LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
June 25/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.june25.18.htm

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

Secret Weapon in the Afghanistan War
James Stavridis/Bloomberg/June 24/18
After a few days of hopeful cease-fire for the Eid holiday -- and remarkable images of Taliban and government security forces embracing -- Afghanistan seems headed back to the insurgency that has plagued it for 15 years.
America’s longest war grinds on with little hope, with neither side able achieve a lasting victory. What could break the deadlock? Where should the U.S. focus its efforts to find a path to a negotiated ending to a violent civil war, such as we saw in the Balkans in the 1990s and in Colombia this decade?
Two vital fronts of this challenge are closely linked: addressing the endemic problem of corruption and finding a viable economic model for the country. And a key source of both potential wealth and ongoing corruption is Afghanistan’s abundance of minerals, thought to be worth as much as $1 trillion by some sources. Yes, instability is adding to the difficulty of attracting initial investment, but over time there is every possibility for large-scale mining of lithium, gold, iron, copper, lead, rare earths, gemstones and talc.
But right now, that wealth is more likely to do harm than good. For example, consider talc, an unglamorous industrial mineral used in everything from baby powder to plastics. The U.S. and Europe are the ultimate markets for much of Afghanistan’s talc production. Yet new research from Global Witness, an international nonprofit that monitors links between natural resources and corruption, reveals that almost all Afghan talc producers pay a tax to insurgents.
While the report focuses on the talc deposits in Nangarhar Province along the Pakistan border, it more broadly illuminates how the ISIS branch in Afghanistan now controls many mineral-rich areas and is fighting hard for others. There is a real threat that mining could help fund their expansion across Afghanistan.
As for the Taliban, Global Witness estimated they are raking in $300 million a year from the nation's mineral bounty. Indeed, mining is thought to be the second-largest source of revenue for the insurgency after narcotics. Militias supposedly on the side of the government and corrupt provincial strongmen also benefit. These various groups often find themselves in bloody confrontations over the mines.
Unlike illegal drugs, mineral resources could be generating major revenue for the Afghan government. Instead, they are fuelling conflict and corruption.
And that directly relates to one of the key weaknesses of the U.S. mission since 2001. Afghanistan’s mines powerfully illustrate how governance problems like corruption and illegal mining are not just about development -- they are hard-edged issues of national security.
Yet U.S. efforts to improve governance have consistently fallen short of the mark. Since 2001, the U.S. has invested hundreds of millions in developing the mining sector -- but the money was spent with inadequate coordination and oversight, and had very little impact, as a 2016 report from the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction documented.
When I was the supreme commander of the 150,000 international forces there, we concentrated on getting new contracts off the ground. This was a laudable goal, but was always likely to fail without strengthening oversight and addressing the massive abuses that have held back the sector.
At one point, I hired a highly regarded Army one-star general, H.R. McMaster, to do precisely that. Even someone as talented as McMaster was unable to significantly dent the problem, although he set in place some policies that have helped. He probably found service as national security advisor in the Trump White House tame by comparison. In the end, the point of military action is to create space to deal with the underlying drivers of the conflict. Corruption, along with a wider lack of justice and rule of law in politics and the economy, is among the most important.
By one estimate, there are about $3.3 billion in bribes passed every year in Afghanistan. This weakens the already fractured Afghan government, holds back development and increases support for the insurgency. Unfortunately, short-term security challenges tend to take priority over longer-term reforms.
Corruption is a weapon system in the hands of the Taliban -- and increasingly ISIS -- who use it to fund their military offensives, undermine the democratically elected government, and harm the people they once ruled with astonishing cruelty.
It is also at the heart of America's failure to stabilize this war-torn nation and ultimately find a path to a negotiated peace.

World Cup, Qatari 'Ugly' Power
Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al Awsat/June 24/18
States are working on exploiting the concept of soft power as one of the diplomatic and political tools to influence the public opinion. As this concept grows, the exploiting appeared in a manner that contradicts with the concept immorally and illegally.
Iran used the soft power to destabilize the Arab nations’ confidence in their current regimes, Qatar did the same through its TV channels network Al Jazeera which aimed to promote concepts linked to extremism and terrorism.
