English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For January 02/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

#elias_bejjani_news
 

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews21/english.january02.21.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today

Cautions From Occult Practices
Deuteronomy 18/9-22/When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the Lord your God.
The Prophet/The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.” The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
 

Question: "What sort of New Year’s resolution should a Christian make?"
GotQuestions.org/December 31/2020
Answer: The practice of making New Year’s resolutions goes back over 3,000 years to the ancient Babylonians. There is just something about the start of a new year that gives us the feeling of a fresh start and a new beginning. In reality, there is no difference between December 31 and January 1. Nothing mystical occurs at midnight on December 31. The Bible does not speak for or against the concept of New Year’s resolutions. However, if a Christian determines to make a New Year’s resolution, what kind of resolution should he or she make?
Common New Year’s resolutions are commitments to quit smoking, to stop drinking, to manage money more wisely, and to spend more time with family. By far, the most common New Year’s resolution is to lose weight, in conjunction with exercising more and eating more healthily. These are all good goals to set. However, 1 Timothy 4:8 instructs us to keep exercise in perspective: “For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.” The vast majority of New Year’s resolutions, even among Christians, are in relation to physical things. This should not be. Many Christians make New Year’s resolutions to pray more, to read the Bible every day, and to attend church more regularly. These are fantastic goals. However, these New Year’s resolutions fail just as often as the non-spiritual resolutions, because there is no power in a New Year’s resolution. Resolving to start or stop doing a certain activity has no value unless you have the proper motivation for stopping or starting that activity. For example, why do you want to read the Bible every day? Is it to honor God and grow spiritually, or is it because you have just heard that it is a good thing to do? Why do you want to lose weight? Is it to honor God with your body, or is it for vanity, to honor yourself? Philippians 4:13 tells us, “I can do everything through Him who gives me strength.” John 15:5 declares, “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” If God is the center of your New Year’s resolution, it has chance for success, depending on your commitment to it. If it is God’s will for something to be fulfilled, He will enable you to fulfill it. If a resolution is not God-honoring and/or is not in agreement with God’s Word, we will not receive God’s help in fulfilling the resolution. So, what sort of New Year’s resolution should a Christian make? Here are some suggestions: (1) pray to the Lord for wisdom (James 1:5) regarding what resolutions, if any, He would have you make; (2) pray for wisdom as to how to fulfill the goals God gives you; (3) rely on God’s strength to help you; (4) find an accountability partner who will help you and encourage you; (5) don’t become discouraged with occasional failures; instead, allow them to motivate you further; (6) don’t become proud or vain, but give God the glory. Psalm 37:5-6 says, “Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him and he will do this: He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on January 01-02/2020

'Hezbollah attack on northern Israel is very likely'
Health Ministry: 2385 new cases of Corona, 11 deaths
Hariri Hospital: 88 Corona infections, 36 critical cases, 2 deaths
Hassan announces that cost of PCR tests in government hospitals will be reduced to LL 100,000 as of next Monday
Rahi: It is shameful for obstructers to deal with Lebanese matters as part of a Middle East chess game
New Year’s Eve celebratory gunfire kills Syrian refugee in Lebanon
Geagea calls for adopting financial ration cards in place of current subsidy method
Saad: For a complete lockdown for 3 weeks
Abillammaa: May the New Year bring goodness and blessings
Lebanese Ambassador to UAE thanks the Emirates for its special greeting to Lebanon
El-Khalil: We hope that 2021 will be the year of positive change for Lebanon
No New Cabinet in Lebanon Before the Taif Accords Are Killed off/Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/January 01/2021
All about upcoming visits of Pope Francis/Desk Blitz/January 02/2021

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 01-02/2020

Pope reappears after pain flareup, calls for peace in New Year message
US Congress votes to override Trump veto of defense bill
In late Trump salvo, US rejects UN budget over disagreements on Israel and Iran
US, Gulf allies brace for Iran terror attacks as Tehran vows to avenge Soleimani killing
Soleimani’s killers will ‘not be safe on Earth,’ says Iran’s judiciary chief
Iran 'Vows' Revenge a Year After Soleimani Killing
Iran Tells IAEA it Plans to Enrich Uranium up to 20% at Fordow Site
Car Bomb Hits Near Russia Base in Northeast Syria
Egypt Summons Ethiopian Diplomat Over Dam Comments
Egyptian officials: Roadside bombing in Sinai kills 2 police
'No need to panic,' China official says of coronavirus variants
France imposes earlier curfew in 15 departments from Saturday
 

Titles For The Latest The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on January 01-02/2020

We Need a Global Alliance to Defend Democracies/Richard Kemp/Gatestone Institute/December 31, 2020
Germany's "Shameful" Two Years on the UN Security Council/Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute/January 01/ 2021
2021: What will the Middle East look like in the new year?/Seth J. Frantzman /Jerusalem Post/January 01/2021
The Abraham Accords domino effect will lead to more peace deals/Lahav Harkov/Jerusalem Post/January 01/2021
Joe Biden’s in-tray: The five key foreign policy issues/Luke Coffey/Arab News/January 01/2021
The Trump legacy that can never be erased/Dalia Al-Aqidi/Arab News/January 01/2021

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on January 01-02/2020

'Hezbollah attack on northern Israel is very likely'
David Rosenberg/Arutz Sheva/January 01/2021
Senior officer in northern command warns that Shi'ite terror group Hezbollah is very likely to attempt major terror attack in near future. The IDF is concerned that the Lebanon-based Hezbollah terrorist organization will likely attempt a major terrorist attack on northern Israel in the near future, a senior Israel security official warned Friday. Speaking with Israel Hayom in a report published Friday morning, a senior officer in the IDF’s northern command said that tensions are rising on Israel’s northern frontier, with a major escalation between Israel and Hezbollah expected. “The northern border is heading towards an escalation event, even perhaps to multiple days of combat,” the senior officer said. “I am convinced that an event is going to occur that will be far more intense than the event in Har Dov – something that is liable to cause casualties,” the officer continued, referencing the attack in July by Hezbollah terrorists on an IDF position near Har Dov. “This means we have to be prepared. The chances of an incident breaking out are only going to increase.” If and when the attack does take place, the officer added, Israel would respond with unprecedented force. “We know how to identify everyone who crosses the Blue Line [the Israel-Lebanon border], and we treat violations of our sovereignty differently. We are prepared for any event and are aware that the enemy will try to surprise us.” “Anyone who tries to harm us, from Iran to Syria, will be met by a strong force in Metullah or Kibbutz Yiftach.”
 

Health Ministry: 2385 new cases of Corona, 11 deaths
NNA/January 01/2021
The Ministry of Public Health announced, on Friday, that 2385 new Corona cases have been reported, thus raising the cumulative number of confirmed cases to-date to 183,888.
It also indicated that 11 death cases were also registered during the past 24 hours.

Hariri Hospital: 88 Corona infections, 36 critical cases, 2 deaths
NNA/January 01/2021
In its daily report on the latest COVID-19 virus developments, the Rafic Hariri University Hospital indicated that 88 infected persons are currently receiving treatment at the hospital, with 36 critical cases and two deaths recorded in the past 24 hours.
In details, the report indicated the following:
- Number of examinations conducted in the hospital's laboratories during the past 24 hours: 400
- Number of patients infected with Coronavirus admitted to the hospital for follow-up: 88
- Number of suspected cases transferred to the hospital during the past 24 hours: 25
- Number of recovered patients during the past 24 hours: 4
- Total number of patient recoveries at the hospital to-date: 820
- Number of cases transferred from the intensive care unit to the isolation unit after improvement: 3
- Number of critical cases in the hospital: 36
- Number of deaths: 2

Hassan announces that cost of PCR tests in government hospitals will be reduced to LL 100,000 as of next Monday
NNA/January 01/2021
Caretaker Minister of Public Health, Hamad Hassan, announced today that the cost of the PCR examination in government hospital laboratories will be reduced to one hundred thousand Lebanese pounds, according to a circular that will be issued upcoming Monday. He also confirmed that the Baalbek Governmental Hospital will be accredited as a vaccination center starting mid-February, upon the arrival of the Pfizer vaccine. Hassan's words came during his visit to Baalbek Governmental Hospital today, where he met with its director, medical team nurses and staff members, commending their relentless efforts and sacrifices and wishing them a prosperous new year ahead. He also paid a special greeting to all employees and workers in the Corona departments in different hospitals and those who serve people with various means of diagnosing the epidemic. He pointed out that "all support that is directed towards government hospitals is a duty, in wake of the accumulated deprivation and unsound, unfair health policies," adding that this support is made possible nowadays through the positive interaction that is witnessed in this sector.
Meanwhile, Hassan reminded citizens of the strict need to keep abiding by the safety precautions and measures against the Coronavirus, to protect themselves and their families and society as we await the vaccine's arrival. He also urged the private sector hospitals to join more in the battle against the pandemic by increasing the number of intensive care beds to treat the critical cases.

Rahi: It is shameful for obstructers to deal with Lebanese matters as part of a Middle East chess game
NNA/January 01/2021
Maronite Patriarch, Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rahi, said in his sermon during New Year's Eve Mass in Bkerke that he is ashamed of the parties that bear the responsibility of dealing with the Lebanese issue as part of the Middle Eastern chess game.
Calling for the implementation of the provisions of the Constitution, Patriarch Rahi stressed that no political party has the right to obstruct the formation of the government for personal interests, noting that two months and ten days have passed since the appointment of a new prime minister and Lebanon is rapidly heading towards complete collapse and bankruptcy. He criticized the devastation that exceeds even the destruction of the Beirut port, which shattered half of the capital and left hundreds of innocent victims and thousands of families homeless. Rahi declared that "forming the government is a basic responsibility for political fertilization," stressing his keenness to find a solution to the current crisis in cooperation with the international and Arab community. Finally, the Patriarch called on all parties and all Lebanese to serve only Lebanon.

New Year’s Eve celebratory gunfire kills Syrian refugee in Lebanon
The Associated PressSaturday 02 January 2021
Celebratory gunfire to ring in the New Year killed a Syrian woman living as a refugee in eastern Lebanon and struck an airplane parked at Beirut’s airport in two separate incidents, Lebanon’s official news agency said Friday. The Syrian woman died early on Friday after a bullet struck her in the head in a refugee camp in Baalbek, according to the National News Agency. The Middle East Airlines plane on the tarmac at Beirut’s airport was hit as people in the vicinity of the southern Beirut neighborhood fired in the air in celebration. The plane later took off as scheduled after engineers made sure it was safe to fly. Shooting from guns and rifles into the air in celebration is common in some parts of Lebanon at events such as weddings, funerals, when political leaders give speeches — and even when a student passes high school exams. In September, Lebanon’s leading football player Mohammed Atwi died, nearly a month after he was struck in the head by a stray bullet fired by mourners during a funeral for one of the victims of this summer’s massive Beirut port explosion. Atwi was 33.

Geagea calls for adopting financial ration cards in place of current subsidy method
NNA/January 01/2021
Head of the Lebanese Forces Party, Samir Geagea, accused the President of the Republic, Caretaker Prime Minister, Ministers of Finance and Economy, and Central Bank Governor of wasting the remaining funds of the depositors' money through the method of subsidies adopted so far. Geagea pointed out that "instead of the subsidy going to needy families, we see the bulk of it being smuggled into Syria, or as an excuse for some traders or importers, or a waste for those who do not need support." Geagea also considered that if the subsidy funds had been spent in the right place, we would have been able to continue supporting needy families for an additional four or five years. Finally, the LF Chief called on the President of the Republic, Caretaker PM, the concerned ministers and the Central Bank Governonr to stop the current method of support and replace it with financial ration cards that are provided only to needy families based on field studies conducted by the World Bank and other international organizations.

