English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For  September 26/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews21/english.september26.21.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
Beware that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, “I am the Messiah!” and they will lead many astray
Matthew 24/01-14: “As Jesus came out of the temple and was going away, his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. Then he asked them, ‘You see all these, do you not? Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.’ When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Beware that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, “I am the Messiah!” and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumours of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs. ‘Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But anyone who endures to the end will be saved. And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come.””

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on September 25-26/2021
MoPH registers 850 new Corona infections, 9 deaths
Mikati discusses bilateral relations with UK Minister for the Middle East
Geagea accuses Iran of interfering in Lebanese internal affairs
FPM Clings to Expat Voting, Urges Cooperation with Port Probe
Lebanese teacher swims 5.5 km to island off Tripoli coast to challenge obesity bullies/Bassam Zaazaa/Arab News/September 25/2021
Health alert as Lebanon’s stray dog problem fuels rabies fears/Najia Houssari/Arab News/September 25/2021
Syrian refugee dies after swallowing gasoline
Hezbollah’s Ordeal Unlocks New Possibilities/Hanin Ghaddar/Al Arabiya/September 25/2021
The consequences of Lebanon’s constitutional crisis/Antoine Z. Sfeir/MEI@75/September 25/2021

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 25-26/2021
Iraqi Kurdistan Conference Pushes Baghdad-Israel Normalization
Israel's PM to meet UAE, Bahrain ministers in New York
US, EU voice frustration at Iran’s dithering on nuclear deal
Israeli move to grab Palestinian land re-energized
Palestinians urge Sudan to hand over confiscated assets
Turkey, EU come together to enroll Syrian refugee students
Egyptian, Syrian FMs meet on UNGA sidelines
UAE announces ministerial changes including finance, environment
Kuwait PM urges Iran to build trust in region
U.S., Pakistan Face Each Other Again on Afghanistan Threats
U.S. Booster Shots Start, Even as Millions Remain Unprotected
”Huawei executive leaves Canada, two Canadians freed in China

Titles For The Latest The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 25-26/2021
Afghanistan Shows Why the U.S. Still Needs NATO ---Our allies responded after 9/11, and many stayed with us throughout our two-decade mission/Bradley Bowman and Jack Sullivan/The Dispatch/FDD/September 25/2021
The Bizarre Positive Biden Spin on Afghanistan ...No, the Taliban are not America’s partners/Jonathan Schanzer/FDD/September 25/2021
Thanks to Biden Administration, Iran Mullahs and Taliban Empowered/Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone Institute/September 25/2021
The neo-Taliban and the super-jihadi state/Walid Phares/Sunday Guardian Live/September 25/2021
Vital weeks ahead for Afghanistan/Luke Coffey/Arab News/25 September 2021

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on September 25-26/2021
MoPH registers 850 new Corona infections, 9 deaths
NNA/September 25/2021
850 new coronavirus cases and nine more deaths have been recorded in Lebanon in the last 24 hours, as reported by the Ministry of Public Health on Saturday.

Mikati discusses bilateral relations with UK Minister for the Middle East
NNA/September 25/2021
Prime Minister, Najib Mikati, received this afternoon the UK Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, James Cleverly, in the presence of Lebanon's Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Rami Mortada. During the meeting, the pair discussed bilateral relations between the two countries, Lebanon's needs in these difficult times, Britain's role in supporting it, and keeping pace with the economic development plan that the government is working on.

Geagea accuses Iran of interfering in Lebanese internal affairs
NNA/September 25/2021
Lebanese Forces Party Chief, Samir Geagea, explained during a television interview today that with the entry of Iranian fuel, Hezbollah is trying to penetrate all Lebanese regions. Geagea considered that "the Iranian diesel issue has turned into a direct and blatant interference in the internal Lebanese politics by Iran, and therefore the new government is required to find solutions to this matter."

FPM Clings to Expat Voting, Urges Cooperation with Port Probe
Naharnet/September 25/2021
The Free Patriotic Movement on Saturday stressed the importance of preserving the right of expats to vote in the upcoming parliamentary elections, while calling for cooperation with Judge Tarek Bitar’s investigation into the catastrophic Beirut port blast. “The government’s formation gave the Lebanese hope that the country has entered a phase of relative stability and a halt of the collapse,” the FPM’s political committee said in a statement issued after a periodic e-meeting chaired by FPM chief MP Jebran Bassil. “As for revival and confidence restoration, they require that the government shoulder its responsibilities by devising and implementing a financial recovery plan and conducting reforms,” the committee added. Commenting on reports that authorities intend to scrap expat voting and expat seats, the committee stressed that “the right of expats to voting and representation at their place of residence” should be preserved, as well as “their right to elect six MPs who represent them.”In an apparent swipe at the Lebanese Forces and fugitive pro-LF businessman Ibrahim al-Sakr, the FPM’s political committee called on the judiciary and security forces to “carry out their duties by pursuing the fugitives who are accused of smuggling and storing fuel and ammonium nitrate.”It also stressed that the judicial council must “continue its serious investigation into the Beirut port blast case, to identify those who brought in the nitrates, those who used them and those responsible for the explosion,” calling on all those summoned by Judge Bitar to “put themselves at the disposal of the investigation.

Lebanese teacher swims 5.5 km to island off Tripoli coast to challenge obesity bullies
Bassam Zaazaa/Arab News/September 25/2021
Double Ph.D., Yahya Kabbara, was bullied as a youth for being obese until he ‘notched a physical success’
“Classmates and friends never allowed me to play any sport with them because, according to them, my obesity always made them lose,” he told Arab News
DUBAI: Yahya Nabil Kabbara has always been perceived as academically distinguished, but not athletically, due to being subjected to nightmarish waves of bullying over his obesity since childhood. A Lebanese math teacher, Kabbara chose his own method to fight bullying by swimming 5.5 km to a rocky island off Lebanon’s coast to prove that “being overweight doesn’t impede oneself from notching achievements.” Since a teenager, friends and classmates never allowed Kabbara to play any sport with them because they said his “obesity makes them lose.”
“That left a scar in me and pushed me to set that personal challenge to swim to the furthest island off Tripoli’s seashore,” Kabbara told Arab News. Born in the northern Lebanese city in 1987, the 34-year-old tutor currently teaches math for secondary classes at a public high school.
Commonly known as “Araneb Island” or “Rabbit’s Island,” his target is the biggest of three flat rocky islands that constitute the Palm Islands Nature Reserve. The three islands’ area is around 4.2 sq km. On Sunday, Sept. 19, Kabbara put on a pair of paddles, jumped into the ocean and swam for nearly four-and-a-half hours until he reached Rabbit’s Island.
Having once weighed over 140kg, Kabbara has been training seriously by swimming, walking, hiking, mountain climbing and preparing himself mentally and physically to be able to fulfill what he describes as a “personal challenge and a message to all those who bullied him for being overweight.”
He added: “Classmates and friends never allowed me to play any sport with them because, according to them, my obesity always made them lose. That hurt me a lot … it left an aching scar in me that I always stayed alone. My family once thought I had autism,” he said.
Coming from a hardworking family, Kabbara started teaching at the age of 14 because he adores the profession and needed to earn pocket money to support his father. Despite having two doctorates, he could not land a university job because, according to him, “you need a wasta (support from a politician or influential person), meanwhile I’ve never been affiliated to or supported any Lebanese politician.” In 2015, Kabbara obtained a Ph.D. in applied Mathematics at the Lebanese University while also picking up a doctorate from Paris-Est Creteil University in France.
The father of a nine-month-old daughter said the fact that he was constantly bullied at youth pushed him to work “seriously and really hard” on his fitness to prove to others that being overweight “should not cripple oneself from fulfilling their goals.”“At a certain point of my life I realized that I have fulfilled a lot academically and that the time has come for me to accomplish something physical,” he said, reiterating that he set up his swimming challenge “to prove to himself and others that with perseverance any goal is attainable.”Kabbara explained that the idea to swim to Rabbit’s Island was like a dream to him since childhood. When the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) surfaced in early 2020, the 34-year-old had still been suffering from obesity and feared that lockdowns would force him to gain more weight and feel “desolate and depressed.”“But I told myself ‘no.’ I walked as much as possible and swam a lot after borrowing my cousin’s paddles. I love swimming so I swam 300 meters, then 500. In November I swam to the nearest island, Al-Ballan. It took me an hour. Then I went to the second island of Al-Rmayleh,” said Kabbara. “All I wanted to do is accomplish my goal and prove to myself and others that everything is possible,” concluded Kabbara, who said that he had dropped his weight to 109kg.

Health alert as Lebanon’s stray dog problem fuels rabies fears
Najia Houssari/Arab News/September 25/2021
BEIRUT: Video images showing the remains of stray dogs shot and buried on the state-funded Lebanese University’s Hadath campus in suburban Beirut have highlighted the growing problem of animals abandoned by their owners as the country’s economic crisis worsens. Up to 50,000 stray dogs are estimated to be roaming the streets of Lebanon, according to welfare activists, with most unneutered and unvaccinated, posing a public health risk as the animals become increasingly aggressive and stocks of vaccines to combat rabies run low. Images of five dogs found buried on the university campus sparked widespread anger this week after it was revealed the animals were being fed and cared for by students after having been abandoned. Lebanese University’s 75 hectare campus is unfenced, and houses a large number of faculties as well accommodation for students, deans and visiting professors, and sports and health facilities.
Animal welfare activist Ghina Nahfawi told Arab News that the stray dogs were given names by students and would respond when offered food. “We noticed one of the dogs became their leader and would tell the rest that it was OK to approach us,” she said. “Last Friday, we could not find any trace of the dogs. Some were saying that the university administration and security guards wanted to get rid of them.” Nahfawi said that students’ fears grew after another dog was found alive but in pain with symptoms suggesting it had been poisoned with Lannate, an insecticide that is highly toxic to livestock and wildlife.
“We saw blood and found some dogs that had been shot. We were told others were buried on the campus, but we did not believe it until we came across a foul smell and started digging with our hands, only to discover the bodies of five dogs.”She said that students were told that other dogs, including pups, had been taken to mountainous areas and left to fend for themselves, and may have been killed by other animals. Roger Akkawi, vice president of the animal charity Paw, told Arab News that up 50,000 pet dogs in Lebanon have been abandoned by their owners amid the pandemic and the devastating devaluation of the Lebanese pound. “Most of the dogs left on the street are unneutered and unvaccinated. People think dogs are good hunters, but that’s not true — they depend on humans to survive,” he said. “What people do not realize is the mating of two dogs may lead to the birth of an additional 400 dogs within two years, and that goes along with diseases resulting from the failure to vaccinate against rabies.”
Akkawi warned that Lebanon is “heading toward a catastrophe” because authorities have ignored the problem.
“People will encounter dogs on their doorsteps; many will die and no one will dare touch the bodies and bury them for fear of disease. Although the rabies vaccine is subsidized by the state, it is not available because suppliers do not care about importing it. The vaccine is only available in small quantities and for emergency cases.”Amid the social media uproar over the killing of the stray dogs, students demanded an explanation from the university’s administration, calling for those responsible for the “massacre” to be held accountable. In response, university authorities released a statement expressing regret for “the way in which the issue of stray dogs was addressed on and around the campus.” The statement added: “A serious investigation has been opened. The administration had reached out to an animal welfare association and the Hadath municipality several times, but no radical solution was reached.”
The administration said that several students had been bitten by two dogs, adding that the strays are a threat to public safety in light of the lack of medicines and vaccines against rabies. However, Nahfawi said that there is no evidence of students being attacked by dogs at the university. “The campus has been turned into a burial ground for dogs; that’s what really happened. They disregard all laws and accuse us of exaggerating the issue. This is shameful.”She added: “The municipalities are responsible for addressing such issues, but they do not consider this a priority at the moment. Do they realize that unneutered and unvaccinated dogs pose a threat to people because we lack vaccines against rabies?”According to Akkawi, the answer is to “trap, neuter and return dogs to nature.”
He said that the charity is training volunteers to handle stray dogs, but lacks funds to buy equipment and vaccines. “Municipal budgets do not take this matter into account, especially during the economic crisis we are experiencing.”Akkawi said that the government does not consider the issue of stray animals a priority. “We met the interior minister and warned that imposing lockdowns and keeping people at home during the pandemic would lead to massacres of stray dogs, which depend on restaurant waste to survive. We asked to be allowed out at night after curfew to feed dogs with the food we bought, but our request was rejected.” Nahfawi said that while some may consider anger over the dog’s deaths as absurd compared with the suffering of people in Lebanon, “society will not become more peaceful and tolerant if it does not learn to properly deal with the most vulnerable beings.”
In August 2017, President Michel Aoun signed animal protection and welfare laws that include rules for treatment of stray dogs by municipalities. In August 2018, the Ethical Treatment of Animals group won a ruling from the Lebanese judiciary jailing a man for 10 days and fining him $2,650 for mistreating dogs. The ruling was the first of its kind issued by a judicial authority in Lebanon, criminalizing the harming of animals.

