Detailed Lebanese & Lebanese Related LCCC English New Bulletin For October 06/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.october06.18.htm

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

Iran and the Impossible Admission/اياد أبو شقرا/إيران… والاعتراف المستحيل
Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/October 05/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/67904/eyad-abu-shakra-asharq-al-awsat-iran-and-the-impossible-admission-%d8%a7%d9%8a%d8%a7%d8%af-%d8%a3%d8%a8%d9%88-%d8%b4%d9%82%d8%b1%d8%a7-%d8%a5%d9%8a%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86-%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a7%d8%b9/
I guess that the operation that shook Ahvaz, the capital of Khuzestan (Arabstan) Province in western Iran, targeting a military parade will be an important landmark in the already unhealthy relations between the Mullahs’ regime in Tehran and the Arab World.
To begin with, and from a humanitarian standpoint, I fully regret and condemn any loss of innocent lives, if there were civilian casualties. Some reports, in fact, have reported some civilian casualties among dozens of military dead and injured. My full sympathy goes to those innocent victims.
In the meantime, however, what the Iranian leadership has perpetrated and continue to perpetrate, both internally and in the neighboring countries; namely, Arab countries from the Arabian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean and southward to the Strait of Bab El-Mandeb must not be overlooked. On the other hand, it would be wrong to keep quiet about what a self-claimed ‘saintly’ authority, might do in the future; especially, when the behavior of this authority, which consider itself unaccountable to anyone, since 1979 are well known to the Arabs, even whole world.
The ‘political culture’ of Iran’s ruling elite is based on three non negotiable and unshakeable premises, which would make it absurd to bet on changing its behavior while it refuses to admit its mistakes:
The first premise is its ‘religious legitimacy’ based on the principle of ‘Vali-e-faqih’. When any authority is based on the exclusive prerogative to decide what is right and what is wrong – as is the case of the Tehran regime – all veneers and appearances that claim democracy, coexistence and good neighborliness, fall. The ‘lies’ about democracy and respect for diversity and human rights have been ‘exported’ abroad for some time; and unfortunately, several world leaders believed them either because they were bluffed, or because they intentionally wanted to believe them as is the case of former US President Barack Obama.
The second premise, in conjunction with the first, is dressing ‘Shi’ism’ that originated in the ‘love of the Prophet Muhammad’s household and descendants’, who were all Arabs from the Quraysh tribe, as an Aryan nationalist identity. Thereafter, this has been transformed into a case of revenge not only against who once prevailed in the power struggle of the early Islamic history, but also against a large ethnicity called the Arabs, and an Islamic sect that is followed by almost three-quarters of the world’s Muslim… in the name of Islam, no less! So, given this insistence on resurrecting old hatred that goes back more than 1335 years, it would surely be impossible to engage in any objective dialogue that aims to end animosities and move all concerned towards a future of cooperation, friendship and common interests.
The third and last premise is that of ‘the military and police state’. There is little doubt now that the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guards is now a fully-fledged authority in Iran, as its possesses and runs – both inside and outside the country – its security apparatus, powerful military machines, in addition to owning and operating a sophisticated network of financial, investment and construction establishments that truly make it a ‘state within a state’. Indeed, part and parcel of the IRGC ‘political legitimacy’ is derived from its foreign military operations which it exploits domestically to build an aura of triumphs and glory, in order to silent popular opposition, stifle dissent in a deprived nation suffering from the anathemas of corruption, abuse of power, and intentional encouragement of extremism and xenophobia.
The other day, Ahvaz, which is the center of the largest Arab population concentration in Iran, witnessed the armed operation, for which the regime wasted no time in blaming ‘foreign enemies’ of perpetrating, with training and financial support from two Arab Gulf states. Sure enough, this super quick accusation attempted to kill three birds with one stone:
1- To mobilize Iranian nationalist feelings and enhance solidarity with the leadership against ‘the foreign enemy’.
2- To deny any kind of injustice, maltreatment and persecution of ‘non-Iranian’ minorities in the country.
3- To justify any future regional escalation, through claiming that Iran was ‘a partner’ in the war against terror, as it is one of its victims!
The truth is that the Ahvazi Arabs are not the only victim of the Tehran regime persecution and disregard of human and political rights; as the Kurds, Baloch and Turkmen have suffered a long history of maltreatment, in addition to the discrimination and deprivation practiced against religious minorities. However, since what happened in Ahvaz is connected with the Arab minority, why don’t we go through what current and former senior figures have said about the Arabs.
Among the unforgettable quotes, must be what Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the IRGC’s second-in-command, once said to Mehr News Agency (state-owned). He said: “Officials in Iran did not expect the Islamic Revolution to spread outside its borders, to Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Bahrain, Yemen and Afghanistan”. Boasting about Tehran’s achievements, Brigadier General Ismail Ghaani, deputy commander of the IRGC Quds Brigade, went further by saying: “Iran continues to conquer the countries of the (Middle East) Region… it began by controlling Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Palestine; and now it is advancing in the rest…!”