Saad: For a complete lockdown for 3 weeks
NNA/January 01/2021
Member of the "Strong Republic" Parliamentary Bloc, MP Fadi Saad, sounded the alarm over the Coronavirus outbreak, appealing via his Twitter account to the Public Health Minister and the caretaker government "to take a quick decision for a complete 3-week lockdown period to avoid the health disaster approaching us, in light of the massive outbreak of Corona and the scarcity of intensive care beds in hospitals."

Abillammaa: May the New Year bring goodness and blessings
NNA/January 01/2021
"Strong Republic" Parliamentary Bloc Member, MP Eddy Abillammaa, congratulated the Lebanese in general and citizens of al-Metn region in particular, on the occasion of the New Year. Abillammaa expressed his wishes via Twitter that the 2021 year "would be different from the previous year, which was very difficult and challenging," hoping that "it would bring goodness and blessings to everyone." "This was a very difficult year due to the outbreak of diseases, the explosion and the economic situation," he said.

Lebanese Ambassador to UAE thanks the Emirates for its special greeting to Lebanon
NNA/January 01/2021
Lebanon's Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Fouad Dandan, thanked in a statement on Friday, "the UAE and its genuine and authentic people, for the distinguished greeting dedicated to Lebanon and its people at the start of the new year, Beirut time, when the Burj Khalifa was lit with the Lebanese flag."
"We are proud of this greeting and reciprocate it with the same reverence and devotion, loyalty and sincere brotherhood, wishing all prosperity, abundance, safety and security to the brotherly United Arab Emirates."

El-Khalil: We hope that 2021 will be the year of positive change for Lebanon
NNA/January 01/2021
On the outset of 2021, MP Anwar El-Khalil expressed his New Year's greetings to the Lebanese via his Twitter account, saying: "From our three generations, grandfather, father and grandson, we extend to all the Lebanese, residents and those abroad in all parts of the world, our heartfelt wishes and prayers to the Lord Almighty that the year 2021 will be the year of positive change of our bitter, painful and critical reality...crossing over towards Lebanon the dream of emerging generations; Lebanon of goodness, prosperity and stability; Lebanon of devotion and national unity that transcends sectarianism...and Lebanon that Pope John Paul II described as being 'more than a nation, more than a country, but rather a message, a message for the right coexistence between Muslims and Christians...' Lebanon the glory, dignity and honor; Lebanon that remains till eternity! "
El-Khalil attached to his tweet a photo with his son and grandson.
 

No New Cabinet in Lebanon Before the Taif Accords Are Killed off
Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/January 01/2021
French President Emmanuel Macron’s testing positive for Covid-19 came as a sad but helpful opportunity for the Lebanese establishment to save face. It was a perfect opportunity to prove the futility of all superficial deals attempted to solve an existential problem. The fact is that the problem lies deep in the conflicting sectarian interests connected to Lebanon’s identity and fate, as well as the future of the Middle East as a whole.
Some European approaches in the Middle East have failed because certain influential European powers misread the realities of regional politics; while others have failed due to specific, or conflicting interests with, or towards active regional players, led by Israel, Iran and Turkey. France, however, has no excuse when it misreads the situation, as it has had ancient and long associations there. These include being a main actor in:
- The Crusades (1095 – 1492) called from the Council of Clermont by Pope Urban II.
- The Eastern Question, that stemmed from the agreement between Francis I of France and the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. The 1536 agreement, known as the “Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire”, granted France the right to protect the Christians in Ottoman lands. It would later have major repercussions on the maps of Europe and the Middle East, as well as Christian-Muslim relations.
- The Middle East enlightenment and opening-up resulting from Napoleon”s campaigns, and founding educational establishments and printing presses in Egypt and the Levant. Parallel to that, was the political and cultural development taking place in the “Maghreb” countries.
- The Sykes-Picot Agreement on partitioning the Ottoman Middle East after WW1, and France’s sponsoring of the specific “Lebanese identity” following the Paris Peace Conference of 1920.
- The building of Israel’s military arsenal and taking part in the 1956 Suez War.
- Leading Europe’s push for better relations with the Arab world, following Charles de Gaulle’s support of Algeria’s independence.
All the above suggests that France is well aware of the details of the culture and political equations in most parts of the Arab world. Thus, the Lebanese people should be excused when they built high hopes when President Macron announced his intention to visit Lebanon after the Beirut port disaster last August, and launch a political initiative to end the present political vacuum.
They were optimistic because things could only get better after a series of political, financial, social and public health crises. However, this optimism soon disappeared when Macron had to make a second futile visit that came after the failure to form a “non-political cabinet” headed by ambassador Mustafa Adib. What caused this setback was Lebanon’s leaders going back to square one in their maneuvers and conflicting demands. As a result, all the aura of reverence that had accompanied Macron’s visits, and the alleged backing he enjoyed from the US administration, disappeared.
In the meantime, a lot was said that Iran did not approve any settlement in Lebanon before knowing the result of the US election. Those who are familiar with the techniques of bargain and blackmail, long mastered by the Tehran regime, knew that it would not give concession to a soon-departing administration; let alone an administration that has “besieged” it politically. It would not concede to a leadership that withdrew from the JCPOA (the nuclear deal), tightened economic sanctions against it, killed two its top military strategists (Qassem Soleimani and Mohsen Fakhrizadeh), and weakened the Iranian military presence in eastern and southern Syria.
Furthermore, the “Iranian lobby” in Washington was not idle during Donald Trump’s four years in the White House; while his excessive enthusiasm to sponsor the Israeli-Arab normalization onslaught gave Tehran’s Arab henchmen additional “excuses” to justify their subservience.
On the other hand, inside the US, a mood change began to emerge after Covid-19. The Trump administration, which for the previous three years had gambled on a major economic boom, found itself between two bitter choices: either impose strict lockdowns, and risk the country’s economic wellbeing; or ignore the dangers of the pandemic sweeping urban areas (particularly, poor inner city neighborhoods), and so wrecking the public health sector, ruining its budgets, and causing public unrest. Indeed, this is what exactly happened, culminating in racist and security tensions.
Eventually, amid hesitation and constitutional wrangling between the White House and several state governors, US infections and fatalities broke all world records, and threw most economic sectors in a deep crisis. Consequently, with the countdown to the November elections underway, Trump had lost the winning “economic card” and with it the race, to his Democratic adversary Joe Biden.
Today, Iran may feel that its bet on a patient wait has succeeded. It surely expects Biden’s presidency to scale down its open animosity and relax the current sanctions, even if it did not return to Barack Obama’s policies of cooperation and understanding.
Moreover, the Iranian leadership thinks the Western European leaders who refused to join Trump in withdrawing from the JCPOA, would now move more freely towards Iran during the presidency of Biden, Obama’s ex-vice president.
Signs of Iran’s renewed confidence are now appearing clearly in its Arab “protectorates”, including Lebanon, where real power is the hands of the pro-Iran Hezbollah militia.
The clearest sign has been the return of President Michel Aoun’s party – which is the Christian party providing cover to Hezbollah’s influence – to blackmail, and raising its demands. These include the virtual disregard of Taif Accords in forming the new cabinet.
In calling for “confessional equilibrium”, “common standards” and fair “Christian representation” against a background of intense sectarian agitation – with tacit blessings from Hezbollah – Aoun’s party is, actually, attempting to kill off the Taif Accords.
As a reminder, these constitutional Accords were never supported by Iran or Aoun. Indeed, the Aoun-Hezbollah understanding was helped by their mutual opposition to them, because both partners allege that the Accords ensured the ascendency of “political Sunnism” at the expense of the “alliance of minorities” in the region. Furthermore, although those Accords were approved by the Syrian regime, the latter made sure a few weeks after their promulgation to be selective in implementing only the items that suited its interests.
Now, with the Syrian regime, Hezbollah and Aoun all in one camp, it looks as if no Lebanese cabinet will be formed before the Taif Accords are killed off.

