As we re-double our efforts to sensitize communities to the risks involved when embarking on such journeys, we're systematically attending to the individual needs of the survivors on arrival and after they returned to their places of residence in Lebanon", said Girard. "UNICEF is extremely concerned about the risks that children are facing when migrating in such conditions, said Yukie Mokuo, UNICEF Lebanon Representative. "We remain committed to support Lebanon to ensure the children's wellbeing at all times and tackle the root causes of migration, including poverty and lack of economic opportunities. Until these root causes are addressed in a meaningful way over the long term, families and children will continue to leave their homes in search of a more hopeful future, even via irregular migration routes."-- UNICEF, UNHCR Lebanon

Bazzi Says 'Shadow PMs' Want to 'Isolate Entire Sect'
Naharnet/September 18/2020
MP Ali Bazzi of Speaker Nabih Berri's Development and Liberation bloc on Friday described ex-PMs Saad Hariri, Najib Miqati, Fouad Saniora and Tammam Salam as "the shadow PMs," accusing them of seeking to "isolate" an "entire sect."
"Who said that we don't have the right to get the finance portfolio? Then let us go to a civil state without rotation (of posts)," said Bazzi in a phone interview with al-Jadeed TV. Noting that the stance on the finance portfolio is "not Speaker Berri's stance nor Amal Movement's stance but rather the stance of an entire sect," the MP said his camp is dismayed by "the entire club that is practicing the policy of elimination and isolation.” “No one can impose on us our representatives in the government as long as the constitution guarantees to us the representation of a sect, and may God help the PM-designate in the face of the shadow PMs,” the lawmaker added. As for the calls for early parliamentary elections, Bazzi noted that French President Emmanuel Macron had “said during the Pine Residence meeting that the polls would have no effect and would not change the balance of power.”

Army Disposes of 1.3 Tons of Fireworks Found at Beirut Port
Naharnet/September 18/2020
The army on Friday announced that it has disposed of 1,320 kilograms of fireworks found by its units at a Beirut port hangar during an ongoing inspection process. “As part of the inspection works that army units are carrying out at Beirut port, 1,320 kilograms of fireworks were found packed in 120 cartons at one of the hangars,” an army statement said. “Troops from the Engineering Regiment immediately removed them and disposed of them at fields belonging to the army,” the statement added. An FBI team has reportedly deduced that a fireworks cache was behind the August 4 detonation of around 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate that had been stored at the port’s Hangar 12. Other flammable substances had been also placed in the same hanger. The resulting explosion, one of the biggest in the world, killed around 200 people, wounded around 6,500 and devastated entire neighborhoods.
Lebanese authorities have been blasted for their negligence in the wake of the disaster.

Jumblat Criticizes Advocates of 'Old Pact' and 'New Norm'
Naharnet/September 18/2020
Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat on Friday issued warnings to the feuding political camps that are bickering over the finance ministerial portfolio.
“Very soon, the advocates of the old pact and the advocates of the new norm will realize that there is no money at the treasury,” Jumblat tweeted, apparently referring to a grouping of Sunni ex-PMs and to the country’s two biggest Shiite parties -- Hizbullah and Amal. They will also discover that “Beirut port has died and moved to (the Israeli ports of) Ahsdod and Asqalan and that the Gulf pipelines will replace IPC and TAPLINE,” Jumblat added. “All the rockets and multiple rocket launchers of sectarianism, whichever side they come from, will not protect Lebanon,” the PSP leader warned, voicing concern that Greater Lebanon might soon “die.”

Geagea: Demands to Retain Finance Ministry Harm French Initiative
Naharnet/September 18/2020
Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea said the French initiative was not launched to solve Lebanon’s multiple crises, but came to alleviate the suffering and burden of the Lebanese people. “The French initiative was not launched to solve the Lebanese crisis. It is aimed at alleviating the burden off the Lebanese people. No state can find solutions for the crisis other than the Lebanese people, they have to do it themselves,” said Geagea. Geagea said although his party did not vote in favor of Prime Minister-designate Mustafa Adib’s appointment to form the new government, but it "supports a new prime minister and fresh new government." The LF chief said the adamant positions of AMAL Movement and Hizbullah to retain the finance minister portfolio “strike the French initiative to the core.” “AMAL Movement and Hizbullah have publicly declared they want the finance portfolio and to name the Shiite ministers, this is what led to the suspension of the French initiative,” he said. “Thwarting an initiative only to prove someone wrong is a blatant attempt to sabotage the country,” added Geagea.

Footballer Mohamed Atwi Dies of Bullet Wound
Agence France Presse/Associated Press/Naharnet/September 18/2020
A prominent Lebanese footballer has died of a bullet wound sustained last month during a funeral for one of the victims of the Beirut port blast, his club said Friday. Mohamed Atwi, 32, played as a midfielder for a number of Lebanese clubs and won the national league three times with Beirut's Ansar, his club for almost a decade. "A sad day for sport... a great loss for Lebanese football," Wael Chehayeb, an official with his latest club Al-Akhaa al-Ahly, posted on social media. Tributes poured in for the player, who was also capped three times for his country.
President Michel Aoun tweeted that "it is regrettable that international player Mohammed Atwi joined the list of young people that Lebanon lost because some don't know the dangers caused by their irresponsible behavior." Those behind the shooting will face justice, Aoun added. Caretaker Minister of Sports and Youth Vartine Ohanian tweeted that the nation was "shocked by the passing away of football star Mohammed Atwi." She added that Lebanon has lost "a humble and polite person and a symbol to civilized sports." Atwi was hit in the head by a bullet as he walked on a street in a Beirut neighborhood last month. Initial reports suggested he was struck by a falling bullet fired in the air from a nearby procession mourning one of the firefighters killed in the August 4 port explosion. Atwi's family however has demanded a full investigation into the circumstances of his death, over which no arrests have been made.Shooting in the air for celebrations and funerals is common in Lebanon despite recurring injuries from falling bullets.

Tensions over Lebanese cabinet revive old Christian rivalries
The Arab Weekly/September 18/2020
TUNIS –The resignation of the head of the Libyan Gover
BEIRUT – Lebanese Christian opposition politician Samir Geagea said on Friday demands by the Shia groups Hezbollah and Amal to name the finance minister in a new government had struck at the core of a French initiative to lift Lebanon out of deep crisis. “God willing I am wrong, but it has really broken down, what can save it now?” Geagea said in a televised news conference. He said that giving into the demands of Hezbollah and Amal would lead other factions making demands, obstructing reform. Asked what would happen if the opportunity presented by the French push was lost, he said: “More collapse, but faster.”The tensions over government formation have revived an old rivalry between Christian factions who fought each other in Lebanon’s 1975-1990 civil war.
In recent days, the rivalry has flared again on the street and in political debate, renewing fears of fresh unrest as the nation grapples with its worst crisis since the conflict. Never far from the surface in the past three decades, the feud between supporters of Michel Aoun, now Lebanon’s president, and Samir Geagea’s Lebanese Forces (LF) led to a tense standoff this week near Beirut. Gunshots rang out, but no one was hurt.There were rival accounts about who fired in the air. But those on both sides, some born after the war, said Monday’s events were a reminder of a long-running enmity, one of many in Lebanon’s fractious sectarian system now facing new strains amid an economic meltdown.
The rivalry today is about more than Christian politics: Aoun is allied with Hezbollah, the heavily armed, Iran-backed Shia party. Geagea spearheads opposition to Hezbollah, saying it should surrender its weapons.
“There are limits they cannot cross,” said Elias al-Zoghby, a member of Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), saying an LF convoy of supporters waving flags had acted provocatively by driving towards his party’s headquarters.
“We hope they’ll remember the past and that nobody can win the game of the street,” LF activist Toni Bader said, denying the FPM’s account.
The standoff was the latest in a country that has seen sporadic violence intensify as an economic crisis that erupted last year has deepened. It was compounded by a huge blast that ripped through Beirut on Aug. 4. The government has resigned and efforts to form a new one under French pressure are floundering.
“The security situation is reaching a breaking point,” said Mohanad Hage Ali of the Carnegie Middle East Center. Troops deployed to defuse Monday’s face-off, which spiralled when Geagea supporters in cars and on motorcycles, waving LF flags and chanting partisan songs, drove near the FPM offices.
Geagea loyalists were marking the anniversary of the 1982 assassination of Bashir Gemayel, who founded what began as the LF militia. LF officials say their supporters were unarmed and only passing near the FPM offices when the other side fired.
FPM officials say the supporters of the LF, which disarmed at the end of the war, were threatening to attack. They said the guns were fired by security forces.
The army said shots were fired in the air without saying by whom. It said LF supporters had thrown stones at the FPM office.
One video showed men firing machine guns into the air. In another, men in masks cursed as they burned an LF flag. “It became clear the street is really boiling again between them,” said prominent journalist Nabil Boumonsef.
A poster of founder of Lebanese Forces and Lebanese assassinated president-elect
Both sides have called for restraint, while accusing each other of acting like a militia. Geagea, who led the LF militia forces, and Aoun, who commanded the army at the end of the civil war, have not themselves commented.
After the war, both leaders were forced out of political life as next door Syria dominated politics. Geagea was imprisoned and Aoun went into exile in France. Both returned to the scene in 2005 once Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon.
Geagea has become more critical of FPM’s record in government since last month’s port blast.
Patriarch Bechara Boutros Al-Rai, leader of the Maronite church, who has influence as leader of Lebanon’s biggest Christian community, has weighed in and called for change in the way Lebanon is governed. Aoun and Geagea are both Maronites.
Monday’s incident was one of several events that have stoked tension. LF scouts, usually young party supporters, have staged prominent parades at party events. A group of about 20 LF loyalists, dressed in black uniforms, goose-stepped in formation through a Christian district of Beirut this week.
FPM members say these are provocative shows of strength. The LF says such parades are routine and the FPM’s criticism is an attempt to hide its political failure.

Despair in Lebanon Pushing Some to Flee to Europe in Boats
Associated Press/Naharnet/September 18/2020
Mohammed Sufian did not dream of much: a job, food on the table, the chance to buy his 2½-year-old son the little things a toddler wants. So when he heard that smugglers were taking people from his hometown of Tripoli to the nearby Mediterranean island of Cyprus, he decided to take the chance with his pregnant wife and child. To pay their way, he sold his furniture and two of his sister's bracelets. They boarded a small fishing boat with the others. But what would be expected to be a 40-hour trip went badly: For eight harrowing days, they were stranded in the Mediterranean Sea, apparently losing their way and running out of diesel. At least four adults and two children died -- including Sufian's little boy. Six are missing. "I took my son with me not to give him a high life, not to give him the life of rich people," said Sufian, 21. "I was trying to give him a good life where if he will ask me for a potato chip bag or a juice box I am able to give it to him. This is what drove me out of the country." In recent weeks, scores of others have tried to make the same illicit sea crossing, attempting to flee a country facing multiple crises and an unprecedented economic and financial collapse.
Generations of Lebanese have emigrated due to war and conflict, including waves of Lebanese who traveled by boat legally to Cyprus during the country's 1975-90 war. But this new flight -- people risking their lives to make illegal crossings in rickety fishing boats to escape poverty -- reflects a level of desperation the country has not seen before. Tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs in the past months. The local currency has lost 80% of its value, eradicating the purchasing power of many in this tiny country of 5 million where corruption and mismanagement are widespread. Unemployment has reached a soaring 35% and poverty is skyrocketing. The crisis has been worsened by the coronavirus pandemic and last month's massive explosion at Beirut port which fed despair among a population that has long given up on its leaders.
Tripoli, Lebanon's second largest city, had been one of the poorest and most neglected regions even before the crisis. The city is also home to tens of thousands of Syrians who fled civil war in their country that broke out in March 2011. Many of those taking the boats have been Syrian refugees.Earlier this month, authorities in Cyprus said they were alarmed by the arrival of four boats carrying Syrian and Lebanese migrants in waters off its coastline. European Union member Cyprus and Lebanon have an agreement to prevent migrants from reaching the island nation.
The boat carrying Sufian's family and 46 other men, women and children, mostly Lebanese and Syrians, left Tripoli on Sept. 7. Each had paid the smuggler the equivalent of up to $930 in Lebanese pounds.
Upon boarding, all their belongings, including food and water, were taken away -- ostensibly, they were too heavy. All would be returned, brought to them by another boat once they are away from Lebanon's coast, they were told. They never got them back, and were left under the scorching sun, without water or food. Sufian said that 20 hours after they sailed, his son began asking for water and milk. Having nothing to give and overcome by the heat and his own worry, Sufian fainted, he says. When he woke up, Sufian found that his relatives had given the boy three bottles of sea water.
"My son died later because of lack of food and water," Sufian said. He washed his son and followed the Islamic tradition of covering him with a cloth. Three days later, he dropped the body into the sea, thinking they might never make it back to land. Sufian said several ships passed the stranded boat but no one helped, perhaps because they feared pirates. After six deaths, a half-dozen men leaped into the sea to seek help. Ibrahim Lisheen, a 22-year-old migrant, swam for hours. Finally, he reached a warship for the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon known as UNIFIL; its crew rescued those remaining on the boat. They were offered treatment and handed over to Lebanese authorities in Beirut. Late Thursday, the body of a young man believed to have been on the ship washed up on the coast south of Beirut. Six are still missing, among them Mohammed Mohammed, 27, who left Lebanon to help his parents and seven sisters.
His father, Khaldoun, says his son had been jobless for years after he lost his job at a shop that sells fire extinguishers; he grew tired of taking "money from me to buy cigarettes," and decided to join cousins who were making the crossing. Mohammed had sold his sister's neckless to pay the smugglers.
The two men who took the money and put the migrants on the fishing boat are in hiding and families are demanding that they be punished. Mohammed's mother, Afaf Abdul-Hamid, goes to the coast of Tripoli every day, hoping that her son will swim home. "These are human traffickers. They took my son to the middle of the sea and left him there with no food or water." Lisheen, whose heroics led to the rescue, is furious. "Look at my body, it was eaten by fish. My body is swollen, my teeth were broken due to the salty water and I lost a lot of things," he said, as friends massaged his body with Aloe Vera to alleviate his sunburn. Why did he take the risk? "I did that because of poverty, it makes us blind," he said. "To those who are asking me why you are leaving, I am telling them why, I am leaving in order to feed my family, my mother." Sufian and his wife, expected to give birth in two months, live with their sorrow. And the grieving father relives, again and again, the moment when his dreams of a better life for his family became a nightmare. "My son died due to thirst, I shrouded him with my hands, I washed him with my hands and with my hands I dropped him in the water after three days, because I lost hope."
 