Syrian refugee dies after swallowing gasoline
Arab News/25 September 2021
BEIRUT: A Syrian refugee in Minieh, north Lebanon, died on Saturday after accidentally swallowing a large quantity of gasoline while siphoning it from his car in a black market fuel operation. He was taken to hospital but could not be saved. Abdulrahman Darwish, the representative for the Relief Associations’ Federation in Danniye, said the man used to make deals on the black market. Lebanon has been suffering from an acute fuel crisis during the past few months. “He went to gas stations every day, where he waited in the queue for hours to get 40 liters of gasoline to later withdraw this quantity from his car and sell it on the black market at a higher price to those who do not want to wait in queues,” he told Arab News. “The black market's activities have thrived during the crisis. The youth, Lebanese citizens and Syrian refugees have found themselves unemployed amid the harsh economic crisis of Lebanon. They are looking to earn money at all costs to secure food, medicines and milk for their families, and have found a golden opportunity on the black market.” A security source told Arab News that authorities had observed a decline in the north’s robbery rate in the past few weeks, where “thugs had focused on the black market” instead of theft because it was very profitable. “Every day, tens of them gather outside gas stations forming gangs to get gasoline and later sell it on the black market. The unemployed youth has found an opportunity to earn money by resorting to illegal means,” the source said. According to the price list issued by the Economy Ministry on Wednesday, fuel will be sold according to the dollar exchange rate, with $1 worth LBP14,000. Queues outside gas stations persist, along with disputes that often descend into physical violence and even shooting. Some people had expected a decline in black market activities after the availability of fuel in the market and the gasoline price being liberalized. However, job opportunities have emerged amid this mess. Some people provide “waiting” services, staying in the car instead of the vehicle owner to fill the tank up and earning up to LBP100,000 for doing so.
Some reserve a place outside gas stations during the night and sell the spot in the morning for those waiting at the back. Fadi Abu Shakra, a representative of the Fuel Distributors’ Union, said the queues seemed shorter on Monday as fuel had become available and imports were ongoing. “The activities of the black market traders who have exhausted us are likely to drop down,” he told Arab News.
The economic crisis in Lebanon that peaked in 2019 after the depletion of its financial resources has led to a complete economic collapse, where hundreds of businesses shut down and thousands of employees were laid off. The latest report from the Central Administration of Statistics said the unemployment rate in 2020 increased to 55 percent for those in informal employment and 45 percent for workers in the formal economy. The unemployment rate among college students reached 35.7 percent, and the highest rates of unemployment were noted in Akkar, Central Bekaa and Aley. The International Labor Organization noted the extent of “informal employment and vulnerability among the most deprived Lebanese citizens, as well as Syrian refugees in 2021.” According to Labor Ministry estimates, unemployment in 2020 increased to about 36 percent and is estimated to reach 41.4 percent by the end of 2021.
Statistics from the National Social Security Fund from the start of 2020 until Feb. 2021 indicated that 40,000 people who were registered with the fund had exited the labor market.Darwish said: “Syrian refugees in Lebanon were severely affected by the economic crisis. Some refugees are selling their food rations to buy medicine or visit a doctor.”

مقالة لحنين غدار، عنوانها: “محنة حزب الله تفتح آفاقًا جديدة”، تكشف معاناة الشرائح الشيعية في لبنان وغضبها رغم كل محاولات اعلام حزب الله اخفاء الحقائق
Hezbollah’s Ordeal Unlocks New Possibilities
Hanin Ghaddar/Al Arabiya/September 25/2021
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/102735/hanin-ghaddar-al-arabiya-hezbollahs-ordeal-unlocks-new-possibilities-%d9%85%d9%82%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a9-%d9%84%d8%ad%d9%86%d9%8a%d9%86-%d8%ba%d8%af%d8%a7%d8%b1%d8%8c-%d8%b9%d9%86%d9%88%d8%a7/
Despite the oil tankers coming from Iran, supermarkets with Iranian goods, and all the Iranian-made medicine flooding its pharmacies, Hezbollah is still failing to maintain the Shia support and loyalty. Despite all efforts to shield the community from major shifts in public opinion and politics, an increasing number of Shia are turning against Hezbollah.
Hunger, shortages of basic needs, and the lack of accountability, have all hit the Shia communities in the same way they’ve hit others. One thing is certain, every Lebanese person is looking for alternative political leadership.
Take the Iranian fuel as an example. All of Hezbollah’s propaganda and broadcasting machines were dedicated to portray the event as another divine victory against a “US siege,” which does not exist.
Its social media army, WhatsApp groups’ managers, and popular websites, all geared their efforts to prepare and cover the event of the oil tankers crossing the Syrian-Lebanese borders last Thursday.
Hezbollah’s most popular singer, Ali Barakat, produced a special song for the occasion. Yet, expressions of discontent, doubt, and anger remain prominent.
Why? Simply, because no one has seen any improvement in their electricity provision. As for petrol for cars, it can only be found in Hezbollah’s US-sanctioned Al Amana gas stations, and only in small quantities, and certainly not for free.
The Shia could’ve been fooled in the past by Hezbollah’s resistance rhetoric and promises of glory, but they’re not blind.
As outlined in my report published earlier this month, I argue that the Shia have lost trust in Hezbollah as their main protector and provider, simply because the terrorist group is no longer doing so. Its priorities have shifted and the support-base is now split into many layers of discontent.
Hezbollah chief pledges more Iranian fuel for Lebanon. Stock image)
Hezbollah chief pledges more Iranian fuel for Lebanon. Stock image)
However, only Hezbollah’s core supporting group is the one making all of the noise – on social media and on the streets. The rest are hindered by fear and uncertainty. The killing of Lokman Slim earlier this year was a clear message for the young Shia people who participated in the October 2019 protests.
Hezbollah cannot afford to lose the Shia support-base – one of the three pillars of its power in Lebanon. Its two other pillars – political allies (Speaker Nabih Berri and Free Patriotic Movement leader Gebran Bassil), have lost significant popularity and political leverage in the past two years, and its weapons are hindered by regional wars and Israeli threats of attacks in Lebanon.
Losing its supporter-base will cost the party dearly, with votes, committed fighters, and the pretense of representation all lost. Hezbollah thought a combination of force, violence and Iranian goods and fuel, could silence Shia resentment.
But, their supporter-base is hungry, and eliminating the discontent is not possible without a permanent and sustainable solution, and Iranian cash cannot provide this. The expressions of discontent are growing and manifesting in different forms, with student groups, social media platforms, political gatherings, and Shia grassroots movements working behind the scenes. They are organizing and readying themselves for the upcoming May 2022 parliamentary elections.
Hezbollah and the rest of its political allies are aware of this and are worried about the election’s outcome. It will try to cancel it, postpone it, and in the best-case scenario, hijack it to ensure the continuity of the status quo.
This is precisely what Hezbollah did when it lost the 2005 and 2009 parliamentary elections, using its military force against fellow Lebanese and coercing a so-called March 14 coalition. By brandishing its weapons, it defined a new “win or lose” political reality: when Hezbollah wins, it governs; when it loses, it still governs.
This is precisely why much of the international community’s focus should be placed on the 2022 elections, which need supervision and careful monitoring, to be based on a new representative electoral law.
It is not enough to morally support civil groups and call for their protection in statements that lead nowhere. Pressure from continuing sections and official warnings, followed by consequences are vital.
For example, the assassination of Lokman Slim should not have passed without serious accountability. The US and the EU could use their advantage of security assistance and humanitarian aid to push for electoral reforms and a strategy to protect activists, mainly within the Shia constituency.
As the US tries to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Iran, a Lebanon policy must not be jeopardized.
Hezbollah’s current challenges can unlock an opportunity to change the balance of power in Lebanon, contain Iran’s influence and promote political diversity within the Shia community. The timing cannot be more suitable.

