LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
July 14/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.july14.18.htm

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

Pompeo prioritises ‘Iran threats’ in meeting with Saudi FM Al Jubeir
Meeting came ahead of a major Iran speech from the US secretary of state which he will deliver next week
Joyce Karam/The National/July 13/18
US secretary of state Mike Pompeo on Thursday made Iran his primary issue both in tweets criticising Tehran and in meetings he held in Brussels with Saudi foreign minister Adel Al Jubeir , Iraqi PM Haider Al Abadi, and members of the anti-ISIS coalition.
Mr Pompeo's meetings were on the margins of the NATO Summit in Brussels and were primarily with Middle East and European counterparts. In his meeting with Mr Jubeir, the US chief diplomat committed to “further deepening US-Saudi cooperation” and paid special emphasis to “address the full array of threats posed by Iran.”
In that context, and according to the US read-out of the meeting Mr Pompeo conveyed to Mr Jubeir president Donald Trump’s “desire to see the Gulf dispute [Qatar crisis] eased and eventually resolved.”
That goal of having “our Gulf partners … work together to promote regional security and stability, and stand against Iran’s destabilising activities.”
Four regional countries including Saudi Arabia have been boycotting Qatar since June of 2017 over accusations of supporting radical organisations, meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, and breaching the Riyadh agreement of 2013. Despite a request from the Quartet countries to Doha to downgrade its ties with Tehran, Qatar has moved closer to Iran in the last year, with increased business and diplomatic exchanges between the two.
Washington has been pushing in the last few months for a compromise to end the dispute in hopes of hosting the Gulf states at a Camp David summit this September. These efforts have stalled, however, given the growing differences between the parties.
On Yemen, Mr Pompeo and Mr Jubeir “agreed on the importance of all sides supporting the UN-led political process, facilitating critical humanitarian and commercial access, and working toward a comprehensive agreement to end the conflict.”
Iran was also on the agenda of Mr Pompeo’s meetings with EU high representative for foreign and security policy Federica Mogherini and with the anti-ISIS coalition.
Addressing the Europeans especially in the light of the latest attack plot by Iran that was foiled in Paris, Mr Pompeo tweeted:
“We ask our allies & partners to join our economic pressure campaign against #Iran’s regime. We must cut off all funding the regime uses to fund terrorism & proxy wars. There’s no telling when Iran may try to foment terrorism, violence & instability in one of our countries next.”
We ask our allies & partners to join our economic pressure campaign against #Iran’s regime. We must cut off all funding the regime uses to fund terrorism & proxy wars. There’s no telling when Iran may try to foment terrorism, violence & instability in one of our countries next.
He accused Iran of sending “weapons across the Middle East, in blatant violation of UN Security Council resolutions... It’s our responsibility to stop it.”
On Syria, Mr Pompeo said that the US along with the UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Jordan is reaffirming “support for the Syrian political process and our goals of removing Iran’s influence, defeating #ISIS, deterring chemical weapons use.”
In his meeting with Mr Abadi, he praised Baghdad’s counterterrorism efforts. He also commended “the robust cooperation occurring between the International Coalition and the Iraqi Security Forces, including the Peshmerga, in the continued battle against ISIS...and the military operations underway to protect Iraq’s borders and sovereignty.”
Following the contested elections in Iraq last May, Mr Pompeo noted “recent efforts to ensure the integrity of the parliamentary elections and encouraged the Prime Minister and all of Iraq’s leaders to work expeditiously towards a centrist government that expresses the will of all Iraqi people.”
The secretary of state will deliver remarks on Iran next Sunday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. The speech called “Supporting Iranian Voices” will be delivered after meeting members of the Iranian-American community in the United States. This would be Mr Pompeo’s second major speech on Iran since taking office in April.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/pompeo-prioritises-iran-threats-in-meeting-with-saudi-fm-al-jubeir-1.749845

Analysis/If Moscow's 'Deal of the Century' for Iran Works, Both Damascus and Jerusalem Will Smile
زفي بارل من الهآررتس: في حال نجح اتفاق العصر المتعلق بإيران فإن دمشق والقدس سوف يبتسمان
Zvi Bar'el/Haaretz/July 13/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66016/zvi-barel-haaretz-if-moscows-deal-of-the-century-for-iran-works-both-damascus-and-jerusalem-will-smile-%D8%B2%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%84-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87/
Reports from Russia after Putin’s meeting with Netanyahu show that Russia indeed plans to act to withdraw the Iranian forces in exchange for an Israeli promise not to hurt Assad or his regime.
Ali Akbar Velayati, a former Iranian foreign minister, holds a special status. He’s Ali Khamenei’s secret envoy every time the supreme leader needs a particularly loyal person, one who is discrete, intelligent, conservative and who understands him. This week Khamenei sent Velayati to Moscow during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit, officially to talk to Russian President Vladimir Putin about “regional problems and the cooperation between Russia and Iran.”
Velayati, 73, who has served as foreign minister for more than 16 years under conservative and less conservative presidents, knows most of the world’s leaders well. With some of them he has proved he can be counted on when things get dicey. Like his involvement in Irangate in the 1980s. He is also suspected of planning, with Khamenei and others, the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994.
Velayati is extremely close to the cliques running Iran’s economy and the Revolutionary Guards. A pediatrician by profession, he specialized in the field at Johns Hopkins University and made a fortune off franchises to set up private hospitals in Iran. His name is on the board of directors of Iranian government institutions and companies that are knowledge- and capital-intensive.
In other, less sensitive circumstances, Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif would have been tasked with the mission to Moscow. But Zarif, who skillfully negotiated the nuclear agreement, doesn’t set strategy or dictate policy. He’s also President Hassan Rohani’s man and belongs to the reform camp. Now that Iran is facing fundamental decisions about its future, Velayati’s has been put into action.
He discussed two fundamental issues with the Russian leadership: the withdrawal of Iran’s forces from Syria, or at least much further from the Israeli border, and Trump’s sanctions on Iran. The two are connected. If Trump calls the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the “deal of the century,” then the agreement on Iran’s status is the most important “regional deal.”
The American sanctions are already having a dramatic effect on the Iranian economy. European companies have reduced or suspended their activity in Iran, container and shipping companies like the Danish conglomerate Maersk, which was joined this week by the giant French CMA CGM, the third largest in the world, are cutting off ties with Iran. India, South Korea and Japan said they’d reduce gas purchases from Iran, and European Union states, despairing of saving the nuclear agreement, haven’t succeeded in forging a united policy against the American sanctions.