Text of Treasury Department press release: Treasury targets Hizballah executive council companies and official

PRESS RELEASES
Treasury Targets Hizballah Executive Council Companies and Official
September 17, 2020
Washington – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned two Lebanon-based companies, Arch Consulting and Meamar Construction, for being owned, controlled, or directed by Hizballah. Additionally, OFAC designated Sultan Khalifah As’ad, a Hizballah Executive Council official, who is closely associated with both companies.
“Through Hizballah’s exploitation of the Lebanese economy and manipulation of corrupt Lebanese officials, companies associated with the terrorist organization are awarded government contracts,” said Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin. “The United States remains committed to targeting Hizballah and its supporters as they corruptly abuse Lebanese resources to enrich their leaders while the Lebanese people suffer from inadequate services.”
Hizballah’s activities permeate all aspects of the Lebanese economy, including the construction and infrastructure sectors. Hizballah leverages Arch and Meamar to conceal money transfers to Hizballah’s own accounts, further enriching Hizballah’s leadership and supporters, and depriving the Lebanese people of much-needed funds. Hizballah conspires with Lebanese officials, including the recently designated former Minister of Public Works and Transportation, Yusuf Finyanus, to direct government contracts worth millions of dollars to these companies, which are overseen by Hizballah’s Executive Council. The Council also receives the corrupt profits from these companies.
This action builds on previous Treasury actions against Hizballah Executive Council companies, including Atlas Holdings, which was designated in February 2020, as well as the recent designations earlier this month of corrupt former Lebanese Ministers Yusuf Finyaus and Ali Hassan Khalil for supporting Hizballah.
These entities and individual are being designated pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224, as amended by E.O. 13886.
ARCH CONSULTING AND MEAMAR CONSTRUCTION
Arch Consulting (Arch) and Meamar Construction (Meamar) are owned, controlled, or directed by Hizballah, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
Arch and Meamar are two of several companies subordinate to Hizballah’s Executive Council. Hizballah takes advantage of these entities’ privately owned appearance to conceal money transfers for Hizballah and evade U.S. sanctions. As of 2019, Hizballah worked with U.S.-designated former Lebanese Minister Yusuf Finyanus to ensure that Arch and Meamar won bids for Lebanese government contracts worth millions of dollars. Both companies in turn sent some profits from these contracts to Hizballah’s Executive Council.
Since their inception, Arch and Meamar have been associated with Hizballah. According to publicly available information, several senior officials have ties to Hizballah; Sultan Khalifah As’ad is publicly listed as a founder of Meamar, and several individuals included in the company’s registration documents also have public ties to Hizballah. Arch is registered under the name of a Hizballah-supported candidate in the 2004 municipal elections. Moreover, Arch was previously part of the U.S.-designated Jihad al-Bina company, Hizballah’s main construction company. Despite becoming independent in 2005, it remains an important source of funding for Jihad al-Bina. OFAC designated Jihad al-Bina pursuant to E.O. 13224 in February 2007.
SULTAN KHALIFAH AS’AD
Sultan Khalifah As’ad (As’ad) is an official of Hizballah, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
As’ad is a senior Hizballah Executive Council official who serves as the deputy to Executive Council Chairman Hashim Safi al-Din, who was designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 in May 2017. In addition to serving as Hashim Safi al-Din’s deputy, As’ad serves as the senior official for Hizballah’s central municipal portfolio, a position he has held since at least 2011, and for which he appears regularly at public events. As of early 2019, As’ad was responsible for dozens of companies subordinate to the Executive Council, including Arch and Meamar. He provided project guidance to these companies and was involved in their financial and legal issues. He reported to and received guidance from Hashim Safi al-Din about the companies and passed instructions to the companies’ directors and Hizballah’s Finance Committee.
SANCTIONS IMPLICATIONS
The Treasury Department continues to prioritize disruption of the full range of Hizballah’s illicit financial activity, and with this action has designated over 90 Hizballah-affiliated individuals and entities since 2017. OFAC took this action pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended, which targets terrorists and those providing support to terrorists or acts of terrorism. Hizballah was designated by the Department of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in October 1997 and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) pursuant to E.O. 13224 in October 2001.
As a result of today’s action, all property and interests in property of the individuals named above, and of any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by them, individually, or with other blocked persons, that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons, are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC or otherwise exempt, OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons. The prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person or the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods or services from any such person.
Furthermore, engaging in certain transactions with the entities and individual designated today entails risk of secondary sanctions pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended, and the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations, which implement the Hizballah International Financing Prevention Act of 2015, as amended by the Hizballah International Financing Prevention Amendments Act of 2018. Pursuant to these authorities, OFAC can prohibit or impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates a significant transaction for a terrorist group like Hizballah, or a person acting on behalf of or at the direction of, or owned or controlled by, an SDGT such as Hizballah.
 

Some call for federalist system in Lebanon, but such a system would fail
Rami Rayess/Al Arabiya/September 18/2020
Calls for federalism in Lebanon have flourished recently as certain pockets within Lebanese society are fed up the current political system that is based on sectarianism, nepotism and clientelism.
But new calls for a new federalist system in Lebanon are unlikely to succeed because it would simply produce a set of mini states that would not be viable, would likely have contradictory agendas, and would indulge in endless conflicts.
Calls for partition and federalism also flourished during the civil war, especially in the 1980s when militants from various sects succeeded in drawing demarcating lines between the different Lebanese regions along confessional lines. Even the capital Beirut was divided into two parts: east Beirut, mainly inhabited by Christians, and west Beirut, by Muslims. At the war’s close, when the time came for an internationally sponsored political compromise, all parties – except Hezbollah – handed in their weapons, and the temporary borders that had for years separated areas in Lebanon opened up and citizens moved about freely once again. Life returned to normal sooner than anyone had expected at the time.
And, more importantly, this de facto partition was never institutionalized and formalized in a de jure arrangement. Today, political arrangements that were set in the Taif Accord of 1989 that ended 15 years of civil war no longer seem viable either as the balance of power has tremendously tilted in the favor of some parties, namely Hezbollah and its allies, at the expense of others.In the past, this intricate and delicate balance of power has helped maintain relatively adequate processes of decision-making that have kept the country running in one way or another. With the new imbalance, the country has descended into the abyss. Where Lebanon was once famous for its freedom and openness in the region, those freedoms are now diminishing.
Old calls for partition
Even when the regions were divided, calls for formalizing partition of the country were minimal, and those calls rarely had an actual political weight or effect. What mattered were the military operations on the ground carried out by various militant factions and that later all paramilitary groups were dissolved or became part of the state. Militias became part of the state apparatus, and they retained their original roles as political parties. Where federalism requires national consensus on foreign policy options, in Lebanon, differences over foreign policy have been present since independence in 1943. In fact, the National Pact, which was a verbal compromise between Maronite Christians and Sunni Muslims, was based on a “no East, no West” foreign policy, a policy designed for neutrality. Mutual fears were the reason behind this understanding. Muslims would refrain from calling on Lebanon to be part of Arab unity; in return, Christians would refrain from seeking protection from France and the West. Though this formula worked for a while, it was not successfully functional on a regular basis. Lebanon has for years been the battleground for regional conflicts because it failed to build local consensus on foreign policy matters.
Does federalism have a chance?
With such deep divisions that led to armed conflicts, will federalism ever have a real chance in Lebanon? Recent calls for neutrality ignited heated discussions as Hezbollah and its allies rejected those calls. And with neutrality refused, federalism will be even harder to accept.If foreign policy gives an example on how complicated installing a federal system in Lebanon would be, other areas of consideration are likely to complicate matters further.
How would the federal districts be divided? Would they be along sectarian lines? What happens to the mixed areas that include Christian and Muslim inhabitants? How would the newly demarcated states coexist? If the current central state has tense relations with external players and a state of war with others, would the same relations apply to the different federal state or a state might get to choose to normalize ties with Israel for example, while the other will throw rockets on it and call for the liberation of Palestine?
At the economic level, will those federal states be viable? Do some of them have privileged advantages like a port and airport and the others do not? What about industry, tourism and agriculture?
There are many questions that would have to be addressed should a federalist system be pursued, questions that will not be easy to answer. Federalism would be a recipe for chaos in Lebanon and would further deepen divisions that will pave the way for additional external intervention within these new federal states that would have their own conflicting affiliations. And there would always be a chance that those new states would turn the new federal Lebanon once again into the battlefield of regional proxy wars.
Lebanon is in the midst of unprecedented economic and social difficulties. But those difficulties can be an incentive to reform the current political system, but under a central unified modern state. This state would not differentiate between its citizens according to sectarian affiliations and would introduce civil status laws that give an option for citizens to organize their lives outside the circles of their sects – as many in the street have called for. This state would seek to monopolize power and defend its sovereignty, like any other state.
Lebanon’s collapsing economy must be an incentive for Lebanese citizens to push toward reforms and unity, rather than encourage political divorce. Lebanon’s diversity is to be cherished and strengthened instead of being cursed and weakened.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 18-19/2020