The consequences of Lebanon’s constitutional crisis
Antoine Z. Sfeir/MEI@75/September 25/2021
Lebanon is currently facing an unprecedented constitutional crisis that, if left to simmer, will further worsen the country’s numerous predicaments. Three decades after the Ta’if Agreement that ended the 1975-90 war, officials and warlords failed to implement a real reconciliation that could usher in civil order in a country known for its intrinsic vulnerabilities. Although a diverse society, Lebanon has always suffered from inherent political contradictions and currently agonizes over — among other calamities — major constitutional and political crises that, even though they are engulfed by crumbling socio-economic conditions, remain far more threatening than most imagine. How can the Lebanese put an end to such ongoing deterioration? And can Lebanon’s “business-political” class resolve some of the many crises confronting the country?
While Lebanon’s unending tensions are mostly political and socio-economic in nature, substantially more attention must be devoted to the Constitution. In fact, at the heart of every imaginable misfortune, the country’s 1926 Constitution, amended in 1989 with the Ta’if Agreement, is in need of “technical” review and updates. This is, of course, easier said than done, but more attention must be paid to the texts that “govern” the land and its socio-political constructs. To that end, adjustments to the current and somewhat inconvenient procedures and conditions are inevitable.
When reviewing the constitutional texts, one needs to analyze the spirit as well as the intentions of the “legislator” first and foremost, and then move on to the preamble of the texts alongside the major principles and fundamental laws. For how can one understand the separation of powers clauses, laws governing the judiciary, the establishment of a Constitutional Council, or even the Supreme Council for the Trial of Presidents and Ministers (SCTPM), without addressing the underlying intentions?
The difficulty of applying the principle that “the people are the source of powers”
In its preamble, the Lebanese Constitution states that “the people are the source of powers,” which is laudable but largely inaccurate. In reality, and throughout the past decades, actions in parliament and on the ground have proven that this principle remained theoretical at best and that the Lebanese people have had limited abilities to change the political processes, group preferences, and various other challenges in and toward their social contracts.
With respect to elections more specifically, various “improvements” to the electoral process became nearly impossible given the “business-political” paradigm in place, which governs and continues to ravage the political scene. Merchant-politicians have in the past and continue at present to negatively affect the development of a better electoral atmosphere that would meet local needs and aspirations for more free and fair elections. Noticeably, opportunistic service provision has played and continues to play a major role in the Lebanese electoral cycle.
Of course, this is in addition to the ineffective election control systems in place as well as some "clientelist'' interest-driven pressures on voters, both of which also help to skew electoral results.
As a direct consequence, Lebanese citizens faced severely limited choices. Therefore, it is fair to state that Lebanese elections were and still are far from normal, as accountability and control mechanisms were very weak because ruling oligarchies muzzled the main electoral processes and guaranteed carefully doctored results. In principle, citizens should be free to exercise their electoral rights and feel free to make political choices, but in reality most seem to have abdicated those privileges to merchant-politicians who thrived and continue to prosper in a corrupt environment that views voters as mere products to manipulate at will.
Critical separation of powers
In addition to the “people are the source of powers” clause, the Lebanese Constitution’s preamble further consecrates the principle of “separation of powers” in clear and solemn ways. This, it affirms, serves as the basis of the Lebanese political regime and aims to both maintain a certain balance between various branches and ensure the most cooperative mechanisms imaginable among them.
Unfortunately, this separation was not and is not being respected, as the executive branch plays a self-appointed “preeminent” role over the legislative branch. The parliamentarians could not control “governments of national unity,” which were mostly composed of elected deputies or representatives of parliamentary blocs. In other words, members of parliament pretended that they maintained their constitutional privileges and agreed to governments that were, truth be told, mini-parliaments in which most political parties and tendencies were duly represented.
Indeed, the concept of a “cabinet of national unity” or a “coalition government” produced ineffective institutions that disparaged the constitutional separation of powers.
As parliamentarians were unable and unwilling to control and audit the actions, decisions, and policies of successive cabinets because major parliamentary blocs were represented in them — after all, why and how would they oppose or criticize themselves? — the system adopted null and void models. This lack of accountability, therefore, ensured destructive inefficiency at the parliamentary level that the country has yet to recover from.
As importantly, no specific procedures for the formation of a cabinet were included in the Constitution. Indeed, Article 53 covers very general items and simply mentions that the government should be formed exclusively by the common will of the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister-designate, without specifying any procedural details regarding tasks assigned to each. This means that their mutual consent is a must. Consequently, any personal differences, or even the absence of chemistry between the Head of State and the PM-designate creates insurmountable challenges during the formation process.
Regrettably, past and present elites were mired in interminable haggling that sealed the fate of most governments as inefficient bodies, a phenomenon that most citizens lamented. Thus, it is fair to say that there is a need to review the text of Article 53 to clarify what the required procedural steps toward the formation of a new cabinet should be, along with an emphasis on the explicit responsibilities of each party. It is logical to propose that a deadline for the formation of a government, say 60 days, be incorporated in the adopted texts in order to stop or limit the abusive behavior that drags consultations out over months.
The ineffectiveness of judicial independence
Similarly, complications with the judiciary — with limited autonomy in its nominations and promotions — further undercut the constitutional “separation of powers” clause. In turn, it has proved unable to play its crucial role in holding the political system accountable.
The Lebanese Constitution stipulated that the judiciary stands as an “independent body,” though in reality this was obviously not always the case. Politicians were reluctant to accept regulations that consecrated the independence of the judiciary because doing so would limit or even eliminate the powers of merchant-politicians.
There continues to be a pressing need to reform the Constitutional Council, which was unable to engage in any constitutional interpretations as specifically provided for in the Ta’if Agreement.
Furthermore, the very concept of “Exceptional Courts” needs to be reconsidered. This includes the Judicial Court (the body empowered to adjudicate specific crimes deferred to it by the Council of Ministers) as well as the Military Court (the body empowered to try civilians as well). Despite this urgent need, few legal scholars envisage changes under the existing conditions.
Problematic parliamentary immunity
After the Aug. 4, 2020, explosion at the Port of Beirut, the Council of Ministers deferred the investigation to the Judicial Council. Shortly after, a judge of instruction was appointed, then later on dismissed by the Court of Cassation, ostensibly over a legal conflict about the immunity of many former ministers and current members of parliament who were identified as potential witnesses to be questioned by the magistrate. As a result, a new judge was appointed.
Although deputies could be questioned and/or pursued for criminal cases under the Constitution, few recognized such obligations themselves. Neither parliamentarians (outside of their roles as “representatives”) nor any member of the government (prime minister as well as cabinet ministers) were given immunity under the Constitution.
In mid-2021, Lebanese politicians intensified their attempts to “create” and “legalize” some kind of immunity — again, non-existent in the Constitution — via the SCTPM. The SCTPM was initially formed to try presidents and ministers but unfortunately it never met, nor did it issue any decisions against anyone due to crippling procedural laws. One of the SCTPM’s by-laws specified that a two-thirds majority was required in parliament to refer a president or a minister for trial, which is almost impossible given the legislative body’s current composition and conflicts of interest.
Constitutionally speaking, all citizens are equal under the law, a right that was duly consecrated as a general rule. Moreover, whatever immunities were specifically granted as privileges to some public officials were meant as a guarantee to shield them as they hypothetically promoted and defended the public good. Yet some officials in Lebanon incessantly used and continue to use constitutional loopholes to protect themselves from legal consequences and political liabilities — something that should be unacceptable in a democratizing society. Such “immunities” have become the stronghold of political impunity.
The way out
In light of the above, what can the Lebanese do to restore the semblance of their freedoms, reform existing institutions, review their constitutional texts, and otherwise engage in mature state-building?
Although self-evident, and although no such concepts exist for merchant-politicians, Lebanese citizens who believe in their republic and who wish to preserve it as a viable political entity ought to usher in transparency and mechanisms for accountability.
These can be introduced through targeted actions and public pressure and awareness. For example, the concept of immunity ought to be updated so that it is neither perceived from a very narrow angle that serves members of parliament exclusively, nor deployed as an obstacle to justice. Similarly, the separation between legislative and executive bodies is long overdue to enable Beirut to field effective governments that serve the nation.
A parliamentarian should not concurrently serve as a minister given that overlaps in these roles seldom advance the national interest. In fact, the principle of “separation of powers” as consecrated within the Constitution expects nothing less. Moreover, maintaining the independence of the judiciary is a must, starting perhaps with the adjustment of some texts and the reinforcement of the role of the Court of Audit and similar oversight bodies.
In the end, only an expansion of the powers of the Constitutional Council — to interpret the Constitution and to deliver universal opinions — would safeguard the democratic concept that all citizens are equal under the law and that no one is above it.
*Antoine Sfeir earned a PhD in international law from the Université Paris Descartes and practices as an attorney at law at the Paris and Beirut Bar associations. He is an arbitrator as well as an affiliated partner in Montréal. He lectures at the Université Saint Joseph in Beirut, lectured at the American University of Beirut, and served as a member of the UNESCO National Commission. He is a counsel before the International Criminal Court and regularly offers analyses on legal and political issues in local and international media outlets. The opinions expressed in this piece are his own.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 25-26/2021
Iraqi Kurdistan Conference Pushes Baghdad-Israel Normalization
Agence France Presses/25 September 2021
More than 300 Iraqis, including tribal leaders, attended a conference in autonomous Kurdistan organized by a U.S. think-tank demanding a normalization of relations between Baghdad and Israel, organizers said Saturday. The first initiative of its kind in Iraq, where Israel's sworn enemy Iran has a very strong influence, the conference took place on Friday and was organized by the New York-based Center for Peace Communications (CPC). The CPC advocates for normalizing relations between Israel and Arab countries, alongside working to establish ties between civil society organizations. Iraqi Kurdistan maintains cordial contacts with Israel, but the federal government in Baghdad does not have diplomatic ties with Israel. Four Arab nations -- the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan -- last year agreed to normalize ties with Israel in a US-sponsored process dubbed the Abraham Accords.
"We demand our integration into the Abraham Accords," said Sahar al-Tai, one of the attendees, reading a closing statement in a conference room at a hotel in the Kurdish regional capital Arbil. "Just as these agreements provide for diplomatic relations between the signatories and Israel, we also want normal relations with Israel," she said. "No force, local or foreign, has the right to prevent this call," added Tai, head of research at the Iraqi federal government's culture ministry. The 300 participants at the conference came from across Iraq, according to CPC founder Joseph Braude, a U.S. citizen of Iraqi Jewish origin. They included Sunni and Shiite representatives from "six governorates: Baghdad, Mosul, Salaheddin, Al-Anbar, Diyala and Babylon," extending to tribal chiefs and "intellectuals and writers", he told AFP by phone. Other speakers at the conference included Chemi Peres, the head of an Israeli foundation established by his father, the late president Shimon Peres. "Normalization with Israel is now a necessity," said Sheikh Rissan al-Halboussi, an attendee from Anbar province, citing the examples of Morocco and the UAE. Kurdish Iraqi leaders have repeatedly visited Israel over the decades and local politicians have openly demanded Iraq normalize ties with the Jewish state, which itself backed a 2017 independence referendum in the autonomous region.

Israel's PM to meet UAE, Bahrain ministers in New York
Reuters/25 September ,2021
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett will meet ministers from Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates on Sunday, his first meetings with Gulf leaders since taking office in June. The meetings with Bahrain's foreign minister and a UAE minister were announced by Bennett in a statement on Saturday, and will take place on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. Bahrain and the UAE normalized relations with Israel last year. Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, who visited Dubai in June, is expected to travel to Bahrain soon.

US, EU voice frustration at Iran’s dithering on nuclear deal
Arab News/25 September 2021
JEDDAH: The US and EU have voiced frustration at the UN over the slow pace with Iran, saying its new government showed no indication it was ready to revive a nuclear accord.
“The window of opportunity is open and won’t be open forever,” a senior US official said after days of consultations with allies at the UN General Assembly.
Iran’s new President, Ebrahim Raisi, indicated he backed a return to compliance with the 2015 accord as a way to lift sweeping sanctions imposed by former US President Donald Trump when he withdrew the US. But European nations said they heard nothing concrete as they met with Iran’s new Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who came to New York for the annual General Assembly. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and a senior administration official said that US patience is wearing thin and that further delays while Iran continues to expand its atomic capabilities could lead Washington and its partners to conclude a return to the deal is no longer worthwhile.
“We don’t have yet an agreement by Iran to return to the talks in Vienna,” Blinken said. “We are very much prepared to return to Vienna and continue the talks. The question is whether, and if so when, Iran is prepared to do that.”
If the talks don’t resume, the officials said the US would at some point determine that Iran was no longer interested in the benefits that the accord offered or that its recent technological advances could not be undone by the limits it imposed.
“The possibility of getting back to mutual compliance is not indefinite,” Blinken said. “And the challenge right now is that with every passing day, as Iran continues to take actions that are not in compliance with the agreement ... we will get to a point at some point in the future at which simply returning to mutual compliance with the JCPOA will not recapture the benefits.”
The UN’s atomic watchdog has said Iran is increasingly in violation of the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA. Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas warned: “The clock is ticking. We’re not going to wait two or three months for the Iranian delegation to come back to the table in Vienna,” Maas said. “It has to happen more quickly,” he said. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said that Amir-Abdollahian told him that Iran was ready to restart talks “at an early date” but gave no more precise time. Barbara Slavin, an expert on Iran at the Atlantic Council, said that Tehran ultimately had an interest in returning to talks for the sake of the relief of sanctions which have taken a heavy economic toll. “They’re taking their sweet time,” Slavin said. “I still think they have to come back to the talks. I think they need it,” she added.

Israeli move to grab Palestinian land re-energized
Arab News/25 September 2021
Former mayor of Bethlehem Vera Baboun told Arab News the move was aimed at separating Bethlehem governorate from Hebron governorate
AMMAN: A year before representatives of Israel and Palestine met at the White House on Sept. 13, 1993, and signed a framework for peace, Israeli authorities had confiscated 48 square kilometers of Palestinian land south of Bethlehem and converted it into a nature reserve. The Israeli army has, 28 years later, renewed the confiscation order in a politicized decision carried out to block attempts to provide building permits to Palestinians who own private land in some of those areas. Jad Isaac, director of the Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem, said a large part of those areas had been marked as Area C, meaning the Israelis had full control over who could build on them. “Military order #51-21 of Nov. 18, 1992 has taken a large part of the areas east and south of Bethlehem, in the vicinity of the towns of Saer, Arab Al-Rashida and Shioukh,” he told Arab News. Isaac said that Palestinians were not allowed to build on 29.7 square kilometers of the land despite them being listed as Area A, meaning local Palestinian municipalities had the right to make administrative decisions about them. He said that 10.875 square kilometers of that land had been converted into nature reserves, blocking the rights of Palestinians in those areas.
Israeli authorities used the term nature reserve to block Palestinians from building on those areas so that, at an opportune time, they may be opened up for settlement expansion, he said. Over the years the international community — especially the US — has been asking the Israelis to allow Palestinians to build in those areas. Former mayor of Bethlehem Vera Baboun told Arab News the move was aimed at separating Bethlehem governorate from Hebron governorate. The goal was to separate the populated Palestinian areas, as well as closing off areas to farming and grazing including blocking the ability of Palestinian farmers to reach their own land, while giving Jewish settlers the freedom to move around on Palestinian land, she added. A Times of Israel report found that the Defense Ministry body responsible for authorizing construction in Area C had issued just a handful of building permits. Plans for just 26 housing units were advanced in subcommittee meetings, with only six of those units — located in a single building — receiving actual building permits. “Apparently, the security Cabinet’s decision that Netanyahu made sure to publicize as if Israel actually intended to approve any development for the millions of Palestinians in the occupied territories has turned out to be one big bluff, and even the few permits that were approved have not been issued,” Hagit Ofran, from the Peace Now settlement watchdog, told the newspaper. Isaac said that, since 1967, Israel had used a variety of military orders to curtail Palestinian growth.
“They passed tens of laws that allow them to take away Palestinian land or prevent Palestinians from using it, while seeming to be doing all this under the pretext of democratic regulations.”He said that, in addition to confiscating state land or land of absentee Palestinians, the favorite way of stunting Palestinian growth had been the conversion of large areas of Palestinian land into nature reserves. “Using military order 363 of 1969, the Israeli civil administration can declare any land in the occupied West Bank a nature reserve where it is extremely difficult to get a building license.”In Jan. 2020 then-Defense Minister Naftali Bennett, who is now prime minister, approved the declaration of seven reserves in an area of 112.5 square kilometers, in addition to the existing 12 nature reserves aimed at stopping any Palestinian building development in the Jordan Valley area.

