LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
May 13/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.may13.18.htm

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

Trump's nuclear decision should not hinder a greater vision for the Arab region
Raghida Dergham/The National/May 12/18
As decision-makers meet in Abu Dhabi, it is important for this vital bloc not to retreat into its tragedies or be consumed by anger, writes Raghida Dergham
Just because there are alarming political and security developments in the Arab region hindering its ambitions does not mean it has to stop thinking in visionary terms and start planning in strategic terms. It is unhealthy for this vital bloc to retreat into its tragedies or to be consumed by anger from what others are doing to and in it.
It is from this standpoint that the Beirut Institute think tank was launched, to leverage the diversity, creativity and capacity of the region in its search for solutions and bring together stakeholders to discuss how to shape the future.
Yet the Beirut Institute is an Arab think tank with a global dimension. Its goal is to exert positive influence in both directions, through frank and constructive engagement that does not ignore facts but takes them into account in order to devise new approaches.
Over the next two days, a distinguished group of Arab and international decision-makers will meet at the second Beirut Institute summit in Abu Dhabi, whose focus will be “to construct the Arab region’s engagement in the emerging global future”. This is less of a theme and more of a duty that thinkers, leaders and ordinary people must assume to move us from despair to hope for the future.
However, none of this is to downplay the seriousness of political developments and their impact on the summit. Indeed, the gathering comes in the aftermath of US President Donald Trump withdrawing his country from the nuclear deal with Iran – a development that will impact the Arab region both in the present and the future and requires profound consideration of its immediate and strategic implications.
When current and ex-Arab League chiefs Ahmed Abulgheit and Amr Moussa sit on the same platform as current and ex-GCC security general Abullatif Al Zayani and Abdullah Bishara, they will inevitably hold an important talk about the odds of either direct military confrontation with Iran or genuine reconciliation with the Islamic Republic in the future of the Middle East.
Another session on new priorities for the region will bring together Prince Turki Al Faisal, general David Petraeus, Lebanon’s interior minister Nouhad El Machnouk and Libyan former prime minister Mahmoud Jibril. This session must tackle in depth what US goals currently are in the Arab region, from the Gulf to Libya via Lebanon, compared to US policies under former president Barack Obama.
What Mr Trump has done with Mr Obama’s nuclear deal is a dangerous gamble, unless he is confident in and ready for the necessary next steps. Indeed, one of the strongest cards Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps has is sabotage and terrorism across the Arab landscape and beyond, if Tehran should feel cornered. This would also embolden hardliners in Iran and prompt the IRGC to escalate against Israel and step up its foreign incursions in Bahrain, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq.
The Europeans in particular are amplifying this very real threat, as they seek to maintain the nuclear deal becausetearing it apart has huge costs for them. The Arab region also faces high costs for the end of the deal, albeit from a different angle.
Mr Trump effectively challenged Germany, France and Britain to end their political hypocrisy under the guise of commercial interests. He has given the three European powers that co-signed the deal with the US, Russia and China an opening. He has said he did not care how the “bad deal” is reformed as long as its flaws and shortcomings are addressed. Nevertheless, Europe’s leaders dismissed Trump’s clear warnings that he was intent to withdraw from the deal unless he obtained European commitments to address the flaws, only to wake up too late to his seriousness and the risks for their companies, which are engaged in massive contracts with Iran.
It is these business dealings that had motivated the Europeans to cave to Iran’s demands, including allowing the IRGC to expand militarily in Iraq, Syria and Yemen and dominate Lebanon through Hezbollah.
So what happens now? The onus is on the Europeans primarily. Mr Trump has exposed Europe’s harmful duplicity and it is up to them to make a move.
For their part, the Arab countries are divided. Some support Mr Trump’s decision and some oppose or fear its repercussions. However, they are almost united in their resentment of Europe’s behaviour in the Arab landscape over the past few decades. This means that the current moment of truth could be an opportunity to engage in a reform process with multiple goals, including mending the imbalance in the European-Iranian-Arab dynamic.