U.S. Treasury imposes sanctions on Iranian 'cyber threat group'
PRESS RELEASES
Treasury Sanctions Cyber Actors Backed by Iranian Intelligence Ministry
September 17, 2020
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1127
Washington – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed sanctions on Iranian cyber threat group Advanced Persistent Threat 39 (APT39), 45 associated individuals, and one front company. Masked behind its front company, Rana Intelligence Computing Company (Rana), the Government of Iran (GOI) employed a years-long malware campaign that targeted Iranian dissidents, journalists, and international companies in the travel sector. Concurrent with OFAC’s action, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released detailed information about APT39 in a public intelligence alert.
“The Iranian regime uses its Intelligence Ministry as a tool to target innocent civilians and companies, and advance its destabilizing agenda around the world,” said Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. “The United States is determined to counter offensive cyber campaigns designed to jeopardize security and inflict damage on the international travel sector.”
These individuals and entities were designated pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13553.
Rana advances Iranian national security objectives and the strategic goals of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) by conducting computer intrusions and malware campaigns against perceived adversaries, including foreign governments and other individuals the MOIS considers a threat. APT39 is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13553 for being owned or controlled by the MOIS, which was previously designated on February 16, 2012 pursuant to Executive Orders 13224, 13553, and 13572, which target terrorists and those responsible for human rights abuses in Iran and Syria, respectively.
Rana is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13553 for being owned or controlled by MOIS. Forty-five cyber actors are also being designated pursuant to E.O. 13553 for having materially assisted, sponsored, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of the MOIS. The identification of these individuals and their roles related to MOIS and APT39 comes as the result of a long-term investigation conducted by the FBI Boston Division.
The 45 designated individuals served in various capacities while employed at Rana, including as managers, programmers, and hacking experts. These individuals provided support for ongoing MOIS cyber intrusions targeting the networks of international businesses, institutions, air carriers, and other targets that the MOIS considered a threat.
The FBI advisory, also being released today, details eight separate and distinct sets of malware used by MOIS through Rana to conduct their computer intrusion activities. This is the first time most of these technical indicators have been publicly discussed and attributed to MOIS by the U.S. government. By making the code public, the FBI is hindering MOIS’s ability to continue their campaign, ending the victimization of thousands of individuals and organizations around the world.
“The FBI, through our Cyber Division, is committed to investigating and disrupting malicious cyber campaigns, and collaborating with our U.S. government partners to impose risks and consequences on our cyber adversaries. Today, the FBI is releasing indicators of compromise attributed to Iran’s MOIS to help computer security professionals everywhere protect their networks from the malign actions of this nation state,” said FBI Director Christopher Wray. “Iran’s MOIS, through their front company Rana, recruited highly educated people and turned their cyber talents into tools to exploit, harass, and repress their fellow citizens and others deemed a threat to the regime. We are proud to join our partners at the Department of Treasury in calling out these actions. The sanctions announced today hold these 45 individuals accountable for stealing data not just from dozens of networks here in the United States, but from networks in Iran’s neighboring countries and around the world."
The MOIS, camouflaged as Rana, has played a key role in the GOI’s abuse and surveillance of its own citizens. Through Rana, on behalf of the MOIS, the cyber actors designated today used malicious cyber intrusion tools to target and monitor Iranian citizens, particularly dissidents, Iranian journalists, former government employees, environmentalists, refugees, university students and faculty, and employees at international nongovernmental organizations. Some of these individuals were subjected to arrest and physical and psychological intimidation by the MOIS. APT39 actors have also victimized Iranian private sector companies and Iranian academic institutions, including domestic and international Persian language and cultural centers. Rana has also targeted at least 15 countries in the Middle East and North Africa region.
Rana’s targeting has been both internal to Iran and global in scale, including hundreds of individuals and entities from more than 30 different countries across Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America. Rana has used malicious cyber intrusion tools to target or compromise approximately 15 U.S. companies primarily in the travel sector. MOIS cyber actors targeted a wide range of victims, including global airlines and foreign intelligence services. The unauthorized access obtained by the individuals designated today allow the MOIS to track individuals whom it considers a threat.
As a result of today’s action, all property and interests in property of the individuals and entities above, and of any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by them, individually, or with other blocked persons, that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons, are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC or otherwise exempt, OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons. The prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person or the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods or services from any such person.

The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz receives fuel from the Henry J. Kaiser-)
The Associated Press/Friday 18 September 2020
The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier safely transited on Friday through the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important chokepoint for oil shipments, the US Navy said, as tensions with Iran continue to simmer. In a “scheduled” maneuver, the US sent the carrier and several other warships through the strait, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf, according to the US Navy’s Bahrain-based 5th fleet. The Nimitz, America’s oldest carrier in active service, carries some 5,000 sailors and Marines. American aircraft carriers have for decades sailed through the international oil shipping route in what the US describes as “defensive” operations aimed at keeping the strait open. The show of force follows months of escalating incidents in the crucial waterway, which led earlier this year to an American drone strike that killed a top Iranian general in Baghdad. Tehran responded to that strike by firing ballistic missiles that wounded dozens of American troops in Iraq. The Nimitz’s arrival in the Mideast saw Iran conduct a live-fire drill targeting a mockup aircraft carrier resembling it, underscoring the lingering threat of military conflict between the countries. The Nimitz strike group “is at the peak of readiness,” said Rear Adm. Jim Kirk, its commander. The Nimitz, whose homeport is Bremerton, Washington, has patrolled the Arabian Sea since late July. It replaced the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, which had spent months in the Arabian Sea on its deployment, breaking the Navy’s previous at-sea record. Navy officials have limited port calls due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Nuclear deal with Iran to be killed by Trump before UN speech
Bloomberg/Friday 18 September 2020
The Trump administration’s push to kill off what’s left of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran comes to a head this weekend at the United Nations, where allies and adversaries argue the US effort to restore sanctions is groundless and a diplomatic crisis is set to explode. The US bid to restore all UN sanctions on Iran -- which Secretary of State Michael Pompeo contends will go into effect on Sunday in the middle of the UN General Assembly -- deepens a chasm between the US and most other nations. Even European allies say the US has no right to invoke the accord’s “snapback provision because President Donald Trump quit the multinational deal to restrain Iran’s nuclear program two years ago. The issue is already sowing anger and division. The US and a handful of Mideast allies are declaring the end of the nuclear deal while most other Security Council members -- from Russia and China to Germany, the UK and France -- disagree with the latest example of Trump’s “America First” foreign policy. “The US will obviously put pressure on others to implement sanctions,” said Ashish Pradhan, a senior UN analyst at the International Crisis Group, which argued in a report that the coming US election will decide the outcome of the dispute. “I’m sure some of the Gulf states, Israel and others will issue some statements saying they recognize the re-imposition of sanctions. But on the UN Security Council it seems like they’ll hold the fort.”The US asserts that all of the UN resolutions on Iran that were in place before the 2015 deal -- from a ban on arm deals to restrictions on the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile activity and its nuclear enrichment -- will go back into effect. To enforce those measures if countries like Russia and China disregard them, the US could use tools such as secondary sanctions on shippers, insurers and banks and may even threaten interdictions of ships at sea. “We expect every nation to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. Period. Full stop,” Pompeo told reporters Thursday during a visit to Suriname. “And the United States is intent on enforcing all the UN Security Council resolutions.”
Why US, Other Powers Differ on Iran Nuclear Deal: QuickTake. The US deadline comes two days before Trump is expected to deliver a speech remotely Tuesday to the UN General Assembly, which is being held virtually this year due to the pandemic. Trump is likely to renew his past denunciations of Iran and vow to enforce the renewed sanctions, which Russia and China have already said they will flout by selling advanced weapons to Tehran when a UN arms embargo expires in October. The president is also expected to boast of his role in what he’s called “the dawn of a new Middle East” -- the US-brokered accords signed last week at the White House between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. The UN forum is a chance for Trump to promote his foreign policy as a success less than 50 days before a presidential election in which he lags Democrat Joe Biden in national polls.
Broad Rejection
The other key participants in the nuclear accord all reject the US move, seeking to keep the agreement on life support in case Biden wins in November. Biden has pledged to rejoin and then improve the deal, arguing that Trump’s go-it-alone strategy to pressure Iran has left the US without allies.
“I will offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy,” Biden wrote in a op-ed for CNN. “If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States would rejoin the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations. With our allies, we will work to strengthen and extend the nuclear deal’s provisions, while also addressing other issues of concern.” Fu Cong, the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s top arms-control official, this month dismissed the Trump administration’s demand as “absolutely absurd.” Instead, Fu proposed a “new dialogue platform to uphold the original agreement.”
Despite the disapproval of most UN members, the Trump administration’s decision could put significant new pressure on Iran, especially if Trump wins re-election. “Iran invites the international community to be vigilant about the US bullying against other countries in violation of international law,” Alireza Miryousefi, an official at Iran’s UN mission, said in a statement. Complicating the diplomatic calculus is Iran’s own political calendar, with elections next year that could generate a more hardline leadership. If the Chinese and Russians move ahead with “big press announcements about future arms sales, the US could apply crippling secondary sanctions, which would punish not only defense companies but also those they deal with, according to Richard Goldberg, a former National Security Council official under Trump.
‘Maximum Pressure’
“It will be up to the US and coalition partners that have economic influence on customers of Russia and China to use our combined economic weight in the same way we have conducted the ‘maximum pressure’ campaign, only this time to put pressure on them not to move forward with sales of conventional arms,” said Goldberg, who’s now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based supporter of tough sanctions against Iran. Another concern is that the United Nations system could become collateral damage in the fight over the Iran snapback. The US will put pressure on the UN to give the decision its seal of approval by appointing experts to oversee the restored sanctions and set up a website to track them. But the UN will try to stay out of the fray, the world organization’s customary survival mechanism. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is trying his best to punt the issue back to the Security Council. “It is the Security Council that is the body able to do the interpretations of Security Council resolutions, and we will align with what the Security Council does,” Guterres said on Wednesday. Diplomats said the US could move to pressure the UN by withholding funds or delaying certain payments. “Any conflict between big powers of the world has repercussions for the UN,” Tijjani Muhammad-Bande of Nigeria, the outgoing UN General Assembly president, said in an interview. “We must continue to urge caution and to de-escalate tensions.”

Britain, France, Germany say UN sanctions relief for Iran to continue beyond Sep 20
Reuters/Saturday 19 September 2020
Britain, France and Germany told the UN Security Council on Friday that UN sanctions relief for Iran - agreed under a 2015 nuclear deal - would continue beyond Sept. 20, when the United States asserts that all the measures should be reimposed.
In a letter to the 15-member body, seen by Reuters, the three European parties to the nuclear deal and long-time US allies said any decision or action taken to reimpose UN sanctions “would be incapable of legal effect.” The United States quit the nuclear deal in 2018. “We have worked tirelessly to preserve the nuclear agreement and remain committed to do so,” said the UN envoys for Britain, France and Germany, adding that they remain committed to “fully implementing” a 2015 Security Council resolution that enshrines the pact, which also included Russia and China.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last month that he triggered a 30-day process at the Security Council leading to a return of UN sanctions on Iran on Saturday (2000 EDT/0000 GMT Sunday) that would also prevent a conventional arms embargo on Tehran from expiring on Oct. 18. But 13 of the Security Council members say Washington’s move is void because it is no longer a party to the nuclear deal. The United States say it can make the move because the 2015 Security Council resolution still names it as a participant. Diplomats say few countries are likely to reimpose the measures, which were lifted under the deal that aimed to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.US President Donald Trump plans to issue an executive order in the coming days allowing him to impose US sanctions on anyone who violates the UN arms embargo on Iran, sources have told Reuters, in a bid to reinforce the US assertion that the measure has been extended indefinitely beyond Oct. 18.

S. Africa Says No Evidence of Iranian Plot to Kill U.S. Envoy
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 18/2020
South Africa's state security agency on Friday said it had found no evidence that Iran was plotting to assassinate the U.S. ambassador to Pretoria, Lana Marks. A U.S. media report, quoting unnamed officials, earlier this week said that Iran was planning to kill the U.S. ambassador to South Africa ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November. Such a plot would act as a revenge attack after President Donald Trump decided to kill Qassem Soleimani, a powerful Iranian general."At present, the information provided is not sufficient to sustain the allegation that there is a credible threat against the United States Ambassador to South Africa," State Security Agency spokesman Mava Scott said in a statement. "Such plots of assassination against diplomats are viewed in a very serious light and Her Excellency, Ambassador Marks has been assured of our commitment in this regard." On Monday, Iran's foreign ministry denied the report as "baseless" and part of "repetitive and rotten methods to create an anti-Iranian atmosphere." Relations between Washington and Tehran have been tense ever since the Islamic revolution of 1979. They have deteriorated sharply since Donald Trump unilaterally pulled out of a landmark international nuclear deal with Iran in May 2018 and reimposed crippling sanctions.The South African state security agency said officials had requested additional information from the U.S. government and urged "everyone to remain calm."
 

EU to Sanction Three Companies over Libya Arms Supplies
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 18/2020
The European Union is set to announce sanctions on Monday against three companies from Turkey, Jordan and Kazakhstan which are accused of violating a U.N. arms embargo on Libya, diplomats told AFP on condition of anonymity. The EU has a naval mission operating in waters off Libya which is tasked with policing the embargo and collecting intelligence on violators. Turkey is one of the biggest backers of the U.N.-recognized government in Tripoli, which has been under attack from strongman Khalifa Haftar who runs a rival administration in the east. "The sanctions are modest but significant. It's a signal," one of two diplomats who spoke to AFP said. The targeting of a Turkish company risks inflaming already tense relations between Ankara and the EU following a recent flare-up in the eastern Mediterranean over oil and gas reserves. The sanctions, which will see the companies blacklisted and their assets in the EU frozen, are expected to be endorsed by EU foreign ministers at a meeting on Monday in Brussels. Libya has endured almost a decade of violent chaos since the 2011 NATO-backed uprising that toppled and killed veteran dictator Moammar Gadhafi. EU member France has been accused in the past of supplying weapons to Haftar, who also has the support of Russia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. French missiles were found at a base used by Haftar's forces last year, though the French defense ministry said they were decommissioned weapons which were being "temporarily stocked in a warehouse ahead of their destruction." The Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli is backed by Turkey and Qatar and U.N. officials have long warned that deliveries of foreign-made weapons to the country are undermining peace efforts there.