In fact, even if they produce a plan that guarantees the large companies’ money, it won’t suffice to allay the companies’ fears of the American sanctions. Losing the oil markets in early November is Iran’s largest problem and if it thought its leaving the market would jack up oil prices, it found itself facing an unsentimental coalition in which Saudi Arabia and Russia are acting together. The first undertook to increase its oil production to compensate for the 2.5 million daily barrels Iran produces today, and Russia, which already signed oil deals with Saudi Arabia, said it would increase its amounts.
Velayati found himself in the embarrassing position of begging the Russian president for his country, while his host himself is preparing to ask Trump, at their summit in three days’ time, to lift the sanctions that were imposed on Russia following the war with Ukraine and the occupation of Crimea.
In these meetings, there are no free lunches. It’s not clear if Trump will agree to lift the sanctions on Russia, as Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United Arab Emirates are encouraging him to do, as the New Yorker reported. But if he does, he will demand that Russia push to withdraw the Iranian forces from Syria or at least move them beyond the 80-kilometer line from the Israeli border. The reports from Russia after Putin’s meeting with Netanyahu show that Russia indeed plans to act to withdraw the Iranian forces in exchange for an Israeli promise not to hurt Assad or his regime.
But publishing the Israeli agreement to the Russian condition isn’t a big deal. Despite the threats of some Israeli ministers to harm the Syrian regime, Israel is interested in Assad’s survival, in his full control of Syria and in resuming the 1974 separation agreements his father Hafez Assad signed. Israel objects to the entrance of Syrian forces to the Syrian Golan Heights to take over the remaining militias there, but will agree to Russian policing forces in the area until circumstances enable UN observers to return to the region.
Such an Israeli undertaking, which doesn’t cost Israel anything, may give Putin political ammunition when he persuades Iran to withdraw, but Israel is demanding more. According to Western diplomatic sources, Israel wants Russia to draft a strategic plan for after the war, which will prevent Syria from becoming a transit country for weapons between Iran and Hezbollah. Israel’s real payment to Russia is expected to come from Washington, which will have to legitimize the international reconciliation with Russia and perhaps revoke some of the sanctions.
Iran has few cards to counteract this scenario. It can announce its withdrawal from the nuclear agreement and resume enriching uranium, risking a rupture with Russia, its important ally China and even face a military offensive. Another possibility is to agree to withdraw from the Israeli border and even remove some forces from Syria. But such a move will leave Iran with the American sanctions intact and in a deepening economic crisis.
The third option is that Iran agree to remove its forces from the border and at the same time negotiate another agreement dealing with its ballistic missile plan, which won’t necessarily replace the nuclear agreement. This plan may gain Russian and European support and could satisfy Trump’s demands and portray him as a diplomatic hero who didn’t bow to Iran but forced it to back down.
But satisfying Trump and Netanyahu’s demands is far from being Iran’s intention. The internal power balance will determine Iran’s moves. Its internal struggle is described in the West simplistically as conservatives against reformists, with Khamenei, Mohammad Ali Jafari, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, Qasem Soleimani, head of the Quds Force, on one side, with Rohani and most of his ministers on the other.
But the power struggles within each camp don’t necessarily correspond to Iran’s national interests. In view of massive pressure from the conservative faction, Rohani will be forced to replace a few ministers and appoint a Revolutionary Guards man as cabinet minister. This could undermine his ability to protect the nuclear agreement and increase the Guards’ influence.
A reconciliation between Russia and the United States, which would lead to a coordinated policy between them, could determine Iran’s future moves. When senior Washington officials announce they are not seeking to topple Iran’s regime, and when Russia protects Assad, Iran’s ally, whose regime can ensure Iran’s continued influence, even without military presence on the ground, there’s a better chance for the diplomatic moves to yield results that are desirable for Iran, the West and Israel.

Analysis/Can Israel Really Trust Russia to Remove Iranian Forces From Syria?
عاموس هاريل من الهآررتس: هل باستطاعة إسرائيل أن تثق بروسيا لجهة اخراج القوات الإيراني من سوريا؟
Amos Harel/Haaretz/July 13/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66020/amos-harel-haaretz-can-israel-really-trust-russia-to-remove-iranian-forces-from-syria-%d8%b9%d8%a7%d9%85%d9%88%d8%b3-%d9%87%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%84-%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%87%d8%a2%d8%b1%d8%b1/
Fate of Iran's presence in Syria rests with Trump-Putin meeting ■ Israeli official to EU counterparts: Iran nuke deal is dead, and you insist on giving it Advil
U.S. News and World Report this week ranked Israel as the world’s eighth most powerful nation. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made sure to mention this to Likud lawmakers at a party meeting. He also pointed out, rightly, that all the countries ranked ahead of Israel have much larger populations.
But strong as it may be, Israel is still just another player on the international playing field – and the Middle East is far from the most important region on the world map at the moment. Strategic developments depend on relations between the world powers that Israel trailed in the rankings: The trade war declared by the Trump administration on China, and U.S. relations with Russia, which will be put to an important test at the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki on Monday.
The critical arena in Netanyahu’s mind remains, as always, the fight against Iran. This battle expanded in the past year from efforts to halt Tehran’s nuclear project to a direct clash with Iranian forces in Syria, with the aim of reducing their presence and influence there.
But even with regard to Iran and Syria, Israel must take broader processes into account. Russia is currently pressing for the completion of the de-escalation plan in Syria. Netanyahu may have influenced its design during his meeting with Putin in Moscow on Wednesday. But what comes next depends on what happens when Putin exerts his nearly magical – perhaps blackmail is part of it? – influence on President Donald Trump.
Putin appears to be seeking a wider deal that, in addition to Syria, would include new understandings in Eastern Europe.
One point being raised by the Russians is their expectation that the West lift the sanctions it imposed following Russian involvement in the fighting in eastern Ukraine in 2014.
The Russian plan in Syria is clear: President Bashar Assad will get full control of most parts of the country, including the Syrian Golan Heights to which his forces will soon return, and Israel will pledge not to interfere. In return, Moscow promises to block Iranian forces and Shi’ite militias’ proximity from the Golan Heights border: Various distances – 40, 60, even 80 kilometers (25, 37 and 50 miles, respectively) – have been mentioned. Netanyahu believes the Russians will keep their word. In a briefing with Israeli journalists in Moscow on Wednesday, he spoke of the process as if it were already underway.