Palestinians urge Sudan to hand over confiscated assets
NNA/25 September 2021
The Palestinian Authority urged Sudan's government on Saturday to hand over assets it has seized as part of a crackdown targeting Sudan-based operations to fund the Palestinian militant group Hamas. Sudan was long an ally of Hamas under former President Omar al-Bashir, but since he was overthrown in 2019, Sudanese authorities have taken control of investments and companies they say channelled funding to the Islamist group for years. "We hope that the state of #Sudan, which has always been a supporter (people and a government) to #Palestine, to hand over the movable and immovable funds that were confiscated to the State of Palestine and its Government," Hussein Al-Sheikh, a senior Palestinian official close to President Mahmoud Abbas, said on Twitter. Hamas - a bitter rival of Abbas - said on Friday it had no links to companies and individuals targeted by Sudan's crackdown, saying the seized assets belonged to Palestinian investors and businesses. In Khartoum, a senior official in the taskforce overseeing government-led asset seizures did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The taskforce has said it does not seize legitimate private property but rather retrieves public property that was misappropriated during Bashir's long rule. Hamas is designated by the West as a terrorist organisation, and Sudan's takeover of at least a dozen companies that officials say were linked to Hamas has helped accelerate its realignment with Western governments since Bashir's overthrow. Over the past year, Khartoum has won removal from the U.S. state sponsors of terrorism (SST) list and is on course for relief of more than $50 billion in debt. At the same time, Hamas has lost a foreign base where members and supporters could live, raise money, and channel Iranian weapons and funds to the Gaza Strip, according to Sudanese and Palestinian analysts.

Turkey, EU come together to enroll Syrian refugee students
Arab News/25 September 2021
ANKARA: Saleh is a 13-year-old Syrian refugee boy who has lived in the capital city Ankara for the past six years. “My favorite course is mathematics. When I first came to Turkey, I did not know Turkish and I could not communicate with anybody. My family had the cash transfer assistance from the EU and I began going to the school where I learned Turkish and began playing with my peers,” he told Arab News. Saleh spends his evenings reading books in Turkish so he can develop his language skills and prepare for the high school that he is planning to attend in Turkey. He is currently reading “Les Miserables” by French writer Victor Hugo. Saleh is also dreaming of becoming an artificial intelligence engineer. “Sometimes, I am subjected to peer bullying and social exclusion by people who do not know me at all,” Saleh said. “But my teacher warns such people and reminds them of the importance of cohesion. I also play chess at school, which helps me a lot in my social skills.”
He attends team activities and social projects that are organized by the UNICEF-supported Al-Farah Child and Family Support Center in Ankara. It is funded by the EU to provide services to refugee children and their families and help them meet their basic needs, including legal and social counseling along with psycho-social support. Turkey’s efforts to integrate nearly 700,000 Syrian refugee children into the education system have also been hailed by Brussels. The head of the EU delegation to Turkey, Nikolaus Meyer-Landrut, said it was a “huge and unique success story” during his speech on Sept. 21 at a school opening ceremony in the southeastern Gaziantep province. So far, the EU has provided financial assistance to nearly 400 schools across the country to support the training and employment of teachers as well as meet the operational costs. Brussels earmarked nearly 3 billion euros ($3.34 billion) to Turkey under the Facility for Refugees program and about one-third of those funds are mainly allocated to the educational projects that promote the integration of Syrian kids into the Turkish education system. The funds also go toward the construction and equipping of some 100 schools in provinces with a high concentration of Syrian refugees as well as cash transfers to families whose children regularly attend school.
Of the nearly 4 million Syrians under temporary protection in Turkey, 1.2 million are of school age. Experts underline the enrolment of Syrian refugee children as of key importance for the success of Turkey’s social cohesion and integration policies. Schools provide war-affected children with the opportunity of socialization with the wider community, give a sense of belonging, and enhance Turkish language competency to overcome language barriers. Basak Yavcan, a researcher on migration issues at the University of Liege and from TOBB University of Economics and Technology in Anakara, said refugees’ access to education has multiple benefits to both the refugee community and the hosting community. “First, school enrollment is a great beginning for an effective economic, social, and political integration,” she told Arab News. “It provides a career pathway, keeps kids off the streets, and promotes inter-group contact.”
According to Yavcan, education plays a crucial role in creating a middle class of migrants which is an engine for social integration. It increases the quality of intergroup conflict and creates role models for the immigrant community.
“By teaching the common history, values, rights, and the meaning of citizenship in a country, education also promotes political integration,” she said. “Finally, by equipping individuals with the skills needed in the labor market, education makes economic integration easy.”While access to education was initially a challenging area for Syrian refugees in Turkey, enrollment rates were low. Yavcan said enrollment rates started to improve after the easing of registration policies, introducing regular degree equivalency exams, and conditional cash transfers in return for enrolled kids in a household. Local outreach programs to convince Syrian parents, training in the educational system for multicultural classroom environments, catch-up programs for Syrian students, and free transportation facilities also helped. Last year, more than 600,000 Syrian children benefitted from the EU’s cash transfer program with the condition of continued enrollment. The COVID-19 pandemic affected school enrolment last year while experts also underline some remaining challenges that derive from the cultural and economic dynamics of Syrian families living in Turkey.
“With high child labor rates and low inclusion of Syrians in the labor market, sending kids to school has a considerable cost — and opportunity cost in the case of child labor — to Syrian families,” Yavcan said. “Cultural challenges exist mainly for secondary education where girls need to attend school in co-ed classes, an area of resistance for some Syrian families. “So more efforts are needed to improve the economic well-being of families, and to provide career pathways and opportunities for transition to jobs for Syrian pupils.”

Egyptian, Syrian FMs meet on UNGA sidelines
Arab News/25 September 2021
CAIRO: Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry met with his Syrian counterpart Faisal Mekdad on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly to discuss bilateral relations, regional issues of common interest, and ways to end the Syrian conflict. Mekdad stressed the importance of relations between the two countries — especially in light of the historical ties that unite them — and of mobilizing efforts to resolve the conflict while respecting Syria’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity. Egyptian MP Mustafa Bakri said: “This meeting reflects Egypt’s keenness on Syria, its security, stability and territorial integrity — a position that (Egyptian) President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi emphasized more than once as he demanded a halt to any interference in Syrian internal affairs.”Bakri added: “The meeting also confirms that relations between the two countries are moving forward.”Mekdad also met with his Jordanian and Somali counterparts, Ayman Safadi and Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, respectively.

UAE announces ministerial changes including finance, environment
Reuters/25 September 2021
United Arab Emirates Prime Minister and Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum announced ministerial changes on Saturday, including new finance and environment ministers. Sheikh Maktoum bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum -- Sheikh Mohammed's son and the current deputy ruler of Dubai -- has been appointed deputy prime minister and finance minister. Mohammed bin Hadi Al Husseini replaces long-serving Obaid Humaid Al Tayer as the Emirates' minister of state for finance, while Maryam Al Muhairi becomes the minister of climate change and environment. Suhail Mohamed Al Mazrouei remains energy minister, but also takes on the role of infrastucture minister reflecting the merger of both ministries. Sheikh Mohammed announced the reshuffle as part of a new government strategy aimed at expediting change through "transformational projects" in the Emirates. "The new strategy comes with the completion of our previous plan, UAE Vision 2021, through which we achieved all our ambitions in the past 10 years," he said on Twitter. The announcement comes as Gulf countries seek to secure investment and boost their international status as the importance of oil declines. The UAE recently announced plans to launch 50 new economic initiatives to boost the country's competitiveness and attract 550 billion dirhams ($150 billion) in foreign direct investment in the next nine years. The Gulf state has launched several measures over the past year to attract investment and foreigners to help the economy recover from the effects of the pandemic. The changes also come amid a growing economic rivalry with Gulf neighbor Saudi Arabia to be the region's trade and business hub.

Kuwait PM urges Iran to build trust in region
Arab News/25 September 2021
Sheikh Sabah Khaled Al-Hamad Al-Sabah said such steps will contribute to reducing tension in the region and building ties between the Gulf nations
WASHINGTON: The prime minister of Kuwait has called on Iran to take serious steps to build trust and start a serious dialogue in the Gulf region based on respect for the sovereignty of neighboring nations and non-interference. He said nations in the region must seek to protect maritime commerce and the free movement of goods and ships in the Arabian Gulf. Speaking during the 76th session of the UN General Assembly in New York, Sheikh Sabah Khaled Al-Hamad Al-Sabah said such steps will contribute to reducing tension in the region and building ties between the Gulf nations based on cooperation and mutual respect. “Such measures will reflect the desire of the people of the region to live in a safe, secure and prosperous condition,” he said. Alluding to the current tussle between Iran and the international community over its nuclear program, Al-Sabah said that the weakness of the anti-nuclear proliferation regime represented a “existential threat to the region.” In 2015, during the presidency of Barack Obama, Iran signed a nuclear agreement deal with the US, European countries, Russia and China. The deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), placed restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. In 2018 President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the agreement, claiming that the deal was not strict enough to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran is currently engaged with the US in talks over its nuclear program. Al-Sabah called for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction from the region and called on Iran to make the region a nuclear-free zone. On the issue of Yemen, which affects all nations of the Gulf region, including Kuwait, he praised Saudi Arabia’s efforts to end the conflict in Yemen, reiterating Kuwait’s call on all parties to negotiate an end to the civil war. He said a resolution of the conflict should be based on the Gulf initiative, a reconciliation conference between Yemeni groups and the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. He condemned the Houthi group for targeting Saudi territories with drone and missile attacks.
“We condemned all the attacks committed against the territories of Saudi Arabia,” he said. Yemen has been in a state of conflict since 2014, when the Houthi group took control of most of northern Yemen, including the capital, Sanaa. In 2015 a Saudi-led Arab coalition intervened to restore the legitimate government of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Al-Sabah stressed Kuwait's support for the Palestinian people and said his country stands behind the Palestinians in seeking the end of the Israeli occupation and the establishment of an independent Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital. He said his country rejected Israeli policies of building illegal settlements, confiscating land and besieging Gaza. He also expressed his support for efforts to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflicts in Syria and Libya and to bring security and stability to both countries. Referring to Kuwait’s success in vaccinating 72 percent of citizens and residents, Al-Sabah said COVID-19 must have been confronted by all nations of the world through cooperation to make different kinds of vaccines and making them available to all countries of the world.