Senior Iranian commander blames US for downing of Ukrainian plane
Yaghoub Fazeli, Al Arabiya English/Friday 18 September 2020
A senior Iranian military commander said Friday that he believed the US was behind the downing of a Ukrainian passenger plane over Tehran in January. “My guess is that it was an electronic war waged by America,” Brig. Gen. Abdolali Poorshaseb, a deputy commander of Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, alleged. The headquarters is Iran’s top military operational base and is responsible for planning, coordinating and overseeing the operations of the country’s Armed Forces. “It has not yet been proven” that the US was not involved in the incident, Poorshaseb said in an interview on state TV.On Jan. 8, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shot down the Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752, killing all 176 onboard. After days of denying responsibility, Tehran said its military mistook the passenger plane for a cruise missile. “It was even reported from the border that cruise missiles had been fired,” said Poorshaseb. The incident took place hours after Iran launched ballistic missiles on military bases in Iraq hosting US troops in retaliation for killing IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani earlier that month. Last month, Iran released its first official report on the contents of the cockpit voice and data recordings, which were sent to France for reading in July. The plane was hit with two missiles fired 25 seconds apart, the head of Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization Touraj Dehghani-Zanganeh said, adding that the passengers and crew were still alive 19 seconds after the first missile hit the plane.
An association representing the relatives of the downed Ukrainian passenger plane victims rejected Tehran’s report on the contents of the plane’s black boxes, saying it failed to address queries that insinuate the shootdown was a deliberate attack. Some of the victims’ relatives believe the plane might have been deliberately shot down. They demanded that Iran clarify why the flight was delayed by 57 minutes and why a second missile was fired when the pilots were trying to navigate the hit plane back to the airport. The relatives also questioned why Iran’s airspace was kept open the day the country’s military was carrying out missile attacks against targets in a neighbouring country.

Erdogan 'Sad' Libya Unity Leader is Stepping Aside
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 18/2020
The decision by the head of Libya's U.N.-recognized Government of National Accord to step down next month is "saddening," Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday. Government leader Fayez al-Sarraj announced Wednesday he plans to go within six weeks as part of efforts to broker a peace agreement. Turkey backs the GNA, providing military support following an April 2019 offensive on Tripoli by rival strongman Khalifa Haftar, and helped turn the tide in the conflict earlier this year. "This has been saddening for us," Erdogan told reporters in Istanbul.
"But with our intervention there, they reached a point of getting rid of this putschist Haftar's occupation," he said. "Eventually Haftar will lose, we see this." Erdogan added there would likely be talks between Turkish and Libyan delegations this week but did not provide further details. "With these meetings, we hope this effort will go in the direction it should." GNA forces, boosted by Turkish drones and air defenses, made a string of gains against Haftar's forces in recent months. Haftar is supported by neighboring Egypt and the United Arab Emirates as well as Russia.l Libya has been mired in conflict for nearly a decade since the 2011 NATO-backed uprising that toppled and killed veteran dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Sarraj said during a brief televised address late Wednesday that he was willing to leave his post in favour of a new executive determined by peace talks in Morocco.
The delegations from the two sides in the Libyan conflict met for talks earlier this month after a surprise ceasefire in August and a pledge to hold national elections. The departure announcement comes nearly a year after Turkey signed security and maritime deals with Sarraj's GNA.

Turkey extends hydrocarbon survey off Cyprus by one month
Reuters/Friday 18 September 2020
Turkey said on Friday it extended the operations of its seismic research vessel Barbaros Hayrettin Pasa off southeastern Cyprus until October 18. Cyprus' internationally recognised Greek Cypriot government has long been at loggerheads with Turkey, which began drilling for oil and gas near Cyprus last year.
The dispute stems from overlapping claims to regional waters linked to the split of the island between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. A breakaway Turkish Cypriot state in north Cyprus is recognised only by Ankara. Turkey questions Cyprus' right to explore in the seas around the island because it maintains that the Nicosia administration does not represent the interests of Turkish Cypriots. That argument is dismissed by Cyprus, which is legally recognised as representing the entire island. Friday's announcement came three days after Turkey extended the operations of its Yavuz drill ship off Cyprus until October 12, in a move that Cyprus described as provocative. Greece, also locked in dispute with Turkey over east Mediterreanean waters, expressed concern.

Libya’s Haftar says he will lift oil blockade, while GNA agrees on fair revenue share
Reuters/Tripoli/Friday 18 September 2020
Eastern Libyan commander Khalifa Haftar announced on Friday he would lift for one month his blockade of oil output and said he had agreed with the rival Tripoli government on “fair distribution” of energy revenue. A resumption of oil exports after the eight-month blockade would relieve mounting financial pressure for both sides in the Libyan conflict and could remove a major obstacle towards a political settlement, but it is not yet clear if the declared agreement has wider support. “We are ready to open oil fields, to secure the future of Libya, for one month,” Haftar said in a statement distributed by his spokesman after a brief televised broadcast in which he announced that it had “been decided” to resume oil production. National Oil Corporation (NOC), which operates Libya’s energy sector, also said overnight it would not lift force majeure on exports until the LNA withdrew fighters from its facilities. Libya and many of its state institutions have been split for years between the internationally recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli and Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) in the east. However, both of those camps have internal fractures that have widened since June when Haftar’s 14-month offensive to capture Tripoli collapsed and he was forced to retreat to the central coastal city of Sirte. In Tripoli, the GNA’s deputy prime minister, Ahmed Maiteeg, issued a statement immediately after Haftar’s speech also saying it “had been decided” to resume oil production and adding this would involve a new committee to oversee revenue distribution. The committee would coordinate between the two sides to prepare a budget and transfer funds to cover payments and deal with the public debt, he said. Prior to the blockade, Libya was producing around 1.2 million barrels per day, compared with just over 100,000 bpd now.
GNA Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj said on Wednesday he planned to step down by the end of October and analysts have said this would lead to political jockeying among other senior figures in Tripoli to succeed him. However, neither Haftar nor Maiteeg addressed the presence of LNA and allied foreign forces in oil production and export facilities, which NOC has said must be withdrawn to ensure the safety of its staff before it will resume output.
Oil price rise
News of the possible resumption of Libyan oil exports pushed benchmark Brent oil prices into negative territory on Friday, and they were down 0.7percent, or 32 cents, at $42.98 a barrel by 1242 GMT. A sustained return of Libyan oil exports to an oil market that’s already grappling with worsening demand outlook, is likely to weigh on oil prices further, and may push the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its allies to reevaluate their policy on oil production cuts. However, Libya’s National Oil Corporation said overnight it would not lift force majeure on exports until oil facilities were demilitarized. In place since the start of the year, force majeure was briefly lifted in July before being reimposed. NOC Chairman Mustafa Sanallah’s comment, published on NOC’s website, comes after Turkey and Russia -- the main power brokers in Libya’s war -- appeared to moved closer in meetings in Ankara this week to an agreement on a ceasefire and political bargaining process. “In light of the current chaos and non-organized negotiations, force majeure can’t be lifted,” Sanallah said in a statement. The NOC chairman expressed regret over what he called the “politicizing of the oil sector” and use of it as a “bargaining chip” to achieve political gains. Libya’s oil output has already been almost entirely halted this year by a blockade on exports since January by the LNA. Meanwhile, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday he was upset that Sarraj was stepping down and would hold talks on the issue with the GNA later this month. Turkey and Russia have moved forward in their own talks on Libya towards cementing a ceasefire and finding a political solution, Ankara’s foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Thursday. Talks on a political settlement have also advanced in Switzerland with support from the United Nations, and in Morocco between the two rival parliamentary assemblies in east and west Libya. Ankara and Moscow back opposing sides. Russia supports the eastern-based Libyan National Army (LNA) of Khalifa Haftar, while Turkey backs Libya’s UN recognized Government of National Accord (GNA).
Sanallah said separate negotiations carried out by NOC in coordination with the head of the presidential council and the international community include an initiative that include safe operation of oil fields and ports, and pushing all “foreign mercenaries” out of them.

Socotra figures in multiple threats to Israel following UAE, Bahraini pacts
DEBKAFiles/September 18/2020
Two radical forces are gunning for Israel’s interests in the Gulf region since they were formalized in pacts with the UAE and Bahrain on Tuesday, Sept. 15.
Middle East sources claim that the United Arab Emirates and Israel are setting up spy bases on the Yemeni island of Socotra which the Emirates took over in 2017. The same sources disclose that the UAE and Israel have deployed espionage equipment on the island for monitoring the Houthi insurgents on the Yemeni mainland, 350km away, as well as Iranian naval movements in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz. The Yemeni government has called the takeover an act of aggression and Al Qaeda’s Yemen branch (AQAP) threatens to attack the putative UAE-Israeli intelligence base on Socotra. AQAP warned that if Israel set foot in Socotra “you and your Emirati partners will be targets for our fire, our commando attackers and our martyrdom bombers.”This Socotra archipelago sits athwart the Red Sea shipping routes from the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean and is therefore a major strategic asset, especially if Iran were to block the Strait of Hormuz. In Yemen, Al Qaeda is on the run from Houthi rebels and in decline in other places; its leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has not been seen for many months. Nonetheless, nineteen years after 9/11, jihadist experts are not yet ready to write al Qaeda off as a spent force.
At the other end of radical extremism, are Iran-backed Shiite terrorist groups in Bahrain. With close operational links to the Lebanese Hizballah, they proclaim their intention of opposing the Gulf kingdom’s pact with Israel. The Saraya Wa’ad Allah, the first group out with a statement, says it has set up a new specialized sub-unit for attacking Israeli interests. The group strongly denounced “this false normalization with the Zionist enemy…” calling it “a cancerous gland on the body of the Ummah.”This Saraya Wa’ad Allah has named its new sub-unit the “Martyrs of Jerusalem Company,” its purpose to target Israeli interests on the island-kingdom and is calling for recruits. This group claims to be part of the pro-Iran “Islamic resistance” and maintains links to other like-minded radical Shiite terrorist groups as well as the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Most of these groups’ operations are confined to bloodcurdling media threats, including widely distributed video clips, rather than actual bombings. No terrorist attack inside Bahrain has been recorded since 2017. Despite the preponderance of threats to Israeli nationals and interests in Bahrain, it remains to be seen how many materialize. Their effectiveness for action has been substantially stymied by arrests, heavy-handed tactics and weapons seizures by the Bahraini – plus Saudi – security forces for quelling Iran’s insurgency-fomenting tactics against the throne. However, the pact with Israel may rouse Tehran and those groups into actually making good on their threats and soon make the “puppet regime” of King Hamad al-Khalifa “taste his pursuit” for associating with the “Zionist enemy.”