Not to be outdone, Haydar Muslihi, a former Intelligence Minister during the Presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said – according to IRGC’s Fars News Agency: “It is true that Iran is in control of four Arab capitals, just as Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu had said… Netanyahu’s words only confirm the growth of Iran’s influence in the Region”. He then added pointing to the Houthis of Yemen: “The Iranian Revolution does not recognize borders, it is for all the Shi’a… and the Houthis are a fruit of the Iranian Revolution”. However, the ultimate boast came from Ali Younesi, the Special Assistant to the President for Ethnic and Religious Minorities’ Affairs, who said: “In Iraq lies the capital of the new Iranian Empire!”
Indeed, this dominance has been translated by Tehran on the ground. In Iraq and Lebanon, it is being translated by creating failed states and subservient authorities, in Syria and Yemen by bloodshed and civil war. In the Palestinian Territories – the West Bank and Gaza – it has resulted in destroying the independent and united Palestinian voice.
As for Arab-inhabited areas in Iran, Tehran’s persecution, coercion and obliteration of national identity have led to the emergence of several political and liberation movements, among which are ‘The Arab National Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Al-Ahwaz’ and ‘The Arab Front for the Liberation of Al-Ahwaz’. In the very heart of what such movement are fighting against are the policies of ‘demographic engineering’ aiming at turning the Ahvazi Arabs into a minority, sequestration of Arab lands, banishing Arabs from the political and cultural scenes, and depriving them of the resources and equal opportunities compared to Iran’s other ethnicities.

What Did Brett Kavanaugh Do at the Junior Prom?
David C. Stolinsky/Gatestone Institute/October 05/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13084/brett-kavanaugh-nomination
One can have complete sympathy for someone who underwent the trauma of experiencing attempted sexual assault, but the fishy timing and discrepancies of this reported incident make it hard not to ask what unprovable and undefendable allegations will the next character assassin toss out. Hard-drug use? Child abuse? How pervasive and surreal are such fact-challenged defamations going to get?
Senator Ted Stevens "was not only completely innocent of the manufactured case against him, he was an honest and honorable man. Under Director [Robert] Mueller's overriding supervision, the wrongdoer who helped manufacture the case stayed on and the whistleblower was punished." — Report by Congressman Louie Gohmert.
Back where I come from, officials investigate crimes that can be named and that have occurred; they do not go around trying to manufacture them. Back where I come from, officials investigate crimes to discover who committed them; they do not investigate people to see if they can come up with one.
I come from America. It is a nice place to visit, but it is a really great place to live. One day I hope to live there again. A good way to make that day come sooner is to end the government's framing people, and presumptions of guilt. Ending politically motivated prosecutions, criminal conspiracies to overthrow a duly elected president, and ending criminal abuse of power might also help.
Was it the junior prom or just a high-school party? Was Christine Blasey Ford, who says she was the victim of Brett Kavanaugh's alleged sexual assault, 15 or 16 years old at the time? Were there four boys present during the incident, as in the notes of Blasey Ford's therapist, or two, as she says now? Did Kavanaugh's friend, Mark Judge, who strongly denies the incident, participate? Was it even Kavanaugh who participated, or perhaps someone who looked like him? Why did the alleged victim wait 35 years (or was it 36) to come forward? Why did Senator Dianne Feinstein refer the complaint to the FBI, which has no jurisdiction?
One can have complete sympathy for someone who underwent the trauma of experiencing attempted sexual assault, but the fishy timing and discrepancies of this reported incident, not to mention the request by Blasey Ford's lawyer for Judge Kavanaugh to defend himself before knowing what he is being accused of, make it hard not to ask what unprovable and undefendable allegations will the next character assassin toss out. Hard-drug use? Child abuse? How pervasive and surreal are such fact-challenged defamations going to get?
The answer to all these questions is: I don't know, I can't know, and I don't care. Nor do I care what Dianne Feinstein did at her junior prom, nor what Kamala Harris did at hers, although I suspect she spent the evening looking for people to interrupt.
Many people believe that memory is like a DVD or videotape -- it remains the same and can be accessed whenever we please. But memory is more like a computer document -- it can be altered every time we access it, and it may degrade over time.
My wife is a clinical and forensic psychologist. When she was studying for her Ph.D., she was assigned a classic textbook: Eyewitness Testimony by Elizabeth Loftus. The uncertainties of eyewitness reports are detailed. The professor teaching the course, who had testified as an expert witness in dozens of criminal trials, gave this advice to his students if they were to do the same: Get the check first.
According to Thomas Albright, director of the Vision Center Laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies:
"Human visual perception and memory are changeable, the ability to recognize individuals is imperfect, and policies governing law enforcement procedures are not standard -- and any of these limitations can produce mistaken identifications with serious consequences.,"
If I am questioned by the police repeatedly and give more-or-less the same story, I am probably telling the truth. But if I give exactly the same story each time, it may be a lie I am sticking to. If an associate and I are questioned, and we give more-or-less the same story, it is probably the truth. But if we give exactly the same story, it may be a tale we cooked up. Minor discrepancies are, if anything, signs of truth, not falsehood. Apparently, federal agents and prosecutors do not know it. Why?