U.S., Pakistan Face Each Other Again on Afghanistan Threats
Associated Press/September 25/2021
The Taliban's takeover of Kabul has deepened the mutual distrust between the U.S. and Pakistan, two putative allies who have tangled over Afghanistan. But both sides still need each other. With the Biden administration looking for new ways to stop terrorist threats in Afghanistan, it will likely look again to Pakistan, which remains critical to U.S. intelligence and national security because of its proximity to Afghanistan and connections to the Taliban leaders now in charge.
Over two decades of war, American officials accused Pakistan of playing a double game by promising to fight terrorism and cooperate with Washington while cultivating the Taliban and other extremist groups that attacked U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Islamabad, meanwhile, pointed to what it saw as failed promises of a supportive government in Kabul after the U.S. drove the Taliban from power following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as extremist groups took refuge in eastern Afghanistan and launched deadly attacks throughout Pakistan.
But the U.S. wants Pakistani cooperation in counterterrorism efforts and could seek permission to fly surveillance flights into Afghanistan or other intelligence cooperation. And Pakistan wants U.S. military aid and good relations with Washington, even as its leaders openly celebrate the Taliban's rise to power.
"Over the last 20 years, Pakistan has been vital for various logistics purposes for the U.S. military. What's really been troubling is that, unfortunately, there hasn't been a lot of trust," said U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. "I think the question is whether we can get over that history to arrive at a new understanding."
Former diplomats and intelligence officers from both countries say the possibilities for cooperation are severely limited by the events of the last two decades and Pakistan's enduring competition with India. The previous Afghan government, which was strongly backed by New Delhi, routinely accused Pakistan of harboring the Taliban. The new Taliban government includes officials that American officials have long believed are linked to Pakistan's spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence.
Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., said he understood "the temptation of officials in both countries to try and take advantage of the situation" and find common ground. But Haqqani said he expected Pakistan to give "all possible cooperation to the Taliban." "This has been a moment Pakistan has been waiting for 20 years," said Haqqani, now at the Hudson Institute think tank. "They now feel that they have a satellite state."
U.S. officials are trying to quickly build what President Joe Biden calls an "over the horizon" capacity to monitor and stop terrorist threats. Without a partner country bordering Afghanistan, the U.S. has to fly surveillance drones long distances, limiting the time they can be used to watch over targets. The U.S. also lost most of its network of informants and intelligence partners in the now-deposed Afghan government, making it critical to find common ground with other governments that have more resources in the country.
Pakistan could be helpful in that effort by allowing "overflight" rights for American spy planes from the Persian Gulf or permitting the U.S. to base surveillance or counterterrorism teams along its border with Afghanistan. There are few other options among Afghanistan's neighbors. Iran is a U.S. adversary. And Central Asian countries north of Afghanistan all face varying degrees of Russian influence. There are no known agreements so far. CIA Director William Burns visited Islamabad earlier this month to meet with Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, Pakistan's army chief, and Lt. Gen. Faiz Hameed, who leads the ISI, according to a Pakistani government statement. Burns and Hameed have also separately visited Kabul in recent weeks to meet with Taliban leaders. The CIA declined to comment on the visits. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi noted this week that Islamabad had cooperated with U.S. requests to facilitate peace talks before the Taliban takeover and that it had agreed to U.S. military requests throughout the war. "We have often been criticized for not doing enough," Qureshi told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "But we've not been appreciated enough for having done what was done."
Qureshi would not directly answer whether Pakistan would allow the basing of surveillance equipment or overflight of drones. "They don't have to be physically there to share intelligence," he said of the U.S. "There are smarter ways of doing it." The CIA and ISI have a long history in Afghanistan, dating back to their shared goal of arming bands of mujahedeen — "freedom fighters" — against the Soviet Union's occupation in the 1980s. The CIA sent weapons and money into Afghanistan through Pakistan.
Those fighters included Osama bin Laden. Others would become leaders of the Taliban, which emerged victorious from a civil war in 1996 and gained control of most of the country. The Taliban gave refuge to bin Laden and other leaders of al-Qaida, which launched deadly attacks on Americans abroad in 1998 and then struck the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.
After 9/11, the U.S. immediately sought Pakistan's cooperation in its fight against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. Declassified cables published by George Washington University's National Security Archive show officials in President George W. Bush's administration made several demands of Pakistan, from intercepting arms shipments heading to al-Qaida to providing the U.S. with intelligence and permission to fly military and intelligence planes over its territory.
The CIA would carry out hundreds of drone strikes launched from Pakistan targeting al-Qaida leaders and others alleged to have ties to terrorist groups. Hundreds of civilians died in the strikes, according to figures kept by outside observers, leading to widespread protests and public anger in Pakistan.
Pakistan, meanwhile, continued to be accused of harboring the Taliban after the U.S.-backed coalition drove the group from power in Kabul. And bin Laden was killed in 2011 by U.S. special forces in a secret raid on a compound in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, home to the country's military academy. The bin Laden operation led many in the U.S. to question whether Pakistan had harbored bin Laden and angered Pakistanis who felt the raid violated their sovereignty.
For years, CIA officials tried to confront their Pakistani counterparts after collecting more proof of Pakistani intelligence officers helping the Taliban move money and fighters into a then-growing insurgency in neighboring Afghanistan, said Douglas London, who oversaw the CIA's counterterrorism operations in South Asia until 2018. "They would say, 'You just come to my office, tell me where the location is,'" he said. "They would just usually pay lip service to us and say they couldn't confirm the intel." London, author of the forthcoming book "The Recruiter," said he expected American intelligence would consider limited partnerships with Pakistan on mutual enemies such as al-Qaeda or Islamic State-Khorasan, which took responsibility for the deadly suicide attack outside the Kabul airport last month during the final days of the U.S. evacuation.
The risk, London said, is at times "your partner is as much of a threat to you as the enemy who you're pursuing."

U.S. Booster Shots Start, Even as Millions Remain Unprotected
Associated Press/September 25/2021
The U.S. has launched a campaign to offer boosters of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine to millions of Americans even as federal health officials stressed the real problem remains getting first shots to the unvaccinated.
"We will not boost our way out of this pandemic," warned Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — even though she took the rare step of overruling the advice of her own expert panel to make more people eligible for the booster.
The vast majority of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated, Walensky noted. And all three COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. offer strong protection against severe illness, hospitalization and death despite the extra-contagious delta variant that caused cases to soar. But immunity against milder infection appears to wane months after initial vaccination.
People anxious for another Pfizer dose lost no time rolling up their sleeves after Walensky ruled late Thursday on who's eligible: Americans 65 and older and others vulnerable because of underlying health problems or where they work and live — once they're six months past their last dose.
Jen Peck, 52, of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, qualified because of her job as an education math and science consultant. She was vaccinated back in March but worries about unknowingly picking up and spreading an infection. She travels between rural schools where many students and teachers don't wear masks and the younger children can't yet be vaccinated. "I don't want to be COVID Mary carrying it around to buildings full of unvaccinated kiddos. I could not live with myself if I carried it from one building to another. That haunts me, the thought of that," said Peck, who got the extra shot first thing Friday morning.
Health officials must clear up confusion over who should get a booster, and why. For now, the booster campaign is what Walensky called "a first step." It only applies to people originally vaccinated with shots made by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech. Decisions on boosters for Americans who received Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are still to come. President Joe Biden said if you're vaccinated, "You're in good shape and we're doing everything we can to keep it that way, which is where the booster comes in." He urged those now eligible for an extra shot to "go get the booster," saying he'd get his own soon — and that everyone should be patient and wait their turn.
Exactly who should get a booster was a contentious decision as CDC advisers spent two days poring over the evidence. Walensky endorsed most of their choices: People 65 and older, nursing home residents and those ages 50 to 64 who have chronic health problems such as diabetes should be offered one once they're six months past their last Pfizer dose. Those 18 and older with health problems can decide for themselves if they want a booster. But in an extremely unusual move, Walensky overruled her advisers' objections and decided an additional broad swath of the population also qualifies: People at increased risk of infection — not serious illness — because of their jobs or their living conditions. That includes health care workers, teachers and people in jails or homeless shelters. "This was scientific close call," Walensky said Friday. "In that situation it was my call to make." Experts say it was only the second time since 2000 that a CDC director overruled its advisory panel. Health care workers can't come to work if they have even a mild infection and hospitals worried about staffing shortages welcomed that decision. But some of the CDC's advisers worry that offering boosters so broadly could backfire without better evidence that it really will make a difference beyond the most medically vulnerable. "My hope is that all of this confusion – or what may feel like confusion – doesn't send a message to the public that there is any problem with the vaccine," said Dr. Beth Bell, a University of Washington expert. "I want to make sure people understand these are fantastic vaccines and they work extremely well." Dr. Anthony Fauci, the U.S. government's top infectious disease specialist, cautioned against seeking a Pfizer booster before the recommended six-month mark. "You get much more of a bang out of the shot" by letting the immune system mature that long so it's prepared to rev up production of virus-fighting antibodies, he explained. The U.S. had already authorized third doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for certain people with weakened immune systems, such as cancer patients and transplant recipients. Other Americans, healthy or not, have managed to get boosters, in some cases simply by asking. About 182 million Americans are fully vaccinated, or just 55% of the total population. Three-quarters of those 12 and older — the ages eligible for vaccination — have had a first dose.

”Huawei executive leaves Canada, two Canadians freed in China
NNA/September 25/2021 
Meng Wanzhou, daughter of the boss of Huawei, was arrested on December 1, 2018, at the Vancouver airport, at the request of Washington, who wanted to try her for bank fraud. Shortly after, two Canadians, ex-diplomat Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor, were arrested in China for espionage, sparking an unprecedented diplomatic crisis between Ottawa and Beijing. Their detention had been viewed by Canada as a retaliatory measure. --- Good Word News

The Latest The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 25-26/2021
Afghanistan Shows Why the U.S. Still Needs NATO ---Our allies responded after 9/11, and many stayed with us throughout our two-decade mission.
Bradley Bowman and Jack Sullivan/The Dispatch/FDD/September 25/2021
A steel beam from the 107th floor of the World Trade Center’s North Tower stands on a pedestal, contorted from the impact of the airplane that crashed into it on September 11, 2001. Thousands walk past this memorial each day, reminded that terrorists murdered almost 3,000 innocent people 20 years ago this month. You might expect to see this somber display in New York City; Washington, D.C.; Shanksville, Pennsylvania; or perhaps somewhere else in the United States.
You won’t, however, find this particular memorial in the United States. It’s actually more than 3,000 miles from American shores—in Brussels, Belgium. Known as the 9/11 and Article 5 Memorial, it’s situated in Europe at the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
It’s become fashionable in some American political circles to reflexively bash allies, suggesting they’re freeloaders, more trouble than they’re worth. A review of NATO’s actions after 9/11, however, demonstrates that nothing could be further from the truth.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, from which the memorial derives its name, is the heart of the alliance’s collective-defense commitment. “An armed attack against one,” the treaty, signed in Washington, D.C., on April 4, 1949, declares, “shall be considered an attack against them all.”
After Europe generated two world wars in 25 years, NATO’s Article 5 commitment helped deter a Soviet invasion of any member state for four decades. That rightly earned NATO the reputation as one of the most successful collective-defense alliances in history. Indeed, Article 5 had never been invoked by the alliance—until 9/11. Yet, less than 24 hours after the worst terror attack in American history, that is exactly what NATO did.
Terrorists did not attack Europe on 9/11; they attacked America. Yet our NATO allies stepped forward and honored their collective-defense commitment to the United States. Lest anyone think otherwise, the Article 5 invocation was anything but an empty diplomatic maneuver. Our NATO allies demonstrated with their actions that they stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us.
On October 7, 2001, when then-President George W. Bush announced that the United States had initiated strikes against al-Qaeda and Taliban sites in Afghanistan, the United Kingdom conducted strikes too, with France, Germany, Canada, and others providing support.
One month after the attack, at Washington’s request, NATO deployed five airborne early warning and control (AWAC) aircraft and several hundred personnel to the United States to monitor any potential new airborne threats to our country. That enabled U.S. AWACs to “deploy elsewhere,” as the State Department noted.
In March 2002, special operations personnel from Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, as well as other NATO and allied countries supported the U.S.- and Afghan-led Operation Anaconda in the Shah-i-Khot Valley.
Following this immediate support in the months after 9/11, help from NATO allies did not wane or dissipate as one might have predicted. Instead, that NATO support increased dramatically.
During the last 20 years, roughly 300,000 non-U.S. NATO troops served in Afghanistan, representing every NATO member country. At one point in 2011, more than 38,000 non-U.S. NATO troops were in Afghanistan. Most significantly, more than 1,000 non-U.S. NATO service members paid the ultimate price in Afghanistan, never returning home to their families.
Despite these extraordinary sacrifices and consistent signaling from Washington that the United States wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan, NATO and many NATO member countries stuck with the United States until the American military left. When President Joe Biden announced his decision to withdraw all U.S. forces on April 14, 2021, more than 6,000 non-U.S. NATO troops were still serving in Afghanistan, including approximately 1,300 from Germany. That total number of non-U.S. NATO service members was roughly double the number of American service members serving in Afghanistan in April.
And some NATO allies remained to the last possible moment.
Amid the chaos of the evacuation at Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport, Norwegians ran the field hospital used to treat the 13 Americans killed in a suicide bombing on August 26. As late as August 17, nearly 800 NATO civilian personnel remained in Afghanistan for essential tasks, including air traffic control, logistics, communications, and security during the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
None of this, of course, is to suggest that NATO is without flaws and challenges.
To be certain, many NATO allies still do not carry their fair share of the defense burden. While NATO defense spending has increased significantly since 2015, 19 of America’s 29 NATO allies still do not meet the NATO guideline of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense.
Germany’s Nord Stream II pipeline with Russia is deeply unhelpful. France frequently takes steps that undermine NATO. And Turkey’s acquisition of the S-400 surface-to-air missile system from Russia is hardly the behavior one can reasonably expect from an ally.
Despite these and other genuine challenges within the alliance, in America’s moment of need after 9/11, our NATO allies were there for us. They made a commitment to collective defense, and their word was good. In Afghanistan, they backed up their Article 5 commitment with courage, consistent action, and sacrifice.
As the preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty makes clear, NATO is an alliance focused on safeguarding “democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law”—none of which are self-sustaining. In fact, China and Russia—whom the U.S. intelligence community assesses are more aligned with one another than they have been since the 1950s—represent an increasingly formidable authoritarian threat to the democratic principles that the transatlantic alliance cherishes.
Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin would like nothing more than a divided and weak NATO lacking the political will, alliance unity, and military capability necessary to defend our national security interests and democratic principles.
If we want to extend to our children the freedom, prosperity, and security we have enjoyed, leaders and citizens in NATO member countries should spend more time building a unified and capable NATO alliance and less time engaging in internecine sniping that we will come to regret.
*Bradley Bowman serves as senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Jack Sullivan is a research associate. Follow Bradley on Twitter @Brad_L_Bowman. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