Why UAE peace with Israel could be warmer than with Egypt, Jordan
The Arab Weekly/September 18/2020
ABU DHABI – Emirati-Israeli peace is likely to be warmer and more beneficial to both sides than were the Egyptian-Israeli and the Jordanian-Israeli deals, Arab experts say. On the Egyptian and Jordanian tracks, Tel Aviv acted as if the two peace accords were more of security understandings than a gateway to coexistence and normal relations in the region. Analysts say Emirati society is more receptive to interacting with visitors encouraged by the authorities’ keenness on cultivating and perpetuating a culture of peace, tolerance and recognition of the other, especially those of different faiths, a tradition started and promoted by the state’s founder the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan. In addition, the UAE appears poised to cooperate with Israeli businessmen in various investment fields. Analysts point out also that one of the most important factors towards the success of the Emirates’ peace agreement is the existence of effective Emirati security services capable of controlling the situation in every corner of the country. In this regard, they indicate that the equation based on the existence of a society that believes in a culture of peace and tolerance and of successful Emirati business community thriving in a safe environment, will undoubtedly consolidate the peace agreement signed between the two countries, September 15, on the White House lawn under the auspices of US President Donald Trump.
Arab experts believe the two peace treaties between Israel, on the one side, and Egypt and Jordan, on the other, have turned into mere pieces of paper with limited benefits after the different signatories failed to go beyond the security cooperation aspect. They explain that this was mainly due to the fact that the Egyptian people were not originally prepared to accept peace with Israel, especially in light of the significant influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on society. The late President Anwar Sadat did not stop the rise and growth of the Muslim Brotherhood because he wanted to use the Islamist organisation against leftist detractors and Nasserite remnants. Moreover, extremist movements, especially at the beginning of Hosni Mubarak’s era, were able to carry out several terrorist operations, either by killing foreign tourists or attacking hotels in Sharm el-Sheikh. This prompted Israel to prevent its citizens from traveling to Egypt.
In this regard, it was remarkable that in the first years following the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, there was a significant influx of tens of thousands of Israeli tourists on a daily basis staying at the resorts of Sharm el-Sheikh, Hurghada and El Gouna. Most of these tourists came in drones mostly attracted by gambling in the casinos of Egyptian resorts. But a series of terrorist attacks on Egyptian hotels and the quasi absence of a real security presence at these places drove the Israeli tourists away. They preferred to head to Turkey instead. In the case of Jordan, the public mood became gradually hostile to the peace accord signed with Israel in Wadi Araba in October 1994. In addition, and despite the great efforts made by the late Jordanian monarch King Hussein to maintain warm relations with Israel, the Hashemite Kingdom still lacked a culture of peace, and the decline in Israeli-Palestinian relations was reflected in the Jordanian interior.A 1997 incident had further damped Jordan’s relations with Israel. In March of that year, a Jordanian soldier named Ahmad al-Daqamseh opened fire on a group of Israeli girls on an excursion to the Jordanian region of Al-Baqoura. In a gesture to repair the damage done to Israeli-Jordanian relations, King Hussein travelled to Israel to offer his condolences to the girls’ families, but the incident was a turning point in the relations between his country and its Jewish neighbour. Israeli tourists became very wary about vacationing in Jordan.

China, Iran, Israel, and alliances: Foreign policy issues that divide Trump and Biden
Reuters/Saturday 19 September 2020
Republican President Donald Trump won election in 2016 promising to put “America First,” overturn what he said were unfair trade deals and force US allies to pay more toward joint defense measures. In the Nov. 3 election, he will face off against Democratic former Vice President Joe Biden, who pledges to restore US global leadership and reverse many of Trump’s actions.Here’s a look at their foreign policy differences:
China
Under Trump, US-China relations have slid to their lowest levels in recent history over a wide range of issues. Trump says he is the first president in decades to stand up to Beijing, and his campaign accuses Biden of appeasing China as US manufacturing jobs declined. Biden has countered that Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic was a historic blunder, and that he disregarded US intelligence community warnings over China downplaying its severity.
Trump began a trade war with China before reaching a partial Phase 1 trade deal in January. He has since shut the door on Phase 2 negotiations, expressing unhappiness with Beijing’s handling of the pandemic. Biden argues that China relishes a chaotic Trump administration, his alienation of American allies, and his abdication of US leadership roles in global institutions. Biden says he will correct this by bringing multilateral pressure to bear on China through renewed relations with US allies.
Iran
Trump has questioned the benefits of US military interventions in the Middle East, especially the 2003 Iraq invasion, and pulled out of a nuclear deal reached with Iran, European nations and Russia under President Barack Obama.
But Trump sent more troops to the region after the withdrawal increased tensions with Iran. Biden has said he would deal with Iran through diplomacy and re-enter the agreement, but only if Iran first resumed complying with the deal’s restrictions on its nuclear program. After Iranian proxies and US forces clashed in Iraq, Trump ordered the January strike that killed powerful Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani.
Biden said the strike “put the United States and Iran on a collision course” and proposes a narrower focus for the US military in the region on counterterrorism and working with local allies. Biden wants to end US support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, which Trump has defended.
North Korea
Trump met with North Korea’s supreme leader Kim Jong Un three times in 2018 and 2019, but efforts to get Kim to abandon the country’s nuclear weapons program have stalled. Biden has accused Trump of giving away US leverage over the North Korean regime for little in return and said he would not meet Kim without preconditions.
Afghanistan
Trump has said he wants a full military withdrawal from Afghanistan to end America’s longest war. In February, the Trump administration reached a deal with the Taliban on phased US force reductions, but it was dependent on the Islamist militant group meeting conditions. Afghanistan and Taliban negotiators held their first direct talks on Sept. 15. Biden contends he will bring the vast majority of US troops home from Afghanistan and narrowly focus the mission there on fighting al Qaeda and Islamic State.
Israel
Like past presidents, Trump has pledged to secure peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But, as before, that goal has proven elusive. The administration moved the US embassy to Jerusalem in 2018, a show of support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that angered the Palestinians and their supporters. The following year, the administration formally recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in 1967, reversing a long-standing US policy and irking other countries. In August, in a rare victory for U.S diplomacy in the region, Trump brokered a deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, which agreed to normalize diplomatic relations. Israel said it would suspend planned annexations of parts of the occupied West Bank. Bahrain joined the UAE in September in agreeing to normalize relations. Biden welcomed the agreements and said if elected he would “leverage these growing ties into progress toward a two-state solution” in the Middle East.
Alliances
Biden would rejoin the Paris climate agreement and strengthen alliances like NATO, moves he says would undo damage to American leadership and credibility inflicted by Trump. The president has angered NATO members and other US allies, while refusing to criticize Russian leader Vladimir Putin, even when US intelligence officials concluded Russia’s military had interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Biden has warned that Russia, China and others who try to interfere in US elections will face serious consequences if he is elected. Trump announced in June that he would reduce the number of US troops in Germany by about 9,500, prompting criticism from Democrats and fellow Republicans who argue the US-German alliance helps counter Russia and China’s influence. Biden campaign aides say they are troubled by the move, and that Biden would revisit the issue as president.

US beefing up military assets in Syria to defend troops, weeks after Russian attack
Joseph Haboush, Al Arabiya English/Friday 18 September 2020
The United States is sending additional military assets to northeast Syria to beef up the protection of its troops and ensure the defeat of ISIS, the US military said Friday. “Despite the territorial defeat of ISIS, the degradation of its leadership, and the widespread refutation of its idealogy, this violent Islamist extremist group still poses a threat,” a state from the Combined Joint Task Force said. Col. Wayne Marotto, the spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve, announced plans to “position mechanized infantry assets, including Bradley Fighting Vehicles, to Syria to ensure the protection of Coalition forces and preserve their freedom of movement so they may continue Defeat Daesh operations safely.”
On Friday, Marotto admitted that the reemergence of ISIS remained “a very real possibility.”The move comes weeks after a US patrol came under attack by Russian forces in Syria. US soldiers were injured in northeastern Syria in August after Russian forces "struck" a vehicle and injured the crew inside, the White House said at the time. A video circulated across social media showing what appeared to be Russian helicopters flying at low altitudes near US armored vehicles during the incident.
About 500 US troops remain in northern Syria after a sharp reduction in troops that were initially there to drive out ISIS militants from all of their strongholds in the country.
 

US President Trump awards Kuwait's emir 'prestigious' decoration, White House says
Reuters/Friday 18 September 2020
US President Donald Trump awarded the US Legion of Merit, Degree Chief Commander, to Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, the White House said in a statement on Friday, adding that it was the first time the honor has been given since 1991. The 91-year-old Emir arrived in the United States in July to complete medical treatment, the Kuwaiti state news agency said at the time, adding that he was in stable condition after having undergone successful surgery in July. The Emir's eldest son, Sheikh Nasser Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah, accepted the award on behalf of his father at a private ceremony with Trump on Friday. The White House praised the Emir as an "unwavering friend and partner to the United States" who gave "indispensable support to the United States throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and the Defeat-ISIS campaign."
Operation Iraqi Freedom refers to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq to oust former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein; Operation Enduring Freedom to the 2001 US-led military operation that drove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan; and the Defeat-ISIS campaign to the coalition effort to end the Islamic State militant group's control of territory in Syria and Iraq. The White House described the award given to the Kuwaiti Emir on Friday as a rare, prestigious decoration that can only be bestowed by the president, typically to foreign heads of state or government.
On Monday, Kuwait's prime minister told the Kuwaiti cabinet of the improvement of the Emir's health. In July, Kuwait's cabinet tweeted that the Emir arrived at Rochester airport in the United States, without specifying which US city of that name. The main campus of the Mayo Clinic, among the top US medical centers, is in Rochester, Minnesota. Speaking on condition of anonymity, two sources familiar with the matter said the Emir is being treated at the Mayo Clinic. The clinic referred queries to the Kuwaiti government, which issued a statement largely echoing the White House's comments about the Emir receiving the award.
 

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 18-19/2020

Islamism and the Pathological Derivatives of a Modern Evil
Charles Elias Chartouni/September 18/2020
شارل الياس شرتوني: الإسلاموية والمشتقات المرضية لشر حديث
لاجئ تونسي اسلامي اصولي يطعن حتى الموت الراهب الإيطالي المكرس حياته وجهوده والرعية التي يتولاها في أيطاليا لمساعدة الفقراء واللاجئين
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/90494/charles-elias-chartouni-islamism-and-the-pathological-derivatives-of-a-modern-evil-%d8%b4%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%84-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%8a%d8%a7%d8%b3-%d8%b4%d8%b1%d8%aa%d9%88%d9%86%d9%8a-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a5/
The stabbing of an Italian priest, Don Roberto Malgesini ( 51 ) by a Tunisian undocumented refugee Mahmoudi Ridha ( 53 ) brings us back to the dilemmas of Muslim migration and its instrumentalization by radical Islam, from a double perspective: the deliberate destabilization strategies through terrorism and sectarian secessionism, and the usage of Islam as a catalyst for ethno-pathological outbursts and anomic behavior. Don Roberto was an angel who dedicated his ministry to the service of the poor and the migrants in his parish of San Rocco in the city of Como, and one can hardly imagine why such a heinous crime would target him.
The meekness of Don Roberto testifies to the loftiness of the Catholic ministry to the refugees but unveils simultaneously the normative discrepancies which are hobbling the integration and normalization of Muslim migration in Western Democracies.
Aside from the personal drama, this terrorist act displays the ethno-pathologies of Muslim migration, and the attempt of Islamism to transform it into a platform of normalized criminality, societal marginality and normlessness and a lever of political subversion.
This appalling tragedy should make us, once again, alert to the political, psychological and sociological dimensions of an unregulated migration and its impelling dynamics: the implosion of the Arab world, the systemic unraveling of its political textures and the disruptive consequences of a failed Islamic and Arab modernity.
This state of helplessness and resignation towards the disintegration of the Middle East, is too dangerous to be left to the clashing Muslim imperialisms, the grim interpretations of Contemporary Islam piloted by Sunnite and Shiite radicalism, and the ongoing entropies of a shipwrecked geo-political and civilizational configuration.
What a tragedy to witness the end of a ministry of unconditional love and service to the “ least of these brothers of Mine “ ( Matthew, 25/ 40 ), the poor and the forsaken will miss you Don Roberto

Question: "Who am I in Christ?"
GotQuestions.org/September 18/2020
Answer: According to 2 Corinthians 5:17, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” There are two Greek words which are translated “new” in the Bible. The first, neos, refers to something that has just been made, but there are already many others in existence just like it. The word translated “new” in this verse is the word kainos, which means “something just made which is unlike anything else in existence.” In Christ, we are made an entirely new creation, just as God created the heavens and the earth originally—He made them out of nothing, and so He does with us. He does not merely clean up our old selves; He makes an entirely new self. When we are in Christ, we are “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4 KJV). God Himself, in the person of His Holy Spirit, takes up residence in our hearts. We are in Christ and He is in us.
In Christ, we are regenerated, renewed, and born again, and this new creation is spiritually minded, whereas the old nature is carnally minded. The new nature fellowships with God, obeys His will, and is devoted to His service. These are actions the old nature is incapable of doing or even desiring to do. The old nature is dead to the things of the spirit and cannot revive itself. It is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) and can only be made alive by a supernatural awakening, which happens when we come to Christ and are indwelt by Him. Christ gives us a completely new and holy nature and an incorruptible life. Our old life, previously dead to God because of sin, is buried, and we are raised “to walk in newness of life” with Him (Romans 6:4).
If we belong to Christ, we are united to Him and no longer slaves to sin (Romans 6:5-6); we are made alive with Him (Ephesians 2:5); we are conformed to His image (Romans 8:29); we are free from condemnation and walking not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:1); and we are part of the body of Christ with other believers (Romans 12:5). The believer now possesses a new heart (Ezekiel 11:19) and has been blessed “with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 1:3).
We might wonder why we so often do not live in the manner described, even though we have given our lives to Christ and are sure of our salvation. This is because our new natures are residing in our old fleshly bodies, and these two are at war with one another. The old nature is dead, but the new nature still has to battle the old “tent” in which it dwells. Evil and sin are still present, but the believer now sees them in a new perspective and they no longer control him as they once did. In Christ, we can now choose to resist sin, whereas the old nature could not. Now we have the choice to either feed the new nature through the Word, prayer, and obedience, or to feed the flesh by neglecting those things.
When we are in Christ, “we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us” (Romans 8:37) and can rejoice in our Savior, who makes all things possible (Philippians 4:13). In Christ we are loved, forgiven, and secure. In Christ we are adopted, justified, redeemed, reconciled, and chosen. In Christ we are victorious, filled with joy and peace, and granted true meaning in life. What a wonderful Savior is Christ!
Recommended Resource: True Identity: Finding Significance & Freedom Through Who You Are in Christ by John Majors
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