The Israel Defense Forces has also been sounding cautiously optimistic. Distancing the Iranians from the border is seen as being a Russian interest – the war is about to end and Iran has exhausted the benefit it can bring to the Kremlin. Putin is not looking for partners with whom to share the dividends of success. Assad would also probably like to wriggle a little freer of the Iranian embrace.
This forecast minimizes the potential difficulties. Even in an international climate where keeping one’s word is far from the norm, Moscow stands out for its cynicism, and Putin and his spokespeople have been lying for years without batting an eyelid.
Israel won’t be able to easily rely on Russian insistence that the understandings are being upheld. Their enforcement will be especially complicated in the densely populated Damascus region – which is within the range Israel wants the Iranians to be kept out of. Already, there are signs that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Shi’ite militia fighters are shedding their uniforms to mix in with Syrian Army units in the battles taking place in the south.
Above all, even after the series of blows inflicted upon it in Syria, Iran has not relented in its drive for military entrenchment there. Per several of the attacks that have been attributed to Israel by foreign media in the past month – first at Abu Kamal in eastern Syria and then at the T4 airbase near the central Syrian city of Homs – Iran is once again trying to deploy advanced weapons systems in Syria, and Israel is again seemingly taking measures against this.
Most of the attempts to smuggle in weapons systems is done by air. However, the airstrike on the weapons convoy in eastern Syria shows that the Iranians are also often trying to make use of the ground corridor they established after the Americans rid the area of Islamic State forces. If the Russians don’t keep their word, the airstrikes will likely continue.
It’s interesting that since the exchange of blows on February 10 (in which an Iranian drone penetrated Israeli territory and an Israeli F-16 was shot down), no more condemnations have been heard from Moscow. Only a tiny fraction of the measures taken by Israel is made known to the Israeli public and the foreign media. One could cautiously venture that the amount of munitions dropped by the air force in unpublicized missions over the past several years is not far from the amount of munitions it used in Gaza in the summer war of 2014.
For the most part, this effort has proceeded without mishaps or complications. And this is the source of the Israeli satisfaction with the operative results: The Iranian penetration into Syria is limited and Hezbollah has so far not been able to achieve its objective of significantly improving the precision of its rockets in Lebanon.
In the longer term, as Netanyahu told Putin at their meeting, Israel still wants to see all the Iranian advisers and Shi’ite fighters entirely removed from Syria – since even weapons systems deployed 100 or 200 kilometers from Israel’s border with Syria endanger Israel’s security.
Israel is not making a similar claim against Hezbollah’s weapons arsenal – some of which is stored in southern Lebanon, in violation of UN Resolution 1701 – because it understands that this would be an impossible demand. But in fact, almost 12 years to the day after the outbreak of the Second Lebanon War, the top security risk is found in Lebanon, not Syria, where the Iranians are in a clearly inferior position from a security standpoint.
Iran is also engaged in a holding action on its other front. Right now, things appear to be going badly for its nuclear program. A senior Israeli official who recently met with visiting European Union representatives told them that European efforts to keep the nuclear accord with Iran alive following the Americans’ withdrawal from it in May are doomed.
“There’s a corpse in the room, the Vienna agreement, and you want to give it Advil and persist in believing it will come back to life,” the Israeli said. The visitors pointed out that the European partners to the agreement – Great Britain, France and Germany – have all decided to stick to its framework. Their host argued that the market will dictate the outcome and the major corporations are already voting with their feet and fleeing Iran, for fear of being subjected to U.S. sanctions.
Israeli defense officials are reacting positively to the 12-point paper issued by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, outlining the administration’s policy against Iran. The shift in American strategy is also reflected in the understandings in Washington regarding Syria. In previous years, the Obama administration and then the Trump administration concentrated their efforts in Syria and Iraq on fighting ISIS and various Al-Qaida affiliates. This effort enabled the Assad regime and the Russians to free up forces and aircraft to attack the less extreme rebel groups, and later to step into part of the vacuum left behind when ISIS fled Syria. Now the Americans are attempting to take a more balanced approach and to increase coordination with Israel.
Pompeo, who visited the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday, spoke in a television interview of his main objective: forming a regional coalition to counter Tehran. He accused Iran of using its embassies in Europe as terrorism bases, and said an Iranian attempt to plant a bomb at a convention of regime opponents in Paris had been foiled.
The U.S. secretary of state singled out Gen. Qassem Soleimani of the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds force. The general is causing trouble in Syria and Iraq, and he and his organization must be made to pay a higher price for it, said Pompeo.
Asked about the possibility that the U.S. and Israeli efforts will ultimately help to bring about regime change in Iran, Israeli defense officials were wary of making any such predictions.
The protests in Iran in recent months are perceived as authentic and of significant magnitude. The complaint that the country is investing money it does not have abroad at the expense of its own citizens ($12 to 14 billion alone to aid the Assad regime over the last seven years) is increasingly gaining public sympathy in Iran. But intelligence officials stress there is no real way to predict the outcome of a popular rebellion, and note that the Iranian authorities already showed great skill (and brutality) in suppressing the failed Green Movement of 2009.
Israeli politicians appear less skeptical. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman have been making direct appeals to the Iranian people in recent weeks via social media, denouncing the Iranian regime. And Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz, speaking at a conference of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs this week, asserted that “the economic pressure on Iran could lead the regime to collapse within a year.

Let's Establish Bigger Enterprises
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al Awsat/July 13/18
Successful countries are enterprise countries, such as Samsung in South Korea, Mercedes in Germany, Nestle in Switzerland and Unilever in the Netherlands. The US is now full of brands that took over the world, more so than the armies of any empire throughout history did.
My topic is on a controversial affair. Is it better for us to build small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) or large ones? Relatively, our markets are large and our consumption is huge. Despite that, our market has stayed under the mercy of small-sized enterprises that are incapable of advancing.
Why do we want to build giant companies? It’s because large companies are more capable of organizing the market and of researching and developing. They carry out training and work according to plans for years, and they can build strategic local and international partnerships that can lower costs for consumers.
They can invest, build trademarks and strengthen the sense of belonging. The government can monitor them and control their logbooks. Through these companies, the government can accurately collect information in the market’s favor and enrich millions of shareholders.
These companies are more capable of automatization and robotization, and they’re easier to obligate to hire women and people with special needs and to localize jobs. They are the state’s best support on the domestic level and its best arm on the foreign level, while the open market usually assumes the task of reforming or getting rid of failed companies.