All about upcoming visits of Pope Francis
Desk Blitz/January 02/2021
Pope Francis has announced plans to soon visit – though no dates were given – Lebanon and South Sudan – but without explaining why these two countries are being singled out. He has already scheduled a visit to Iraq at the beginning of March. The report on his plans is here: “Pope promises to visit Lebanon, South Sudan, as soon as possible,” Reuters, December 24, 2020:
Pope Francis promised in his Christmas messages on Thursday to visit Lebanon and South Sudan as soon as he could. The pope traditionally mentions countries in his Christmas Day message, but he singled out those two nations with Christmas Eve messages because of difficulties each has faced this year.
“I am deeply troubled to see the suffering and anguish that has sapped the native resilience and resourcefulness of the Land of the Cedars,” Francis said, referring to Lebanon, which has been struggling with a deep economic crisis and the aftermath of the Beirut port explosion on Aug. 4 that killed about 200 people….Francis expressed “my affection for the beloved people of Lebanon, whom I hope to visit as soon as possible.
Which “beloved people of Lebanon” are those? Surely Pope Francis does not mean to include the members of the terror group Hezbollah, who dig tunnels into Israel in the hope of kidnapping or killing Israelis? Not those Hezbollah members who have violently suppressed those Lebanese who have been protesting non-violently against the mismanagement and corruption of the government — the one that is dominated by Hezbollah and its willing collaborators, including the Maronite President Michel Aoun? Surely the Pope cannot be planning to meet with representatives of Hezbollah, the terror group that hides its weapons, including 150,000 missiles and rockets, inside mosques, schools, shops, apartment buildings, unavoidably making these places, in the event of another war with Israel that Hezbollah may initiate, into targets? The Pope certainly won’t want to meet with members of Hezbollah, which continually threatens to again drag Lebanon into a war with Israel that no other Lebanese, want. He surely won’t even entertain the notion of meeting with Hezbollah, which was responsible for the August 4 blast in Beirut that left 200 dead, 6,000 wounded, 300,000 homeless, and $15 billion in damage. Or am I underestimating the capacity of Pope Francis for self-delusioni?
He said he hoped the country could “stand apart from conflicts and regional tensions.”
How is that possible, when Iran, through its proxy Hezbollah, has dragged an unwilling Lebanon into being used as a base against Israel? As long as Hezbollah controls Lebanon, that country will be forced to be a participant in the Arab-Israel conflict. Despite what most Lebanese ardently desire, Hezbollah prevents the country from “standing apart from conflicts and regional tensions.”
In Lebanon, Pope Francis should dare to take on Hezbollah both when he appears, and when he doesn’t. First, he should refuse any meeting with representatives of the terror group, for such a meeting can only help legitimize it. Within the last two years major European states, such as the U.K., Germany, and the Netherlands, have designated both the “political” and “military” wings of Hezbollah to be parts of a single entity, and banned that entity as a “terrorist” group. This is not the time for the Pope to be seen meeting with the group, especially now that it is on the ropes. He should wish publicly for the “land of the Cedars” not to be “dragged into quarrels by foreign states manipulating local proxies.” His meaning, not naming but clearly alluding to Iran and Hezbollah, will be crystal clear. He should decry “the use of Lebanon as a storehouse for vast amounts of weapons hidden in civilian areas, that will be the target of attack in any likely future war.” He should stress that “those responsible for the August 4 blast must be held to answer for their “haphazard storing of dangerous chemicals” at the Port of Beirut. He should meet only briefly, with President Michel Aoun, as a way of expressing his displeasure with Aoun’s support for Hezbollah, and spend a much longer time with two key anti-Hezbollah figures, Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros Al-Rai, who has repeatedly expressed his frustration with, and anger at, Hezbollah, and with Sa’ad Hariri, the Sunni Prime Minister who opposes Hezbollah, not least because the terror group murdered his father Rafik Hariri in 2005.
By visiting with Hezbollah’s best-known opponents, and leaving little time for a meeting with Hezbollah’s collaborator President Aoun, and no time at all for a meeting with representatives of Hezbollah itself — Hassan Nasrallah can’t see him in any case, for he is apparently hiding out from the Israelis in Iran — the Pope will have reinforced his anti-Hezbollah message. No one will be mistaken as to where he stands on the matter: he wants Hezbollah to surrender its major weaponry to the government, so that the Lebanese National Army will again be the strongest military force in the country. He wants Hezbollah to lose its prominent representation in the government — both in the Cabinet and in the Parliament, as well as its control over non-Shi’a collaborators, like the ever-accommodating President Aoun, quislings who deserve to be replaced by Lebanese patriots of every sect. The Pope’s own firmness will encourage the formation of an anti-Hezbollah political coalition that will run candidates in the next election. Finally, the Pope surely wants Hezbollah to be pressured by the public to admit that it was responsible for the August 4 Beirut blast and to be made to suffer both political consequences, with a loss of representation in the cabinet and Parliament, and economic consequences, the result of lawsuits by those who lost relatives, or who were themselves wounded, or lost property, in the blast. Hezbollah could be bankrupted. This, of course, is a comforting fantasy — what the Pope “could do” if he were only to allow the scales to fall from his eyes, He [the Pope] is already due to visit Iraq March 5-8.
In Iraq surely the Pope should have something to say about the catastrophic decline in that country’s Christian population. In 2003, at the start of the American war against Saddam Hussein, there were 1.5 million Christians in Iraq; now there are only 250,000. The Pope should publicly deplore this state of affairs, should say aloud that the “people of Iraq should ask themselves why this has happened” and whether there is any way to assure Christians of their safety and to “bring back to Iraq members of one of the oldest Christian populations in the world.”
In a separate message written jointly with Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who is the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican communion, and Church of Scotland moderator Martin Fair, the three church leaders committed to making a previously delayed trip to majority Christian South Sudan “as things return to normalcy.” The message was addressed to South Sudan’s leaders, former rivals who formed a national unity government in February after years of civil war ravaged the oil-producing yet poor nation.
A U.N. report said this month that implementing various aspects of a peace accord had stalled in the country, where floods in September displaced hundreds of thousands of people.
South Sudan has successfully thrown off the yoke of the Muslim Arabs living in the northern Sudan, who for years oppressed black African Christians and pagans in the south of what was then a single country, even enslaving many of them. But that long struggle was costly: the South Sudan won its war for independence in 2011, but it also emerged impoverished after so many years of fighting; millions of the black Africans in the South Sudan were displaced by that war against the northern Arabs. The South Sudan now has other miseries to contend with: a low-level civil war within the country, pitting Dinka against Nuer tribesmen, as well as a drought earlier this year which has been followed by catastrophic flooding, both of which have contributed to widespread famine.
Perhaps the Pope can allude to the historical background to the present misery, the decades of oppression of southern black African Christians by northern Muslim Arabs. He could say something about “how in the past, when Sudan was a single country, government resources were not spent on flood control, or on ways to deal with drought. The government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on making war on the Christians, while those Christians in the south spent what little they had on defending themselves, and then a war for their independence, which they finally obtained in 2011. They now live in their own state, where they are no longer persecuted for following their faith, but are still paying for the misallocation of resources by others, who spent money not on flood control or drought mitigation, but on war-making. We came to the South Sudan to express our sympathy, and to urge the world to help these people who have suffered both in times of war and times of a most incomplete peace.
That’s what I’d like to hear the Pope say in Lebanon, about Hezbollah’s disastrous presence in the country, and in Iraq about the disappearing Christians of the Middle East, and what he could say in the South Sudan, about the long-term effects of the oppression and war inflicted by Muslim Arabs on Christian Africans. Wishful thinking, I suppose, to expect any of that from the man who has heaped praise on the antisemitic Grand Sheikh Al-Tayyeb of al-Azhar University and joined him in signing, to great acclaim, a ballyhooed Document on Human Fraternity. We cannot forgive such dangerous naivete, nor Francis’ fatuous remark that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.” But let’s keep hoping that at some point, even in the mind and heart of Pope Francis, reality will manage to break in.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 01-02/2020

Pope reappears after pain flareup, calls for peace in New Year message
Reuters/January 01/2021
Pope Francis reappeared on Friday after chronic sciatic pain forced him to miss the Church's New Year services, and made no mention of his ailment as he delivered his traditional appeal for world peace. The pope was unable to attend services on Thursday and again on Friday morning because of the sciatica - a relatively common problem that causes pain along the sciatic nerve down the lower back and legs. It was believed to be the first time since he became pope in 2013 that Francis, who turned 84 last month, has been prevented by health reasons from leading a major papal event. However, he showed no sign of discomfort as he delivered a noon address and prayer, standing at a lectern in the library of the Vatican's Apostolic Palace. "Life today is governed by war, by enmity, by many things that are destructive. We want peace. It is a gift," Francis said, adding that the response to the global coronavirus crisis showed the importance of burden-sharing. "The painful events that marked humanity's journey last year, especially the pandemic, taught us how much it is necessary to take an interest in the problems of others and to share their concerns," he said. The noon blessing is normally given from a window overlooking St. Peter's Square, but it was moved indoors to prevent any crowds gathering and limit the spread of COVID-19. Francis highlighted in particular his worries about Yemen, which has been blighted by six years of violence that has pitted a Saudi-led coalition against the Iran-aligned Houthi movement. At least 22 people were killed in an attack on Aden airport on Wednesday, which triggered a fresh round of coalition air raids. "I express my sorrow and concern for the further escalation of violence in Yemen, which is causing numerous innocent victims," Francis said. "Let us think of the children of Yemen, without education, without medicine, famished."

US Congress votes to override Trump veto of defense bill
AFP/Friday 01 January 2021
The US Congress on Friday dealt Donald Trump a humiliating blow, voting in his final weeks in office to override his veto of a sweeping defense bill – the first time lawmakers have done so during his presidency. With more than 80 of the 100 senators voting to override, well more than the two-thirds required, the Republican-controlled Senate approved the $740.5 billion National Defense Authorization Act to fund the military for fiscal 2021. The Democratic-led House of Representatives had voted 322 to 87 on Monday to override Trump’s veto.
 

In late Trump salvo, US rejects UN budget over disagreements on Israel and Iran
AFP/Friday 01 January 2021
President Donald Trump's outgoing administration on Thursday fired a late salvo against the United Nations by voting against its budget, citing disagreements on Israel and Iran, but it found virtually no international support.
Only Israel voted with the United States, with 167 nations in favor, as the General Assembly closed the year by approving the $3.231 billion UN budget for 2021. Kelly Craft, the US ambassador to the United Nations, voiced objections that the budget would fund a 20th anniversary event for the 2001 UN conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, where the United States walked out in solidarity with Israel over what it said was a fixation by Muslim-majority countries against the Jewish state. The United States, the biggest funder of the UN, "called for this vote to make clear that we stand by our principles, stand up for what is right and never accept consensus for consensus's sake," Craft said on the General Assembly floor. "Twenty years on, there remains nothing about the Durban Declaration to celebrate or to endorse. It is poisoned by anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias," she said.
Israel's ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, said that the Durban conference "will become another meeting demonizing the Jewish state -- it will be used once again to slander us and to launch false accusations of racism against Jewish self-determination."
The General Assembly separately approved a resolution backing follow-up efforts on the Durban conference. That resolution passed 106-14 with 44 abstentions. The United States and Israel were joined in voting no by Western powers including Britain, France and Germany. Craft also complained about how the United States received almost no support in the world body in September when it declared that UN sanctions against Iran had come back into force. The Trump administration said it was triggering UN sanctions due to alleged Iranian violations of a nuclear deal negotiated by former president Barack Obama, but even US allies scoffed at the argument that Washington remained a participant in an accord that Trump had loudly rejected. "The US doesn't need a cheering section to validate its moral compass," Craft said. "We don't find comfort based on the number of nations voting with us, particularly when the majority have found themselves in an uncomfortable position of underwriting terrorism, chaos and conflict."Craft said that the US vote would not change its UN contribution, including 25 percent of peacekeeping expenditures and some $9 billion a year in UN-channelled humanitarian relief. President-elect Joe Biden is expected to seek a more cooperative relationship with the UN including stopping a US exit from the World Health Organization, which Trump blamed for not doing more to stop Covid-19.
 

US, Gulf allies brace for Iran terror attacks as Tehran vows to avenge Soleimani killing
Mohammed El-Kinani/Arab News/Friday, 1 January, 2021
Analyst: Iranian terror strike against the US or one of its allies in the Gulf or in Yemen is “highly possible.”
JEDDAH: The US and its Gulf allies have been warned to prepare for Iran-led terror attacks after Tehran ramped up threats of revenge on the eve of the first anniversary of the killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani.
With tensions between the US and Iran escalating in the region, Esmail Qaani, chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Soleimani’s successor, on Thursday threatened to take revenge and kill US President Donald Trump and other officials. Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike on Jan. 3 last year after his convoy was attacked outside Baghdad airport.
Amid a series of veiled threats from Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Friday accused the US president of making up excuses to attack Iran and warned that Washington “would pay for any possible adventure” in the region, while Iran’s judiciary chief, Ebrahim Raisi, said that “not even Trump is immune from justice.”Commenting on the threats, Dr. Hamdan Al-Shehri, a political analyst and international relations scholar, said that an Iranian terror strike against the US or one of its allies in the Gulf or in Yemen is “highly possible.”
However, he said that any attack would be limited due to US readiness to counter the Tehran regime. Al-Shehri told Arab News that the US, more than any other global power, needed to step up its deterrent action to halt Iran’s aggressive behavior.
The US has been suffering from Iranian terrorist actions since 1977, when its embassy in Tehran was taken over by an Iranian militia group, he said.
“The US silence for over 40 years has allowed Iran to grow, develop militias and terrorist cells, and even improve its relations with several countries, which are now supporting Tehran in carrying out terrorism and challenging the US.”
He warned that US “lenience” would help Iran continue its threats to the region and the world, “especially on the nuclear level.” Al-Shehri said that Iran’s threats are directed at its allies in the region and Iran’s revolutionary media channels.
“If you ask me whose words we should take seriously, I would say Qaani’s. He is Tehran’s spearhead and the one who controls everything in the country.”
He added that Qaani should be held accountable for his threats against the US president and for hinting at terrorist action inside the US.
US Central Command said on Wednesday that it had sent two B-52 bombers to the Middle East “to underscore the US commitment to regional security.”
Two days earlier, a US Navy nuclear submarine passed through the Strait of Hormuz and entered the Arabian Gulf in the latest show of military strength from Washington.
Al-Shehri said: “If US forces don’t take action today against Iran, they will never do so, especially with the change in the US administration and the current situation in the world.”He added: “It is now the perfect time to punish Iran for all its terror activities.”
Al-Shehri said that Tehran is trying to put pressure on US decision-makers, especially the new administration. “It wants to tell Joe Biden’s administration that the best way to deal with Tehran is to placate it,” the political analyst said.
“Biden is not likely to be another Obama, but he certainly will not be another Trump in confronting Tehran,” Al-Shehri said.Tensions between Washington and Tehran have been escalating since 2018, when Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed crippling sanctions.
 