As Prof. Alan Dershowitz explains, if I tell a federal agent something, and another person tells him something different, one of us can be charged with the felony of making false statements -- the person the prosecutor dislikes. This is true even if (1) no third person verifies the story, (2) no independent evidence corroborates the story, (3) there is no proof of intent to deceive, (4) there is no provable underlying crime, (5) the statement was not made under oath, and (6) no Miranda warning was given.
They tell us, "If you see something, say something." But their actions teach us, "Keep your mouth shut, and ask for a lawyer." If there is a more destructive lesson to teach in the era of international terrorism, I have yet to hear it.
If you doubt this, ask Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. The special counsel tried to find evidence that Cheney illegally outed an undercover CIA agent. But in fact, the agent was no longer undercover, and she had already been outed by someone else. Nevertheless, Libby was questioned for many hours, over days. At some point he contradicted himself, or contradicted media personality Tim Russert. As reported in the Wall Street Journal by Peter Berkowitz:
"Having failed to find any underlying crime, Mr. Fitzgerald [the special prosecutor] nonetheless pressed on for someone to prosecute, eventually focusing on Mr. Libby, whose trial became a contest of recollections. The excruciatingly inconsequential question on which his conviction turned was whether, as Mr. Libby recalled, he was surprised to hear NBC's "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert ask him about Ms. Plame in a phone call on July 10 or 11, 2003.... Tim Russert's memory changed dramatically between his initial FBI interview and Mr. Fitzgerald's questioning of him....As special counsel, he [Mr. Fitzgerald] placed his quest for a conviction above the search for truth and the pursuit of justice."
Libby, who was subsequently convicted of making false statements, was eventually pardoned by President Donald J. Trump.
Or ask Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor to President Trump. Flynn was told that FBI agents wished to see him. He was not told it was an official interview, not just a meeting. He was asked about conversations with the Russian ambassador. The FBI already knew what was said -- they had tapped the phone line, possibly illegally.
But Flynn was not told that, either. How many people know that lying to any federal agent is a crime, even if the false statement is not made under oath? So why did they ask Flynn, if not to entrap him?
Flynn's account of the conversation differed from the transcript of the tapes, so he was charged with making false statements. He had been awarded many decorations over 33 years of service to his nation. His real reward? A felony conviction.
Did Flynn lie, or merely fail to remember? And if he did lie, was it out of malice, or out of ingrained habit from many years in intelligence: Tell only those with a need to know. No matter, his statements were incorrect. To save his family from bankruptcy from legal expenses, and to save his son from similar charges, he pled guilty.
Or ask the family of the late Senator Ted Stevens. According to a report by Congressman Louie Gohmert:
"That U.S. Senator [Ted Stevens] was not only completely innocent of the manufactured case against him, he was an honest and honorable man. Under Director [Robert] Mueller's overriding supervision, the wrongdoer who helped manufacture the case stayed on and the whistleblower was punished."
How does this differ from extracting confessions by torture? True, we no longer have Torquemada using the rack ‒ we have Mueller torqueing the legal system. But is the result any better, either factually or morally? Both the Inquisition and the Nazis extracted confessions by threatening family members. The Nazis called this Sippenhaft. We should call it criminalizing political differences and Stalinizing democracy. As Lavrentiy Beria, head of the KGB under Stalin, reportedly said, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
The Bible teaches us not to go around spreading slander. Or bearing false witness. It would be good if we heeded these lessons. Otherwise it may soon be we who are prosecuted, and our character maligned.
Back where I come from, officials investigate crimes that can be named and that have occurred; they do not go around trying to manufacture them. Back where I come from, officials investigate crimes to discover who committed them; they do not investigate people to see if they can come up with one.
In the unlikely event the Feds come calling: Give your name, then repeat "lawyer" interminably, perhaps to music. If you are lucky, maybe they will pass it off as early senility.
I come from America. It is a nice place to visit, but it is a really great place to live. One day I hope to live there again. A good way to make that day come sooner is to end the government's framing people, and presumptions of guilt. Ending politically motivated prosecutions, criminal conspiracies to overthrow a duly elected president, and criminal abuse of power might also help.
*Dr. David C. Stolinsky, a retired physician, is based in the US.
© 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 worrisome mystery of a Saudi journalist’s whereabouts
Simon Henderson/The Hill/October 05/18
The prominent exiled Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi is missing. As I write this, he is either in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, where he had gone to pick up a document, or, with or without the connivance of Turkish authorities, he has been flown back to Saudi Arabia.
Like many other journalists or diplomats whose work involves the kingdom, I regard Khashoggi as a contact with interesting perspectives, and also a friend. After I emailed him saying I liked an interview he gave to The Economist on July 26, he replied, “Thanks, we need to catch up and meet soon, whenever you are free. I'll be back Aug. 4.” I was away most of August, and September flew by. Trivially put, I don’t think he and I will be having lunch soon.