If SABIC hadn’t been established, the country would have continued to be an importer of iron, fertilizers and plastic. If there hadn’t been Almarai food company, the government would have had to hire thousands of health inspectors to monitor thousands of small cow farms. Almarai produces dairy and yields profits for 70,000 shareholders.
The Jarir Library succeeded in the most difficult investment: books and school supplies. Even when counting cement companies and banks, our market is still one that’s dominated by small shops at a time where there can be stores like Panda with 400 branches and 30,000 employees.
The market would be much better with similar enterprises if companies and shops expand, even if via the franchise system, and if the retail market that’s fragmented due to regulations is shrunk and the million small shops and companies are left fighting until the most worthy remains standing.
Therefore, I think what’s best for a country like Saudi Arabia is to stimulate and push towards establishing giant companies in all sectors while making use of the techniques of modern management and new successful ideas. Vision 2030 is built on change, making the free market the hub while giving up on rentier economy.
In terms of why I prefer the concept of a state with large enterprises despite advice to strengthen the market of small and medium-sized enterprises, is because the latter do not suit countries like Saudi Arabia. There are highly populated states with limited investment capabilities and the best for them is to secure the largest number of jobs with the least costs. Egypt and Pakistan are two examples. We must note that the number of institutions in proportion to the population is larger in Saudi Arabia than in Egypt!
In terms of why I prefer the concept of a state with large enterprises despite advice to strengthen the market of small and medium-sized enterprises, is because the latter do not suit countries like Saudi Arabia. There are highly populated states with limited investment capabilities and the best for them is to secure the largest number of jobs with the least costs. Egypt and Pakistan are two examples. We must note that the number of institutions in proportion to the population is larger in Saudi Arabia than in Egypt!
Saudi Arabia suffers from the large number of foreign laborers, the spread of cover-up businesses, lack of training and scarcity of information in the retail market as well as in other sectors like services.
Thousands of Saudi technicians will not find jobs in dozens of jobs like electricity, plumbing and others and which they were trained on unless large companies rise at the expense of workshops, small shops and small contractors in order to control the market thus modernize it, organize it and guarantee insurance, training and funding in favor of consumers and affiliates.
The role of the state is important here in terms of founding the company and listing it in the market if investors loiter. Large enterprises do not cancel small ones but the latter are rather former’s tributaries, and they develop the market and organize it instead of keeping the current chaos.
This is regarding the market. As for the state, there’s no doubt that giant companies are its best option. And as Charles Wilson said about his company in the 1950s: “What is good for our country is good for General Motors, and vice versa.” Of course this does not underestimate the possible challenges due to amending legislations and rules, and the losses of those who live off the old economic system as well as the difficulty of getting local and foreign leaderships to handle the management of these aspired for entities.

Is Turkey Becoming Uninvestable?
Marcus Ashworth/Bloomberg View/July 13/18
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan unfortunately is a man of his word. He promised to take greater control of monetary policy during the election campaign, and he has wasted no time in doing so. He has snipped the last threads in Turkey’s safety net — and he has made his nation all but uninvestable.
Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek and Finance Minister Naci Agbal have both departed. They were the kinds of officials global investors like to see — committed to sound financial management and standard economic principles. They did a lot to soothe investors’ nervousness as Erdogan tightened his grip on the country. There seems to be no one left to fulfill that role.
The president said Monday that his son-in-law, Berat Albayrak, will run a new combined ministry of treasury and finance. This crushes any hopes that sense and responsibility will reign in fiscal matters. Erdogan has also given himself the power to name the central bank governor, and thus the ability to entrench his unorthodox view that higher interest rates cause faster inflation.
Tuesday’s painful market reaction is probably only the start. The lira weakened versus the dollar, 10-year yields soared to over 17 percent, credit default swaps widened, and stocks fell, with a 3.7 percent drop in the banking industry leading the declines. It is hard to see the credit rating companies not taking a dim view of the new political realities and cutting Turkey’s ratings deeper into junk.
The cost of insuring against Turkey's default rose and stocks fell as Erdogan tightened his grip.
For investors, the best course is almost certainly to stay away. There is nothing to pin down the value of the currency. Nor is it a prime target to short. It would cost an incredibly steep 17.75 percent — at least — to borrow lira in order to buy it back later at a cheaper price. This is a game for only the extremely brave.
Turkish 10-year yields are far higher than those of comparable emerging-market peers.
Is this a currency crisis? That depends on how you define it. There’s very little liquidity and a new normal of 5 lira per dollar looks to be on its way. That kind of fundamental shift in a thin market certainly smells like a crisis, especially given that now it seems only an official intervention can calm investors’ fears.
Turkey's 10-year yield has moved to a record high on Erdogan's government appointments.
It’s hard to see that this will be forthcoming. The normal events that investors could look toward for reassurance look hopeless. Any budget announcement will most likely involve Albayrak turning on the fiscal taps to boost spending in electorally-sensitive areas, such as the major cities, where the ruling AK Party has less support. The next central bank meeting, on July 24, is an opportunity to tame price gains by raising rates. It is difficult to see Erdogan approving any increase, and demanding a cut can’t be ruled out. Inflation soared to 15.4 percent in June, and government policies, plus a weaker currency, look primed to push this higher.
Inflation has spiralled as the Turkish central bank acted too late in raising rates.
The president could yet decide to turn things around. He’d allowed 500 basis points of interest-rate increases since late April — this suggests he’s not immune to the implications of a sliding lira when Turkey’s massive current account deficit leaves it so reliant on dollar funding. But given his ridiculous views on monetary policy, and that he’s shown his true colors, that looks unlikely.
The weakest link is the banking system. Lenders have been gorging on cheap short-term financing in dollars and euros, and as I’ve written, this has been largely immune to rising rates. Most of the creditors are Western European banks, and any sign that they’re seriously backing away will raise questions about the stability of Turkish financial institutions. Such a shift in sentiment would surely impact big Turkish corporate borrowers, many of which have large redemptions coming due over the next year or so — mostly in dollars.
The fate of Turkey is entirely in Erdogan’s hands. And that’s what’s worrying investors.

Why Khamenei Can’t Do a Kim Jong-Un?
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/July 13/18
The other day in Tehran, the arrival at the International Airport of a US-registered passenger plane triggered an avalanche of rumors that, for brief moment, buried the anxieties that grip Iranians with regard to the looming confrontation with the Trump administration in Washington. The wildest, and most popular, rumor was that the “American plane” had brought a special emissary from Washington to invite the “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei to a summit with President Donald Trump with a view to “doing a North Korea”.
The rumor wasn’t all that fanciful.