Soleimani’s killers will ‘not be safe on Earth,’ says Iran’s judiciary chief
AFP TehranFriday 01 January 2021
Iran’s judiciary chief warned on Friday that Qasem Soleimani’s killers will “not be safe on Earth”, as the Islamic republic began marking the first anniversary of the top general’s assassination in a US strike. Ebrahim Raisi, speaking at an event in Tehran to pay tribute to Soleimani, said not even US President Donald Trump, who ordered the strike, was “immune from justice.”Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike at Baghdad airport on January 3, ratcheting up tensions between decades-old arch foes the United States and Iran. “They will witness a severe revenge. What has come so far has only been glimpses” of it, Raisi told the gathering at Tehran University. “Do not presume that someone, as the president of America, who appeared as a murderer or ordered a murder, may be immune from justice being carried out. Never,” he said. “Those who had a role in this in this assassination and crime will not be safe on Earth.” The event was attended by Iranian officials, and speakers included representatives from allied regional countries and forces, namely Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. A separate event is expected to be held in the coming days in Kerman, Soleimani’s hometown where he is buried. Soleimani headed the Quds force, the foreign operations arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Top Iranian authorities, including supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had previously said that all those involved in his killing would face retribution. Days after Soleimani’s killing, Iran launched a volley of missiles at Iraqi bases housing US and other coalition troops, with Trump refraining from any further military response. The Iranian leadership has called the strikes a “slap” and vowed that “severe revenge” awaits. Soleimani’s successor, Esmail Qaani, warned during Friday’s event that it may come from anywhere. “It’s even possible that there are people inside your home (the United States) that will respond to your crime,” he said. Tensions between Washington and Tehran have soared since 2018, when Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed crippling sanctions.

Iran 'Vows' Revenge a Year After Soleimani Killing
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 1 January, 2021
The US killing of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani will not deter Tehran's resistance, a senior commander said on Friday at a televised event to mark the anniversary at Tehran University. Washington killed Soleimani, leader of the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, in Iraq on Jan. 3, 2020. Washington had accused him of masterminding attacks by Iranian-aligned militias on US forces in the region. Days after the US drone strike, Iran retaliated with a rocket attack on an Iraqi air base where US forces were stationed, and Iranian forces on high alert mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian passenger airliner taking off from Tehran. Esmail Ghaani who succeeded Soleimani as head the elite Quds force, said Iran was still ready to respond, Reuters reported. "From inside your own house, there may emerge someone who will retaliate for your crime," he said. "American mischief will not deter the Quds force from carrying on its resistance path," he added. For his part, Iran's judiciary chief, also speaking at the event to pay tribute to Soleimani, warned Friday that Soleimani's killers will "not be safe on Earth."Ebrahim Raisi said not even US President Donald Trump, who ordered the strike, was "immune from justice". "They will witness a severe revenge. What has come so far has only been glimpses" of it, Raisi said, according to AFP. "Do not presume that someone, as the president of America, who appeared as a murderer or ordered a murder, may be immune from justice being carried out. Never," he said. "Those who had a role in this in this assassination and crime will not be safe on Earth."

Iran Tells IAEA it Plans to Enrich Uranium up to 20% at Fordow Site
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 1 January, 2021
Iran has told the United Nations nuclear watchdog it plans to enrich uranium to 20% purity, a level it achieved before its 2015 accord, at its Fordow site buried inside a mountain, the agency said on Friday. The move is the latest of several recent announcements by Iran to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to further breach the deal, which it started violating in 2019 in retaliation for Washington’s withdrawal from the agreement and the reimposition of US sanctions against Tehran. This step was one of many mentioned in a law passed by Iran’s parliament last month in response to the killing of the country’s top nuclear scientist, which Tehran has blamed on Israel. Such moves by Iran could complicate efforts by US President-elect Joe Biden to rejoin the deal. “Iran has informed the Agency that in order to comply with a legal act recently passed by the country’s parliament, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran intends to produce low-enriched uranium (LEU) up to 20 percent at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant,” the IAEA said in a statement. An IAEA report to member states earlier on Friday obtained by Reuters used similar wording in describing a letter by Iran to the IAEA dated Dec. 31. “Iran’s letter to the Agency ... did not say when this enrichment activity would take place,” the IAEA statement said. Fordow was built inside a mountain, apparently to protect it from aerial bombardment, and the 2015 deal does not allow enrichment there. Iran is already enriching at Fordow with first-generation IR-1 centrifuges.
Iran has breached the deal’s 3.67% limit on the purity to which it can enrich uranium, but it has only gone up to 4.5% so far, well short of the 20% it achieved before the deal and the 90% that is weapons-grade. The deal’s main aim was to extend the time Iran would need to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb, if it chose to, to at least a year from roughly two to three months. It also lifted international sanctions against Tehran. US intelligence agencies and the IAEA believe Iran had a secret, coordinated nuclear weapons program that it halted in 2003. Iran denies ever having had one.

Car Bomb Hits Near Russia Base in Northeast Syria
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 1 January, 2021
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group reported several wounded in the attack after midnight in the Tal Saman area in Raqa province, but did not give an exact figure. There was no immediate Russian report of the incident, which occurred in a broader area controlled by Kurdish-led forces but where the Syrian regime and its ally Russia are also present, AFP reported. A statement circulated on social media and attributed to the Al-Qaeda-linked Hurras al-Deen extremist group claimed the attack. The Observatory said two men parked an explosives-laden pickup truck outside the base and fled, in what was a rare such assault by Hurras al-Deen in the area. “It’s the first such direct attack against a Russian base in northeastern Syria,” Observatory chief Rami Abdel Rahman said. Russia entered Syria’s war in 2015 and its air force has backed Damascus regime forces. Russian troops are stationed in northern Syria, including as part of several deals brokered with rebel backer Turkey. Syria’s war has killed more than 387,000 people and displaced millions from their homes since starting in 2011 with the brutal repression of anti-government protests.

Egypt Summons Ethiopian Diplomat Over Dam Comments
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 1 January, 2021
Egypt's foreign ministry said it has summoned Ethiopia's top diplomat in Cairo over comments by an Addis Ababa official regarding a controversial dam on the Nile. The Egyptian ministry "summoned the Ethiopian Charge d'Affaires in Cairo to explain comments by the spokesperson for the Ethiopian Ministry for Foreign Affairs regarding domestic Egyptian affairs," it said late Wednesday. The statement did not cite specific comments but followed a statement by the Ethiopian official on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), Africa's biggest hydroelectric project, which has raised fears for vital water supplies downstream in Egypt and Sudan, AFP reported. "They know the GERD won't harm them, it's a diversion from internal problems," Dina Mufti, the Ethiopian ministry's spokesman and a former ambassador to Egypt, said Tuesday. Mufti contended that without this "distraction", Egypt and Sudan would "have to deal with many local issues waiting to explode, especially up there (in Egypt)." The three countries have been in talks since 2011 but have failed to reach a deal on filling the dam. The negotiations have been stalled since August. The Nile, the world's longest river at 6,000 kilometres (3,700 miles), is a lifeline supplying both water and electricity to 10 countries. Ethiopia views the dam as essential for its growing power needs, and insists that the flow of water downstream will not be affected. But Egypt, a country of more than 100 million people who depend on the Nile for 97 percent of their water needs, opposes unilateral moves by Ethiopia. Along with Sudan, it has called for a legally binding political solution to the dispute.

Egyptian officials: Roadside bombing in Sinai kills 2 police

Arab News/Friday, 1 January, 2021
EL-ARISH: A roadside bomb went off Friday in Egypt’s northern Sinai Peninsula, killing two members of the country’s security forces and wounding five, security and medical officials said. According to the officials, the security forces were patrolling in the town of Bir Al-Abd when their armored vehicle was hit by a remotely-detonated bomb. The wounded were transferred to a military hospital in Sinai’s coastal city of El-Arish. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the attacks with the media. Friday’s bombing was the second in the past three days. On Wednesday, one member of the security forces was killed and three were wounded in a roadside bombing in a village near Rafah, a town on the border with the Gaza Strip. There was no clear claim of responsibility for Friday’s attack, but Daesh posted a statement on Friday, saying it was behind Wednesday’s bombing and three other recent attacks. The claims could not be independently verified. Egypt has been battling a Daesh-led insurgency in Sinai that intensified after the military overthrew Muhammad Mursi in 2013. The militants have carried out scores of attacks, mainly targeting security forces and minority Christians.
The conflict has largely taken place out of the public arena, with journalists and outside observers barred from the area. So far, the fighting has not expanded to the southern end of the peninsula, where popular Red Sea tourist resorts are located.
But in 2015, a Daesh bombing brought down over Sinai a Russian passenger plane that had departed from the resort Sharm el-Sheikh, killing all 224 people on board. In February 2018, the Egyptian military launched a massive operation in Sinai and also in parts of the Nile Delta region and the desert along the country’s western border with Libya. Since then, the pace of Daesh attacks has diminished.

'No need to panic,' China official says of coronavirus variants
Reuters/January 01/2021
There is no sign new coronavirus variants will affect the immune impact of a vaccine that China has just authorised for public use, a disease control official was quoted as saying on Friday. The shot by an affiliate of state-backed company Sinopharm was approved on Thursday, the day after news of China's first imported case of a variant spreading in Britain. "No need to panic," Xu Wenbo, an official at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told state TV. "The mutated variant, compared with previous mutated variants .... has no obvious change so far in its ability to cause disease," he added. He said no impact of variants on the vaccine's immune effect had been detected. The variant which British scientists have named "VUI - 202012/01" includes a genetic mutation in the "spike" protein, which could theoretically result in easier spread of COVID-19. Xu added that mutation in the virus' protein would not effect the sensitivity of most Chinese-made COVID-19 tests that target the virus' nucleic acids, which carry genetic information. --- Reuters

France imposes earlier curfew in 15 departments from Saturday
Reuters/January 01/2021
France will impose an earlier curfew in 15 northeastern and southeastern departments from Saturday to combat the spread of the coronavirus, starting at 6 p.m. instead of 8 p.m., the government said on Friday. "We are taking a decision for 15 departments. In a week's time we will assess the impact of this earlier curfew on these 15 departments, on the circulation of the virus elsewhere in the country," government spokesman Gabriel Attal told TF1 television. "Obviously if the situation were to deteriorate futher in some regions, we would take the necessary decisions. The measures are incremental and can of course - in principle - go as far a lockdown," he added. France has the highest COVID-19 cases count in Western Europe and the fifth in the world, with 2,620,425 in total. The death toll is 64,632. It has already brought in two national lockdowns. Those measures were eased in mid-December, but restaurants and bars are off limits for now and it is not clear when they might re-open, although Jan. 20 was initially floated as a target date. Attal reiterated on Friday that cultural venues would not re-open on Jan. 7. The health ministry reported 19,927 new coronavirus infections over the past 24 hours on Thursday, below Wednesday's more than one-month high of 26,457 but still far from the government's target of less than 5,000 daily additional infections.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on January 01-02/2020

