LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 02/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.march02.18.htm

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

Iran at the brink of an ugly civil war
Mohammed Al Shaikh/Al Arabiya/March 01/18
In all probability, Iran will eventually succumb to popular demonstrations and protests, simply because it doesn’t have the solutions to its growing economic problems, unless it abandons its costly expansionist practices. Most of Iran's revenues are siphoned off by militias raised in pursuit of its expansionist goals.
Furthermore, a large portion of this funding is spent on developing advanced weapons’ programs, particularly ballistic missiles. When it finally gives up these programs, it will become clear that all of its political and expansionist agendas — be they in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen have been complete failures.
Thus, I truly believe that Iran will have no choice but to snuff out protests, which subside in one place but erupt somewhere else, via the Revolutionary Guards and by adopting the practices of the SAVAK which the deposed Shah utilized to govern the country with. Such practices may be successful only for some time, but eventually they would yield to the will of the protesters, just like they protested against the Shah and toppled him.
The IRGC are as brutal as the ISIS militia, the only difference between the two being their sectarian divergence
More pernicious than Shah’s repression
The difference between the revolution against the Shah and the revolution against the theocracy is that the claws of the repressive clerical power, in the form of the Revolutionary Guards, are far more pernicious and dreadful than those used by the Shah’s army and security forces in their time.
The Shah’s security and army were not ideologically driven and their military tactics had nothing to do with religion. Their aim was to defend Iran, the nation. However, Iranian Revolutionary Guard militia are religiously driven, are deeply embedded in Vilayat-e-Faqih doctrine and by what the clerics say.
They do not ponder for a second before striking down anyone who faces them, and remain adamant even if they may have to wipe out half of the Iranian people. In fact, they are as brutal as the ISIS militia, the only difference between the two being their sectarian divergence.
Plagued by hunger, poverty and corruption, the floundering economy of Iran and the ineptitude of the regime in improving economic conditions gives me the confidence to firmly predict that Iran will, in the next two to three years, witness a civil war, especially if the United States persists with its sanctions against the regime and diminishes Iran’s ability to become part of the global economy.
Such measures are tantamount to adding fuel to fire. This would worsen Iran’s domestic situation and would stoke the flames of popular resentment which will spread until it exhausts the Revolutionary Guards.
The IRGC will make it violent
In contrast, the Revolutionary Guards will never tolerate the downfall of the 1979 revolution, which they deem their doctrinal duty to protect and preserve. Hence, they will certainly try to suppress protests at all costs.
Therefore, all the objective indicators point that if hungry people revolt en masse, the Revolutionary Guard can only confront them with the force of arms. If we look at Bashar's experience in Syria as a case in point, then we can see that he was only able to withstand the ire of Syrian masses with the help of Russians. If the hungry masses come out to revolt, their revolution will likely turn into a bloody civil war, just as the one that took place in Syria. All I want to say is that economic failures that stare in the face of the theocracy will always be the cause and trigger for civil wars.