The Bizarre Positive Biden Spin on Afghanistan ...No, the Taliban are not America’s partners
Jonathan Schanzer/FDD/September 25/2021
The disastrous American military withdrawal from Afghanistan is complete. After a deadly ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K) attack that killed 13 American servicemen, in the wake of a lightning Taliban offensive that left the country firmly in the hands of al-Qaeda’s long-standing ally, and amid the fallout from a half-baked evacuation effort that still left Americans stranded, the White House has worked feverishly to recast it all as a hard-fought success in the struggle to end America’s longest war.
The White House spin is absurd, verging on the insane. The Taliban are back in control, with the help of al-Qaeda and other extremist groups. They have captured billions of dollars’ worth of high-tech American hardware. And they have reversed two decades of U.S. military, counterinsurgency, and state-building efforts that cost the American taxpayer hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars, not to mention thousands of lives.
Moreover, after years of sustained American efforts to beat back jihadism across the Middle East, the virulent ideology of militant Islam and its practitioners is finding inspiration in the American defeat—much as it did in the mujahideen defeat of the Soviet army in 1989. That moment gave rise to a generation of international jihadists that was harnessed by Osama bin Laden and that ultimately led to the creation of al-Qaeda.
Worse, America’s ability to project power in South Asia is severely diminished. This will yield opportunities for China, Russia, and even Iran to fill the vacuum. The U.S. military could have maintained a small footprint in Afghanistan with minimal risk. Instead, our elected leaders fell prey to a false binary, promoted by neo-isolationists in recent years, that America either had to fight a “forever war” or quit the theater.
Remarkably, the Biden administration refuses to acknowledge any of this. Officials are doubling down on the narrative that “adults are back in charge” at the White House. Worse, the administration is peddling the abjectly false and Orwellian narrative that the Taliban are pragmatic actors, or even partners, with whom the United States is able to work to achieve common interests. Such depraved thinking cannot go unaddressed.
On August 17, 2021, during the bungled American pullout, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told journalists at the White House that American officials were “in contact with the Taliban to ensure the safe passage of people to the airport. We are monitoring for any potential terrorist threats… including from ISIS-K.” In saying this, Sullivan conveyed the deranged notion that the Taliban, a terrorist group that partners with al-Qaeda and seeks the destruction of the American-led world order, were U.S. partners in the U.S. pullout.
Similarly, as plans took shape for a final military withdrawal in late August, Secretary of State Antony Blinken conveyed to the American people that the White House had placed its trust in the Taliban. He stated that America aimed to “incentivize the Taliban to make good on its commitments,” and that “if the Taliban is serious about the commitments that it’s repeatedly made in public, including nationally across the country, as well as in private, commitments that the international community intends to hold the Taliban to, then we’ll find ways to do it.”
This was preposterous to anyone even vaguely familiar with the Taliban’s history of extremism and violence. Yet Blinken doubled down, citing “expectations of the Taliban going forward if they’re going to have any kind of relationship with the rest of the world, starting with freedom of travel but then going on to making sure that they’re sustaining the basic rights of their people, including women and girls; making sure that they’re making good on commitments they’ve repeatedly made on counterterrorism; and having some inclusivity in governance.”
The Taliban never cared about “making good” with the international community. As my colleague Thomas Joscelyn has pointed out, the Taliban rejected more than 30 demands by the U.S. and the United Nations to turn over Osama bin Laden over the years. After al-Qaeda perpetrated the deadly U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1988, the Taliban’s foreign minister vowed to “never give up Osama at any price.” Mullah Omar, the Taliban’s founder, refused to turn over bin Laden even after 9/11.
Nor is this ancient history. The Taliban and al-Qaeda continue to cooperate closely to this day. In 2020, for example, a United Nations report established that the Taliban “regularly consulted with al-Qaeda during negotiations with the United States and offered guarantees that it would honor their historical ties.” Earlier this year, the Defense Intelligence Agency also reported that the Taliban remained close with al-Qaeda and was planning large-scale offensives once the United States withdrew. Their joint targets: “population centers and Afghan government installations.”
It appears that General Frank McKenzie, commander of U.S. Central Command, and Rear Admiral Peter Vasely, head of U.S. forces on the ground in Afghanistan, did not heed the DIA report. Both referred to the Taliban as “our Afghan partners,” Politico reported in August. This may explain why they committed the grievous error of removing American military assets before evacuating diplomats, U.S. civilians, and Afghan allies. Indeed, there was no military cover for the civilian retreat. So when the Taliban predictably mounted their offensive and retook the country, Washington could not offer any protection to the civilians seeking to flee. The result was bedlam, leading to an ad hoc effort to evacuate thousands of people left stranded.
Adding insult to injury, when the American military withdrawal was complete, al-Qaeda released a two-page statement congratulating the Taliban on their victory. Moreover, Al Arabiya reported that al-Qaeda forces joined with the Taliban to attack the Afghan resistance forces that had gathered in the province of Panjshir, northeast of Kabul. This only confirmed what should have been obvious to all from the start: The Taliban view al-Qaeda, not the United States, as a partner.
But the Biden administration didn’t stop with the ridiculous notion that the Taliban were partners. It soon embarked on a campaign to brand the jihadi faction as moderate—relative to ISIS-K. Never mind that, upon sacking the country, the Taliban, the more powerful of the two groups, had just released hundreds or even thousands of ISIS operatives from jail. President Joe Biden himself stated on August 20 that he wanted “to make everybody understand—that the ISIS in Afghanistan are the—have been the sworn enemy of the Taliban.”
Biden repeated this four days later, noting the risks of “attack by a terrorist group known as ISIS-K, an ISIS affiliate in Afghanistan—which is the sworn enemy of the Taliban as well.”
Several media outlets soon regurgitated this bizarre line. Eric Schmidt of the New York Times wrote a head-spinning piece highlighting the threat from ISIS-K in Afghanistan, with the headline calling the group “a sworn enemy of both the Taliban and the United States.” Only later in the piece did Schmidt note that “ISIS-K has never been a major force in Afghanistan, much less globally.”
The truth is, while ISIS and the Taliban may have clashed, they have quite a lot in common. Their ideological underpinnings are virtually indistinguishable. They both seek to resurrect an Islamic caliphate. They both wield Islam to justify their violence and brutality. Their antipathy for America and the West is a core driver of their recruitment efforts. But even more remarkable is how similarly they evolved.
In 2013, ISIS grew out of the civil war in Syria. It rapidly conquered territory and laid waste to its enemies. The group was led by a fanatic known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who imposed hudud penalties in which thieves were punished by amputation and adulterers were stoned. Western innovation was strictly prohibited.
In the mid-1990s, the Taliban emerged out of the civil war in Afghanistan. They, too, rapidly conquered territory and imposed strict Sharia law. The group was led by a fanatic known as Mullah Omar, who also imposed hudud penalties on transgressors. And the Taliban also banned music, games, and certain Western technology.
ISIS was ultimately vanquished by a U.S.-led military coalition in 2016. The Taliban were ultimately vanquished by a U.S.-led invasion in 2002. In neither case was either group completely eradicated, however. They both fled to safer jurisdictions and regrouped.
In the Syrian theater, al-Qaeda and ISIS clashed and competed. This is the dynamic that the Biden administration seeks to exploit in its Afghanistan spin. In Syria, the Islamic State refused to recognize al-Qaeda’s authority. But it went a bit further than that. Al-Qaeda grew uncomfortable with the way in which ISIS had alienated the Muslim world with its brutality and nonchalant approach to killing. In 2014, al-Qaeda disavowed ISIS. Then, in 2016, al-Qaeda’s franchise in Syria—the violent jihadi group known as the Nusra Front and later Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)—disassociated itself from the broader al-Qaeda network. Analysts increasingly began to describe HTS as “moderate” compared to ISIS.
This should all sound somewhat familiar. However, even then, it was a long throw from third. Describing the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda as “moderate,” even in relation to ISIS, deliberately ignores the franchise’s long-standing ties to the broader jihadi matrix. It further ignores the group’s horrifying track record, including suicide bombings and the slaughter of Western-backed rebels fighting the Assad regime.
It is said that success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. Not so in this case. The effort to rebrand the Taliban as “moderate” tracks back more than a decade. It could not have happened without the help of the Obama administration. That said, the Trump administration deserves its fair share of the blame.
In June 2010, President Barack Obama called the Taliban “a blend of hard-core ideologues, tribal leaders, kids that basically sign up because it’s the best job available to them. Not all of them are going to be thinking the same way about the Afghan government, about the future of Afghanistan.” Then-Vice President Biden in 2011 stated that the U.S. military was “breaking the momentum of the insurgents and the radicalized portion of the Taliban” (emphasis added). Biden claimed that same year that “the Taliban, per se, is not our enemy.” Thus began the Obama administration’s search for the “moderates” within one of the world’s deadliest terrorist organizations.
Discussions began in 2011 between the tiny but wealthy Persian Gulf nation of Qatar and the Taliban, with the notion that eventually the latter would open an embassy in Doha. By 2013, the Taliban created an official office there, with the full backing of Washington. The following year, the Obama administration authorized the release from Guantanamo of the “Taliban Five”—senior Taliban figures with a history of violence against the United States and known ties to al-Qaeda—in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, an American captured by the Taliban after (deliberately) wandering off his base. The Taliban detainees were sent to Qatar, where officials promised to monitor their activities.
This was akin to having a fox guard the henhouse. Persistent reports indicated that Qatar had been supporting and financing a range of Islamist terrorist groups. Nevertheless, Washington continued to encourage Qatar to take the lead in political negotiations over the future of the Taliban in Afghanistan. As the United States looked to exit Afghanistan, the Obama administration was angling for a diplomatic arrangement to provide cover for doing so. Qatar, warts and all, was America’s proxy negotiator.
In a strange turn of events, after Obama left the White House in 2016, the Trump administration sustained this effort. It did so even as the Taliban Five joined the Taliban’s negotiating team, reportedly at Doha’s urging. By 2019, the U.S. had concluded nine rounds of negotiations in Qatar. The process was gaining steam.
In 2020, President Donald Trump publicly implied that the Taliban could soon be ready to take responsibility for Afghanistan’s security. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asserted that the Taliban had agreed to “break” their “relationship” with al-Qaeda and to “work alongside of us to destroy, deny resources” to al-Qaeda and to “have al-Qaeda depart from” Afghanistan. He later stated that the White House expected “the Taliban to honor their commitments to make a clean break from all terrorist organizations.” There was even talk about inviting the Taliban for talks at Camp David.
What was strange about all of these overtures and statements (apart from the fact that they were not grounded in reality) was that Trump had pilloried the Obama administration for insisting that engagement with the Islamic Republic of Iran would sideline “the hardliners” and empower “the moderates.” But then he turned around and took a page from the Obama handbook. He pursued diplomacy with the Taliban, sworn enemies of America, even as he derided a similar process with Iran.
The Trump team never presided over a military withdrawal, however. That was Biden’s ill-fated decision. One can only speculate as to what Trump would have done had he gone on to serve a second term—but there can be no doubt that he set in motion the process of ceding Afghanistan to the Taliban, agreeing to a withdrawal deal on February 29, 2020, and then drawing down troops. This provided the Taliban with a timeline for their military offensive to reconquer the country.
In January 2021, the Trump team handed the baton to the Biden administration. Despite wholesale changes in policy and personnel, Biden retained Trump’s appointed U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, who had played a crucial role in working with the Qataris. Khalilzad kept the ill-fated dialogue alive with the Taliban while promoting the fiction that this was a pragmatic group that could work with Washington. In May, he even slammed projections that the Taliban might overrun Kabul after the American departure as “mistaken.” He insisted that the Taliban “seek normalcy in terms of relations—acceptability, removal from sanctions, not to remain a pariah.” So much for that.
The United States has not just lost America’s longest war in a spectacularly embarrassing fashion. It has lost the narrative. The facts speak for themselves. The Taliban are not partners. They are not friends. And they are not moderate. Al-Qaeda has helped to make that abundantly clear in recent weeks. As Joscelyn noted in the Long War Journal, al-Qaeda’s senior leadership has gloated about the Taliban’s return to power, praising it as a “historic victory” and calling upon Muslims worldwide to support the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.”
Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of the entire al-Qaeda network, has further sworn an oath of allegiance to the Taliban’s emir, Hibatullah Akhundzada. This should come as no surprise, of course. Al-Qaeda’s leader has maintained an oath of loyalty to the Taliban’s emir for more than two decades. But this history only underscores the absurdity of the Biden administration’s claims.
In 2014, al-Qaeda announced a new franchise: al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent. It was deliberately created to support the Taliban. In the meantime, other al-Qaeda affiliates, such as Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan, have long operated in areas of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban, suggesting a modus vivendi, at minimum. My colleague Bill Roggio continues to track the presence of al-Qaeda throughout Afghanistan. It was significant before the pullout (Roggio predicted for that reason, among others, that the U.S. withdrawal would be a disaster). The al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, now that America is gone, is only likely to grow.
The glue that binds it all together is the Haqqani network, a terrorist group that is both one of al-Qaeda’s closest allies and also an integral component of the Taliban’s network. The Taliban’s new interior minister, Sirajuddin Haqqani, embodies this relationship. He has served as the Taliban’s deputy emir since 2015, while a recent UN report identified him as a member of the “wider al-Qaeda leadership.
The Taliban’s strong ties to al-Qaeda only reinforce the fact that the group has not grown more moderate or pragmatic in recent years. But one need not look to al-Qaeda for evidence of this. The group recently released propaganda venerating its “suicide squads.” In the same video, the Taliban blamed American “policy” for the attacks of 9/11—attacks they have never attributed to al-Qaeda.
In perhaps the clearest sign of what is to come, the Taliban have now formed a new government, and there’s nothing moderate about it. Many of the cabinet ministers have been sanctioned by the U.S. and the UN for terrorism. Several were Guantanamo Bay detainees. Two of them appear on the State Department’s Rewards for Justice program, whereby the U.S. government offers millions of dollars for information that could lead to their kill or capture.
In late August, in the wake of the televised horrors out of Kabul, President Biden continued to appeal to the Taliban to help facilitate the departure of stranded American citizens and others from the country. Out of sheer desperation, he tried to wield the “power” of the United Nations. A recent UN resolution “sent a clear message about what the international community expects the Taliban to deliver on moving forward, notably freedom of travel, freedom to leave,” Biden said in a televised speech. “And together, we are joined by over 100 countries that are determined to make sure the Taliban upholds those commitments.”
The UN likely had little to do with what came next. The Taliban ultimately granted the U.S. and others permission to facilitate a number of evacuation flights. This was by no means a collaboration or a nod to a budding relationship with Washington. It was a tactical consideration in the group’s longer-term objective of reconquering Afghanistan. Mission accomplished.
**Jonathan Schanzer is senior vice president for research at Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Follow him on Twitter @JSchanzer. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, non-partisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