No, There is No ‘End in Sight’ to the Battle Against Al-Qaeda
Thomas Joscelyn/FDD/September 18/2020
On the eve of the 19th anniversary of the 9/11 hijackings, Christopher Miller, the new head of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), declared that the “war against al-Qaeda” is nearly over. Miller made his case in an op-ed for the Washington Post. It is unconvincing.
For starters, we’ve heard this before. In 2012, President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, declared that al-Qaeda would meet “its demise” sometime in the decade to come. That didn’t happen. Instead, al-Qaeda adapted to the post-bin Laden world. Meanwhile ISIS, an even more virulent jihadist organization that broke off from al-Qaeda, mushroomed into a worldwide phenomenon. Take a look around the world today and you’ll see al-Qaeda and ISIS groups waging jihad everywhere from West Africa to South Asia.
The problems with Miller’s analysis begin with the very first word. “Remnants of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization that launched the 9/11 terror attacks 19 years ago remain active throughout the world,” Miller writes at the opening of his op-ed. “Remnants”?
Al-Qaeda has grown its base for jihad since September 11, 2001. On September 10 of that year, al-Qaeda was stationed mainly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with terror cells operating in several countries throughout the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Today, branches of al-Qaeda are fighting for territory in West Africa, East Africa, Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan, while also maintaining networks in still other countries. This war is led by groups that are often referred to as al-Qaeda “affiliates”: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) and Shabaab (in Somalia). There are also multiple al-Qaeda actors in Syria, where the group’s chain of command has been interrupted by a series of controversies and setbacks.
Each of the aforementioned “affiliates” is really a regional branch of al-Qaeda’s international network. They are led by emirs who are openly loyal to Osama bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri. These same men are responsible for waging insurgencies in their designated regions, in which their followers are attempting to replace existing governments with Islamic emirates. These emirates, in al-Qaeda’s view, would then join together to form a new caliphate. ISIS claimed to have fulfilled this vision, but ultimately failed. Al-Qaeda is still not close to succeeding, but its caliphate goal continues to motivate much violence. No one really knows how many jihadists belong to each of these al-Qaeda branches, but their total enrollment is easily in the thousands and perhaps in the tens of thousands.
Echoing Brennan’s proclamation from eight years ago, Miller writes that “it is now possible to see the contours of how the war against al-Qaeda ends.” Miller does not explain what those “contours” are, exactly. And contemporaneous evidence leads one to the opposite conclusion.
Miller was sworn in as NCTC director on Aug. 10. It just so happens that the Department of Defense’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published assessments of al-Qaeda and some of its branches shortly after Miller’s swearing-in ceremony. There is no hint of al-Qaeda’s pending defeat in the reports.
In an August 14 assessment, the OIG writes: “The United Nations Security Council and U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) both reported that the Taliban remained supportive of al-Qaeda, even to the point of working together to attack Afghan security forces.” This contradicts claims by senior Trump administration officials, who are pretending that the U.S.-Taliban withdrawal agreement, signed on February 29 in Doha, will somehow lead to a rupture between the Taliban and its longest standing ally, al-Qaeda. The Trump administration plans to withdraw from Afghanistan by the spring of 2021. It’s a safe bet that al-Qaeda, including AQIS, will continue fighting alongside the Taliban after America’s exit.
While surviving the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda has blossomed elsewhere.
“In East Africa,” an August 28 OIG analysis reads, Shabaab continues to move “freely and launched attacks in Somalia and Kenya.” Shabaab controls at least 25 percent of Somalia and threatens to take even more ground. Both al-Qaeda and ISIS are prolific actors in West Africa, where “violence continued at high levels and expanded to new territories.” At best, the OIG reported, the U.S. and its allies have made “limited progress” (namely, by killing some top figures) this year. However, there is no reason to think al-Qaeda’s defeat in Africa is imminent. Despite suffering setbacks in Yemen and Syria, al-Qaeda retains a significant presence in both countries as well.
Looking at this global picture earlier this year, a monitoring team that works for the U.N. Security Council concluded that while ISIS has garnered more headlines of late, al-Qaeda’s “affiliates” (meaning the aforementioned regional branches) are actually “stronger than [ISIS] in many conflict zones.” Miller and the NCTC staff are free to disagree with this conclusion, but they have to present specific arguments to bolster their case.
Instead of rebutting these competing analyses, however, it appears that Miller continues to rely on a phony paradigm for understanding al-Qaeda. He writes that Ayman al-Zawahiri is the group’s “sole remaining ideological leader.” That is not close to being true. And you’d never know from Miller’s op-ed that at least thousands of fighters in the aforementioned battlefields remain loyal to Zawahiri to this day.
Let us focus on Miller’s description of Zawahiri as an “ideological” leader. If he is implying that Zawahiri plays no operational role, then he is mistaken. Files recovered in Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound show that Zawahiri has long had an operational portfolio, overseeing al-Qaeda’s branches. In some of his letters, for instance, Osama bin Laden made it clear to AQIM’s leadership that they should copy Zawahiri on all of their requests, because he (Zawahiri) was ultimately responsible for managing the group’s relations. On rare occasions since bin Laden’s death in May 2011, U.S. intelligence has intercepted some of Zawahiri’s communications with al-Qaeda’s branches. And just last September, U.S. and Afghan forces killed a courier who was reportedly running communications between the head of AQIS and Zawahiri. These are just some of the reasons that Zawahiri is not merely an ideologue.
Zawahiri isn’t the “sole remaining” al-Qaeda leader, ideological or otherwise, either. It is easy to point to other al-Qaeda veterans who are likely in the line of succession, should Zawahiri finally perish. They include figures such as Saif al-Adel and Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, both of whom have been wanted by the U.S. government since the 1990s. In 2018, the State Department increased the rewards for information on both men from $5 million to $10 million, thereby underscoring their importance. Adel and Abdullah were last reported to be inside Iran, where they are safe from America’s counterterrorism capabilities. Other veterans, such as Zawahiri’s son-in-law Hossam Raouf, are thought to be in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as are a number of others. Raouf’s jihadist career began in the 1980s. There are still more veterans in Mali, Somalia, Syria, Turkey and Yemen. Al-Qaeda has a network of clerics who are truly the group’s ideological backbone. And Miller’s statement also does not take into account the “new generation” of al-Qaeda leaders who were groomed to replace their fallen comrades.
Miller’s op-ed inadvertently points to some of the failures in the U.S. counterterrorism mission. He writes that “the campaign to defeat al-Qaeda began immediately after 9/11, when committed Americans and like-minded partners sallied forth to destroy the terrorists’ havens in Afghanistan and to wreck their command-and-control capabilities.” As much evidence shows, including the OIG report cited above, al-Qaeda is still in Afghanistan 19 years later and its well-positioned to have safe havens once the U.S. presumably withdraws. The U.S. didn’t “wreck” al-Qaeda’s command-and-control capabilities either. The files recovered in bin Laden’s compound show that he and Zawahiri were managing a sprawling international network, much of which remains intact today. And Miller himself notes that al-Qaeda “can still direct others to commit acts of violence, as seen by the heinous killing of three Americans in Florida at Naval Air Station Pensacola last year.” Thus, al-Qaeda must retain at some degree of command-and-control.
Miller is confident that al-Qaeda “is no longer capable of conducting large-scale attacks.” Maybe that is true with respect to attacking the U.S. It has been 19 years since 9/11 and al-Qaeda has failed to replicate that success inside America, relying instead on smaller inspired and directed operations with far fewer casualties. But if al-Qaeda can direct a sleeper agent inside a U.S. military base, such as was the case in Pensacola last year, then why couldn’t it try something bigger? Al-Qaeda hasn’t attempted to orchestrate a 9/11-style attack in years. Some assume that is because the group can’t do so. But it is always possible that Zawahiri and his loyalists have decided to bide their time. Al-Qaeda continues to kill people overseas, sometimes in large-scale operations, every single day. We shouldn’t assume that some of those same fighters couldn’t be repurposed for other missions inside the U.S., Europe, or elsewhere.
None of this should be read as an attempt to inflate the terrorist threat to Americans. The U.S. faces many challenges today. But Americans should know that some in the counterterrorism community have been playing disconnect the dots with respect to al-Qaeda for many years. Christopher Miller’s op-ed is just the latest example from that genre.
*Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for FDD’s Long War Journal. Follow Tom on Twitter @thomasjoscelyn.

If  Biden, Then What, on Iran?
Behnam Ben Taleblu/FDD/September 18/2020
“Hope springs eternal in the human breast,” wrote Alexander Pope in An Essay on Man. Such sentiment describes perfectly the lingering adherents of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement known as the JCPOA. Indeed, two-plus years of American sanctions and Iranian nuclear violations have not convinced the deal’s defenders—chiefly in Europe—of the need to look past an accord that is dead in all but name. Earlier this month, those devotees gathered to stress the importance of “preserving” the JCPOA. Their hope? The election of Joe Biden, an upending of President Donald Trump’s Maximum Pressure policy against Tehran and the forging of a pathway back to the JCPOA.
Luckily for them, the Democratic candidate for president appears ready to deliver. Writing for CNN this Sunday, Biden promised to “offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy” and American re-engagement with the 2015 deal should Iran opt for “strict compliance.”
Biden’s latest writings on Iran reveal that the post-Cold War trend of American presidents doing the exact opposite of their predecessors on foreign policy, and seeking political dividends for doing so, would continue if the Democrat is elected.
Lest we forget, Bill Clinton’s liberal internationalism reversed George H.W. Bush’s one-term realism, and George W. Bush campaigned for a more “humble” foreign policy—later amended by 9/11, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the “freedom agenda.” In turn, Barack Obama’s skepticism of democracy promotion, withdrawal from Iraq and nuclear diplomacy with Iran were met with President Trump’s “America First” policy, as well as withdrawal from various multilateral agreements, be they related to arms control, trade, or the environment.
But if a new administration reverses course and attempts to claw back the JCPOA, the beneficiary would not be Biden, his foreign policy team, the Democratic Party, American foreign policy, or even the global non-proliferation regime. It would be Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps protecting his regime. Setting aside the difficulty of verifying Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal, even under President Barack Obama, Tehran’s JCPOA record was problematic, as was its overall lack of adherence to the UNSC Resolution codifying the accord.
A potential Biden administration might internalize these challenges while in office and perhaps set its sights lower, opting to merely arrest Iran’s nuclear growth and freeze American financial pressure in a phased approach akin to the interim Iran nuclear deal from 2013 known as the JPOA. Even this more modest proposal would be replete with hurdles, however, including Iranian domestic politics and continued nuclear and regional escalation.
While the Iranian component of what happens in the event of a Biden victory is one of the least discussed issues in international politics today, it is among the most consequential. As former secretary of defense James Mattis liked to say, “The enemy gets a vote.”
Thanks to presidential elections in 2021, the Islamic Republic is set to shift even further to the right. The upcoming political contest is set to mirror dynamics last seen in 2004-2005, when a hardline parliament built on mass disqualifications became the stepping stone for an ultra-hardline candidate—Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—to become president. Accordingly, this February’s parliamentary elections, which featured a hardline sweep, was likely a dress rehearsal for the upcoming presidential election. The next Iranian president may well choose to do exactly what Ahmadinejad did, and escalate the nuclear crisis.
What Biden might do in that scenario is unclear.
Although it is tempting to see this dilemma as the result of American pressure, it is actually a feature of Iran’s ever-narrowing political system and indicative of the country’s precarious domestic politics. Even though Iranian presidents do not make foreign policy, they can help shape it. An ultra-hardline president backed by a constellation of diplomacy–skeptics and an aging and increasingly distrustful supreme leader means Tehran is sure to drive a harder bargain, if it opts for diplomacy at all. Rejecting American overtures early and often while increasing nuclear output might be part of a strategy to force American accommodation, garner premature sanctions relief or simply extract a better deal.
Given the regime’s strategy of nuclear incrementalism, there is no reason to believe Tehran will tone down its regional escalation through material support for proxies (i.e., missile proliferation) just to please a new U.S. administration eager for diplomacy. The Islamic Republic has spent considerable blood and treasure on creating and entrenching what it calls “the Axis of Resistance“—a constellation of pro-Iran and anti-status quo actors—in the heart of the Middle East. These groups form a key component of Iranian security policy, exerting pressure on U.S. and allied interests in the region. If Washington reverts to its “myopic” Iran policy and prioritizes the nuclear issue at the expense of others, it will effectively lock in Tehran’s regional gains and signal irresolution to address other forms of bad behavior.
Worse, if Washington offers sanctions relief as part of a nuclear freeze-for-freeze, it is unclear what sort of leverage, absent the threat of kinetic action, the U.S. will have left to change Iranian regional behavior.
None of this means Iran will permanently eschew negotiations. The current withering of the Iranian economy—a result of the maximum pressure policy—means Tehran’s acceptance of negotiations is more a question of “when” than “if.” However, a rush to embrace diplomacy (read: relieve sanctions)—whether in hopes of spiting a political rival, avoiding pitfalls in Iranian domestic politics or escaping an escalation spiral—can lay the foundation for another American defeat at the negotiating table.
Diplomacy is most effective when backed by force. A potential Biden administration should internalize that Trump’s Iran sanctions are the most effective force for a new agreement. Accordingly, those sanctions should be left in place until Tehran understands that there is no way out, but through.
*Behnam Ben Taleblu is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, D.C., where he focuses on Iranian political and security issues.