Why the Syrian ceasefire was doomed to fail
Dr. Azeem Ibrahim/Al Arabiya/March 01/18
Last week, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution for a 30-day ceasefire in Syria. A rare achievement for the divided assembly. Except that it is no achievement at all. Russia used the threat of their veto power to exclude operations targeting terror groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliate Hayat Tahrir al-Sham from the resolution. And under that cover, all actors in the conflict can go on to bomb whatever they please. Since the resolution has been passed, the Assad government has carried on the brutal siege bombardment of Eastern Ghouta which has resulted in hundreds of dead civilians. Iran, and by extension Hezbollah, have taken the position that the groups they have been targeting all along would fall under the exception, so the resolution does not apply to their situation. And Turkey has declared that it will continue its attacks on the YPG in Afrin as before.
Seeing as all the major players and regional players involved in the conflict are adamant that they will continue to pursue their military aims as before, what exactly was the point of the UN effort? In the Syrian civil war, the diplomatic overtures at the UN or the Geneva process have a well-established tactical use particularly for the Assad government and Russia. Moves toward a peace process have always been hinted by them, whenever they wanted to lower the defences of the rebels and prepare for a renewed offensive. But of course, this tactic has long since lost its usefulness. The YPG, for example, have said that they are prepared to respect the ceasefire “while reserving the right to retaliate ... in case of any aggression by the Turkish army”. In other words, nobody is going to lay any weapons down.
If ceasefires had been an acceptable proposition for either side, they would have been agreed long ago. Both Syrian sides in this conflict see this as a fight for survival
The power to enforce
The problem with UN resolutions is that the UN does not have the power to enforce its decisions on its own. It requires that members respond to resolutions, for example by becoming the enforcers, or, if they are the members under censure, to cease their activities.
The West has long washed its hands off the Syrian disaster. There is hardly any expectation or credible threat from us to the Assad regime. As for the regime, the Russians and the Iranians censuring themselves for their activities? That has not been a credible proposition since before the first chemical weapons were deployed in the conflict. The UN passes resolutions because that is what it does. And it is all it can do. But it nevertheless used to have a clear and powerful role in international politics, as a foundation of political legitimacy, of international law, and of universal human rights.
Yet as the global power system continues to unravel, these things seem to matter less and less in the chaotic power scramble left by the void of America’s military and moral failures over the past 15 years. Perhaps the most surprising thing about the Syrian conflict at this point in time is that it still rages on. Almost three years since Russia has become involved, the various factions of the Syrian opposition continue to hold important territory, and continue to resist the combined might of the Assad government, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. If ceasefires had been an acceptable proposition for either side, they would have been agreed long ago. Both Syrian sides in this conflict see this as a fight for survival, and do not trust their opponents enough for a ceasefire agreement to be able to get off the ground. Diplomats in faraway cities can agree whatever they want.
The people on the ground will fight to the last. After the United States and the West failed to enforce their chemical weapons “red line”, things were always going to go this way. And it seems we are yet far from the end of the killing.

The future of the Middle East peace process
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Othaimin/Al Arabiya/March 01/18
In an earlier article, I argued that the Palestinian cause is absent at all levels including the media and politics, as well as public opinion because of the so-called Arab Spring.
I attributed this absence to three factors: Arab countries are busy with their internal issues in light of deteriorating economic conditions and high prices; the emergence of “terrorism” has echoed throughout the media at the expense of developments in Palestine and a Palestinian internal division occurred after 2007.
However, the recent announcement of US President Donald Trump acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem brought the Palestinian cause back to the forefront of the media and the political scene. The decision highlighted the fact that the Palestinian cause in general and Jerusalem in particular remain a central issue in the hearts and the minds of Arabs and Muslims.
Trump’s decision was to enforce the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 by the US Congress (23 October 1995) issued during the presidency of Bill Clinton. The Act calls for the substitution of the existing US embassy in Tel Aviv with a new one in Jerusalem.
In recent times, US presidents including Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama have issued resolutions, every six months, to postpone the transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem.
Nevertheless, Donald Trump, who also postponed the transfer of the embassy once last June, justifying that decision by saying that it made room for reaching a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, has finally decided to enforce the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.
The question remains as to what might have made Trump, and not any former president, proceed to the enforcement of the Act. There has been much speculation and analysis, but I think there are two main reasons for Trump’s decision.
Trump administration believed that the influence and impact of the opposition of the Arab world would be extremely weak
Meetings at the White House
Firstly, pressure from Evangelical Christians, who represent a segment of his popularity. A group of hardline fundamentalist Christians from within the Republican Party, the party through which he ran for the presidency, put constant pressure on the president through his advisors during ordinary meetings at the White House. Spokesperson for the Evangelical Advisory Board at the White House, Johnnie Moore, said that he had no doubt of the key role played by the Advisory Board in the decision having been taken. He believed that it could not possibly have been made without them. Therefore, the constant pressure on the president pushed him to move forward with his decision. Secondly, distractions in the Arab world. As has been argued above, as a result of the Arab Spring, the Arab world is busy with civil wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and with issues of reconstruction, state-building, security, development and reform in Tunisia and Egypt. In addition, the emergence of “terrorism” and “extremism” and the issues of combating terrorism have dominated the agenda of the Arab world. Thus, the Trump administration believed that the influence and impact of the opposition of the Arab world would be extremely weak. Finally, I think the decision aborts the peace process, inflames the region and justifies the operations of terrorist organizations. Therefore, the US administration must reverse their decision and intensify international efforts aimed at the settlement of the Palestinian cause within the framework of the Arab Peace Initiative, which represents an Arab-approved roadmap for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.