Discussing how to induce a positive shift in these troubled relations, including Arab-Iranian relations, is part of what the Beirut Institute is trying to do. What is unacceptable in all cases, however, is to freeze the Arab region’s march towards progress and surrender by fear from the likes of Al Qaeda and ISIS or possible reprisal from the Islamic Republic. We must not reduce the Arab region to conflict and terrorism for it is a fertile land for talent, ambition and determination, despite all appearances.
Beirut Institute is a workshop for ideas and actions, bringing together multiple generations to speak in the language of empowerment and resolve. When I founded this think tank eight years ago, I enlisted my daughter, who was still a university student at the time. As I set out to continue the institute’s work and overcome the many hurdles facing it, I was not alone but was fortunate to have an excellent board of directors, led by Prince Turki, who put his faith in us.
We were also lucky and grateful to be hosted for our summits by the UAE in October 2015 and now again this week, a testimony that the institute works for the entire Arab region.
Beyond geopolitical challenges, the summit will hold sessions titled "beyond fear: toward a pragmatic embrace of tomorrow" and "innovative government: excellence in the public sphere".
Participants from the US, Russia, China, Europe and the Arab region will hold both closed and open meetings to discuss the next chapter in the Middle East’s story but the question remains: who authors the future in the region?
*The Beirut Institute Summit will run today and tomorrow in the St Regis hotel, Abu Dhabi Corniche
www.beirutinstitutesummit.org

Merkel, Macron’s pro-Iran stance will push more chaos in the region
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/May 12/18
The siren drills in a number of Saudi cities is not a routine amid the tense circumstances of the region as Iran continuous firing ballistic missiles targeting populated Saudi cities through their Houthi agent in Yemen, which shows the danger facing everyone.
Despite this and the spread of the organized violence by the Iranian regime, both governments of Germany and France are promoting the idea to overlook the Iranian wars and respect the nuclear agreement with it.
For the first time and bluntly, German Chancellor Angela Merkel talked about strengthening her country’s military defense policy away from the United States, telling the Iranian president over the phone that she is committed to the agreement and cooperating with Iran. Along with Merkel, the French president also chose to be separated from Washington, promising the regime in Tehran to trade with it, announcing their desire to become more independent of their permanent American ally.
The positions opposing the US president’s decision to break the nuclear deal with Iran poses a series of perceptions that seems positive, but in reality it is drastically negative. France and Germany commitment to the agreement might be out of believing that it is the lesser of two evils. They claim that their position gives Iran an opportunity to think and interact positively so as not to lose Europe, after it had lost the US. Germany and France are promoting their biased positon to Tehran as if to prevent the regime from re-building nuclear weapons and rationalize its policies.
Both Germany and France are giving wrong indicators to the Iranian supreme leader that he was right in his position against Washington and that he does not need to reform his regional policies. We are afraid that the Merkel-Macron’s messages is what is going to push more chaos and wars in the region.
On the other side of this open positon, the Germans and French do not have enough guarantees for Tehran’s military and economic behavior. Thus, both countries give wrong indicators to the Iranian supreme leader that he was right in his position against Washington and that he does not need to reform his regional policies. We are afraid that the Merkel-Macron’s messages is what is going to push more chaos and wars in the region.
Creating more chaos
The US president Trump may not be tactful, but in this case he is right.
The nuclear agreement is the worst one in the modern age and it must be modified. The Middle East region, even with its bad standards, never knew wars, violence and dangers like those occurred after signing the agreement. The future would be worse as long as the Iranian regime sees that the major powers had abandoned its charging means. The Israeli- Iranian confrontation in Syria was only the result of this agreement which provides the regime with money, allowed it to spread and makes it fee free in the region. The Europeans has temporary solutions for huge wars, like in Syria, they donate more tents and blankets, they are wrong in this. Syria would create more worries due to the imbalances of powers in the region. As they tried in Libya, which is located directly in their security area, the Southern Europe security. Europe, whether as a combined or single powers, could only handle the Civil war in Libya, by deploying the maritime police to prevent immigrants. Thus due to absence of central authority and not enabling peace there, Libya became a passage to thousands of Africans, who are ready to drown in order to immigrate to Europe. Europe’s sleeping policy needs one of two solutions; either that US would bear the burden of the military confrontation or let the countries to region burn. Europe is not capable of making any war decision, it does not have the ability to agree on a joint military work. If it had not been for the US interference in Bosnia, the crisis might have been there in Europe itself until today!