However, the worst exploiting was made by Qatar when it established its sports channels, belonging to its mother channel, in 2003, and allocated a budget of more than $25 billion to achieve this purpose – this included rights to broadcast world cups of 2018 and 2022, UEFA European Championship, AFC Asian Cup, Africa Cup of Nations, UEFA Champions League, AFC Champions League, CAF Champions League, national, regional, continental and international championships and Olympics until 2022 with a financial amount that exceeded $10 billion.
This was before the Qatari network started to commit unprecedented practices of any sports channel in the world through manipulating broadcasting the global competitions to promote its political agenda, in a violation to the Olympics' concepts.
While the Qatari violations through its media tools are not new, what Doha did through its sports channels through inserting politics has turned into a snowball that the Arab viewer can no longer tolerate.
Just like it did following Russia-Saudi Arabia game when beIN did huge violations against the kingdom and citizens. This is only one example, as many Arab states were subject to such violations. BeIN Sports changed its previous name Al Jazeera Sports due to the sports federations rejection to deal with it for it is links to terrorism. According to Arab States Broadcasting Union, the total of Arab world residents is more than 390 million and the number of households is 89 million – only five million households have subscriptions that permit them to follow the events broadcast on the coded channels in the Arab region. These figures show that 93 percent of citizens in the Arab world are deprived from following the huge championships due to the high subscription prices that can’t be afforded by the medium-income level and not only the poor.
Due to the coding and exaggerated prices, the devices’ prices in some Arab countries exceeded the annual individual income – not to mention that the channels are being used to promote the agendas of the Qatari government and its continuous abuse of other states. This aggravates the problem and gives no hope in a real change in this disaster caused by Qatar but through resorting to the judiciary just like the Europeans did.
Clause number seven from organizing the TV broadcast in the EU stipulated that every member state of the EU can take procedures according to the union law that guarantee not manipulating sports events by any TV commission or channel.
Qatar has a fierce legal battle to face against a long list of countries that refuse the concept of manipulation. The aim is to enact legalizations that protect rights of the Arab viewer just like what happened with the European citizen. Who believes that only seven percent of Arab viewers can watch their favorite game due to the 'ugly' Qatari power concept?

Turkey and the West: With or Without Each Other
Murat Yetkin/Asharq Al Awsat/June 24/18
Regardless of the results of the early elections in Turkey, it is likely to have certain changes or fine tunings in its foreign policy including its relations with the West which have experienced a number of downs, further downs but not that much of ups in the last few years.
After being established through a War of Independence between 1918 and 1923 against the Western invaders following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish Republic has opted for a Western system in a dominantly Muslim society.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who led the Independence War initiated a series of reforms to orient the new Turkish system according to the Western values of the time.
First of all the Caliphate was abandoned to separate government from religion. Then it was followed by changing the measurements to metric system, scripture from Arabic to Latin, civil code and election law to impose gender equality, education not based on Quranic teaching and economic reforms to attract foreign investment which was necessary to be in good relations with the West.
Having good relations with the West was necessary for the young Turkish Republic also for security reasons, especially when its northern neighbour and historical rival Russia was run by Stalin’s Communist Party. After managing to stay out of the Second World War with a lot of manoeuvring Turkey was first taken under the solidarity provided by the U.S. President Harry Truman’s Truman Doctrine and after sending troops to the 1950 Korean War into the Western defence alliance NATO.
But that relationship has never been without problems. Those observers, especially the Middle Eastern observers tend to see the current rift between Turkey and the U.S. as an unprecedented one, forgetting that the U.S. has actually imposed an arms embargo on Turkey in 1975, at the heat of the Cold War which in return Turkey had closed its bases, including the strategic air base of Incirlik for the use of Americans for three years.
Yet, today it is a bit different because there are now three main reasons of rift, not one with the U.S. all of them being agitated since the break of the Arab Spring and especially during the civil war in Syria. Those are; the American pick against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) as the People’s protection Units (YPG) which is the Syria extension of Turkey’s arch enemy the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK); the U.S. resident Islamist preacher Fethullah Gülen who is accused of masterminding a military coup attempt against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in 2016 (which is related to the arrest of an Evangelic pastor, Andrew Brunson in Turkey; and Turkey’s choice to buy Russian made S-400 air defence missiles which is not NATO interoperable and alien to NATO weapon systems, due to reluctance of the American administration to sell Patriot air defence systems to Turkey.