ماجد رفي زاده/معهد جيتستون/ بفضل إدارة بايدن تم تقوية وتمكين ملالي إيران وطالبان
Thanks to Biden Administration, Iran Mullahs and Taliban Empowered
Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone Institute/September 25/2021
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/102727/majid-rafizadeh-gatestone-institute-thanks-to-biden-administration-iran-mullahs-and-taliban-empowered-%d9%85%d8%a7%d8%ac%d8%af-%d8%b1%d9%81%d9%8a-%d8%b2%d8%a7%d8%af%d9%87-%d9%85%d8%b9%d9%87%d8%af/
Not only did the Biden administration – whose sole purpose in Afghanistan was to prevent another "9/11 attack" – hand the Taliban and the mullahs of Iran a major political and strategic victory, it also rewarded them with sophisticated, state-of-the-art US weapons worth $85 billion – courtesy of American taxpayers -- which these terrorists will undoubtedly use to launch an even more deadly "9/11 attack" to kill American taxpayers.
The US withdrawal to the Taliban was so poorly planned that the Biden administration actually delivered seven brand new helicopters to Afghanistan just a month before announcing that it would be withdrawing from the country.
It is mind-boggling that the Biden administration announced its withdrawal from Afghanistan without any plans either to secure billions of dollars of US military equipment, but made not the slightest effort to recover or destroy it.
The Taliban and the Iranian regime now are not only able to unleash US-made weapons against the US and its allies, but Iran, Russia and China can also utilize this military equipment for research, reverse engineering, reproducing and selling it.
The Biden administration's poorly planned surrender to Afghanistan has been causing tragedy and disaster one after another, all while empowering the Taliban and the mullahs of Iran. The Iranian leaders have close ties to Taliban; both share a deep hatred towards the United States and Israel. Iran, as well as Pakistan, has also long provided shelter to Taliban leaders. Pictured: Iran's then Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (right) hosts Taliban co-founder Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar (center-left) in Tehran, Iran on January 31, 2021. (Photo by Tasnim News/AFP via Getty Images)
The Biden administration's poorly planned surrender to Afghanistan has been causing tragedy and disaster one after another, all while empowering the Taliban and the mullahs of Iran.
The Iranian leaders have close ties to Taliban; both share a deep hatred towards the United States and Israel. Iran, as well as Pakistan, has also long provided shelter to Taliban leaders.
Iranian leaders have therefore applauded Biden administration's decision to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan. Former Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif characterized the US withdrawal as a positive action, while President Ebrahim Raisi described it as a defeat for Washington's Middle East policy that "must become an opportunity to restore security in Afghanistan." The Iranian regime had evidently been preparing for a Taliban takeover and meeting with Taliban leaders. In January 2021, a delegation from the Taliban had already been publicly consulting with senior Iranian officials, including then Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. According to him, both parties held productive talks, and discussed their ties and the future of Afghanistan.
The Iranian regime also sees the Taliban's takeover as an opportunity to shelter terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda who also hold a deep hatred towards the United States and Israel. While the Taliban was in power, the mullahs of Iran had close connections to Al Qaeda. A trove of 470,000 documents released by the CIA in late 2017 point to warm ties between the Iranian regime and Al-Qaeda. Its former leader, Osama bin Laden, advised his followers to respect the Iranian regime and wrote that Iran was the organization's "main artery for funds, personnel and communication."
Iran was implicated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks:
"In Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al., Judge Daniels held that the Islamic Republic of Iran, its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Iran's agencies and instrumentalities, including, among others, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps ('IRGC'), the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security ('MOIS'), and Iran's terrorist proxy Hezbollah, all materially aided and supported al Qaeda before and after 9/11."
Iran had allowed Al-Qaeda operatives to travel throughout the country without visas or passports. Robust evidence, along with a US federal court ruling, suggests that "Iran furnished material and direct support for the 9/11 terrorists." Eight of the hijackers passed through Iran before coming to the US. Tehran provided funding, logistical support and ammunition to Al-Qaeda leaders, and sheltered several of them, in exchange for attacks on US interests.
Not only did the Biden administration – whose sole purpose in Afghanistan was to prevent another "9/11 attack" – hand the Taliban and the mullahs of Iran a major political and strategic victory, it also rewarded them with sophisticated, state-of-the-art US weapons worth $85 billion – courtesy of American taxpayers – which these terrorists will undoubtedly use to launch an even more deadly "9/11 attack" to kill American taxpayers.
"Planes, guns, night-vision goggles: The Taliban's new U.S.-made war chest", Reuters wrote. The Taliban is now armed with more than 2,000 armored vehicles, including Humvees, and up to 40 aircraft, possibly including UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters, and ScanEagle military drones.
The US withdrawal to the Taliban was so poorly planned that the Biden administration actually delivered seven brand new helicopters to Afghanistan just a month before announcing that it would be withdrawing from the country. "They'll continue to see a steady drumbeat of that kind of support, going forward," U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said to reporters a few days later, after the delivery of the helicopters. A few weeks later, Taliban took control of the US military equipment.
It is mind-boggling that the Biden administration announced its withdrawal from Afghanistan without any plans either to secure billions of dollars of US military equipment, but made not the slightest effort to recover or destroy it.
This military equipment -- paid for with taxes that we pay and amounting to "85 per cent of all the military aid Washington has given Israel since 1948" -- has now fallen into the hands of Taliban, and at least some has been transported to Iran.
Kian Sharifi, a BBC journalist, posted in a tweet:
"An Iranian Telegram channel that covers military stories has released these 'exclusive' images that purportedly show humvees and other military vehicles spotted on the Semnan-Garmsar road in #Iran. What I am certain of is that those are humvees and that is an Iranian road".
As noted by GOP lawmakers in a letter spearheaded by Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.):
"It is unconscionable that high-tech military equipment paid for by U.S. taxpayers has fallen into the hands of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Securing U.S. assets should have been among the top priorities for the U.S. Department of Defense prior to announcing the withdrawal from Afghanistan."
Former President Donald Trump accurately pointed out:
"Never in history has a withdrawal from war been handled so badly or incompetently as the Biden Administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan. In addition to the obvious, ALL EQUIPMENT should be demanded to be immediately returned to the United States, and that includes every penny of the $85 billion dollars in cost. If it is not handed back, we should either go in with unequivocal Military force and get it, or at least bomb the hell out of it. Nobody ever thought such stupidity, as this feeble-brained withdrawal, was possible!"
The Taliban and the Iranian regime now are not only able to unleash US-made weapons against the US and its allies, but Iran, Russia and China can also utilize this military equipment for research, reverse engineering, reproducing and selling it.
Representative Michael McCaul, the ranking Republican on the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, emailed Reuters, writing:
"We have already seen Taliban fighters armed with U.S.-made weapons they seized from the Afghan forces. This poses a significant threat to the United States and our allies."
Lawmakers and Americans need to pressure the Biden administration and demand that they recover or destroy as much of the abandoned equipment as soon as possible. Last week, James Comer (Ky.) and Rep. Glenn Grothman (Wis.) — both members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee — sent a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stating
"We are left wondering if the Biden Administration has a plan to prevent the Taliban from using our weapons against the U.S. or its allies, or selling them to foreign adversaries, like China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea."
Apparently not.
*Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu
© 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.