Khashoggi’s potential sin was to criticize, albeit obliquely, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman. In The Economist interview, he said: “I am writing a forthcoming piece in which I suggest why Muhammad bin Salman needs a free press. … The crown prince is engaging in major economic transformation. And since there is no one to debate it, to discuss it, he will not see the faults of these transformations.”
In a column for the Washington Post on Aug. 7, Khashoggi wrote: “... Failing to criticize creates an atmosphere that empowers authoritarian rulers to deny civil rights to their own people.”
He also showed some sympathy for political Islam. In his Post column on Aug. 28 he wrote: “There can be no political reform and democracy in any Arab country without accepting that political Islam is part of it. … It seems clear … that the only way to prevent political Islam from playing a role in Arab politics is to abolish democracy, which essentially deprives citizens of their basic right to choose their political preferences.”
These lines are at odds with MbS, as the Saudi crown prince is known, who seems increasingly authoritarian to some observers and is implacably opposed to political Islam. The latest iteration of his opposition is a conference entitled “Cultural Rapprochement between the U.S. and the Muslim World,” being arranged by the Saudi-funded Muslim World League in New York City tomorrow and Friday. (One hopes the attendees will discuss the fate of Khashoggi.)
While the United States and much of the world regards MbS’s rejection of old-style Saudi hardline, if not extremist, Islam as a gigantic plus, his record in foreign policy is patchy. The Saudi-led coalition in Yemen cannot win the war there without “unacceptable humanitarian casualties,” as a European diplomat told me last week. The rift with Qatar continues. The forced resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was short-lived. The recent fuss with Canada is still at the name-calling stage: “We are not a banana republic,” according to the Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir.
If it is confirmed that Khashoggi has been detained and/or flown back to the kingdom, MbS clearly has not calculated the likely impact in Washington, where Khashoggi has been living. MbS also may be underestimating the effect of such actions on his investment climate — he wants and needs western investment. Investors may welcome a firm government, but they don't like unpredictability and anything that might upset shareholders. So, what is MbS thinking? As my European diplomat contact put it: “I know what MbS says; I don't know what he thinks.”
If nothing else, Khashoggi's apparent disappearance, if tied to his criticisms of the kingdom, would suggest that the new Saudi Arabia remains very sensitive. Despite many years of writing about the kingdom, and two studies of royal succession (“After King Fahd” and “After King Abdullah”), I have never been granted a visa to visit. A Saudi friend once told me, “We talk about succession all the time, but why do you have to write it down?”
A few years ago I was in a meeting in Washington with a senior Saudi official who ended his discussion by offering: “If anyone here wants a visa, let me me know and I shall help you to get it.” I replied, “You will help me get a visa?” He responded: “We will give you a visa, and then we will keep you.” Everyone laughed, except me.
**Simon Henderson is the Baker Fellow and director of the Bernstein Program on Gulf and Energy Policy at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The sanctity of paper and the story of Kindle
Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran/Al Arabiya/October 05/18
There is no point in talking about the end of the paper book anymore. The eventual extinction of paper is obvious. Publishers now realize the paper book is coming to an end, and those who are smart are beginning to make adjustments accordingly. The end of the paper book does not mean that it will disappear suddenly or that books will no longer be printed. Like others, I consider paper books to be more serious and there is a certain element of pleasure in buying a paper book. There is something unique about them but the world finds its own solutions, in keeping with its complex problems. There is nothing prettier than an elegant library and a bookworm — the paper books with their unique smell lined up between the shelves of wood.The paper book is perishing because of the low sales, except for attractive books that the public follows such as the ‘bestselling’ section, which puts financial pressure on the publisher. The other thing is the shift in attention among masses regarding tablet devices.
But does the perishing of the paper book mean the end of the world?! The paper book will remain important for the elite, it is a source and a reference and the basis for scientific credibility, but at the level of mass acquisition, the paper book will not be important. With the spread of piracy, books are now available in PDF format and can be read on mobile devices or iPad, which can harm the eye. For those who have no choice but to read it in an electronic form, a desktop computer is a better option. In my opinion, this is the most despicable manner for reading a book, and should only be used when there is no other alternative. One needs to be cautious when quoting for a paper or research, and must rely on the paper research source or the exact copy purchased from Amazon or from one of the trustworthy libraries acquired legally.
Kindle curiosity
The other experience is with Kindle through the paper white. This device will not replace the paper book but with Amazon’s interest in Arabic books and the addition of thousands of books to its library, it is possible to read classical, literary and philosophical books in a secure format and with reliable copies.
It’s been 11 years since the first Kindle was made, and modern versions of it have fascinated hearts. By purchasing the book you can shade the text you want, easily make notes, and keep your comments and selections so you can recover it and find it whenever you want to since it is automatically saved.