The relations with the Europe are full of problems as well. Turkey is one of the founding members of the Council of Europe (CoE) for Western democratic standards as set by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Yet, Turkey is under heavy fire from both the CoE and the European Union (EU) which Turkey wants to be a member for more than half a century now with little improvement.
There are reasons sourcing from EU and sourcing from Turkey for that. The EU is accusing Turkey to lag behind the democratic standards, especially after the declaration of the State of Emergency by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Parti) government right after the July 15, 2016 coup attempt, particularly under the areas of court independence and freedom of expression and media.
President Erdoğan who once was the most favoured Turkish politician as seen as the flag bearer of democracy in a Muslim society by those who thought the only problem against more democracy was the military. But nowadays he is among the most despised world leaders by the Western media and many Western politicians.
Erdoğan in return slams the European governments for not showing necessary solidarity when it comes to Turkey’s security concerns, for example by harbouring PKK and providing asylum to those (former) Turkish military officers who fled following the coup attempt; Germany and Greece are particularly criticized for that.
On the other hand the democratic standards in the West is in a regression as well. Donald Trump administration in the U.S. is both shaking the world with an aggressive unilateralism and escalating populism in his own country. A number of EU governments are criticised within because of deviating from the standards that unite them. The Brexit has caused the EU to shrink for the first time since its foundation, setting an example to other countries having problems with Brussels.
Under the circumstances, the membership prospects of Turkey to EU seems not possible. But neither of the sides want to cut the relations and even to be the one to pronounce it first. It’s not only because of the trade between Turkey and the EU and Turkey hosting the production base of many European brands. It’s not only the key geography that Turkey holds at the juncture of many strategic transport routes. It’s not only the vital role Turkey plays for security of Europe. But it’s a combination of all imposing the necessity of Turkey and the EU, Turkey and the West in general to stay anchored to each other.
For example those who thought the Turkish U.S. relations are coming to a point of no return until a few weeks ago, especially when some senators has asked the administration to exclude Turkey from the joint production of the F-35 jet fighters are surprised to see that first two batch were delivered to Turkish Air Forces on June 21. Also when Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu announced that, as they had agreed with the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about the withdrawal of the YPG from the Syrian town of Manbij would start on July 4.
They might be surprised more when they see Turkey as a part of a new NATO project which is planned to be on the table in the coming Summit on July 11-12.
Actually both the West and Turkey have seen that the current situation is not sustainable and it is not in the advantage of neither of them.
The opposition campaign carried out by the Republican People’s Party (CHP) candidate Muharrem İnce, promoting better relations with the West for better democracy has found echo in society. And not only with the West. Almost in all opposition campaigns candidates have called for better relations with the Middle East countries starting from Syria.
It seems there is a ground for fine tuning in Turkish foreign policy for a more reconciliatory line which we might witness in near future.

Russian air strikes back Syrian southern offensive. US to Southern Front rebels: You’re on your own
الطيران الروسي يساند الأسد في هجمومه على الجنوب السوري وواشنطن تقول للثوار في الجنوب بأنها لن تساندهم
DEBKAfile/June 24/18
After the breakdown of Russian-Israel talks, the Russian Air Force on Saturday night, June 23, bombed Syrian rebel targets in support of Assad’s southwest offensive. This was contrary to Russian promises to Israel. The Russian bombers taking off from the Hmeimim air base in Latakia, launched 25-30 sorties over the small town of Busr al-Harir in Daraa province bordering on Jordan, one of the locations which fell to the Syrian army last week. In their talks with Israel, the Russians said that while giving Assad the nod to go for Daraa and Quneitra opposite Israel’s Golan border, they would withhold air support. Their bombardment also ignored stern American warnings: Last week, the State Department warned Assad and his Russian allies of “serious repercussions” for violating the de-escalations arrangement reached last year between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Then, on Saturday, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley condemned the Syria attack on the southern Syrian borders with Israel and Jordan as “unambiguously violating” that arrangement. “Russia will ultimately bear responsibility for any for escalations in Syria,” Haley said.