Can the Germans and the French let us know their solution for what Iran is doing in Iraq, Syria, Gaza and Yemen? They do not anything but seeking to sell weapons, but they refuse to send forces or offer information or logistical services! With exception of a symbolic French force in Syria, we could not say that it makes a difference on the ground! Thus, The Europeans submission to the Iranian regime is at the expense of the restless Iranian people and the countries of the region which are all targeted by Iran. The only choice left is to get ready for wider wars.

North Korea: China holds the key to a successful US agreement
Dr. Mohamed A. Ramady/Al Arabiya/May 12/18
Just like Russia seems to be holding the key as an arbitrator between warring parties like Iran and Israel in Syria , China is playing an important background role to get North Korea reach a successful outcome with the USA .
The objective of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s hurried last minute trip to Pyongyang was to lay the groundwork for a successful historic summit between the US and North Korean leaders that will be held in Singapore on 12 June, marked by the release of three US hostages held by the North Korean regime. But there was more behind the showcase hostage release tv drama, as the White House also timed Pompeo’s trip to ensure that upcoming nuclear negotiations with North Korea would not be derailed by President Donald Trump’s controversial decision yesterday to withdraw completely from the 2015 JCPOA nuclear accord with Iran. Despite what is likely to be a prolonged and contentious fallout now between the US and key allies over Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA accord and re-imposition of sanctions on Iran, all the major parties to the North Korea talks are ready to proceed as planned with the summit and negotiations over the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and it is here that China’s critical role has come into play.
Kim assured
At a two-day meeting hosted in Dalian, in northeast China’s Liaoning Province, China’s President Xi Jinping assured North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un that the Iranian nuclear issue was different from the Korean nuclear issue. Xi assured Kim that were the US to cancel or suspend an agreement with North Korea, under any pretext, China would firmly support and stand with North Korea. In a way, that means China would ultimately backstop the DPRK’s nuclear program. In their discussions, Kim stressed that the US must work with his country to take “phased and synchronous measures,” in a responsible manner, to eventually achieve denuclearization and lasting peace on the peninsula, and Xi agreed. While President Trump has stated that he hopes for a “ great outcome “ , but that he can also walk out if no immediate denuclearisation is achieved , Kim has also stressed that if Trump were to refuse to abide by the “phased and synchronous” roadmap, talks would fail. Xi assured him he would persuade the US President to do so putting China in a position to inform the US accordingly, as many commentators are pointing out that the summit has been hurriedly set up with little planning from the US side except demanding a total denuclearisation of North Korea. So long as relevant parties agreed to abolish their hostile policies and remove security threats against the North Korea, there would be no need for North Korea to be a nuclear state.
From all accounts following the historic meeting between the two Korean leaders and Kim’s meetings with the US officials, and with the Chinese leadership, he has stressed that it has been his consistent and clear desire and stance all along to achieve the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
However, this will not be a one-way street. So long as relevant parties agreed to abolish their hostile policies and remove security threats against the North Korea, there would be no need for North Korea to be a nuclear state, and denuclearization could be realized, but that any roadmap for de-escalation with the US would have to be “phased” and “synchronous.”
China’s support becomes critical and in addition to coordinating positions on the upcoming nuclear summit and the impact on North Korea of Iran, Kim and Xi discussed the North Koreas “open policy” and cooperation between the two countries on the economic and trade fronts.