The history of relations between the US and the mullahs is full of cloak-and-dagger episodes.
President Jimmy Carter wrote flattering letters to Khomeini, the man who created the Islamic Republic. In response Khomeini sent Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan to reassure Carter and persuade him to resume the supply of arms to Iran. President Ronald Reagan sent his former National Security Adviser Robert MacFarlane to Tehran to discuss a deal with the ayatollah. And Khamenei visited the occupied US Embassy in Tehran to discuss the purchase of American arms with US diplomats held hostage.
Under Reagan, with help from Israel, the US smuggled arms to Iran to stop Saddam Hussein’s army.
Over the years, successive Islamic presidents, including Hashemi Rafsanjani and Muhammad Khatami maintained sub-rosa dialogues with the “Great Satan”. Right from the start President Hassan Rouhani was identified as head of “The New York Boys”, a coterie of US-educated functionaries working for a “grand bargain” with Washington.
President Barack Obama turned out to be the most pro-mullah leader the US had seen. He went out of his way to even smuggle cash to Tehran but ended up vilified and humiliated.
While such under-the-counter deals helped reduce tension, the fundamental problem that the Khomeinist regime is genetically incapable of normal relations with anyone, let alone the American “Great Satan”, remained. The Khomeinist regime is programmed in its DNA to be anti-American, anti-West, anti-Semitic, anti-Arab, anti-Turk, anti-Russian, and more importantly perhaps, anti-Iranian. Today, the Islamic Republic does not have many friends.
All it has is lackeys and mercenaries, like the “Hezbollah” in Lebanon and the Assad clique in Syria, and small groups on the margin of the Iraqi Shiite community.
The problem is that old shenanigans no longer work and, thus, Khamenei cannot do a Kim Jong-un even if he wanted to.
The reason is that the “Supreme Guide” is getting less and less “supreme”. Signs that he is being cut down to size by events, including nationwide protests, have multiplied. He still makes speeches, summons civilian and military officials, and issues orders. But, increasingly, people hear him but don’t listen.
A few months back he threatened that if the US tears up the “nuclear deal”, he would “burn it.”
However, when Trump threw the “deal” into the ashcan, the “Supreme Guide” swallowed his pride and urged Rouhani to find some way of saving something from the ghostly “deal.”
When the Trump administration demanded that Tehran freeze its missiles project, Khamenei was livid. He summoned his generals to “produce more and more missiles, and more powerful ones”.
Last month, however, Muhammad-Ali Aziz-Jaafari, the general who commands the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), publicly declared that Iran had frozen its missile project at a maximum range of 2,000 kilometers. Even then he had to stress that 2,000 kilometers was the length of Iran’s own territory, from the border with Turkey to the Gulf of Oman.
Not a pip from the “Supreme Guide”.
Khamenei’s order to reopen the Arak plutonium plant, and install new centrifuges and enrich uranium to a higher degree has also been buried under a ton of lip-service. The government doesn’t have enough money to pay its employees let alone spending on white elephants to please the Ayatollah.
In the past months, Khamenei has issued two fatwas forbidding women from riding bicycles in public places, notably city streets. However, the Islamic Police (NAJA) has officially declared that it has no intention of enforcing that ban against some 2.8 Iranian women who ride bicycles to work and school. In one isolated incident, in Yazd, vigilantes attacked a group of women cyclists but had to retreat when they themselves were set upon by an angry crowd.
Khamenei’s order to “Islamize” human sciences and burn books written by the Infidel on philosophy, politics, sociology, economics and other disciplines has also been ignored. Iranian students still have to read not only Aristotle and Adam Smith but also August Comte and Karl Popper.
The pan-Islamic conference that Khamenei had convened to create “Islamic social sciences” ended in chaos as it was boycotted by almost all reputable academics.
Khamenei has spent time and energy telling Iranians how to write poetry, make movies, and even have successful marriages.
Khamenei has even somewhat retreated on his promise to wipe Israel off the map in 25 years’ time. Now he says he wants a referendum for a one-state solution.
A comical episode revealed the decline in Khamenei’s prestige. Having sacked his Chief of Staff Gen. Hassan Firuzabadi, Khamenei wanted to regain control of a luxury villa the general had occupied for 23 years, and issued two fatwas ordering instant evacuation. The general ignored the fatwas and stayed put until Khamenei had to send his own armed bodyguard to seize control of the villa.
A longer list could be established of cases in which Khamenei’s orders have been ignored because there is no realistic way to carry them out.
Khamenei’s power is declining not because he is challenged by anyone inside the establishment but as knocks on his door. Even if he wanted to do a Kim Jong-un, he can’t. He has no organized political party and, heading for his 80th birthday, is unable to attract young Shiites who are thinking of their future.
I don’t know whether that is good or bad news. The Islamic republic was a wayward ship from day one but at least had a captain. Today, it is not clear who is in charge, which means the Islamic Republic is in a worse state than Kim Jong-un’s People’s democratic republic of Korea.

The SCOTUS Confirmation Process Has Gotten Out of Hand
Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/July 13/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12696/the-scotus-confirmation-process-has-gotten-out
Justice Kavanaugh is extraordinarily well qualified by his educational and academic background and judicial history. He should be given a hearing and asked probing questions about his judicial philosophy and his approach to constitutional construction and precedent. Senators should approach this process with an open mind. Before I finally make up my own mind, I will be listening carefully to his answers.
The framers of our constitution would be turning over in their graves if they could see what happened to their words "with the advice and consent of the senate."
Now senators neither advise nor consent to Supreme Court nominations. They politicize, delay, demonize, obscure, fabricate and discredit what should be a non-partisan process of assuring that the most qualified lawyers serve on our highest court. Instead we have come to expect votes that are cast largely along party lines.It was not always what it has now become. Even in the recent past, highly qualified but controversial nominees -- such as Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg -- were confirmed with hardly any dissents. No more.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Some Democrats showed their disdain for the process by opposing President Trump's pick even before it was made.
There is enough blame to go around. Republicans point to the Bork rejection (which resulted in the Kennedy nomination) and the Clarence Thomas "high-tech lynching." Democrats point to the Republican refusal even to consider former President Barack Obama's nomination of the highly qualified and centrist Merrick Garland. They also point to the fact that President Trump has "outsourced the selection process to the Federalist Society."
Whoever is to blame, the real victims are the American people who have been denied the constitutional protection of a legitimate confirmation process.