At the same time, on Sunday, social media reported that the US through its embassy in Amman had sent this message to all Southern Front (rebel) leaders: Make your own decision, but “you should not base your decision on the assumption or expectation of military intervention by us.” There is no official confirmation from Washington of this message. DEBKAfile: If the Trump administration has indeed backed away from supporting the southern front rebel leaders against Syrian army, Russian-backed attack, this may be interpreted as signifying President Donald Trump’s decision not to allow the contest over southwest Syria and Jordanian and Israel borderlands stand in the way of an early summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Israel would then be left to cope on its own with fending off the drive of the Syrian army and its allies, Hizballah and the pro-Iranian Shiite forces, up to its borders. In this eventuality, the IDF has two options:
Non-intervention like the US and acceptance of a Syrian military presence along its northern border.
Intervention by air and ground-to-ground missile strikes against Syrian military and allied targets to halt their advance. There is no sign of the Israeli government or military chiefs gearing up for such an operation.
But meanwhile, a Syrian refugee problem is building up on its Golan border. Some 12,000 refugees are reported to have fled their homes since the Syrian army captured small towns and villages in the Daraa province. Thousands are gathering on the Israeli border and setting up tents.

Palestinians Slam Kushner , Accuse Him Of Incitement
جيرازولم بوست: الفلسطينيون ينتقدون كوشنر ويتهمونه بالتحريض
Jerusalem Post/June 24/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/65549/jerusalem-post-palestinians-slam-kushner-accuse-him-of-incitement-%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%88%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A/
The PA Ministry of Information also accused him of engaging in “deception” against international law and “promoting normalization” between Arabs and Israel.
Palestinian officials denounced US envoy Jared Kushner on Sunday over remarks he made
de during an interview with a Palestinian newspaper, and accused him of “incitement” against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
The officials reiterated their opposition to US President Donald Trump’s yet-to-be-announced plan for peace in the Middle East.
They claimed the fact that Kushner had to address the Palestinian public through a newspaper was an indication the US administration had failed to win Arab support for the plan.
According to unconfirmed reports in several Arab media outlets, Egypt and Jordan have expressed strong reservations about the proposed peace plan.
Kushner’s direct appeal to the Palestinians – through an interview with the Palestinian Al-Quds newspaper published on Sunday – drew sharp criticism from several senior Palestinian officials. The officials said Kushner’s statements had failed to convince “even one Palestinian” that the US administration was capable of playing any role in a peace process.
The PA Ministry of Information accused Kushner of “incitement” against the Palestinian leadership. It also accused him of engaging in “deception” against international law and “promoting normalization” between Arabs and Israel.
“Washington is not an honest or acceptable mediator,” the Ramallah-based ministry said in a statement, in response to Kushner’s interview with Al-Quds.
Noting Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to the city, as well as US support for Israel at the United Nations Security Council, the ministry said neither Kushner nor anyone else in the White House team was “authorized to talk about the specifications of peace.”
Kushner, in his first interview with a Palestinian newspaper, said Washington would be willing to engage with Abbas if he returns to negotiations with Israel, but if he is not willing, the US will likely announce its peace plan with or without the PA president.
Al-Quds, which publishes in east Jerusalem with an Israeli license, is the largest and oldest Palestinian newspaper.
Although it is privately owned, Al-Quds regularly serves as a mouthpiece for the Palestinian Authority. The other two major Palestinian newspapers, Al-Ayyam and Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, are based in Ramallah and serve as official representatives of the PA leadership.
“If President Abbas is willing to come back to the table, we are ready to engage; if he is not, we will likely air the plan publicly,” Kushner said in the interview. “However, I do question how much President [Mahmoud] Abbas has the ability to, or is willing to, lean into finishing a deal. He has his talking points which have not changed in the last 25 years.”
A senior journalist with Al-Quds told The Jerusalem Post that the interview was initiated by the Americans, and not by the newspaper editors.