We Need a Global Alliance to Defend Democracies
Richard Kemp/Gatestone Institute/December 31, 2020
Under a Biden administration, many will be mindful of the Obama-era sell-out of America's Middle East allies while accommodating the hostile Iranian ayatollahs.
Despite the optimistic indulgences by foreign policy experts and politicians over decades, China will not reform to allow normal coexistence within the world order but must instead be contained.
A modern alliance to resist today's "attempted subjugation and outside pressures" should focus not only on China and the immediate challenges of 5G technology and supply chains, but also on the other major strategic threats to democratic states.... The object should not be... to lecture governments such as Hungary, Poland and Romania... While [Biden] may find their internal policies unpalatable, they pose no threat to any other country.
An interests-based, rather than ideological, alliance of strategically like-minded democracies should be built, each with the economic power and will to counter the authoritarian entities that oppose the Free World.... The alliance should work to push back the authoritarians and radicals across the economic, cultural, political, cyber and technological realms and deny them access to critical infrastructure and technology as well as opportunities for cultural subversion. It should also act to deter their further advances.
An important function of the proposed alliance would be to encourage member states, and their allies against authoritarian and extremist entities, to both provide adequate defence resources and where necessary adapt and modernise forces to ensure credible deterrence.
If a country lacks the confidence to stick up for its own values at home, how is it to robustly defend its virtues against those who wish to undermine them? This weakness in Western democracies has already allowed great strides across the world by China, Russia and jihadism and has helped create the situation that a D10 alliance is now urgently needed to repair.
His proposal is for the G7 group of leading industrialised nations to be joined by Australia, South Korea and India. The focus would be on developing 5G telecommunications technology to reduce dependence on Huawei and the Chinese Communist Party as well as reliance on essential medical supplies from China. President-elect Joe Biden put forward a somewhat similar initiative in 2019 and it is widely believed that he plans to convene a "Summit for Democracies" in 2021. It appears his intention is broader than Mr Johnson's both in scope and participation, and that it includes promoting liberal democratic values across the world.
This raises the spectre of abortive efforts at democracy-building in the Middle East and South Asia in the years after 9/11. It would be ill-judged and it fails to recognise a changed world in which allegiance to the US has been devalued as economic incentives from China to many countries, including democracies, have significantly grown. Confidence in US leadership has also been substantially undermined by interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which today are widely regarded as failures. Under a Biden administration, many will be mindful of the Obama-era sell-out of America's Middle East allies while accommodating the hostile Iranian ayatollahs.
In other words, while the spread and development of Western-style democracy should of course be encouraged, something of more concrete utility to national self-interest than a liberal-left world view needs to be on offer. Instead of attempting an ideological programme to duplicate American democracy around the world, the US should work with the UK on a version of Mr Johnson's action-oriented D10 proposal, but significantly expanded in scope.
This would recognise that, despite the optimistic indulgences by foreign policy experts and politicians over decades, China will not reform to allow normal coexistence within the world order but must instead be contained. As British Chief of Defence Staff General Sir Nick Carter said in a speech this month:
"What's needed is a catalyst somewhat like George Kennan's 'long telegram' in which he observed that peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union in 1946 was unlikely to work. This led to the Truman Doctrine of containment which provided the basis of US and Western strategy throughout the Cold War."
The Truman Doctrine transformed US foreign policy towards the Soviet Union from an alliance against fascism to the prevention of Soviet expansion across the globe. As President Truman said in a speech to Congress in 1947: "It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or outside pressures".
A modern alliance to resist today's "attempted subjugation and outside pressures" should focus not only on China and the immediate challenges of 5G technology and supply chains, but also on the other major strategic threats to democratic states. There is no doubt that China constitutes by far the greatest challenge and is likely to do so for generations to come. The alliance, however, should also be aimed at Russia, which dedicates significant efforts to undermine US and allied foreign policy and society and to subvert Western democracies on top of its regional aggression in the Ukraine, the Baltic states, the Middle East and elsewhere. Relations between China and Russia have been steadily improving, with their interests converging in many areas, especially where they oppose the West. Some believe a formal strategic coalition between the two could emerge.
The alliance should also oppose the threat from North Korea with its growing nuclear capability, and Iran, which, although predominantly regionally-focused, sponsors terrorist attacks globally and has nuclear ambitions that pose a grave strategic danger.
Finally, the alliance should direct itself against the threat from global Sunni Islamic jihad, in terms of international terrorism from the likes of Al Qaida and Islamic State and also societal subversion by the Muslim Brotherhood and associated radical entities.
The object should not be another talking shop to extol the virtues of democracy or to press for domestic social and political reform. Nor, as Mr Biden will be inclined, to lecture governments such as Hungary, Poland and Romania, each of which he chastised in a 2018 speech in Copenhagen. While he may find their internal policies unpalatable, they pose no threat to any other country.
Instead, an interests-based, rather than ideological, alliance of strategically like-minded democracies should be built, each with the economic power and will to counter the authoritarian entities that oppose the Free World. Such an alliance would aim to support others in defending themselves against the authoritarian and extremist entities, and encompass friendly countries that are not democracies and include nations likely to be out of favour with the administration, such as Saudi Arabia and Brazil.
Despite some common characteristics, this will be no re-run of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The complexities today are far greater. Globalisation, economic inter-dependence, cyber vulnerability, environmental concerns, the priority assigned to climate change and connectivity on so many other levels mean there is a continuing imperative to remain widely engaged with those who must at the same time be contained by this endeavour. In addition, the potency of asymmetric, unconventional and unattributable conflict is significantly greater today, particularly in the cyber realm.
The threats posed by each of the authoritarian and radical entities and levels of dependency upon them affect countries to substantially different degrees. Given this and the realities of varying domestic political perspectives, strategic cultures, economic dependencies and national foreign policy priorities, there should be no realistic expectation of universal congruence across a broad alliance. Indeed, the D10, whatever form it takes, should not be a formalised NATO-like structure with a charter, endless staffs, bureaucracies and the need for consensus to secure action.
Rather, it should be a flexible forum of nation-states playing their own roles in containing a common series of threats against them. The objective, and indeed the litmus test, of American leadership would be to persuade all or most members of the alliance to act in concert against all major challenges.
For such an alliance to be formed and sustained over the long term, however, it would be necessary to accept that in some situations there might be unanimity of action whereas in others a group of members might decide to act together. Such a pragmatic formula should prevent the paralysis that is often characteristic of more orthodox international bodies such as the UN Security Council, the EU and NATO, while generating the kind of international synergy against global threats that is needed today to enable rapid and concerted action as well as long-term strategic policy.
The alliance should work to push back the authoritarians and radicals across the economic, cultural, political, cyber and technological spectrums and deny them access to critical infrastructure and technology as well as opportunities for cultural subversion. The alliance should also act to deter their further advances. For example, China or Russia would be aware that any crisis they precipitated against one state could quickly expand, drawing in other alliance members, potentially developing into a major challenge to them and giving pause as to whether creating the threat would be worth the cost. A similar range of deterrence could also be effective against states such as Iran that are tempted to use terror proxies or sponsor radicals opposed to the West.
Instruments available to the alliance include diplomatic, trade and economic incentives and coercion as well as technological edge. Military conflict would not be the intention. On the contrary, as US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley said only a few days ago of conflict with China and Russia: "they are wars that must not be fought, where the measure of success is not military victory but deterrence". As General Milley knows better than most, however, deterrence through economic, diplomatic and technological means needs to be backed by the added muscle of strong and effective military force and the unmistakable political will to use it if necessary.
Logically, division of deterrent military effort would be made on a regional basis with an agreement on more flexible deployments when necessary. This would give European nations primary responsibility for countering Russia, as well as Chinese, Iranian and jihadist security threats in the region, freeing US forces to focus on the Indo-Pacific. However, Europe's track record on its own security is far from encouraging, underlined by the refusal of most European countries even to meet their NATO defence spending commitments. An important function of the proposed alliance would be to encourage member states, and their allies against authoritarian and extremist entities, to both provide adequate defence resources and where necessary adapt and modernise forces to ensure credible deterrence.
Such an alliance would be faced with a Catch-22 problem, which did not exist to anything like the same degree in the Cold War. Wide-based moral conviction within member states is needed to underpin political will. Creeping cultural relativism has severely infected many Western democracies, especially in Europe, and today threatens to engulf even the US polity. This has been accompanied by a determination to enrich and empower adversaries by engaging in business with them with little patriotic or moral restraint.
The latest example is the EU's trade pact with China, signed on 30 December. This is despite concerns raised by some politicians about forced labour, especially among the Uighur minority, human rights in Hong Kong and China's role in the Coronavirus pandemic. An unusual intervention, urging policy coordination with the US by President-elect Biden, was ignored.
If a country lacks the confidence to stick up for its own values at home, how is it to robustly defend its virtues against those who wish to undermine them? This weakness in Western democracies has already allowed great strides across the world by China, Russia and jihadism and has helped create the situation that a D10 alliance is now urgently needed to repair.
*Colonel Richard Kemp is a former British Army Commander. He was also head of the international terrorism team in the U.K. Cabinet Office and is now a writer and speaker on international and military affairs.
© 2021 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Germany's "Shameful" Two Years on the UN Security Council
Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute/January 01/ 2021
A closer examination of Germany's voting patterns at the UN over the past several years, however, reveals a troubling double standard on a range of issues, especially on human rights, which the German government claims to be "a cornerstone" of its foreign policy.
The record shows that during its stint on the UN Security Council, Germany voted for dozens of resolutions — many of which smack of anti-Semitism — that singled out Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East.
Moreover, Germany turned a blind eye as multiple serial human rights abusers, including China, Libya, Mauritania, Sudan and Venezuela, among others, were elected to the UN Human Rights Council, the UN's highest human rights body.
In 2020, Germany voted 13 times to condemn Israel, but failed to introduce a single resolution on the human rights situation in Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Venezuela — or on 175 other countries, according to UN Watch, a Geneva-based, independent non-governmental watchdog group.
"While nearly all EU countries backed 13 out of 17 UNGA resolutions singling out Israel this year, they failed to introduce even one resolution for women's right [sic] activists jailed and tortured in Saudi Arabia, dissident artists arrested in Cuba, journalists thrown behind bars in Turkey, religious minorities attacked in Pakistan, and opposition members persecuted in Venezuela, where more than five million people have fled government repression, hunger and economic collapse." — UN Watch, December 16, 2020.
Germany pursued a similar policy of approving anti-Israel resolutions at the UN in 2018, 2017, and 2016, when Germany voted for an especially disgraceful UN resolution, co-sponsored by the Arab group of states and the Palestinian delegation, that singled out Israel as the world's only violator of "mental, physical and environmental health."
A close examination of Germany's voting patterns at the UN over the past several years reveals a troubling double standard on a range of issues, especially on human rights, which the German government claims to be "a cornerstone" of its foreign policy. Pictured: Germany's Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (left) and Ambassador to the UN, Christoph Heusgen attend a UN Security Council meeting on March 28, 2018 in New York. (Photo by Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images)
Germany's two-year term as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council ended on December 31, 2020. The German Foreign Ministry, in a self-congratulatory compilation of its supposed achievements to "strengthen the international order," declared that Germany now deserves to obtain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
A closer examination of Germany's voting patterns at the UN over the past several years, however, reveals a troubling double standard on a range of issues, especially on human rights, which the German government claims to be "a cornerstone" of its foreign policy.
The record shows that during its stint on the UN Security Council, Germany voted for dozens of resolutions — many of which smack of anti-Semitism — that singled out Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East.
The anti-Israel resolutions supported by Germany were sponsored by mostly non-democratic Muslim countries including Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, as well as by dictatorships such as Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela — and by Thailand on behalf of China.
Moreover, Germany remained silent as multiple serial human rights abusers, including China, Cuba, Libya, Mauritania, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia and Venezuela, among others, were elected to the UN Human Rights Council, the UN's highest human rights body.
Germany also voted for resolutions condemning the United States, which guarantees not only German but European security, stability and prosperity.
In 2020, Germany voted 13 times to condemn Israel, but failed to introduce a single resolution on the human rights situation in China, Cuba, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Venezuela — or on 175 other countries, according to UN Watch, a Geneva-based, independent non-governmental watchdog group.
One of the resolutions approved by Germany referred to Jerusalem's Temple Mount solely by its Muslim name of Haram al-Sharif. The executive director of UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, said:
"The UN today showed contempt for both Judaism and Christianity by passing a resolution that makes no mention of the name Temple Mount, which is Judaism's holiest site, and which is sacred to all who venerate the Bible, in which the ancient Temple was of central importance."
In a press release, UN Watch added:
"While nearly all EU countries backed 13 out of 17 UNGA resolutions singling out Israel this year, they failed to introduce even one resolution for women's right [sic] activists jailed and tortured in Saudi Arabia, dissident artists arrested in Cuba, journalists thrown behind bars in Turkey, religious minorities attacked in Pakistan, and opposition members persecuted in Venezuela, where more than five million people have fled government repression, hunger and economic collapse."
In 2019, Germany voted 15 times to condemn Israel, but introduced zero condemnations of human rights abusers such as China, Cuba, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Venezuela, according to UN Watch. One of the texts approved by Germany portray Israel as "occupying" the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and the holiest sites of Judaism.
On November 15 — on just one day — Germany voted for seven anti-Israel resolutions and abstained but did not reject another. There were no condemnations of any other country in the rest of the world on that day. The texts condemned Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, renewed the mandate of the corrupt UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), and renewed the mandate of a UN special committee to investigate "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people." None of the resolutions mentioned Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Neuer, provided context:
"The UN's assault on Israel with a torrent of one-sided resolutions is surreal. Days after the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group assaulted Israeli civilians with a barrage of 200 rockets — while the UN's General Assembly and Human Rights Council stayed silent — the world body now adds insult to injury by adopting eight lopsided condemnations, whose only purpose is to demonize the Jewish state.
"While France, Germany, Sweden and other EU states are expected to support 15 out of a total of 20 resolutions to be adopted against Israel by December, the same European nations have failed to introduce a single UNGA resolution on the human rights situation in China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Cuba, Turkey, Pakistan, Vietnam, Algeria, or on 175 other countries.
"Four of today's resolutions concern UNRWA — yet none mentions that the agency chief was just fired after top management engaged in what the UN's own internal probe described as 'sexual misconduct, nepotism, retaliation, discrimination and other abuses of authority, for personal gain.' All EU states are complicit in this conspiracy of silence.
"One of today's resolutions — drafted and co-sponsored by Syria — falsely condemns Israel for 'repressive measures' against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights. It's obscene. The resolution condemns Israel for holding on to the Golan Heights, and demands Israel hand the land and its people to Syria.
"It's astonishing. After the Syrian regime has killed half a million of its own people, how can the UN call for more people to be handed over to Assad's rule? The text is morally galling, and logically absurd.
"Today's resolutions claim to care about Palestinians, yet the UN is oblivious to more than 3,000 Palestinians who have been slaughtered, maimed and expelled by Assad's forces.
"Today's farce at the General Assembly underscores a simple fact: the UN's automatic majority has no interest in truly helping Palestinians, nor in protecting anyone's human rights; the goal of these ritual, one-sided condemnations is to scapegoat Israel.
"The UN's disproportionate assault against the Jewish state undermines the institutional credibility of what is supposed to be an impartial international body. Politicization and selectivity harm its founding mission, eroding the UN Charter's promise of equal treatment to all nations large and small."
The vote came after German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas tweeted his supposedly unwavering support for Israel:
"FM @HeikoMaas on 70th anniversary of Israel's admission to the UN: We would like to reiterate once again today that Germany stands, also in the UN, shoulder to shoulder with Israel, whose security and right to exist must never be called into question by anyone anywhere."
Germany pursued a similar policy of approving anti-Israel resolutions at the UN in 2018, 2017 and 2016, when Germany voted for an especially disgraceful UN resolution, co-sponsored by the Arab group of states and the Palestinian delegation, that singled out Israel as the world's only violator of "mental, physical and environmental health."
Germany's anti-Israel voting record at the UN appears to have broad support among the German political establishment. In March 2019, the German Bundestag overwhelmingly opposed a resolution by the Free Democratic Party (FDP) to urge Chancellor Angela Merkel's government to reverse its anti-Israel voting record at the United Nations.
By a vote of 408 to 155 with 65 abstentions, the Bundestag rejected the FPD's call for the government to "clearly distance itself from unilateral, primarily politically motivated initiatives and alliances of anti-Israeli UN member states and to protect Israel and Israel's legitimate interests from unilateral condemnation."
Germany's anti-Israel crusade has been led by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, who claims that he entered politics because of Auschwitz, the largest of the German Nazi concentration camps. At his inauguration as foreign minister, he said:
"For me, German-Israeli history does not only entail a historic responsibility. For me personally, it is a deep motivation of my political activity. With all due respect, I did not enter politics because of [former chancellor] Willy Brandt. I also didn't go into politics because of the peace movement or ecological issues. I entered politics because of Auschwitz. And that's also why this part of our work is especially important to me."
Maas had been aided and abetted by Germany's Ambassador to the UN, Christoph Heusgen, who was named by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in 2019 as one of the world's top ten anti-Semites.
Germany's largest-circulation newspaper Bild, asked, "Why does Germany repeatedly vote against Israel at the United Nations?" It answered:
"It is a shameful ritual: every year authoritarian states like Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia introduce numerous resolutions at the UN that are directed against one country — Israel. But the bitter thing is: The UN General Assembly is taking part and adopting almost all anti-Israeli resolutions.
"The Federal Republic also mostly votes FOR the resolutions — and thus AGAINST Israel. And this despite the fact that the federal government repeatedly emphasizes that it is on the side of Israel.
"Heusgen is considered a bitter critic of Israeli settlement policy — a legitimate position which, in Heusgen's case, seems to lead to complete lack of criticism towards the Palestinians, and to comparisons that cast doubt on his moral compass.
"Heusgen caused a scandal in March 2019 when he equated the rockets of the Islamist terrorist group Hamas with Israeli bulldozers, with which Israel tore down Palestinian and Israeli illegal houses. He did so in the very week that Hamas carried out massive rocket attacks on Israel and injured seven Israeli civilians.
"No criticism of anti-Semitic statements by Palestinian politicians, no criticism of pension payments for Palestinian terrorists — for Heusgen, the guilty parties for the messed-up situation are solely in Washington and Jerusalem."
The left-wing politician, Volker Beck, said about Heusgen:
"I am always careful with the label 'anti-Semite.' But one thing is certain: Anyone who bears responsibility for Germany's condemnation of Israel tens of times more often than all rogue states in the world at the United Nations applies double standards to the Jewish and democratic state and thus participates in an anti-Semitic campaign. With practical politics, Heusgen counteracts the unambiguous statements of the Chancellor to Israel's existence and security."
Frankfurt Mayor Uwe Becker added:
"The inclusion of Mr. Heusgen on the Wiesenthal Center's list is more than a yellow card for Germany's voting behavior at the United Nations. Germany must show more solidarity with Israel at the UN and consistently refuse anti-Israeli resolutions in future.
"The years of theater of political smear against Israel can only be countered with a consequent 'NO.' The comparison made by Heusgen between the actions of Israel and the terrorism of Hamas has damaged solidarity with Israel and is unfortunately suitable for promoting Israel-related anti-Semitism. Germany must not also be the keyword for Israel-related anti-Semitism."
In its most recent statement, the German Foreign Ministry declared:
"Germany wants to continue playing its part in preserving global peace — as a permanent member of the Security Council. 'We have shown over the past two years that we are capable of filling a seat on the UN Security Council in the long term,' said Foreign Minister Heiko Maas. 'We therefore want not only to stand for a non-permanent seat again in eight years' time, but also seek to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council before that date.'"
In a sign that German appeasement has failed to achieve its objectives, Russia and China have both questioned Germany's suitability for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Russian Vice Ambassador Dmitri Polyansky bluntly said: "We will not miss you." The Chinese representative Yao Shaojun added that the German path to permanent membership "will be difficult."
Heusgen, who plans to retire after more than 40 years as a German diplomat, appealed to China to free two detained Canadians for Christmas:
"Let me end my tenure on the Security Council by appealing to my Chinese colleagues to ask Beijing for the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. Christmas is the right moment for such a gesture."
China's deputy UN Ambassador, Geng Shuang, accused Heusgen of abusing the Security Council to launch "malicious" attacks on other members "in an attempt to poison the working atmosphere." He added: "I wish to say something out of the bottom of my heart: Good riddance."
*Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.
© 2021 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