It has a balanced lighting, and a comfortable format that relaxes the reader and makes him feel as if he’s reading a paper book.I have been using Kindle for a year now. It is an important reading platform. Although the paper book is still the predominant means, Kindle is helpful when travelling in public places and cafes, especially if you choose your books carefully since you can download hundreds of books considering the great amount of storage in modern devices. There is an element of extremism in sanctifying paper book which is understandable at the research level, and when we talk about the decay, we are talking about facts on the ground. We all do not want this beautiful book to fade away, and in all cases, we will continue to bring new additions to our libraries in our homes.Public libraries and publishing houses that are financially strong or government-backed will remain in business, but I would like to talk about upcoming actions because I hope that Arab publishing houses would collaborate with Amazon to fund a new investment by making books available on Amazon library to nurture Arabic content. This would also open up additional investment and income without any exceptional or supernatural efforts, unlike the paper book.
Arab publishing
Of course, when we remember Al-Jahiz, Borges, Manguel, Eco and other book lovers and paper addicts, we feel bitter that the Arab paper industry is collapsing, but we must always adapt and strive with publishers for more sustainable versions that are more likely to overcome the surprises of technology, especially those enjoying both the elegance, the directness, the quality, the reliability and the great content found in devices such as Kindle. There is no point in crying over spilled milk. Paper books cannot avoid the problems they are facing and the poems of praise and tears of nostalgia are of no use. There is a different reality concerning the concept of reading and the future of the book industry. This is a sweeping reality that we have to understand, and after we do anyone is free to sing all the poems and the hymns on the holiness of the paper book. There is a difference between what we want and what really is.
Book historian and author of “A History of Reading”, Alberto Manguel wrote in his The Library at Night in the chapter entitled Library as a Shadow: “The weight of absence is as much a feature of any library as the constriction of order or space. In the library of my Colegio Nacional de Buenos Aires, we felt it behind the imposing wooden doors, in the welcoming gloom, and under the green-shaded lamps that reminded me vaguely of the lamps in sleeping-car compartments. Up the marble staircase, down the tiled floor, between the grey columns, the library seemed a parallel universe, both fearful and comforting, in which my own story had other adventures and other endings.”

Delegations, crowds and aged cigars!
Mashari Althaydi/Al Arabiya/October 05/18
It’s said that if you visit a country, the behavior of drivers, the extent of cleanliness in public parks, squares and means of public transportation are the best indicator of the people’s morals and culture as you cannot gather and test every person and family there.
This standard seems logical and convincing in general, but more specifically, how can we test the awareness, mentality and intellect of special “elites” that manage the affairs of the country and its people, i.e. the politicians and those who are in charge of the people’s security and livelihood?
How can we read preliminary indicators about these elites? I do not know, perhaps by observing how they benefit from the public treasury to serve their own personal luxuries in terms of travelling, general delegations, cars, bodyguards and fake jobs for their followers and entourage at the expense of the state’s public money. There’s no need for so much talk about revolution, liberation, independence and civilization. Just observe the level of traffic discipline, cleanliness of public parks, the cost of travelling delegates, the brand of ties, the aroma of the aged cigars and all the luxuries being paid for from the state’s wounded treasury
A different mindset
When an Arab president assumed his post as president, he reportedly told his tribe and townspeople: If I exit the presidency and there are still poor people among you, I will direct my gun to the temples of your heads! Emirati author Nasser al-Dhaheri wrote about this topic in his recent column in Al-Ittihad newspaper. He cautiously said: “I was told that China’s population is two billion, and it’s increasing, and its economy is one of the strongest economies in the world. The official delegation participating in the UN conference in New York consisted of 17 people from the elite, each an expert in his field. They went to New York on board an ordinary flight on a Chinese plane. (Meanwhile,) Lebanon’s economy is collapsed and it originally relies on others. Corruption has made everyone steal from some and some to steal from everyone. Its population is 3.5 million and it is decreasing due to immigration. The Lebanese delegation heading to New York consisted of 400 people who boarded four airplanes that are owned by the national carrier airliner which submits to the quota system like everything does in Lebanon.”Commenting on the joke of Arab conferences of cultural delegations and the “vanguard” of conscious people, which the author have observed for years, he said: “During these several and different Arab conferences, we saw fake ties and a Cohiba cigar that can only be described as a fraud. Even those who just a few days ago at the conference were calling for transparency, human rights and supporting people’s right to determine their fate were smuggling cartons of (imported goods) and evading taxes.” Hence you intelligent ones, there’s no need for so much talk about revolution, liberation, independence and civilization. Just observe the level of traffic discipline, cleanliness of public parks, the cost of travelling delegates, the brand of ties, the aroma of the aged cigars and all the luxuries being paid for from the state’s wounded treasury. And God knows best!

US administration’s Iran strategy put to the test in Iraq
Manuel Almeida/Arab News/October 05/18
Last week, the US State Department announced the temporary closure of the US Consulate in Basra and the withdrawal of all diplomatic personnel stationed in the southern Iraqi city. The decision was triggered by a rocket attack which, according to US officials, targeted the US diplomatic mission without success. The rocket was most likely fired by one of the various pro-Iran militias that have emerged in Iraq since 2003.