“What Kushner did is outrageous and totally unacceptable,” a senior Palestinian official in Ramallah told the Post. “He and his boss, Trump, are mistaken if they think that such tactics will work. The Trump administration thinks it can incite the Palestinians against their leaders.”
The official described Kushner’s direct appeal to the Palestinian public as a “desperate attempt by a frustrated merchant to convince people to purchase his goods.”
Wasel Abu Yusef, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, claimed the US has failed to win the backing of some Arab countries for its peace plan. He said Arab leaders who met with US envoys Kushner and Jason Greenblatt during their recent tour of the region had expressed reservations about the proposed Trump plan.
“The Arab countries made it clear that their position remains clear, namely that a two-state solution should be based on international resolutions [pertaining to the Israeli-Arab conflict],” he added.
Nabil Sha’ath, a former PA foreign minister who currently serves as an “international affairs adviser” to Abbas, accused Kushner and Greenblatt of “working on behalf of Israel in the White House.”
Kushner’s interview, Sha’ath said, “was the best proof that the deal of the century has failed.”
He added: “Kushner tried to address our people directly [through the Al-Quds interview] because he could not find anyone who would listen to him in the Arab countries.”
PLO Secretary-General Saeb Erekat said Kushner’s interview “again illustrates the US refusal to talk substance, to mention Palestinian rights or a Palestinian state.”
Erekat accused the US administration of attempting to “push forward a plan that consolidates Israel’s colonial control over Palestinian land and lives while telling the Palestinian people that money will compensate for our inalienable rights. Plain and simple: Palestine and Palestinian rights are not for sale.”
Meanwhile, former PA information minister Nabil Amru criticized the PA leadership for cutting its ties with the US administration.
Amru, who is a senior official with the West Bank-based ruling Fatah faction, said the PA leadership could have rejected what was leaked about Trump’s peace plan without cutting its ties with the US administration. “No one knows why the Palestinian leadership did that because the situation remains unclear until now,” Amru told the Palestinian news agency Sama.
Amru, who in recent years has openly criticized Abbas and the PA over various issues, said the present Palestinian leadership is too weak to bear the consequences of its rejection of the “deal of the century.” The PA leadership, he added, does not have the ability to face any sanctions the US could impose on the Palestinians once they reject the American peace plan.

As sanctions bite, confused Western policies let Iran off the hook
Baria Alamuddin/Arab News/June 24/18
With the reimposition of US sanctions, Iran’s economy is once again in freefall, particularly as a cluster of European companies that entered Iranian markets after the 2015 nuclear deal flee this uncertain climate. The riyal’s plunge has caused the nominal cost of certain imports like cars to double in just 12 months. However, it remains to be seen whether the economic pain borne by Iranian consumers translates into genuine political pressure upon the regime; particularly in the face of contradictory policies by global powers.
Pressure upon Iran proved effective when the international community was united. Prior to Barack Obama, even Russia and China reluctantly approved UN Security Council sanctions against Iran — an inconceivable scenario today. American and European politicians previously took pains to speak with one voice toward Iran. However, with Donald Trump and John Bolton jettisoning multilateral diplomacy altogether, the Europeans are today tying themselves up in strategic knots. German Chancellor Angela Merkel last week called for urgent solutions to Iran’s “aggressive tendencies” in the region. Yet EU leaders are trying to pull off the impossible feat of simultaneously offering protection from US sanctions for European businesses (which nevertheless appear resolved on departing the Iranian marketplace), while futilely attempting to keep both Trump and Hassan Rouhani interested in a possible successor deal. The absence of international consensus means that the departure of the European companies simply heralds an influx of inferior Chinese goods into Iranian bazaars, making it unlikely that America can impose the stranglehold it desires.
The recent airstrike (thought to have been Israeli) that killed 22 Al-Hashd Al-Shaabi militants fighting inside Syria against the express orders of Iraq’s prime minister highlights the destabilizing impact of transnational proxy militias; undermining the sovereignty of regional states and consolidating an Iranian zone of control spanning the entire Middle East. Is Trump serious about containing Iran? Instead of nurturing an anti-sectarian coalition in Baghdad, American Ambassador Douglas Silliman has been attending Al-Hashd iftar events, rubbing shoulders with Nouri Al-Maliki, and letting it be known that he views the Iran-backed Badr Brigades as a “good” militia. Badr leader Hadi Al-Amiri was even criticized by paramilitary colleagues for becoming too friendly with Silliman.