The Chinese have reconfirmed China’s support for the North Korea, and for Kim’s efforts to shift strategic focus on economic construction, promising that China would surely be the biggest investor in North Korea in the future. In conclusion, the forthcoming Singapore summit is not only going to be of huge importance for a domestically embattled US President, and an economically isolated and sanctioned North Korean leader, but also important for the Chinese leadership that would like to resolve this potential flash point problem nearer to home so as to concentrate on the wider and looming trade war with the USA.

Was there ever a unified Arab stance towards Iran?
Mashari Althaydi/Al Arabiya/May 12/18
American President Donald Trump’s harsh blow by withdrawing from the “bad” agreement with the Iranian regime shocked many parties across the world and turned heads. The Europeans had bet on playing on Trump’s character and influencing his decision via some special ways, like when French President Emmanuel Macron courted Trump. German chancellor Angela Merkel tried to pressure Trump, and many others tried to change his mind but he neglected all the Europeans’ statements. He had given them time to pressure the Iranians to “amend” this destructive agreement which Obama and his global networks brag about. The essence of the amendment which Trump had demanded was: ending the ballistic missiles program and halting evil Iranian interferences in the Middle East. The Europeans however did nothing. As to why the Europeans are dying to preserve the Iranian deal then this is something else as today I want to comment on the Arab stance – if it’s right to talk about an Arab stance – in general regarding the major American withdrawal from the Iranian deal. The story is clear for Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Trump’s measure is excellent and they can only support him for reasons that pertain to their views of the nature of the Iranian threat which was neglected by the leaders of the countries that signed the deal in 2015 without the presence of any Arab party.
What about the rest of the Arabs?
Egyptian stance
There is the Egyptian stance as expressed by the foreign ministry’s statement. This part attracted my attention: “Egypt confirms the importance of the participation of the concerned Arab parties in any dialogue about the future of the situation in the region, particularly any dialogue that’s linked to the possibilities of amending the nuclear deal with Iran.”Great, but does this request include the attendance of, for example, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria? Qatar which embraces American military bases and which has excellent relations with Iran is in a bad fix especially after the anti-terror quartet’s boycott. These countries, or to be more accurate the “actual” ruling authorities in these countries, are biased to Iran in varying degrees so how can we talk about one Arab stance in this case? There is also the Kuwaiti stance, as expressed by the foreign ministry, which falls in the “middle” as it neither strongly supported Trump’s move nor clearly objected to it. After explaining Kuwait’s justifications for supporting the deal in the past, the statement said: “Kuwait respects and understands America’s withdrawal from the deal.” Qatar which embraces American military bases and which has excellent relations with Iran is in a bad fix especially after the anti-terror quartet’s boycott. Commenting on the American move, the foreign ministry said in a statement: “It’s in all parties’ interest to act with restraint and deal wisely and patiently with the situation and attempt to resolve current disputes via dialogue.”We do not know what is meant here by wisdom or the “patience” it calls for. In short, there’s nothing called a unified Arab stance but there are several Arab interests and perhaps contradictory ones. This is how the situation is whether you like it or not.

Hope fades for Qatar’s long wait
Sawsan Al Shaer/Al Arabiya/May 12/18
American President Donald Trump’s harsh blo
It’s been more than a week since US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Saudi Arabia. He has returned to the US after being reassured that the support his country needs from Gulf countries, whether it’s logistical or military, is available to maintain regional security without a need to end the boycott with Qatar.
US-Gulf security ties
This US conviction is due to Saudi Arabia’s astuteness in keeping the Qatari participation in the Gulf Shield’s military drills, which the US participated in, and in not minding American presence at Al Udeid Air Base in Doha. This is what worried Americans the most as everything else is finalized and well-arranged. There is a high level of coordination between Gulf and American troops and everyone is on stand-by for any kind of cooperation as the boycott has had no effect at all in this sphere.