Focusing on the current confirmation battle over Brett Kavanaugh, some Democrats showed their disdain for the process by carrying signs opposing President Trump's nominee even before the nomination was made. They left the name blank and filled it in only after the President nominated Judge Kavanaugh.Others have taken the view that they would never confirm any nominee whose name was on the list provided by the Federalist Society.
A story from the past is worth recalling. When the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes retired, President Herbert Hoover asked his Attorney General to supply him a list of ten names to fill the seat of this great justice. The list contained nine Republican names, but at the bottom was the name of one Democrat -- a great New York judge named Benjamin Cardozo. When Hoover saw the list, he reportedly said to his Attorney General, "It's a great list but you have it upside down. Cardozo's name should be on the top because he is the most distinguished sitting judge in the US." The Attorney General reportedly responded that Cardozo was a Democrat, a Jew (there was already one Jew on the Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis) and a New Yorker and his appointment would not serve the political interest of the president or his party. But Hoover nominated Cardozo who served with distinction on the High Court.
Today such a nomination would be unthinkable. Generally, presidents still look for high quality nominees, but among the many who are so qualified, they demand a nominee who will toe their ideological line, be acceptable to their base and generally promote the interests of their party. That is not what the Framers contemplated. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics. It is supposed to serve as a check and balance against the two political branches of government. It is supposed to be non-partisan. The votes of justices are not supposed to be based on ideological or partisan considerations. The Framers would be livid at the 5-4 party line vote in Bush v. Gore. They would have been equally livid if there were a 5-4 partisan vote in favor of a Democratic president. Partisan votes are supposed to take place in Congress, not in the chambers of our Highest Court.
It may be too late to restore the integrity of the confirmation process. We are in the age of tit-for-tat political reprisals. The Democrats say that the Republicans stole the Merrick Garland nomination, so the Democrats want to try to steal the Kavanaugh nomination. They will almost certainly fail, but not before they have further tarnished the confirmation process.
It will take a statesman rather than a politician in the Oval Office to change this dynamic. A great president will someday nominate the most distinguished lawyer in the country, without regard to party ideology or other political considerations. All presidents claim that they are doing this. Former President George H. W. Bush told the American public that Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person in American to serve on the High Court. No one, probably not even Clarence Thomas, believed that. But he, too, was confirmed, largely along party line votes.
Justice Kavanaugh is extraordinarily well qualified by his educational and academic background and judicial history. He should be given a hearing and asked probing questions about his judicial philosophy and his approach to constitutional construction and precedent. Senators should approach this process with an open mind. Before I finally make up my own mind, I will be listening carefully to his answers.
*Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, July 2018.
© 2018 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 Relentless Radicalization of Sweden
Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/July 13/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12693/sweden-radicalization-muslims
Swedish police report that Muslim children have told their classmates they will cut their throats, while showing them beheadings on their mobile phones, according to the new study of Salafism in Sweden by the Swedish Defence University.
"Many women live worse [lives] here than they would have in their former countries" — Swedish care worker.
The inability -- willful blindness is probably a more apt description -- to see that jihadist terrorism does not emerge from a vacuum, but is nurtured in particular environments, is hardly an exclusively Swedish situation. The insistence of so many European and other Western authorities on describing terrorist attacks as instances of "mental illness" illustrate it perfectly.
A new study[1] of Salafism in Sweden, conducted by the Swedish Defence University, paints a bleak picture of the ongoing radicalization of Muslims in Sweden.
The Salaf are the "pious ancestors" during the first three generations of the followers of Mohammed; its ideology has come to be associated over the last few decades with al-Qaeda and ISIS, as well as with local al-Qaeda affiliates. According to the study, Salafists, who believe in Islam as Mohammed's early followers practiced it, tend to reject Western society in favor of a "pure" Islam: "Not all Salafists are jihadists, but all jihadists are Salafists". [2]
Although the study does not give an estimate of how many Salafists are in Sweden, it does describe how Salafist milieus there have evolved and grown stronger, especially during the past decade, and lists several examples of the influence they wield in different Swedish cities and localities.
The Swedish Defence University has published a new study that paints a bleak picture of the ongoing radicalization of Muslims in Sweden. (I99pema/Wikimedia Commons)
"Salafists", the authors of the study conclude, "...advocate gender segregation, demand that women veil themselves to limit 'sexual temptation', restrict women's role in the public sphere and strongly oppose listening to music and some sports activities"[3].
According to the study, many Salafists also tell Muslims not to have Swedish friends, and refer to them as "kufr", the Arabic term for a non-Muslim or "disbeliever". One Salafist preacher, Anas Khalifa, said:
"Does that mean that if you meet a Christian or Jew you should beat him or threaten him? No. There is no war between you and Christians and Jews in your school, for example. You hate him for Allah's sake. You hate that he does not believe in Allah. But you want from your heart that he will love Allah. So you have to work with them, talk with them, because you want Allah to guide them". [4]
The Salafists, apparently, have divided Sweden geographically between them. According to the study:
"It is interesting that the Salafist preachers, on which the study focuses, appear to be more in cooperation with each other, rather than rivals. Instead, these preachers seem to divide their da'wa (mission) into different geographical areas..."[5].
The study's findings from different cities where Salafists are active include:
In Borås, some children will not drink the water at the school or paint with watercolors there, because they say the water is "Christian". The police report that Muslim children have told their classmates they will cut their throats, while showing them beheadings on their mobile phones. There are examples of "adolescents arriving at mosques at the end of a school day to 'wash' themselves after having interacted with [non-Muslim] society". Care workers [health care, child care, etc.] in the city have testified to how men exercise control over women, checking on them even in waiting rooms[6]. One care worker said:
"I realized that there is a network that controls the women so they won't be left alone with the care workers. They are not given a chance to tell anyone about their situation. Many women live worse [lives] here than they would have in their former countries".
This kind of control of women appears to be taking place in practically all the Swedish cities mentioned in the study.