Although the US singled out Al-Hashd forces, Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haq and Harakat Hezbollah Al-Nujaba for sanctions, their agenda differs little from Badr, the dominant Al-Hashd force. I’m sick of being told by Western officials that Al-Amiri is an Iraqi nationalist, just because he spent the last six months telling interlocutors what they want to hear. This man spent much of his life in Iran waging an insurgency on behalf of a foreign government against his own country, while being deeply complicit in the post-2005 sectarian bloodshed.
It's time the West came up with an aggressive and all-encompassing strategy that puts the ayatollahs of Iran firmly back in their box.
Instead of regarding Al-Hashd Al-Shaabi as an existential threat to Iraq’s future as a unified and democratic state, Western nations fatalistically view such proxies as permanent elements of the regional environment, to be appeased and bargained with. This defeatist attitude was expressed in a new British Foreign Office research paper on “Elite Bargains and Political Deals,” which concluded that it is necessary to “engage effectively with underlying configurations of power and processes of elite bargaining in conflict-affected states.” Yet in states like Yemen and Syria, dominated by alien proxies, this is a green light for Iran to pursue its subversion and destabilization.
In Syria after 2011, the West cheered on the rebels from the sidelines, and was consequently left out while Iran, Hezbollah and Russia waded in to the carnage. Diplomats complacently informed us that intervention was unnecessary because “Assad will be gone in six months.” The same head-in-the-sand policy of denial is manifested today in a reluctance to acknowledge the consequences of Iran’s untrammeled regional dominance. Instead of an unambiguous commitment to block further Iranian expansion across Syria, Trump repeatedly expresses his desire to absolve himself of military responsibilities there altogether, presumably defeating Iran through the power of bluster and hyperbole alone.
The battle for Hodeidah may become one of the most traumatic phases of the Yemen war, and coalition forces should facilitate humanitarian access and minimalize civilian impact. Yet this operation could be decisive in cutting Houthi terrorists off from an unceasing flood of Iranian weapons that have devastated this tragic nation, while allowing Iranian missiles to directly menace Saudi Arabia. Western states should demonstrate support for such necessary operations.
The US’ withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council and UNESCO highlights the glaring shortcomings of this administration’s approach: Theatrical but vacuous gestures that appeal to a far-right fringe are no substitute for intelligible policies. Disengagement from the global human rights infrastructure due to intolerance of criticism toward Israel prevents America taking the moral high ground elsewhere. The gutting of the US State Department furthermore begs the question of whether America retains the expertise, capacity and vision to properly contain Iran.
The blunt instrument of sanctions, bereft of a holistic and vigorous containment strategy, empowers Iran’s hardliners vis-a-vis the reformists, while enriching the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, whose smuggling, crime and money-laundering networks profit from sanctions-evading activities — all of which may make Iranian expansionism yet more aggressive.
Schizophrenic and polarized Western policies toward Iran represent the worst of all possible worlds: US sanctions impose pain on ordinary Iranians, but will only force the regime to change course when imposed by a united international community. Conversely, the EU’s aspiration to sell an expanded deal to Iran can only happen with unambiguous American support.
Instead of trying to undermine each other, both these approaches are required within an aggressive and comprehensive program of regional containment. Enough of grandstanding and denial; let’s see global leaders showing real leadership with an aggressive and all-encompassing strategy that puts the ayatollahs of Tehran firmly back in their box.
• Baria Alamuddin is an award-winning journalist and broadcaster in the Middle East and the UK. She is editor of the Media Services Syndicate and has interviewed numerous heads of state.

US can use North Korea to pressure Iranian regime
بامكان أميركا الإستفادة من كوريا الشمالية للضغط على النظام الإيراني
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/June 24/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/65551/dr-majid-rafizadeh-us-can-use-north-korea-to-pressure-iranian-regime-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A3%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A9/
The agreement signed between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un this month was indeed historic, but it should not be confined to Pyongyang’s nuclear program or US-North Korea diplomatic ties. Washington ought to view the start of a new relationship between North Korea and the US as a perfect opportunity to pressure the Iranian regime and its militias.