The State Department decision has led to speculation about the messages it sends, not only about the US commitment to the stabilization of Iraq and efforts to contain Iran’s militaristic agenda, but also about the wider Iran strategy of the US administration. It could be viewed as a timely message from Washington to Baghdad, directed at the new Iraqi government, to rein in Iran’s proxies. In some quarters of the US political establishment, however, it has been classified as a sign of weakness in the face of the Iranian threat.
During the Obama years, there was a tacit understanding between the US and Iran on Iraq. Success in the negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program was an absolute priority for the administration at that time, so tensions with Iran about other issues were avoided at all costs. The rise of Daesh, coupled with the US reluctance to get bogged down in another regional conflict, led to a pragmatic acceptance of Iran and pro-Iranian militias as a valuable force in the fight against the radical group. Many critics in Washington and the Middle East equated this understanding with a grand bargain that endorsed Iran’s hegemonic plans in the region. Looking at Iraq today, and also Syria, Lebanon or Yemen, the critics have been proved right, regardless of the merits of the nuclear deal. But the scenario of US-Iran relations in Iraq is now markedly different. The Trump administration has withdrawn the US from the nuclear deal and a new round of tough US sanctions is set to be in place by early November. Daesh, although far from extinguished, is no longer seen as an existential threat to the survival of Iraq as a state. US-backed departing Prime Minister Haider Abadi, who oversaw the successful push against Daesh, has been sidelined, essentially a political casualty of events in Basra.
Since July, the prominent oil hub has witnessed major protests against an array of issues including corruption, unemployment and environmental degradation. The demonstrations turned violent, with several protesters killed. Even the Iranian Consulate was set on fire by protesters, who partly blame Iran’s interference in Iraq for Baghdad’s deplorable governance record.
The decision to close the US Consulate could naturally be seen as a precautionary measure taken directly from the safety handbook. As a leading global and regional player, the US has a long history of serious incidents involving ambassadors and diplomatic staff, most notably the hostage crisis in the US Embassy in Tehran that lasted for 444 days between Nov. 4, 1979, and Jan. 20, 1981. The memory of the attacks six years ago on the US diplomatic mission and CIA station in Benghazi, Libya, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among other US personnel, is also very much alive in Washington.
The appointments of President Barham Salih and Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi are good news, representing the choice of a moderate, independent and capable leadership.
According to various reliable media sources, the rocket that led to the closure of the US Consulate in Basra did not cause any casualties or substantial material damage, nor did it land close to the US diplomatic mission. Still, it seems the incident is not an isolated one and there are reports of similar rocket and mortar attacks since the first incident in Basra.
A statement by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, issued the same day the closure of the Basra consulate was announced, also noted that the US Embassy in Baghdad’s Green Zone has been repeatedly threatened by rocket fire.
Pompeo took to Twitter to warn Tehran: “We’ll hold Iran’s regime accountable for any attack on our personnel or facilities, and respond swiftly and decisively in defense of American lives.”
Iranian officials quickly rebuffed the accusation, and Iraqi officials stated the area was safe. Both have flimsy cases. Iran has a convenient record of denying it can control the actions of its proxies, while Basra is far from being an area the central government can claim it holds securely.
This week, a Wall Street Journal report made the case that there is a widening gap between the White House’s harsh and escalating rhetoric on Iran and its military presence in the Gulf. According to information provided by US officials and military experts, the US has been scaling back its military presence in the region by removing US ships, planes and missiles that would be needed in a potential conflict with Iranian forces or its local allies. Operational and financial reasons are among the possible factors, as well as a greater focus on Russia and China.
However, Michael Rubin, an expert from the American Enterprise Institute, deconstructed some of the arguments of the Wall Street Journal piece, pointing out that maintaining the presence of US ships at safe distance from the Gulf is a normal and strategically sound approach.
Despite the US secretary of state’s firm warning, and the harsh words from US President Donald Trump during his UN General Assembly speech, in which he chastised the Iranian leadership for sowing “chaos, death and destruction,” avoiding a war with Iran might be higher on Trump’s list of priorities than is generally assumed. Whether or not his anti-interventionist instincts will prevail is a different matter, considering the president’s unpredictability and the serious tensions in the region between the US and its allies on the one hand, and Iran on the other.
Politically, both Washington and Tehran have tried to influence the government-formation process in Iraq following the parliamentary elections in May. The appointments of President Barham Salih and Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi are good news, representing the choice of a moderate, independent and capable leadership. Iraq recently suggested that it could mediate between the Americans and Iranians. The proposal should be taken seriously by both sides.
• Manuel Almeida is a visiting fellow at the Middle East Center of the London School of Economics and Political Science, where his research focuses on the social contract in the Arab state and its impact on governance and sustainable development. He is also a partner at Firma, covering emerging markets and geopolitical risk.

Iran sanctions leave global powers divided
Zaid M. Belbagi/Arab News/October 05/18
When US President Donald Trump decided to tear up what had become known as the Iran nuclear deal, the EU, among others, was concerned about the trade arrangements it had with Iran. The incentive of international trade was central to persuading Iran to bring its nuclear program into line.