In Västerås, religious influence is mixed with crime. "It could be a bunch of guys coming into the grocery store. If the woman at the cashier is not veiled, they take what they want without paying, they call the cashier 'Swedish whore' and spit on her," said a police officer in the study. Other examples include Syrians and Kurds who run stores and restaurants in the area and are questioned by young Muslims about their religion. If the answer is not Islam, they are harassed. In other cases, boys as young as 10-12 years have approached older women in the area, asking them whether they are Muslim, telling them "this is our area".[7]
In Gothenburg, according to the study[8], Salafists told Muslims not to vote in the most recent elections because it is "haram" (forbidden). "They said that on the day of judgment you will be responsible for the actions of all stupid politicians if you vote. They stood at polling stations... At one polling station they waved an IS [Islamic State] flag", a local official told the authors of the study. According to one imam in the city, Gothenburg has been the capital of Wahhabism (a Saudi version of Salafism) in Europe since the 1990s.[9]
Out of the 300 Swedish Muslims who joined ISIS in Syria and Iraq, almost one third came from Gothenburg.[10] (In relation to their total population, more people have traveled from Sweden to join jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq than from most European countries -- only Belgium and Austria have a higher proportion[11]). Somali-Canadian preacher Said Regeah, speaking at the Salafist Bellevue Mosque in Gothenburg, has "raised the importance of people being born 'pure' and that only Muslims are pure. All are born as Muslims, but it is the parents who shape them to become 'Jews, Christians, or Zoroastrians'".[12]
The study also reports that non-Muslim business owners have experienced having their facilities vandalized with Islamic State graffiti and that Christian priests have received threats of decapitation[13]. One man, Samir, said, "If you do not follow Islam, people ostracize you. There are parents here who put veils on their three-year-olds. It is unreal. We are not in Iraq".[14]
Another man, Anwar, was denied service in a Muslim restaurant because he is not religious. He points out that society is letting secular Muslims down: "I don't need a Bible or a Koran in my life. The only book I need is... the [Swedish] law. But if society isn't even on your side, what can you do?"[15]
In the Stockholm area, the study estimates that there are currently up to 150 Salafist jihadists[16]. Salafists are especially concentrated in the Järva area, a "no go zone". Sometimes the jihadist and the criminal elements overlap, and these Muslims terrorize other people who live in the area. One woman said that Salafists and Islamists have come to dominate businesses, basement mosques, and cultural associations during the past ten years, and that "Swedes have no idea how much influence political Islam has in the suburb". She described how even children are gender segregated and that religious leaders tell women not to tell the authorities if their husband abuses them. "Swedish laws are not applied in the suburbs".[17]
The study concludes with a critique of Swedish authorities for their apparent inability to link individual radical Muslims to the "environments that form their ideas and in certain cases have facilitated the will to join more radical and violent groups". The study mentions the following as an example:
"When the then-National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism said that the question of why so many people chose to travel to IS from Sweden was 'a million dollar question', it is an illustration of the overall inability of Swedish authorities (with the exception of police and security police) to see that this problem has not emerged from a vacuum".[18]
This inability -- or possibly willful blindness -- to see that jihadist terrorism does not emerge from a vacuum, but is nurtured in particular environments is hardly an exclusively Swedish situation. The insistence of so many European and other Western authorities to describe terrorist attacks as instances of "mental illness" illustrate it perfectly.
The authors of the study also mention that schools and other local authorities do not know how to deal with the challenges created by the Salafists. The study mentions, for example, that a Muslim schoolgirl wanted to take off her headscarf to play hairdresser with the other children, but the Swedish personnel did not allow it out of respect for her parents' wishes. In an example from a Swedish preschool, a little girl did not want to wear her headscarf but the Swedish personnel forced it on her, "even though it felt wrong", because it was the parents' wish. Swedish school personnel have also described that they do not know how to act when children want to eat and drink during Ramadan, but the parents have instructed that they must fast.[19]
The study is an important first step in Sweden finally acknowledging that there is a problem, but unless the relevant Swedish authorities -- including the Swedish government and the political leaders, who refuse to acknowledge reality in Sweden -- read and internalize it, the study will have been done in vain.
*Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.
[1] "Between Salafism and Salafist Jihadism - Impact and Challenges for Swedish Society", published on June 28. The study was commissioned by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency.
[2] Between Salafism and Salafist Jihadism - Impact and Challenges for Swedish Society, p 14.
[3] Ibid., p 24
[4] Ibid., p 132
[5] Ibid., p 223
[6] Borås is described on pp162ff of the study.
[7] Västerås is described on pp 168ff.
[8] Ibid., p 186
[9] Ibid., p 182
[10] Ibid., p 103
[11] Ibid., p 107
[12] Ibid., p 131
[13] Ibid., p 186
[14] Ibid., p 187
[15] Ibid., p 187
[16] Ibid., p 210
[17] Ibid., p 213
[18] Ibid., p 109
[19] Ibid., p 194
© 2018 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.

New US-Israeli “Project Iran” is headed by IDF’s Maj. Gen. Nitzan Alon
موقع دبكي الإسرائيلي: مشروع إيران-إسرائيل سيرأسه الجنرال الإسرائيلي نتزان ألون
DEBKAfile/July 13/ 2018
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66024/debkafile-new-us-israeli-project-iran-is-headed-by-idfs-maj-gen-nitzan-alon-%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%AF%D8%A8%D9%83%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6/
Project Iran” was set up during Israel’s Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gady Eisenkott’s talks with top US brass in Washington on June 29 for coordinated US-Israeli military operations against Iran.
IDF Operations Chief Maj. Gen. Nitzan Alon was named to head it. He was with the chief of staff when he sat down with Gen. Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Joseph Votel, head of CENTCOM in Washington. At 53, Alon accepted the post although he was ready to retire from the service after an impressive career spanning 34 years. It included valuable experience as commander of special operations forces and oversight of the integration of special undercover units in the intelligence corps for action behind enemy lines. He led several combat divisions before being promoted to OC Central Command. In 2015, he took over the General Staff’s Operations Branch. Eisenkott persuaded him to stay on as the first holder of a job just created of Director of the “Iran Project” – the IDF codename for a newly-established US-Israeli task force for executing potential decisions to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, ballistic missiles and/or military bases in the Middle East.
DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that Eisenkott lost no time in filling this job when he saw US-Russian relations sinking into impasse over the Iranian issue, and Iranian, Hizballah and Shiite forces spearheading the Syrian operation as it blasted its way through southern Syria toward the Israeli and Jordanian borders. The outbreak of full-fledged war with Iran was looming larger day by day.
On the wider front, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Middle East warfronts, informed President Hassan Rouhani on July 4 that he stood ready to implement Rouhani’s threat to disrupt Gulf oil exports once the US ban on Iranian oil sales goes into effect on Nov. 4. Since President Donald Trump is unlikely to back down, the specter of Iranian hostile acts was growing larger, including the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz to Arab oil exports – or even attacks on their oil fields and terminals.
To meet the multiple Iranian threats, four US-Israeli command groups were secretly established and are revealed here:
The Nuclear Command Group: This covers the key nuclear targets in Iran: weaponry, plutonium reactors, uranium enrichment plants and centrifuge production sites.