It is worth noting that North Korea enjoys a formidable and multilateral relationship with Tehran. The most significant area is related to nuclear activities. Iran has long been dependent on North Korea’s technological capabilities to advance its nuclear program. This is due to the fact that other nuclear states have been reluctant to unreservedly assist the revolutionary and ideological state of the mullahs in achieving its nuclear ambitions.
Between the Islamic Republic and North Korea, there have been several governmental agreements to set up joint operations, such as creating laboratories and exchanging technology, information, experts and scientists in the area of nuclear science. Although the Iranian regime’s lobbyists argue there is no relationship between Tehran and Pyongyang in the nuclear field, evidence shows otherwise. Iran’s chief nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, reportedly traveled to North Korea to witness a nuclear test. In addition, the UN Security Council has previously released a report pointing out that North Korea continued “to market and export its nuclear technology to certain other states.”
It is also claimed that the centrifuge structure that the Iranian regime uses shares striking commonalities to the ones utilized by North Korea. Centrifuges are an integral part of the process of enriching uranium to develop nuclear weapons or to fuel nuclear power plants.
Trump ought to make any US deal with North Korea be based on the condition that Pyongyang halts its nuclear activities with Iran.
To address these concerns, Trump ought to make any deal with Kim be based on the condition that Pyongyang halts its nuclear activities with Iran’s ruling clerics. In addition, due to the long-term relationship between Iran and North Korea, Pyongyang can be a key source for obtaining details about Iran’s clandestine nuclear activities.
For example, one of the most controversial issues that the International Atomic Energy Agency has long failed to resolve is whether or not Iran’s nuclear program has a military dimension. Iran has banned inspectors from visiting its Parchin military site, which is believed to be the location where Iran’s nuclear weapons program is based. If the US president cannot persuade North Korea to disclose such information, Congress can refuse to lift any sanctions or ratify any treaties until Pyongyang opens Iran’s nuclear file.
The second critical area is linked to military cooperation, including the provision of submarines and ballistic missile technology. It has been claimed that if it were not for North Korea’s assistance, Iran’s ballistic missile program would not have advanced to the current level. Iran currently has the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East. Although the Iranian regime refuses to shed light on its ballistic missile activities with North Korea, the two countries enjoy sophisticated cooperation when it comes to short, medium and long-range missiles. Both the Iranian regime and North Korea have yet to sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, which bans the development of short, medium and long-range missiles.
North Korea has also helped Iran to obtain Yono-class submarines, which are difficult to detect when operating in shallow water and running on batteries, and are only utilized by Tehran and Pyongyang. The Pentagon last year revealed that Iran test-fired missiles from a Yono-class submarine in the Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. It should be noted that, based on the latest reports, alleged Tehran-Pyongyang ballistic missile and technological cooperation has escalated since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly labeled as the Iran nuclear deal, was reached in 2015. The close similarities between Iran’s ballistic missiles, such as EMAD, and the North Korean Rodong missiles are compelling.
The US has the opportunity to use the sanctions relief card to push North Korea into discontinuing its ballistic missile collaboration with the Iranian regime. Having been hit by crippling unilateral and multilateral sanctions, one of the major reasons that North Korea has been cooperating with Tehran is most likely to obtain hard currency. The US can pledge to lift economic sanctions against North Korea in exchange for Pyongyang halting its ballistic missile collaboration with the mullahs. The lifting of sanctions is better applied gradually in order to verify the process.
Another issue is that, if North Korea is genuine about improving its ties with the US, it must refuse to join the Islamic Republic in promoting an anti-American agenda, destabilizing the region and promoting its militias.
The latest historic developments between the US and North Korea provide a ripe opportunity for the Trump administration to pressure Pyongyang into halting its military ties with the Iranian regime — which would compel Tehran to stop its aggressive behavior in the region — and revealing the nuances and military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman and president of the International American Council. Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh

Will the US withdraw from Afghanistan?