2021: What will the Middle East look like in the new year?
Seth J. Frantzman /Jerusalem Post/January 01/2021
Gulf peace, Turkey, Hezbollah, Iranian assassinations – looking ahead to 2021 with the lessons of 2020.
In mid-February of 2020, reports began to reach Turkey about the spread of a mysterious new virus in Iran. It was thought to be COVID-19, the dangerous infectious disease that was spreading in China and Italy. On February 20, Turkey took the unprecedented decision to monitor arrivals from Iran for symptoms.
We now know Ankara was ahead of the curve. Turkish officials told media they suspected some 750 cases had been found in Iran, far larger than the numbers that Tehran was reporting. By February 25, Iran’s deputy health minister was sick and a massive outbreak was on the country’s hands. Shi’ite travelers from Iran’s Qom, who had apparently caught the disease from flights that arrived from China, spread COVID to Lebanon and Iraq and other countries. It was the beginning of a large outbreak in the Middle East.
It would still take the World Health Organization over two more weeks to even declare a global pandemic. By that time it was too late for many countries and millions would be affected and die.
The Middle East suffered from COVID like the rest of the world. It was not necessarily the most important thing in the region this year, but it is worth starting with the pandemic because the region has had to deal with this problem on top of other problems.
This was a momentous year in the region. It is difficult to unpack all the major Middle Eastern events. In no particular order we have the US decision to assassinate IRGC Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani in January; the coronavirus pandemic; new Israeli relations with the Gulf; Turkey’s aggressive behavior targeting Syria, Armenia, Libya, Greece, Egypt and other countries; the end of the Trump era; and continued frozen conflicts in Yemen, Libya and Yemen.
In addition, the region has continued to suffer economically and be at risk of natural disasters. A massive explosion caused by ammonium nitrate destroyed the port of Beirut. Likely caused by corruption and illicit storage of dangerous chemicals, Lebanon has been unable to hold anyone accountable for the disaster – further evidence of the country’s broken system.
THE MIDDLE EAST today is basically a three-sided alliance system. On one side of the triangle is Iran and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. Iran doesn’t have many state allies; it prefers militias and non-state actors in weak states.
Iran likes to hole out a state, kind of digging under its institutions and bureaucracy and hijacking countries, using long-term investment in Shi’ite militias. That is how Iran took over Iraq’s government, with the second-largest party being the pro-Iranian Fatah Alliance led by Hadi al-Amiri. Iran knows it doesn’t need to take over the whole country, just hijack part of it and arm militias loyal to Tehran. In Iraq, Iran has 100,000 men under arms in the Hashd al-Shaabi and they in turn are linked to the Fatah Alliance.
In Lebanon, Iran has Hezbollah and the presidency, even though the president is the Christian leader Michel Aoun. He has sided with Iran, not with the West. In Syria, Iran has an ally in the Assad regime and Iran has sponged up friends in the Euphrates River valley, near the Golan and in bases from T-4 near Palmyra to Masyaf and other places. Iran uses this corridor to the sea that stretches through Iraq and Syria to threaten Israel. Israel has carried out numerous airstrikes this year against Iranian targets in Syria and continues to warn Iran not to entrench. Iran doesn’t listen.
Reports indicate that Iran withdrew several hundred IRGC personnel from Iraq. Iran once sought to send ballistic missiles to Iraq and its third Khordad system to Syria. It is unclear this year if Iran’s entrenchment included such technology.
Meanwhile, Iran continues to transfer weapons and knowledge to the Houthis in Yemen. It uses them to fight Saudi Arabia. In 2019, Iran used drones and cruise missiles to attack Saudi Arabia, sending shockwaves through the region. It was part of a rising Iranian campaign using missiles to strike at US forces in Iraq and also at Israel. In December, Israel launched a complex air defense drill showing off its Iron Dome and David Sling systems, as well as radar and its Arrow-3 air defense missiles, designed to provide multi-layered protection against missile, drone and cruise missile threats. The message was clearly aimed at Iran.
Also in December, more messages were aimed at Iran, including a US submarine sent to the Persian Gulf and US B-52s. America also said it would close its embassy in Iraq if Iranian-backed militias kept attacking US forces. US President Donald Trump threatened Iran at least twice, once when IRGC fast boats harassed US ships in the Persian Gulf in April and again in December.
That is Iran’s destabilizing role in the region. It almost led to conflict with the US and continues to mean tensions with Israel increase. For instance in April, around the same time Iranian boats were harassing US ships in the Persian Gulf, a drone struck at a car in Syria near Lebanon’s border. Hezbollah officials who had fled the car were saved from the strike by good luck. Hezbollah vowed to strike at Israel in response and cut holes in the border fence in northern Israel. Later in July a Hezbollah member was killed in Syria and Hezbollah vowed to strike at Israel again. The account is open, the reports say.
Iran and Hezbollah bide their time. Iran has another account it claims is open with Israel over the killing of nuclear chief Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in November. In addition, in July Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility was sabotaged. Tehran has indicated it thinks outsiders did the sabotage. That means Iranian tensions with the US and Israel have risen this year – but they have been rising since 2018. Nothing particularly new here.
THE SECOND side of the triangle in the Middle East is Turkey and its allies. Ankara’s ruling party is rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood. It backs Hamas in Gaza and twice hosted senior Hamas terrorists this year. Reports indicate that Hamas plans attacks from Turkey, receives passports and support and uses Turkey as a cyber base for threats to Israel. While Turkey ended 2020 claiming it wants reconciliation with Israel after years of comparing the Jewish state to Nazi Germany, Ankara has consistently supported extremists and terrorists.
Turkey has other Islamist friends it recruited in Syria and in Libya. Turkey co-opted the Syrian rebellion and channeled it into a series of extremist groups it has sought to mobilize to fight Kurds and Armenians. In 2018 Turkey ethnically cleansed Afrin, a historically Kurdish area of Syria, then attacked Kurds in Serekaniye in October 2019. US officials worked with Turkey, hoping to undermine their own Pentagon’s policies in Syria.
We know from recent interviews that US envoys admired Turkey’s thuggish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan and sought to outsource US policy to him. This caused Turkey to think it had a blank check to attack everyone in the region. It threatened Greece with a “flood” of refugees in February and March. It clashed with Syria and Russia in the Syrian city of Idlib. It sent extremist militias recruited from poor Syrian refugees to attack Kurds and Christians in the northeast Syrian towns of Ain Issa and Tel Tamr near the Turkish border. It sent Syrians to fight in Libya.
It also threatened Greece using the excuse that it was seeking natural gas in the Mediterranean. Turkey wanted to thwart a planned Israel-Cyprus-Greece pipeline deal. In July and then in September Turkey prodded Azerbaijan to attack Armenians in Nagorna-Karabakh.
THE THIRD side of the Middle East alliance systems is the emerging Israel-UAE-Egypt-Jordan-Bahrain-Greece-Cyprus system of friendships. Israel made peace with Bahrain and the UAE in August and September in the momentous new Abraham Accords. With Saudi Arabia’s approval, Morocco followed. Sudan also agreed to normalize ties with Israel.
In each case the US was key in supporting the new agreements: weapons deals for the UAE, an end of sanctions for Sudan, as well as recognition of Morocco’s claims in Western Sahara came from Washington. The Trump administration poured efforts in its last year in office into this brave new world in the Middle East.
The burgeoning relationships offer massive economic potential for Israel and the Gulf. Seventy-thousand Israelis went to Dubai toward the end of the year. They were able to escape the COVID restrictions briefly, although by the end of December the lockdowns were back and Israelis were back home. A few stayed on in Dubai, awaiting the New Year’s parties. They might have been able to look back to February when Turkey first found COVID among flights coming from Iran and recall just how much has changed since then.
Much has also stayed the same, in terms of Iran’s and Turkey’s policies seeking to exploit the lack of US leadership and drawdown of US forces – to fight over the scraps of what was once US hegemony in the Middle East. 