The neo-Taliban and the super-jihadi state
Walid Phares/Sunday Guardian Live/September 25/2021
Afghanistan will become the top jihadi state in the world. Al Qaeda, Haqqani, and even ISIS will eventually be incorporated in its power. Intra jihadi deals will be cut, even if occasionally skirmishes and power struggles take place.
The shock left by the reckless withdrawal from Afghanistan ordered by the Biden administration has had significant dramatic consequences among the Afghan population, particularly its women, youth and minorities. The bloody repression waged by the jihadi militia targeting service members, journalists, civil society activists, and ethnic communities across the country is only the beginning of what could become a decades-long saga for a nation that has already suffered more than a half century of tragic wars. But this catastrophic surrender of an ally country to a terror army also leaves a deep impact in the hearts and minds of most American citizens. They wonder how it was possible that their government first negotiated with a jihadi terror network—and before it reforms and renounces violence! How was it possible to engage with them in Doha without the participation of the duly democratically elected government? And how is it even conceivable that a US administration practically coordinated and collaborated with the Taliban takeover of the presidency, parliament, ministries and armed forces installations with $80 billion worth of American made weapons and equipment? The sheer size of this reckless and suicidal act of collaboration with jihadi terrorists goes against everything the United States stands for and has fought against since 9/11. How did Washington sink to this low?
AMERICAN CONSENSUS
After 9/11, a bipartisan national consensus was built in the US about a sustained strategic response to the mass jihadi terror executed by Al Qaeda in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania, killing about 3,000 people. The gist of that consensus was to remove the Taliban regime, dismantle Al Qaeda and, as importantly, empower the Afghan people, government and army to build and defend their nascent democracy against jihadi militias of all types. This was confirmed by the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission in 2004. The US national security doctrine since was focused on striking Al Qaeda, not just in Afghanistan, but also around the region and the world. The jihadi terror group had repeatedly taken aggression against the US homeland with about 50 planned attacks, some bloody, and by striking democracies and Western allies around the world, from Spain to the UK, Russia, France, India, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and many others. The US strategic goals aimed at keeping the Taliban guerilla at bay in Afghanistan until two conditions were met: The establishment of an Afghan army capable of leading the fight with ally support, and counter-radicalization efforts to remove extremist material from the educational system and assist in the rise of civil society forces. That was the goal.
THE BUSH CAMPAIGN AGAINST TERROR
The Bush administration, which was in charge during the attacks and the years that followed, removed the Taliban from power, followed Al Qaeda to Tora Bora and waged counterterrorism campaigns against affiliates on four continents. Furthermore, the US engaged in a mass reconstruction of Afghanistan, mimicking the Marshall plan after WWII, and attempted to strengthen democratic institutions in that country. The early stage of elections and counter extremist efforts peaked between 2002 and 2006. However, after the defeat of the Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections and the rise of a more radical majority in both Houses, the Bush administration was delayed, paralyzed and blocked from resuming its counter jihadi strategies in Afghanistan. Afghan democracy was launched, but its support from Washington dwindled.
THE OBAMA AGENDA
With the election of Barack Hussein Obama as President in 2008, a massive change in US foreign policy was felt across the Middle East. Obama signalled his tilt towards collaborating with the Islamists, starting with an historic speech delivered at the Cairo University in June 2009, where the fight against Islamist ideology was replaced with partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood. Since then, US bureaucracies shifted from campaigning against Islamic fundamentalists to campaigning with them in preparing for their return or arrival to power across the Greater Middle East. This was the case during the so-called Arab Spring of 2011, with clear Obama support to the Ikhwan in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and beyond. His administration, when they pulled out from Iraq prompting the pro-Iranian militias to return, had to face the blitz of an ISIS Caliphate that rose in reaction to the post-withdrawal militia takeover. Thus, after Iraq, the Obama administration had to postpone a deal with the Taliban that was to be the basis for a pull-out from Afghanistan. In 2014, Washington had to take down ISIS in Iraq and Syria before offering Afghanistan to the Taliban, an impossible equation to impose on the American public. Besides, the Obama team was focusing on the Iran deal talks and wanted to achieve that deal first, before entering the fray of a Taliban Deal.
THE TRUMP SHORT TERM
The Trump campaign committed to crush ISIS, push back against the Taliban and counter the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. Once in the White House, the Trump team delivered on ending geographical Daesh control and kept the support going for the US mission in Afghanistan. But after the 2018 midterms, when the Democratic opposition seized the congressional majority again, plans for Afghanistan changed again. The Trump administration decided to engage in talks with the Islamist militia under Qatar’s mediation, but the “deal” that was reached (which I did criticize then) at least put draconian conditions on a return of the Taliban to Kabul. The latter had to engage in dialogue with the elected government, eventually disarm, integrate the armed forces, and form a national unity government with the other political parties. Perhaps the Trump plan was to defend the slogan of “ending wars” and then adopt a tougher stance with the Taliban after re-election. But after “difficult elections,” it was a Biden administration that decided the future of Afghanistan.
BIDEN CATASTROPHE IN AFGHANISTAN
Within just a couple months after inauguration, the old Obama plans were reactivated, and the Taliban Deal signed by the Trump administration was remodelled into a new deal, accepting Taliban control of the country and government in exchange for change of policy by the jihadi militia. Either this was sheer naivete on behalf of Washington or it was part of the Obama vision of collaboration with the Islamists who would be in charge in the Muslim world. Both realities are catastrophic. And so it was on the ground. The Biden administration met with the Taliban in Doha and announced them as its new partners and the leaders of the new government in Kabul. In addition, the White House was adamant in refusing any military support to the Afghani military when attacked by Taliban and jihadi militias. That, by itself, signalled to the Afghan state that America had shifted alliance from the democratically elected government and parliament of Afghanistan to the jihadi forces it fought for twenty years. Without air support, and more importantly the imposing voice of America in the regional and international arena, the battle was lost for the Afghan state, already undermined by corruption yet willing to fight nevertheless. The Taliban invaded the country, the army crumbled, and many fled into exodus.
THE NEW JIHADI STATE
The neo-Taliban, as radical as before but using modern propaganda techniques from their political operation in Doha, are obliterating their opposition in Afghanistan via assassinations, executions, and fighting the last free enclave in the Panjshir valley. They immediately went back to their old ways of oppressing women, youth and minorities. But two differences play to their advantage. One, the US has withdrawn and the Biden administration is ready to enter political and financial partnership after some stabilization. Two, the Taliban seized $80 billion worth of US military equipment and arms, which they will use to fulfil their agenda. So, what is that agenda?
First, fully crushing the domestic opposition, seizing the border, and opening their regime to jihadists from around the world. Afghanistan will become the top jihadi state in the world. Al Qaeda, Haqqani, and even ISIS will eventually be incorporated in its power. Intra jihadi deals will be cut, even if occasionally skirmishes and power struggles take place.
The decision, by the Biden administration to go back to the original Obama plans to collaborate with the Islamists has gone too far, as this apparently assisted in the rise of a super “Islamic Emirate,” which will irreversibly become—as ISIS was—a building block for another jihadi Caliphate. The new regime will target Tajikistan and central Asia, India, the Arab Gulf, Egypt, Europe, and in the end will make the US suffer for having delayed the Islamists’ fantasy of a medieval Caliphate with modern weaponry.
*Dr Walid Phares is an American political scientist, author, and advisor. He served as foreign policy advisor to President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign and as senior national security advisor to Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2011 and 2012. He served Fox News and Fox Business as the network’s foreign policy and national security expert from 2007-2021 and frequently appears on national and international media. He is the Co-Secretary General of the Transatlantic Parliamentary Group, a transatlantic caucus of members of the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament, founded in 2008. The objective of the caucus is to assess international security threats, economic crises, and social issues and recommend strategies and policies to the government of the United States and governments of members of the European Union. Dr Phares briefs and testifies to U.S. Congress, the European Parliament and the United Nations Security Council on matters related to international security, democracy, and Middle East conflicts. He lectures at defence and national security institutions and serves as a consultant on international affairs in the private sector.

Vital weeks ahead for Afghanistan
Luke Coffey/Arab News/25 September 2021
More than a month after sweeping across Afghanistan, the Taliban now have the problem of governing, which they are quickly realizing is different from leading an insurgency. Food is in short supply and money is drying up. Members of the Daesh branch in Afghanistan have already conducted attacks against the Taliban. In addition to these problems, the Taliban have another thorn in their side: A new resistance movement called the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan, located in the Panjshir Valley. While the odds are stacked against it, its situation is still interesting enough for global policymakers to watch.
The Panjshir Valley is a predominantly ethnic Tajik region located 100 km northeast of Kabul and is famous for its ability to resist outside aggression. It is strategically located in Afghanistan and is easily defended thanks to its unforgiving mountain terrain and valleys. During the 1980s, Soviet forces failed in numerous attempts to capture Panjshir. Although they would often capture much of the main valley and its villages, they always failed to capture the side valleys, which sheltered the resistance.
In the 1990s, after the Taliban first swept into Kandahar and Kabul, the main resistance movement also began in the Panjshir Valley. The leader of this resistance, Ahmad Shah Massoud, famously stated: “I will resist even if the last region left is the size of my hat.” Massoud was assassinated by Al-Qaeda two days before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America. Today, the late Massoud’s 32-year-old son, Ahmad Massoud, is leading the new anti-Taliban resistance from Panjshir. He has a broad following because of his father’s legacy.
Exact information about the number of former Afghan soldiers, commandos and police that have made it to Panjshir to join the NRF is unknown, but estimates claim the number is in the thousands. The status of the group’s ammunition stockpiles is unknown. While the Panjshir has plenty of water, food and other commodities may be in short supply. The Taliban has encircled the region and captured large sections of the main valley. Just like in Soviet times, the NRF controls all the side valleys, which are equal to about 60 percent of the province. The Taliban has blocked internet connectivity and mobile phone service, meaning that any information that makes its way out of Panjshir is limited and often skewed in favor of the Taliban.
Right now, the only resistance force is the NRF. The next few months will determine how viable a movement it will be.
While there has been no statement by the NRF outlining its short-term goals, by analyzing the current situation alongside the historical parallels to the 1990s, one can draw some conclusions. The first thing the NRF will want to do is survive until winter. Panjshiris are accustomed to winter and mountain warfare. Over the past two decades, the winter months in Afghanistan also coincided with an ebb in the fighting with the Taliban. The NRF probably suspects that, if it can make it through winter, it will have time to consolidate and grow and be better prepared to resist the Taliban in the spring.
If the opportunity presents itself, the NRF will likely try expanding its territorial control to the north in the Afghan provinces of Badakhshan, Takhar and possibly Baghlan. While the NRF’s military capabilities are limited, these three provinces are mainly populated by ethnic Tajik Afghans and are most likely to be sympathetic to the NRF. Critically, control of these provinces could create an important land bridge with Tajikistan. Of all the Central Asian countries, Tajikistan has been the most critical of the Taliban and the most supportive of the ethnic Tajik community in Afghanistan.
In the longer term, the NRF might try recapturing strategic locations such as the Salang Tunnel and Bagram Airfield. It is unlikely that it currently has the manpower or military capability to do this, but there is no doubt that this is an aspiration. The Panjshir Valley is close to the Salang Tunnel, which provides the main route through the Hindu Kush mountains that connect northern Afghanistan with the south. The capture of Bagram would serve both a symbolic and practical purpose — symbolic because Bagram was the center of gravity for US military operations in Afghanistan for two decades and practically because Bagram would give the NRF an airlink to the outside world.
The NRF faces a desperate situation against a determined and emboldened enemy. The NRF also feels abandoned by the international community, especially the US. The actions of the Biden administration have left few good policy options to pursue in Afghanistan. However, the most immediate thing the international community can do to help the NRF is refuse to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Considering the current makeup of the caretaker government, under these circumstances alone, it is inconceivable that the international community should recognize the Taliban.
It is not in the interest of the international community that the Taliban is in power. With the emergence of a resistance movement in Panjshir, and the Taliban in control of Kabul, Afghans and the international community have returned to a similar situation faced in the mid-1990s.
It is almost inevitable that other resistance movements will spring up across the parts of Afghanistan that the Taliban will have difficulty controlling and governing. Right now, the only resistance force is the NRF. The next few months will determine how viable a movement it will be.
*Luke Coffey is the director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @LukeDCoffey