Trump can upend the status quo again by recognizing Taiwan in international organizations
Emily de La Bruyère and Nathan Picarsic/Washington Examiner/September 18/2020
The United Nations General Assembly, currently gathering virtually in New York, celebrates the 75th anniversary of the U.N. this year. The meeting comes amid an unprecedented global health emergency and accelerating environmental crises as well as rising tensions among great powers. It also comes as China carries out genocide in Xinjiang, topples a democracy in Hong Kong, and projects technology-enabled authoritarianism globally.
The number is less neat, but this fall also marks the 49th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China being admitted to the U.N. and the expulsion of the Republic of China, more commonly known as Taiwan. In that time, the PRC has gone from a desperately poor country without a system for measuring GDP to the second-largest economy in the world (by some measures, in fact, the largest); from the throes of the Cultural Revolution to success achieving its first centennial goal of creating “a moderately prosperous society”; from an insignificant force at the U.N. to the leader of 4 times as many U.N. specialized agencies as any other country.
As China has grown on the world stage, so has the brazenness of the authoritarian agenda that its influence at the U.N. serves. Taiwan used its U.N. Security Council veto only once during the 26 years it was a U.N. member. Beijing has used its veto 15 times, sometimes to punish governments that have relations with Taiwan but mostly to protect the most repressive dictatorships from accountability for their actions. In conjunction with Russia, China has vetoed resolutions targeting Myanmar, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela and issued seven vetoes on behalf of Syria.
Beijing also uses its leadership role in specialized U.N. organizations to advance its authoritarian agenda. Fang Liu, former director and deputy director of China’s General Administration of Civil Aviation, was appointed secretary-general of the U.N.’s International Civil Aviation Organization in 2015. The next year, Vietnam protested that the ICAO had amended the flight map of contested islands to reflect only China’s territorial claims. Zhao Houlin, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union since 2014 and a former official at China’s Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, has been a vocal defender of Huawei, the Chinese state-backed telecommunications giant that the U.S. Department of Defense has determined to be military-affiliated. Zhao has also overseen Huawei-sponsored ITU events and facilitated ITU approval of Huawei-sponsored technical standards.
This is not to mention Beijing’s gross violations of international norms that, thanks in part to Chinese influence over the U.N., go unaddressed by the global community. China’s Uighur minority has urged the U.N. to investigate Beijing’s genocide. This call will likely go unanswered. At a meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2020, 53 countries backed China’s draconian National Security Law in Hong Kong. Only 26 opposed it.
Beijing has gamed the international system to subvert the U.N.’s founding principles and to promote authoritarian norms. The United States has failed to respond systematically and strategically. Washington either misses the nature of Beijing’s offensive entirely or attempts to fight it through precisely those institutions, such as the U.N., that China has subverted. For example, Washington expects Beijing, in accordance with international law, to obey a 2016 ruling by the international court of The Hague on China’s territorial encroachments in the South China Sea. The PRC not only ignored the judgment but also won a judicial post for one of its diplomats on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in 2020.
Beijing competes asymmetrically by shaping the battlefield before the battle has begun. This poses a question for Washington: Where can the U.S. adopt low-cost measures that would target Chinese sensitivities and spur Beijing to change its behavior?
In the context of international organizations, one simple opportunity would hit the mark: The U.S. should recognize Taiwan. Having done so, the U.S. should push for Taiwan’s readmission to the U.N., then for Taiwan’s membership across the full range of international organizations.
In parallel, the U.S. should take moves to protect the stability of the region. The State Department should work with regional allies to establish a NATO-like multilateral security mechanism in East Asia. Taiwan should serve as a lead pillar in a revitalized entity drawing on the framework and legacy of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, or SEATO. Under such a framework, the U.S. Department of Defense should work with Taiwanese counterparts to reestablish the U.S. Taiwan Defense Command. U.S. forces should be stationed on the Penghu Islands in the Taiwan Strait. The U.S. should provide more arms to Taiwan and coordinate military training and joint exercises.
Recognition of Taiwan would trigger a PRC sensitivity while taking an ideological stance aligned with democratic norms and basic human rights. It would put China on the defensive in a new competitive environment for which it is not prepared. The U.S. would be able to do all of this at low cost.
That would be a fitting mission in advance of the 50th anniversary of China’s recognition in the U.N. next year. E
**Emily de La Bruyère and Nathan Picarsic are senior fellows at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and co-founders of Horizon Advisory, a strategy consulting group focused on the implications of China’s competitive approach to geopolitics.

The UAE-Israel Breakthrough: Bilateral and Regional Implications and U.S. Policy
Ebtesam al-Ketbi, Dore Gold, Barbara A. Leaf, and David Makovsky/The Washington Institute/September 18/2020
Former diplomats and experts discuss what steps each party should take after the historic White House signing ceremony, and how to bring the Palestinians and other actors into the fold.
On September 14, The Washington Institute held a virtual Policy Forum with Ebtesam al-Ketbi, Dore Gold, Barbara Leaf, and David Makovsky. Ketbi is founder and president of the Emirates Policy Center, the UAE’s leading foreign policy and security think tank. Gold is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and former Israeli permanent representative to the UN. Leaf is the Institute’s Lapidus Fellow and former U.S. ambassador to the UAE. Makovsky is the Institute’s Ziegler Distinguished Fellow and former senior advisor to the State Department’s special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The following is a rapporteur’s summary of their remarks.
EBTESAM AL-KETBI
The Abraham Accords represent a new chapter for the Middle East, reflecting the tectonic shifts in the region in the last decade. The Emirati decision to normalize relations with Israel was determined by realities on the ground, including that there were no occupied territories that required negotiation and no history between the two countries on the battlefield. The normalization was based on genuine cooperation that serves both countries and the desire to establish a new security system. It is a peace based on options, not necessity. Bahrain took the same step as the UAE, and other countries will follow because normalization will enhance stability and prosperity.
The regional dynamics that precipitated the accords include shifts in the distribution of power in the Arab world—states that were in the center are moving to the periphery and vice versa. The treaty has consequences beyond Israeli-Emirati ties, for other Gulf countries, South Asia, and the East Mediterranean. The two parties to the treaty need to design strategies together that align with their interests, including on issues of security, military, economy, technology, medicine, and agriculture. They can also cooperate to effectively deal with unconventional threats such as food security, cybersecurity, and COVID-19.
The UAE’s decision was partially influenced by the changing U.S. strategic assessment of the region, including the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the Obama administration’s declared policy to pivot to Asia. The Gulf Cooperation Council and its allies felt that they had been forgotten when they were not consulted about the JCPOA. With the Abraham Accords, the United States will make a great mistake if it treats the deal as a “hit and run” and does not maintain its commitment to the region.
The UAE took a courageous step and has received condemnation from the Arab street, the Palestinians, and Qatar, a close U.S. partner. If Washington wants normalization to continue and spread in the region, it should help pave the road for each party to join. The other barrier Arab countries face is Israeli aggression toward the Palestinians, which is a hindrance to any country that wants to join this arc of stability.
In terms of domestic reaction, while the older Emirati generation was raised on a narrative that Israel is an enemy, the younger generation has a different view. The UAE has 200 nationalities and has learned how to ensure they function peacefully together. The Abraham Accords did not happen suddenly; there was a long period in which ties developed between Israel and the UAE, including ministerial visits, sports, and the Abrahamic Family House dedicated to religious tolerance. Lastly, the UAE now leans toward moderate Islam, and it has never been a closed society in terms of social freedoms or tolerance.
DORE GOLD
The Abraham Accords are a turning point in the Middle East. The UAE has become an important power not just in the Persian Gulf, but around the Horn of Africa. Israel touches on the same geographic region, creating many areas for cooperation. Both countries can use their alliance with the United States to shape responses to the Iranian threat. The Emiratis are very enthusiastic about the breakthrough, which Israel can surely appreciate as previous peace partners did not feel the same way. In turn, Israel will advocate for their peace partners in Washington, as they did with the Jordanians.
The Abraham Accords create new possible security structures for the Middle East in the future. Israel is currently in a position similar to that of Europe at the end of World War II, when the United States was planning to pull out and Russia would fill the vacuum. In response, the United States created NATO. Security structures are very important in light of changes in the region, and partners can help design a different Middle East based on stable players. Israel has a legitimate argument about its qualitative military edge, but it is not against the Emiratis. If Israel suddenly decides to go easy on QME, the ultimate effect will be on other Arab states who are not at peace with Israel and would try to exploit such a QME pullback.
In terms of the Palestinians, the key is whether they are ready to consider reasonable proposals. President Mahmoud Abbas was not ripe for a deal toward the end of the Obama years, and the same situation holds today. Since the time of Israeli strategist Yigal Allon, it has been widely accepted that certain portions of the West Bank would be retained by Israel and certain territories would be returned. When Israel accepted the Trump peace plan, it accepted the territorial divisions in the proposal as being relevant for the future. Israel has the opportunity to work with Arab state partners on how to use normalization to impact the territorial configuration in a peace settlement with the Palestinians.
For instance, Palestinians need an arrangement to increase their gross national product; perhaps the new regional partnerships could facilitate routes for trucking and trains from Haifa to the West Bank to Jordan to the Gulf. The Palestinians would financially benefit as conduits for trade. It is important to consider how peace between Israel and Arab states can interact to create better outcomes for the region.
BARBARA LEAF
In the Emirati domestic arena, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Zayed took a series of steps in the past decade to foster a distinct sense of Emirati nationalism, particularly among youths. These initiatives reflected fears that modernization was affecting the country’s small society, that the nation was losing its culture, and that the younger generation lacked a sense of responsibility to the state. Additionally, the UAE leadership was testing the waters on normalization—with its public as well as the region. UAE press coverage of Israel has been nonpolemical, and while the leadership took a cautious approach to the public visibility of the Israeli delegation when Abu Dhabi began hosting the UN International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2015, increasing and deliberate visibility was given to people-to-people contacts. These moves were meant to set the Emirates apart in the region in U.S. eyes and in their people’s eyes.
After 2011, turmoil continued unabated, and two quasi-blocs—Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt on one side; Qatar, Iran, Turkey, and rejectionist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah on the other—formed in the region. While normalization was driven by national security factors for the UAE, the Emiratis also considered the move critical to enhancing ties with the United States, maintaining bipartisan support in Washington, raising the relationship to the special “club” of strategic partners like Israel, and gaining access to certain advanced defense systems they had long sought. There is also a certain fatalistic line of thinking in the UAE’s leadership that the region is moving toward a post-American era. In this regard, the deal can be seen as a hedge against that possibility, with the UAE looking for a defense/security relationship with the regional superpower, Israel.
UAE foreign policy is often defined by risk-taking; the strategic step to normalize relations with Israel was a carefully calculated risk, and accelerated an already visible trend line. Meanwhile, Washington has been wrestling for some time with how to deal with a more adventurous Emirati foreign policy, and a Democratic presidential administration would likely be more critical. The UAE has tried out much more assertive interventions in Yemen and Libya. In Yemen, the costs became too high, and the crown prince made the hardnosed decision to withdraw despite costs to the Emirati relationship with Saudi Arabia. Libya provides an example of Emirati overreach, which will likely play into Congress’s decision on the sale of F-35 jets and other advanced systems to Abu Dhabi.
It would be a mistake for this administration or a future one to focus exclusively on notching up more wins on normalization; that risks normalization occurring on a highly transactional basis, causing friction with other policies like QME. The question for the United States is how to build strategically on the breakthroughs that have already occurred, eventually moving toward resolving the Palestinian issue, which goes to the heart of Israeli and Palestinian security and prosperity. The better part of valor would be to respect the official reticence of other states for the moment, while focusing on encouraging partners in the region to do what the UAE began doing some years back—changing the environment within the country to prepare the public for formal normalization at some point. This means removing strictures on people-to-people contacts, promoting interfaith dialogue, altering the tone of government media toward Israel, and generally working to change the environment at home so that normalization does not remain forever unthinkable.
DAVID MAKOVSKY
The UAE-Israel deal has a compelling bilateral rationale. Both countries are wary of Iran and have clear views on the JCPOA and political Islam. This convergence has special importance amid long-term questions about the U.S. role in the region. The deal also facilitates a potential economic bonanza. While Israel’s peace with Egypt and Jordan had significant strategic importance, the peace with the Emirates offers possibilities for investment. The normalization agreement also offers a warm peace that Israel has never witnessed before.
The deal is the result of an unintended multistage peace process. First came the Trump peace plan, which the Palestinians rejected out of hand. Additionally, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu could not galvanize the Israeli right wing because he had not conditioned his base for territorial compromise. Second came the possibility of West Bank annexation, which was rejected due to international anger and the opposition of Israel’s own strategic community. Third came the Emirates essentially bailing out the United States and Israel with the normalization agreement.
The deal is a great achievement, though it did not require the same level of risk that Menachem Begin took at Camp David or Yitzhak Rabin took with Oslo. The Emirates seized a tactical moment to extract bilateral security benefits from the United States, with President Trump facing an uphill election and seeking a breakthrough. The Emirates also likely saw the move as political risk insurance for the possibility of a post-Trump era, since a Democratic administration could have different views about the Gulf.
Regarding the Palestinians, the parties need to rethink the Arab Peace Initiative. The API is based on premises that were valid in 2002, when no Gulf states had bilateral relationships with Israel. The idea that Arab states would normalize relations after Israel resolved its conflict with the Palestinians was considered a carrot, but it is now seen as a stick—that is, a posture that would indefinitely defer relations with Israel at a very significant opportunity cost given the threat of Iranian regional influence. One sign of changing views is that when the Camp David Accords were reached in 1979, the Arab League broke relations with Egypt for ten years. Last week, however, the league simply stated that the UAE deal was a sovereign decision by an Arab country, and that it would not intervene.
While the Palestinians will surely wait to see the results of the U.S. election, they should try to coax the UAE rather than curse the decision. They have numerous disagreements with the Emirates that need to be resolved, often exacerbated by the rivalry between Abbas and prominent UAE-based Palestinian politician Mohammad Dahlan.
It is important to note that while many U.S. officials have recently made trips to the region in the context of the Israeli-Emirati breakthrough, Pentagon officials have not. Any F-35 sale would require negotiation between both defense communities, but their clocks are not currently in sync, even as the Trump administration and Netanyahu push for wrapping the issue up by the end of the year.
*This summary was prepared by Basia Rosenbaum. The Policy Forum series is made possible through the generosity of the Florence and Robert Kaufman Family.