The Ballistic Command Group: This deals with Iran’s ballistic missile stocks and launch sites, both surface and underground silos, as well as missile production plants and institutes for missile research and development.
The Anti-Subversion Command Group: Combined under this heading are overt and covert operations against Iranian military and intelligence centers across the Middle East, especially in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, as well as responsibility for cyber warfare.
The Economic Command Group covers US sanctions against Iran. Israel’s contribution to this joint command is intelligence on Iran’s sanctions-busting stratagems at home and internationally.
Maj. Gen. Nitzan Alon will direct the four command groups. He was chosen for his record and his proven talents as an original, strategic thinker, capable of seeking solutions outside the box and applying unconventional methods to tasks and challenges.
The chief of staff, contrary to his dovish image and reputation as a deal-maker, has almost unnoticed put together a hawkish high command comprising a group of officers who are ready to operate in places beyond Israel’s horizons. Among them are the incoming Air Force chief Maj. Gen. Amikam Nurkin, head of the Depth Command Maj. Gen. Muni Katz, OC Central Command Maj. Gen. Nadav Padan and new Military Intelligence (AMAN) Director Maj. Gen. Tamir Hayman. Nitzan Alon has just joined this elite roster.

Macedonia: What’s in a name?
Dr. Mohamed A. Ramady/Al Arabiya/July 13/18
Countries often fight over borders and territorial ambitions, but few have threatened each other over a country’s chosen name. This is the unusual situation between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia who are at loggerheads on who can use the name Macedonia, or were, until a seemingly sensible compromise had been reached between the two countries premiers but could still be unravelled by nationalists in both countries crying out betrayal. It has taken more than 25 years of fruitless discussions, divided the two nations, delayed Macedonia’s entry to the EU and NATO and has been a cause for protests. In a bold move, Greece and Macedonia, or at least their prime ministers Tsipras of Greece and Zaev of the Republic of Macedonia, have declared peace. The United Nations had to mediate showing that the world body is not a toothless entity after all despite its detractors, and finally the two Balkan neighbours announced that they had agreed to end the row over what to call the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The tiny state will henceforth be known neither by its acronym, FYROM, nor simply as Macedonia, but as the Republic of North Macedonia – a geographical qualifier that ends any fear in Athens of territorial ambition against the neighbouring Greek province of the same name.
To placate his hardliner nationalist citizens, the Greek Premier also noted that this simple name change will also apply to Macedonia’s international and bilateral relations and domestically – in short , that the newly named country will not harbour future territorial ambitions on the Greek Macedonia. The new name thus made a clear distinction between Greek Macedonia and the country’s northern neighbour, so why are some still objecting? The reasons run deep and involve not just territorial aspirations but intangible rights.
For Tsipras and Zaev it has taken political courage to get this far but both have faced intense nationalist backlash and calls of high treason
At loggerheads
The two neighbours have been at loggerheads ever since the former republic seceded from Yugoslavia and declared independence as the Republic of Macedonia. Fuelling fury in Athens, the new Slavic nation had laid claim to ancient Greek figures, not least the warrior king Alexander the Great. For the Greeks, this added insult to injury, in a country that is proud of its long cultural and Hellenic civilisation and the Greek Premier Tsipras had to convince his compatriots that the deal preserved the Greek Macedonian ethnic and cultural identity.
Both its language and people would continue to be known as Macedonian. To ensure public buy in and close the festering chapter, the agreement would be put to a popular vote in a Greek referendum later this year. The apparent agreement has been greeted with relief by those that wished to ensure that the European countries presented a united front against perceived Russian aggression.NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, was among the first to welcome what he described as a historic agreement and urged both sides to finalise it, and hopefully setting the newly named country on its path to full NATO membership.
Both Greece and the new Macedonia had been eager to conclude a deal to also gain the blessing of important countries like Germany and presented the solution in an EU summit in late June. For both Tsipras and Zaev it has taken political courage to get this far but both premiers have faced intense nationalist backlash and calls of high treason, with Greece’s main opposition leader denouncing the deal, arguing that it amounted to Athens accepting the existence of a Macedonian language and nation. Whatever obstructions it faces from both sides, the common sense solution is a shining example of how a peaceful resolution can take place to resolve long running disputes and to put behind one of the most bizarre diplomatic standoffs between countries.If only such boldness and level headedness amongst political leaders can be brought to bear to resolve other territorial disputes amongst nations, whether in Kashmir, Palestine, or Ukraine. Alexander the Great must be smiling in his grave.

Impaired judgement and its fatal consequences
Mashari Althaydi/Al Arabiya/July 13/18
Substances that impair judgement have existed since the early days. People who deal with these substances and use them have also existed since early times. What’s new however is the availability of public platforms and outlets which they can now use to convey their revelation moments and precious ideas to people via a click of a button. Only when the drug effect washes off, they realize the hole they’ve fallen into. At this point, it’s just too late! The problem though is when this mad man develops an ego due to people’s reaction to him, even if they’re interacting for humor purposes or because they think he’s silly. In this case, he would increase the dose and diversify the madness until he reaches the point of no return.
This is not limited to those who record videos on social media networks. There is another dangerous and provoking phenomenon, which is the actual and materialistic recklessness via the so-called street terrorism. Sensible people have suffered a lot from these reckless people who madly and barbarically drive their cars inflicting death or harm on themselves and others. In some cases, it turns out that the driver was under the effect of drugs or under the effect of teenage recklessness.Regarding the last phenomenon, i.e. the terrorism of traffic and streets, which is present in all Arab countries, it may have been good to penalize those who drive cars under the influence of substances that impair judgment
The terrorism link
Regarding the last phenomenon, i.e. the terrorism of traffic and streets, which is present in all Arab countries, it may have been good to penalize those who drive cars under the influence of substances that impair judgment, be it cannabis or alcohol or others. It’s true that all these substances are legally prohibited in perhaps all nations but this prohibition has not affected their existence or prevented people from taking them and using them.
If the driver learns that there will be a penalty if he drives under the effect of drugs or alcohol, he may be deterred. A severe punishment can thus at least decrease this hideous and dangerous phenomenon.
Acting under the influence of these substances thus poses serious threats especially if one takes things from making statements via social media networks to driving. All this has fatal consequences that harm the society. The mind is a blessing. It’s one’s own decision if he wants to lose this blessing. However, those who want others to lose their minds or endanger them in the streets along with themselves must be deterred. He who seeks death might as well seek it on his own and not make others perish with him.