Michael Kugelman/Arab News/June 24/18
In recent days, Afghanistan has experienced some hopeful moments. A three-day Taliban ceasefire to coincide with the Eid holiday resulted in an unprecedented respite from a war that has ravaged the nation for nearly 17 years. Afghans around the country staged rallies calling for a more permanent peace, and Kabul asked the Taliban to extend its ceasefire. Unfortunately, the insurgents chose to return to the battlefield and have now resumed their attacks on Afghan forces.
Meanwhile, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and, even more significantly, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have issued statements indicating that foreign forces can be a topic of negotiation in any talks with the Taliban. This is a huge development. For years, the Taliban has insisted that it will not lay down its arms until US troops stop fighting and leave the country.
So does this mean that Washington is now open to discussing a troop pullout with the Taliban in order to bring America’s longest-ever foreign war to a close? The answer is that a pullout is a very real and understandable possibility — not now, but further down the road. However, a withdrawal, regardless of when it may happen, would pose major risks for regional stability and US interests.
In reality, for nearly a decade, the US government has not been comfortable staying in Afghanistan. In 2009, President Barack Obama made the extraordinary decision to announce an eventual phased troop withdrawal from Afghanistan at the very moment he called for a surge. By the end of 2014, the US had ended its combat role in Afghanistan, and most of the 100,000 soldiers in country at the height of the surge had long departed.
Then came Donald Trump. When he announced his Afghanistan strategy last August, he admitted that he was initially uncomfortable with the idea of maintaining a military presence, which he ultimately decided not only to keep in place but also to modestly expand. In fact, the “conditions-based” approach that guides the Trump administration strategy — one that will let the situation on the ground, not artificial timelines, determine the fate of the US military presence — gives the White House an opportunity to withdraw.
Let’s assume the administration, sometime down the line, undertakes an appraisal of conditions on the ground. If the White House determines that increased battlefield pressure isn’t turning the tide of the war and that the Taliban still isn’t inclined to talks, then the US could decide to withdraw. Trump has never been comfortable about staying, and he surely knows that his core political base also doesn’t support extended and expensive military commitments abroad.
This is not to say, however, that a withdrawal is forthcoming anytime soon, and certainly not in response to a Taliban demand. If a pullout happens, the US government will do it on its own terms and at a time of its choosing.
There are compelling arguments both in support of and against a withdrawal.
Stay or withdraw? When it comes to the Afghanistan quagmire, there are simply no good options for the US.
On the one hand, a 17-year military presence hasn’t prevented the Taliban from expanding its reach and areas of outright control; it now holds more territory than at any time since 2001. It also hasn’t prevented the arrival and consolidation of Daesh fighters. The US military effort in Afghanistan has cost America the lives of nearly 2,500 soldiers, not to mention hundreds of billions of dollars — including, according to one estimate, a whopping $4 million per hour.
And yet a withdrawal is also fraught with risk.
The Taliban insists it would stop fighting after the departure of foreign forces. However, it would actually have a stronger incentive to take up rather than lay down arms in the event of a US withdrawal. The departure of US troops would gift the Taliban an immense battlefield advantage and put it in a strong position to achieve its long-standing goal of overthrowing the Afghan government.
And, even if it doesn’t achieve that goal, the Taliban would still be able to deliver devastating blows to Afghan security forces, take over much more territory, and further fritter away at the already-tenuous writ of the Afghan state. The consequences could include rampant destabilization, an expansion of lawless spaces, and civil war. Resilient Al-Qaeda forces, resurgent Daesh fighters and other international terror groups based in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region could exploit these ugly conditions and establish new sanctuaries.
In effect, a US military withdrawal from Afghanistan could produce the very problems that the initial American intervention was meant to — and, in some cases, did — eliminate. Indeed, US forces, in relatively short order after their arrival in 2001, destroyed the Al-Qaeda sanctuaries used to help plot the 9/11 attacks.
For the US, the inconvenient truth is that staying and going are both problematic. When it comes to the Afghanistan quagmire, there are simply no good options.
• Michael Kugelman is deputy director of the Asia Program and senior associate for South Asia at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Twitter: @michaelkugelman