The Abraham Accords domino effect will lead to more peace deals
Lahav Harkov/Jerusalem Post/January 01/2021
DIPLOMATIC AFFAIRS: It was hard to predict in January 2020 that, by the end of the year, Israel would have relations with four more Arab countries.
We were all so innocent when 2020 began. In January 2020, people around the world had not yet heard of the COVID-19 virus, and those who had – outside of Wuhan, China – didn’t know it would turn so many lives upside down.
In Israel, January’s news cycle in some ways looked the same as today’s – we were heading toward a March election then, too – but the diplomatic agenda was drastically different. There were three big stories: Naama Issachar, the Israeli woman in a Russian prison for alleged drug smuggling; preparations for the Fifth World Holocaust Forum, which brought leaders of 49 countries to Israel; and speculation about the Trump peace plan, which came out at the end of the month.
A week after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to the White House to hear about the peace plan, along with a quick stop in Moscow to give Issachar a ride home, there was a small hint at what was to come.
Netanyahu went to Uganda, ostensibly on a regular diplomatic visit to Africa of the kind the prime minister has made before, but there was a surprise: Netanyahu met with Sudanese leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Sudan authorized Israel to fly over its airspace, shortening flights to South America, but in the ensuing days, Burhan said this was not a step toward normalization.
A week and a half later, Jason Greenblatt, who had resigned months earlier from his position as US President Donald Trump’s envoy to the Middle East, announced that he was “very inspired” by ties between Israel and Gulf states and planned to promote them – but still said time was needed for them to move into the open.
Meanwhile, the Trump peace plan train was chugging along, with the emphasis on application of sovereignty, as its supporters called it, or annexation, as its detractors said.
Netanyahu promised in one campaign speech and statement after another that he would take the plunge, with the Trump “Peace to Prosperity” plan supporting Israeli sovereignty over up to 30% of the West Bank, including all settlements and the Jordan Valley.
Blue and White leader Benny Gantz made statements that were vague enough to make voters think he may support annexing the Jordan Valley, as well.
But COVID-19 got in the way, and the plan could not be implemented as speedily as Netanyahu said he intended. Whether he ever intended to extend Israel’s sovereignty or not is a matter of great debate, but he certainly spoke and, to some extent, behaved like he did. Israel and the US established a committee to draw an annexation map, and it met a couple of times, but didn’t get very far. At the time, senior US sources said talks between Jerusalem and Washington were much more focused on joint coronavirus policy than anything else, and those kinds of comments continued even after a so-called unity government between the Likud and Blue and White was formed. A clause in the coalition agreement said Netanyahu could bring sovereignty moves to a cabinet vote in July.
That unity coalition was anything but united, and the Trump peace plan was one of many areas where Netanyahu and his partners didn’t see eye to eye. Gantz, who was defense minister at that point, and Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi spoke enthusiastically about the Trump plan – but they wanted it all, as a whole. The plan itself would have allowed for Israel to extend its sovereignty as a first step, so what they were really saying was they needed major adjustments. Ashkenazi especially worked to block the annexation element. Netanyahu had the votes in the cabinet to push it through without Blue and White’s support, but the Trump administration wanted a more united Israeli front.
As June rolled along and the world was watching Israel to see what its next steps would be, in swooped United Arab Emirates’ Ambassador to the US Yousef al-Otaiba. In an op-ed for Yediot Aharonot, which in and of itself was a unique event, Otaiba dangled the possibility of normalization of ties between Abu Dhabi and Israel if the latter would drop its annexation plans.
Since 2015, there had been more and more steps, public and secret, toward ties between Israel and Gulf states, including intelligence sharing and cooperation in combating the Iran nuclear threat, ministers and other officials visiting the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, Israeli athletes participating in sporting events in Arab states, and tens of thousands of Israelis touring Morocco each year. But these were gradual and had been happening for years. While Netanyahu and some other politicians talked openly about warming ties with Gulf states, the statements were vague.
So Otaiba’s op-ed, offering what he called the “carrots” of greater normalization and expanded ties in the Middle East, came as a surprise to many observers of the Middle East – though apparently not to Trump’s peace team. Looking back at Greenblatt’s statements and remarks by Trump’s Senior Advisor Jared Kushner, it seems they were hinting at what was coming all along, and what seemed like bluster or campaign rhetoric from Netanyahu was the real deal. Kushner and Avi Berkowitz, who replaced Greenblatt, saw an opportunity in what Otaiba wrote, and jumped on it.
July 1 came and went without any sovereignty moves and very little talk on the matter. There was an oblique reference here and there by Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, but no movement.
And then came the moment that changed everything: A phone call between Trump, Netanyahu and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, leading to the announcement of peace on Trump’s Twitter account. The deal was called the Abraham Accords, named after the forefather of Jews and Arabs.
The love affair between Israelis and Emiratis began immediately. There was an effusive outpouring of support and excitement on social media from regular people in both countries.
And on the diplomatic level, the governments immediately took action to make normalization a reality. Less than two weeks later, the first-ever Israeli delegation to the UAE landed in Abu Dhabi, led by National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat. Israeli flags waved in the airport where an El Al plane landed in Abu Dhabi for the first time.
The ensuing months have brought a flurry of business, cultural and diplomatic exchanges, and, of course, many thousands of Israeli tourists in Dubai this month, when the UAE was one of the only “green” countries Israelis could visit without having to quarantine when they arrived home.
Even the talk of a deal to allow the UAE to buy F-35 planes could not mar the excitement. The US, Israel and the UAE have all said that the fighter jets were not part of the peace deal and never came up between the two Middle Eastern countries. At the same time, the US and UAE pointed out that Israel lifting its opposition to the sale – after Gantz met with his American counterpart and they reached an arrangement that satisfactorily maintained Israel’s qualitative military edge – was what greased the wheels on something the UAE had been seeking for the past six years.
IN THE last few months, we have also seen a veritable domino effect. It took the UAE’s courage to be the first Arab country in decades to take the plunge and establish diplomatic relations with Israel to inspire more to follow.
Bahrain’s announcement came less than a month later, and its foreign minister took part in a peace-signing ceremony at the White House a few days after that.
In mid-October, Ben-Shabbat led another delegation, this time to Manama. The Bahrain peace deal didn’t come with any strings attached to date, and has been purely about normal diplomatic and business ties, which have moved at a rapid pace, as with the UAE.
The next two dominoes to fall were Sudan and Morocco, but in a somewhat different way. In both cases, ties with Israel came together with a major shift in US policy in favor of those countries.
Normalization with Sudan is highly symbolic for Israelis. Khartoum was the site of the Arab League’s “three noes” of 1967: no negotiations, no recognition, no peace with Israel. For Khartoum to overturn those three is truly momentous. The business opportunities in Sudan are fewer for Israelis, but Israel has already offered help in the areas of agriculture, water use, solar energy and more.
For Sudan, the normalization story was something else entirely. The announcement of steps toward ties with Israel came in late October, after pressure from Pompeo during negotiations to remove the African state from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism. That removal came over a year and a half after Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir was removed and Burhan, a Sudanese Army general, and civilian leader Abdalla Hamdok formed a government aimed at transitioning toward democracy. Getting off the list will likely drastically help Sudan’s economic recovery and access to international aid.
While the US denied making an ultimatum – recognize Israel or you stay on the list – it’s clear that Khartoum felt serious pressure. Hamdok was opposed to ties with Israel, while Burhan was more in favor – after all, he had met Netanyahu already – and both realized it was risky while their country’s situation was so shaky, but in the end they did it. Normalization with Israel was a small step to take toward something that was much bigger and more important for Sudan.
The same could be said about normalization between Israel and Morocco, announced in December. In King Mohammed VI’s announcement, a few short bullet points on renewing diplomatic relations with Israel came after seven lengthy paragraphs on the Trump administration’s agreement to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. That recognition is the big prize Morocco wanted.
If the king had not been holding out for a big prize – as he saw Sudan and to some extent the UAE received – ties with Israel would have been easy. Israel and Morocco had secret ties, including intelligence sharing, for decades, and partial diplomatic relations in the 1990s. Those relations were officially suspended in 2000, but some level of ties has always continued, and many Israelis visit Morocco each year.
Still, since a million Israelis have roots in Morocco, and many have fond, positive feelings for the country and its royal family, this move was celebrated in Israel. And Morocco’s tourism minister expects 200,000 Israeli visitors a year, post-corona.
With 2020 behind us and 2021 beginning, there is discussion of even more dominoes falling, and even more countries joining the Abraham Accords. Trump administration officials have said they’re working to even make it happen in the next three weeks, before President-elect Joe Biden takes office.
Mauritania, Oman and Indonesia are the names on Israeli and American officials’ tongues these days, which makes sense, because Israel has or has had some level of ties with all of them.
Mauritania declared war on Israel in 1967, but the countries established diplomatic relations in 1999, which were suspended in the wake of Operation Cast Lead in 2009.
Former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin visited Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, and thousands of Israeli and Indonesian tourists visit each other’s countries each year.
Netanyahu visited Oman in 2018, and Israel and Oman are part of the anti-Iran axis in the Middle East.
But the big hope is for Saudi Arabia. This is where Biden comes into play. Biden and his foreign policy advisers have spoken positively about the Abraham Accords, without commenting on the strings attached. At the same time, they have been very critical of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record. If the Trump administration doesn’t find a way to quickly make it worth Riyadh’s while in the next few weeks, which seems unlikely, MBS and King Salman will probably wait to see what benefit they can exact from the Biden administration to go with peace with Israel. After all, the thought is, why shouldn’t they get something out of the deal, as the UAE, Sudan and Morocco did?
At the same time, a very senior official told The Jerusalem Post that Riyadh is expected to get on board in 2021. Netanyahu and MBS met in the Saudi city of Neom weeks ago. Salman is still reticent on the matter, holding on to the Arab Peace Initiative, also known as the Saudi Initiative, which requires peace with the Palestinians before normalization with the Arab League.
Looking ahead at the unfolding new year, it seems likely that the Abraham Accords domino rally will continue, and it seems almost inevitable that it will feature the biggest coup of all, Saudi-Israel peace.
But if there’s anything we learned from 2020, it is that January can be drastically different from December in ways we never expected.•