Pompeo thus returned to the US convinced that the boycott will not affect American interests in the region, as the issue with Qatar is an internal matter among the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, and that if it has to be resolved, it must be an intra-GCC solution. What’s important is that this boycott does not influence any security cooperation or coordination between GCC states and US troops, whether on air, sea or ground. Everyone, including those who disagree with each other, agree not to involve this dispute with any security interests with the US. This approach also serves their interests. It seems Pompeo is convinced that the row between the boycotting countries and Qatar is outside the scope of US-Gulf interest. Therefore, no statements seeking an end to the boycott were made. The maximum that was said to address the dispute with Qatar during the press conference, which Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir held with his American counterpart Pompeo, was an American “desire” for Gulf unity to confront challenges and threats surrounding the region. We share this US desire with Pompeo, however what we disagree with here is that this time we insist it being on a sound and strong basis. Apart from it, the dispute with Qatar was not on the agenda of bilateral talks.
Qatar’s euphoria peters out
Those who followed up with the euphoria that Qatar had raised during and after Pompeo’s visit would have thought that the US had intimidated the kingdom and that everyone in Saudi Arabia was afraid and that the next day they would announce lifting the “blockade,” as the Qatari news channel put it! This scenario was based on a New York Times report that said Pompeo told Saudi Arabia “enough is enough” and that the Saudis “must stop Qatar blockade.” This account supposedly came from an American official who is not authorized to be named.
Pompeo has returned to the US convinced that the boycott of Qatar is an internal matter of the GCC . However, we did not see anything close to this report. The statements made by Pompeo, the White House, the spokesperson of the US Department of State did not show any sign of this being true. This was not even conveyed in the press conference held between Pompeo and Jubeir. On the contrary, we sensed deep respect and appreciation from the US for the kingdom, and the word ‘Qatar’ was not even mentioned!
Qatar’s last hope?
So what will Qatar do now especially that this visit may have been its last hope over the possibility of American “pressure” on the boycotting countries? If Al-Jazeera television channel reflects how the Qatari regime thinks then what lack of perception does it suffer from? What naiveté is this? How long does it need to wake up and end its crisis and tragedy? How many messages, visits and new attempts will it take for it to understand the reality of the situation? Does the Qatari regime, which dreams of the end of its nightmare, still hope things will be better after Trump’s presidential term ends? Does it rely on waiting another year and a half in the hope that a new Democratic administration will come to finish fulfilling the dream brought about by Obama to topple countries and restore his glories and his suspicious role in this project? The current administration has exhausted its attempts, and more importantly, it’s convinced that this local dispute will not influence American interests and will not affect joint military cooperation. If this is the Qatari regime’s only hope, then it might as well wait. The completion of a year and a half is nigh, if you wait for it.

Radicalism: The Real Shock Was the Reaction of the Americans...
Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone Institute/May 12/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12258/radicalism-islamists-us
Many extremist Muslims believe that their religious desire is coming true in in the US. Religiously speaking, for extremist Muslims, ruling America is Allah's (God's) word. To them, a sacred promise is coming to fruition.
What does being the second-largest religion in a country mean? Voters impact local and national politics, swing domestic elections, elect more representatives from the same religious affiliation, are influential enough to determine who the next president of the United States may be, and change the laws of the land.
This sense of immunity and dismissal led to the downfall of many countries throughout time.
"Soon," said the letter, "America Will Be Ours".
"Ours?"
The writer, it became clear, was an extremist Muslim in the U.S. who claimed to be a reputable religious preacher. With each new word, concern grew.
He pointed out, throughout the letter, the "sinful" ways of the West: dancing, drinking, dating...
He expressed disgust that most women did not wear the hijab or participate in prayer five times a day. Then he got straight to the point: "Ours," he explained, represented Muslims like him.
The sentiment is hardly a new one. A person hears similar proclamations from many Muslim extremists throughout the years. The real shock was not letter but the reaction of many Americans after seeing it.
Such a thing, they said, could never happen. The writer's words were "just bluster," nothing to be taken seriously. Most surprisingly, they stated -- honestly -- that Muslims who speak of such intentions do not really mean what they say, so these threats should not be cause for concern.