Heavy international pressure seen behind Sarraj’s resignation in Libya
Jemai Guesmi/The Arab Weekly/September 18/2020
TUNIS –The resignation of the head of the Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA), Fayez al-Sarraj, took the Libyans by surprise, even though several leaks in the press about a week ago should have prepared them for it.
The move constituted a surprise because not long ago before that, Sarraj was involved in a power struggle with his Minister of the Interior and his rival Fathi Bashagha, who was leading an indirect incitement campaign against him by encouraging Libyans to take to the streets and protest against rampant corruption.
While some view Sarraj’s resignation as a procedural step to pave the way for the next government of national unity, others see it as reflecting the failure of his attempts to prevent his being excluded from the scene, especially when Bashagha was reinstated in his post of Minister of the Interior.
Despite the cautious welcome given to this step, there was still divergent opinions in Libya about its seriousness and about its implications. There were also serious questions raised about the fate of the controversial agreements Sarraj had signed with Turkey. Many believe that Sarraj’s resignation was brought about by strong US pressure with the purpose of appeasing international parties disturbed by the agreements he signed with Turkey, especially the maritime border demarcation agreement that angered the Europeans in general and France and Greece in particular.
Oliver Ovtsha, Germany’s ambassador to Libya, hastened to welcome the step. “President Sarraj’s decision deserves respect, given that the transfer of power represents a challenge to any country,” he wrote on Twitter.
Over the past few months, there were reports about France’s intention to present a draft resolution to the UN Security Council to withdraw the legitimacy of the GNA.
Statements by Amari Zayed, a member of the Libyan Presidential Council and a former leader in the Libyan Fighting Group and affiliated with the extremist movement known for its great loyalty to Turkey, confirm reports about Turkey’s concern over Sarraj’s resignation.
“The legitimacy that is relied upon is not linked to any person, regardless of his position, but rather to a political agreement that was the best in existence,” Zayed told the press, noting that this legitimacy was strengthened by the “revolutionaries” (referring to the militias) who had taken over the Presidential Council to preserve “the goals of the revolution,” and that these “revolutionaries” have the right to participate in the political decision and that nobody will be allowed to marginalise them.
Fayez al-Sarraj had announced on Wednesday evening, in a videotaped speech addressed to the Libyan people, his intention to formally resign from the presidency of the GNA at the end of next October. This remarkable development did not seem to be isolated from the equally sudden announcement only four days ago of the resignation of the parallel government in eastern Libya headed by Abdullah al-Thinni.
“I announce to everyone my sincere desire to hand over my duties to the next executive authority no later than next October, hoping that the Libyan Dialogue Committee will have completed its work by then, selected a new presidential council and chosen a head of government to whom to hand over the duties, according to the outcomes of the Berlin Conference that were approved by the UN Security Council,” Sarraj said in his speech.
Some observers went as far as to say that Sarraj wanted with this speech to pave the way for his exit from the Libyan scene with the least damage, yet Libyan parliamentarian, Ziad Daghim, did not hesitate to welcome Sarraj’s commitment to step down at the end of next month.
Daghim told The Arab Weekly by phone that Sarraj’s decision “is worthy of respect as it shows a consideration for the supreme public interest, and we should not also forget his other recent important national decisions, including declaring a ceasefire and refraining from escalating the war.”
He further considered the decision “a serious step by which he (Sarraj) dropped the ball in the others’ court, and it must be met with openness, and all of al-Sarraj’s sources of concern, if any, must be addressed.”
The mood was different, however, among the Islamists. Saad al-Jazwi, a member of the Libyan Advisory Council affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, was sceptical about Sarraj’s decision and tied it to external diktats. He considered Sarraj’s intended resignation “not the result of the terrible mismanagement conditions prevailing in the country during the past years, but rather came in line with the international project for Libya.”Speaking this past Wednesday night on the Libya Panorama TV channel, Jawzi said that Sarraj’s televised speech “came as a result of international diktats that want to push Libya into another transitional stage.”
“We expected Sarraj to put in place practical measures for real remedies to the sufferings of the Libyan citizens, but instead he placed us in the international context by declaring that he will leave them (the practical measures) to the government that will be established through the dialogue committee, without adding anything new about the suffering of the Libyan people,” he added.
Most political interpretations of this particular development were almost all unanimous that Sarraj was subjected to strong pressures related to international arrangements being prepared in several Western capitals, especially in Washington, for a quick settlement in Libya through reshaping the political scene before the coming US elections. Such interpretations stemmed from American reports of about a week ago confirming Sarraj’s intention to announce his resignation soon, in coordination with Turkey, which is still controlling the balance of power between the political forces in western Libya, although all indications confirm that Ankara’s relations with Tripoli will definitely be seriously affected by this resignation, if it ever comes to pass.

Bahrain’s normalisation move driven by regional security concerns
Faith Salama/The Arab Weekly/September 18/2020
DUBAI – Bahrain’s ruling family did not attend the signing ceremony of the Bahrain-Israel peace agreement on the White House lawn earlier this week.
However, the country did send its foreign minister to ink the historic accord, which Manama agreed to to advance its security and economic interests.
Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid al-Zayani was the one who signed the agreement in Washington, but the godfather of Bahrain’s effort to establish relations with Israel — largely in response to the growing Iranian threat — was former Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa, who now serves as the diplomatic advisor to Bahraini King Hamad Bin Isa Al Khalifa.
Bahraini Interior Minister Sheikh Rashid bin Abdullah Al Khalifa said the agreement to establish diplomatic relations with Israel is part of efforts to protect the country’s “supreme interests” as to “enhance the security of Bahrainis and the stability of their economy.”
He stressed that “a realistic vision of the regional scene makes us realise that we have been dealing with constant dangers throughout the past years (…) and it is not wise to see the danger and wait for it to hit us if this can be avoided in any way.”
Sheikh Rashid added that the agreement does not mean Manama has given up on the Palestinian cause, stressing that “if Palestine is our Arab cause, then Bahrain is our fateful cause.”
Manama’s decision to normalise ties with Tel Aviv was neither a gratuitous move nor a response to US pressure, as its opponents have claimed. Rather, it was prompted by national security considerations, according to the interior minister, who does not usually weigh in on diplomatic issues.
The interior minister’s remarks highlight how the Bahraini state and royal family believe security issues are central to ensuring a balance of power in the region.
One of Bahrain’s main considerations is Israeli efforts to contain the Iranian threat, which Manama considers paramount.
Soon after the normalisation agreement, Iran-affiliated groups expressed their intent to target Israelis in Bahrain.
On Wednesday, an Iran-backed group calling itself “Saraya Wa’ad Allah” issued a statement announcing the formation of a cell to target Israeli presence in Bahrain. The move reflects Iran’s grave concern over the security implications of the agreement that was signed Tuesday between Bahrain and Israel.
Observers say Tehran is disturbed by Bahraini-Israeli security coordination, which could impede its activities in Bahrain. The Israeli-Bahraini coordination could also expose details of Tehran’s support, financing and training for groups that have worked to harm Gulf security under the pretext of being opposition or revolutionary groups or popular protest movements.
A Bahraini political source told The Arab Weekly that Arab Gulf states have the tools needed to confront Iranian expansion in the region, but must take a unified, bold position against Tehran and follow through with the political will that meets the moment.
Iran’s media machine attempted to distort the Bahrain-Israel accord, using loose headlines claiming Manama had betrayed the Palestinian cause, even as many observers note that Iran itself has done nothing to help Palestinians. They say that Tehran has repeatedly issued empty promises and meaningless slogans on Palestine to score political goals, while at the same time keeping its guns directed at Arabs in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain.
Iran’s foreign ministry said that “the rulers of Bahrain will from now on become partners in the crimes of the Zionist regime as it is a permanent threat to the security of the region and the entire Islamic world.” It added that their agreement “is a shameful act by Bahrain, sacrificing the Palestinian cause and decades of struggle and suffering for the Palestinian people on the altar of the US presidential elections.”
The normalisation of relations between Israel and the United States’ allies in the Middle East, including major Gulf states Bahrain and the UAE, is a significant part of US President Donald Trump’s regional strategy to contain Tehran.
Relations between Washington and Tehran have been strained since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and were completely cut off a year later.
Tensions have grown after Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 and reimposed crippling sanctions on Tehran.