Joe Biden’s in-tray: The five key foreign policy issues
Luke Coffey/Arab News/January 01/2021
Whenever there is a new leader behind the desk in the Oval Office, they are sure to be tested by America’s adversaries. Joe Biden will be no different. In fact, because of the unconventional nature of Donald Trump’s foreign policy, it is logical to assume that more than few leaders around the world will be interested in testing the next administration.
Many wonder — both friend and foe, and not unreasonably — if President Trump has changed the way US foreign policy is made for good, or will Biden bring it back in line with the status quo ante?
Heading into 2021, the next administration’s in-tray will be full. Undoubtedly, the focus will be the domestic situation in the US. Top priorities will include rolling out the coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine and dealing with the economic consequences of the pandemic. Nevertheless, global events do not slow or stop just for a new president. There are five areas in which President Biden and his administration will be tested early when it comes to international affairs.
Top of the list is Iran. Biden in the past has criticized the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or Iran deal, along with the killing of Qassem Soleimani and the “maximum pressure campaign” against Tehran. Even so, it is hard to deny that Iran is weaker and less of a threat thanks to many of the actions taken by Trump.
Many in Iran were hoping that Trump would lose the election to see if a Biden administration would change tactics. There is no doubt that in the coming months many of America’s friends in the Gulf and in Israel will be watching events closely and nervously. Expect Iran to challenge the US and its allies in the region early on in order to gauge what policies Biden might pursue against Tehran.
Another area to watch will be China. Trump had a particular way of engaging with President Xi Jinping. Although the US leader was desperate to secure a better trading arrangement between the two countries, little progress was made on the issue. Any momentum toward improving US-China relations was derailed by the coronavirus pandemic.
In recent years, the Trump administration did a good job raising awareness of China’s nefarious activities around the world. His administration rallied Europeans against adopting 5G technology from Chinese companies. The US State Department has highlighted what China has been doing in the Arctic, across Africa and in the Indo-Pacific to undermine US interests in these regions. Expect Biden to continue this tough line against Beijing. The incoming president will enjoy not only bipartisan support for taking a hard line against China, but also the backing of the American public. Areas where China could make trouble early on for the next administration include the South China Sea, aggression against Taiwan and further crackdowns in Hong Kong.
It is hard to deny that Iran is weaker and less of a threat thanks to many of the actions taken by Trump.
Another early challenge will likely come from Russia. As vice president, Biden was part of the Obama administration’s failed Russian “reset” policy. However, he also led the US response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine into 2014 after it became clear that reset had failed and he has since taken a hard line against Moscow. Many Democrats still believe that Trump was elected in 2016 because of Russian interference. Therefore, Biden will have support from his own party in Congress to take a tough line when it comes to Moscow. It remains to be seen if he will retry the failed approach of rapprochement as Obama did, or if he will take a harder line against Russian aggression in places such as Ukraine, Syria and Belarus.
The Taliban will also want to test the Biden administration’s views on the Afghan peace process. After successive administrations pointed out the necessity for a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan, only Trump had the political will to bring about peace talks. Trump has also overseen a greater US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan than any other president. This led to the Taliban even endorsing his re-election in the hopes that the US troop reductions would continue.
While Biden is likely to continue supporting talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban, it is a real possibility that his administration will slow US troop withdrawals while assessing the situation on the ground. In the first few months expect the Taliban to test the resolve and commitment of the Biden administration to Afghan security and the intra-Afghan talks.
Finally, after enjoying a relatively cozy relationship with Trump, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will want to gauge the new administration’s approach. Despite two high-level summits between the US and North Korean leaders, nothing of significance materialized to improve the situation. North Korea still maintains its nuclear weapons. In 2019, the regime conducted 26 missile launches, a record for any year. Last March alone, Pyongyang launched nine missiles — the highest number ever in a single month. In the past North Korea has ramped up tensions early in any new US administration and there is every reason to expect the same approach with a Biden administration.
How the incoming administration deals with, confronts and engages with these challenges will set the tone for the next four years. Other than with Iran, there is generally a broad bipartisan consensus in Washington on all these issues. This should make things easier for the new administration.
Having spent almost half a century working in Washington, and much of that time dealing with foreign policy, Biden has experience. However, the world has changed greatly since he was last in office.
How quickly he and his team adjust to this new reality will determine how safe the US and its allies will be. But make no mistake, he will be tested.
*Luke Coffey is director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @LukeDCoffey

The Trump legacy that can never be erased
Dalia Al-Aqidi/Arab News/January 01/2021
Donald Trump will be remembered as the most controversial leader in modern US history, a man who refused to be politically correct and was not afraid to face the international community, and confront it when needed.
Regardless of your feelings for Trump the man, Trump the president has accomplishments that his successors will find it difficult to erase.
In 2014, Daesh invaded and occupied swaths of territory across Iraq and Syria, and established its “caliphate.”This terrorist organization was formed, flourished and expanded during Barack Obama’s presidency; as commander in chief, he failed to stand by the people of Syria and Iraq, who greatly suffered at the hands of Daesh.
Five years after Daesh emerged, efforts by the Trump administration led to its defeat and the liberation of Mosul, the second-largest Iraqi city, freeing thousands of Iraqis of many ethnicities and religions.
On Oct. 27, 2019, Trump announced to the world that Daesh leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi had been killed the night before in what he described as a “dangerous and daring” US raid. Trump emphasized his country’s determination to pursue not only the remaining Daesh terrorists but all other radical groups that shared its ideology and methods. “Terrorists who oppress and murder innocent people should never sleep soundly, knowing that we will completely destroy them. These savage monsters will not escape their fate, and they will not escape the final judgment of God,” he said.
Iran has been Trump’s focus since he took office in 2016; he clearly understood the threat of the ayatollahs in Tehran, and how the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) had enabled the Iranian regime to spread its influence in the Middle East. The left considered this 2015 deal as one of Obama’s biggest diplomatic achievements, ignoring the fact that the JCPOA has given Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief that played a part in funding, training and arming its proxy militias in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.
When Trump authorized the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and a ruthless Iranian terrorist responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, Israelis, Iraqis and many more, the left argued that the killing was reckless and would escalate the situation with Iran.
Regardless of your feelings for Trump the man, Trump the president has accomplishments that his successors will find it difficult to erase.
Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, the Iran-backed Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces deputy chief who was killed alongside him, were war criminals, a fact overlooked by the same people who thought that overthrowing the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi was an American duty.
In October 2011, Obama said Qaddafi’s death marked the end of a long and painful chapter for the people of Libya. “For four decades, the Qaddafi regime ruled the Libyan people with an iron fist. Basic human rights were denied. Innocent civilians were detained, beaten and killed. And Libya’s wealth was squandered. The enormous potential of the Libyan people was held back, and terror was used as a political weapon.”
Was Qaddafi more dangerous than Soleimani and Al-Muhandis combined? The Democrats seem to think so.
Trump’s most significant accomplishment of the past four years, however, was the diplomatic success in the Middle East, which came in the last few months of his presidency. On Sept. 15, 2019, Trump presided over the signing of the Abraham Accords, two historic normalization agreements between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain, praising the courage of the leaders of these three countries who made it possible for a new era to begin.
Trump said these historic agreements would pave the way for people of all faiths and backgrounds to live together in peace and prosperity. “We’re here this afternoon to change the course of history. After decades of division and conflict we mark the dawn of a new Middle East," he said at the White House signing ceremony.Similar agreements with Morocco and Sudan followed, and more are in the pipeline.
Regardless of our ethnicity, how we individually identify, or where we may place our views on the political spectrum, we Americans are unified by the constitutional democratic process of our country, and by the pursuit of the protection of that process.
Love him or hate him, when Trump leaves office on Jan. 20 these and similar decisions will define his legacy.
• Dalia Al-Aqidi is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, and a former Republican congressional candidate. Twitter: @DaliaAlAqidi