The history of the two nations where I grew up -- Iran and Syria -- taught all of us there a big lesson about living in this kind of ignorance: the reality of how quickly a nation can be consumed by the philosophies of a religious state. An authoritarian and malicious regime, as exists now in Iran -- the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and brutal even to its own people -- is something we cannot forget.
In a few centuries, in Syria, where more than 90% percent of the population were Christians, and in Iran where an overwhelming majority of citizens were Zoroastrians, the demography drastically shifted to majority-Muslim. Neither nation could have anticipated such a change.
While many may underestimate the radical preacher's claims that "Soon, America Will Be Ours", for extremist Muslims these beliefs are strongly and deeply rooted.
Many extremists believe that their religious desire -- for a "Muslim takeover of the White House, a directive from Muhammad himself " -- is coming true in the US. Religiously speaking, for these Muslims, ruling America is Allah's (God's) word, a sacred promise is coming to fruition.
A recent survey and demographic research released by the Pew Research Center found that Muslims will soon overtake members of other religions, including Jews, as the second-largest religious group in the United States.
This issue should not be taken lightly. What does being the second-largest religion in a country mean? Voters impact local and national politics, swing domestic elections, elect more representatives from the same religious affiliation, are influential enough to determine who the next president of the United States may be, and change the laws of the land. All it takes is a subtle shift in power for the entire society, political system and culture of a nation to be changed.
The number of Muslims in the US has increased by 40% in just five years -- between 2010-2015 -- while in the same period the non-Muslim population of the US has grown by only five percent. This means that the Muslim population is growing almost eight times faster than the non-Muslim population in the US.
As an adult, in the Muslim world, I came to hear verses and hadiths frequently used by extremists and carved into their minds. To them, these are the true instructions and predictions of the most powerful being. Those Muslims strongly believe that these verses and hadiths (sayings of Muhammad) will come true because they are issued by Allah (God) or by his messenger, Muhammad. Allah, for instance, says in the Qur'an Chapter (9:33) sūrat al-tawbah (The Repentance):
"It is he (Allah) who has sent his Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), in order for it to be dominant over all other religions, even though the Mushrikoon (disbelievers) hate it."
A popular hadith is: "Verily Allah has shown me the eastern and western part of the earth, and I saw the authority of my Ummah (nation) dominate all that I saw"
Some extremist Muslims believe that Allah and Muhammad predicted that they would rule over America even before America was discovered by Europeans. As a certain radical Muslim activist said on ABC news, "Indeed, we believe that one day, the flag of Islam will fly over the White House." He quoted a saying of Muhammad, from the Muslim scholar Al-Tabarani in the 10th-century. "The final hour," he said, "will not come until Muslims conquer the White House."
Many extremists also insist that Muslims do not need to be the majority in a country in order to take over the government: "A small portion of Muslims will rise and conquer the White House."
In the belief of fundamentalist Muslims, it is the obligation of every Muslim to pave the way for Islam to dominate America. They are encouraged to use various methods to ensure that this occurs -- these include force, violence and waging jihad (holy war).
Any action taken for the purpose of accomplishing that goal is applauded by Muslim extremists worldwide. Islamists and Islamist states, for instance, heavily praised, and quoted Louis Farrakhan when he predicted that, "God will destroy America at the hands of the Muslims. God will not give Japan or Europe the honor of bringing down the United States; this is an honor God will bestow upon Muslims."
There is historical proof of great nations succumbing to the ideals of extreme and determined radical groupsy. History has often taught hard lessons to powerful nations. Before one dismisses the danger America faces, take the time to learn about the past and just how easily and swiftly irreversible changes can happen: Russia in 1917, Germany 1933, Egypt in 1952, Iran in 1979, and so forth. Do not underestimate the ability of radical Islam to take over your government and impose Sharia law throughout this once free nation.
Americans should not think that they will somehow be an exception to that historical rule. This sense of immunity and dismissal led to the downfall of many countries throughout time. If Americans do not take the issue seriously, history may teach them the hard way that what once seemed impossible is here.Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu
© 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.