After a year of protests, nationwide labor strikes and bank failures, the prospect of increased global trade is more important than ever to the regime in Tehran. With Russia, China and Turkey also working to retain their economic ties to Iran, in addition to the EU, the renewed US sanctions, which were labeled illegal by many, will be limited in their effectiveness going forward.
President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in May. In August, the UK, France and Germany, who have led efforts to preserve the deal, stated that the president’s actions were in violation of a UN Security Council resolution, and vowed to intensify efforts to circumvent the US measures.
Last week, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, these plans took shape. It is understood that EU diplomats, supported by their Russian and Chinese counterparts, have devised a scheme to barter Iranian oil products for European goods. The proposal will allow Iran to sell its oil to Russia, where it would be refined and then sold to Europe. European companies would then transfer goods and services to Iran, thereby dodging US trade restrictions. The mechanism, at present a work in progress, amounts to an affront to the Trump administration as it ramps up its anti-Iran agenda.
Despite European powers and the Chinese repeatedly affirming that multiple inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have shown Iran to be in compliance with the nuclear deal, the White House remains skeptical. Senior officials in the Trump administration insist that the agreement, negotiated by former President Barack Obama, has not effectively curtailed Iran’s nuclear weapons program or, indeed, Tehran’s aggressive actions in the Middle East and beyond, including sponsorship of terrorism.
With some experts estimating that Iran spends between $12 billion and $15 billion a year supporting the Assad regime alone, limiting Tehran’s ability to finance its regional ambitions remains a paramount concern of the US and its Middle Eastern allies.
With Middle Eastern nations, including Israel, wholly unimpressed with the deal and anxious about the specter of Iranian support for movements in Bahrain, Yemen, Iraq and Syria, there is no sign of consensus on how to deal with the regime in Tehran. America’s annual terrorism report, last published in July 2017, describes Iran as “the foremost state sponsor of terrorism.” It adds that “groups supported by Iran maintained their capability to threaten US interests and allies.” With some experts estimating that Iran spends between $12 billion and $15 billion a year supporting the Assad regime alone, limiting Tehran’s ability to finance its regional ambitions remains a paramount concern of the US and its Middle Eastern allies.
This year the Iranian rial fell to a historic low, crashing through 90,000 rials against the dollar. The clerical establishment that controls Iran has taken notice of the severity of such economic woes, offering the idea of possible government referendums or early elections. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, keen to bolster the regime ahead of the 40th anniversary of the 1979 revolution, is under pressure to improve the lives of Iranians amid the unemployment affecting about 3.2 million his countrymen.
With between 12 and 30 percent of the economy controlled by the country’s powerful Revolutionary Guard paramilitary force, severely curtailing its role by clipping its wings regionally could have further economic and political consequences. The praetorian force, which answers only to Khamenei and runs Iran’s ballistic missile program, is central to regime stability — a reality of which the White House is only too aware.
Efforts to bypass US sanctions put powerful NATO allies in direct confrontation with a Trump administration that has shown itself to be only too willing to withdraw from long-standing alliances. Disagreements over Iran represent a sharp break between the US and its European partners, at a time when Russia’s divisive actions challenge the post-1945 status quo. With the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Criminal Court (ICC), NATO and the G-20 all having been targeted by Washington, European allies must be careful to preserve transatlantic ties while simultaneously avoiding antagonizing the regime in Tehran further.
As decades of international diplomatic norms are being damaged, global powers can ill afford major disagreements over issues as important as nuclear proliferation and international trade. The Iran nuclear deal succeeded because of its multilateral approach, and the efforts of years of painstaking diplomacy. With both sides now threatening to pursue independent solutions to deal with Tehran, the hard-won consensus of 2015 might very well be lost altogether, leaving Iran isolated and free to act with impunity.
• Zaid M. Belbagi is a political commentator and adviser to private clients from London to the Gulf Cooperation Council.

The threat posed by Iran's missile capability has become horribly clear
كون كوكلن/ناشيونال/لقد أصبحت قدرات صواريخ إيران مخيفة جداً
Con Coughlin/The National/October 05/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/67906/con-coughlin-the-national-the-threat-posed-by-irans-missile-capability-has-become-horribly-clear-%d9%83%d9%88%d9%86-%d9%83%d9%88%d9%83%d9%84%d9%86-%d9%86%d8%a7%d8%b4%d9%8a%d9%88%d9%86%d9%84-%d9%84/
Tehran's attack on Syria was a carefully calculated show of strength and the willingness to use brutal force.
Iran wants the world to believe that the missile strikes it launched this week in eastern Syria against what it claims were terrorist targets were simply its response to last month’s attack on a military parade in Ahvaz.
While retaliating against those whom Tehran holds responsible for the worst terrorist attack on Iranian soil for nearly a decade was clearly a key factor, the response needs to be seen within the wider context of the growing sophistication of Iran’s military arsenal, with all the implications that has for the wider security concerns of the region.
According to a spokesman for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s aerospace forces fired six short-range surface-to-surface missiles from the north-western province of Kermanshah. They flew over central Iraq and struck targets near the eastern Syrian town of Abu Kamal, near the Iraqi border at positions Iran says are held by ISIS, which it holds responsible for the Ahvaz attack that killed 24 people and wounded more than 60.
The missiles travelled a distance of 570 km (374 miles), and for good measure bore slogans reading “Death to America”, “Death to Israel” and “Death to Al Saud”.Tehran has claimed the Ahvaz attack was the work of ISIS militants, working in conjunction with Sunni Muslim Arab separatists who seek independence from Iran’s Shia-dominated clerical regime.
But, as is often the case whenever Iran initiates military action, there were also a number of other factors that informed Iran’s decision to attack that particular site at that particular moment.
For a start, the site chosen for the missile strike was just three miles from where the US has around 2,200 troops based as part of its own effort to destroy ISIS.
And the timing of the attack was designed to coincide with the case Iran has brought before the International Court of Justice to protest against Washington’s decision to impose fresh sanctions, in which the court ruled in Tehran’s favour. At a time when the Iranian regime has been under intense pressure from anti-government protests taking place throughout the country, both these actions are aimed at reassuring Iran’s sceptical domestic audience that the government remains determined to protect their interests.
Moreover, with less than a month to go before the US imposes a strict oil embargo, Iran is desperate to demonstrate that it is capable of setting its own agenda, and not allowing the US and its allies to dictate terms. There is, though, another important dimension to the missile attacks, one that has profound implications for the wider region. With the Syrian conflict nearing its end, Iran is seeking to consolidate its position by building a corridor stretching from Iran and running through Iraq into Syria and Lebanon. The primary objective of establishing such a corridor through the Sunni Muslim heartlands is that it would represent a serious upgrade in the ability of Iran’s Shia theocracy to challenge sworn enemies in the region, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The Trump administration is well aware of Iran’s strategic designs, and to this end is, with the help of Kurdish and Arab allies, seeking to prevent Tehran from achieving this goal. Consequently, this has resulted in a 12-mile stretch of the Iraq-Syria border becoming the centre of a bitter rivalry between Iranian-backed forces and US-backed forces.
The fact, therefore, that Iran decided to fire its latest salvo into Syria, so close to American positions was a deliberate signal from Tehran that it now has sophisticated missile technology to operate well beyond Iran’s borders, and that it is prepared to use it. From an American perspective, the Iranian action can be seen as highly provocative. Unlike the Americans and Russians, who observe the protocol of forewarning other military actors in Syria’s congested airspace of imminent military action, no such prior notification was forthcoming from the Iranians.
This prompted a Pentagon official to denounce the strikes as “reckless, unsafe and escalatory”.
This latest incident needs to be seen in the context of an upsurge in provocative military action against the US as the oil embargo deadline approaches. American military compounds in Baghdad and Basra were attacked by rocket fire last month, while American warships patrolling the vital shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz are regularly subjected to Iranian intimidation.
Iran is likely to increase the pressure on the US and its allies, particularly because it now possesses the missile technology to do so.
The Iranians have already demonstrated the effectiveness of the advances they have made in developing their arsenal of ballistic missiles by supplying them to Houthi rebels in Yemen to attack targets in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Iran sees the deployment of these new systems as a key element in its attempts to consolidate its presence throughout the Middle East. To this end Tehran is seeking to establish a network of new missile bases in Iraq and Syria to supplement those that it has already established in Lebanon. And, if Iran is allowed to continue expanding its military presence throughout the Arab world, this could lead to a dramatic shift in the region’s balance of power. For decades, Western intelligence agencies have been warning about the threat posed by Iran’s missile programme. Now, it appears, those warnings are becoming a grim reality.
**Con Coughlin is the Daily Telegraph’s defence and foreign affairs editor

Iran and the Impossible Admission/اياد أبو شقرا/إيران… والاعتراف المستحيل
Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/October 05/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/67904/eyad-abu-shakra-asharq-al-awsat-iran-and-the-impossible-admission-%d8%a7%d9%8a%d8%a7%d8%af-%d8%a3%d8%a8%d9%88-%d8%b4%d9%82%d8%b1%d8%a7-%d8%a5%d9%8a%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86-%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a7%d8%b9/

Hezbollah’s Urban Missile Factories Put Civilians at Risk
حنين غدار وماثيو لفيت/نقلا عن موقع معهد واشنطن/وجود مصانع صواريخ لحزب الله في المناطق السكنية اللبنانية تعرض المدنيين للخطر
Hanin Ghaddar and Matthew Levitt/The Washington Institute/October 05/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/67901/hanin-ghaddar-and-matthew-levitt-the-washington-institute-hezbollahs-urban-missile-factories-put-civilians-at-risk-%d8%ad%d9%86%d9%8a%d9%86-%d8%ba%d8%af%d8%a7%d8%b1-%d9%88%d9%85%d8%a7%d8%ab/