English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For December 06/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2021/english.december06.21.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
John’s father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke this prophecy: ‘Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has looked favourably on his people and redeemed them
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 01/67-80: “John’s father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke this prophecy: ‘Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has looked favourably on his people and redeemed them. He has raised up a mighty saviour for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we would be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us. Thus he has shown the mercy promised to our ancestors, and has remembered his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our ancestor Abraham, to grant us that we, being rescued from the hands of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people by the forgiveness of their sins. By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us, to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.’ The child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day he appeared publicly to Israel.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on December 05-06/2021
US Reopens File of Hezbollah's American Hostage Taking in Beirut
Macron pushes for Saudis to 'fully engage' in Lebanon but obstacles remain
Cyprus Maronites Dream of Return to Occupied Villages
KSA, France Say Arms Must be Exclusively in Hands of Lebanese State
France to Work with Saudis to Resolve Crisis with Lebanon
Aoun: Parliament Can Rule on Jurisdiction for Trying Presidents, Ministers
Geagea Vows to Confront Any Bargain Aimed at 'Besieging' Bitar
Qaouq Sees 'Good Chances' to Resolve Govt. Crisis
Franjieh: We Won't Name Replacement for Kordahi
Jumblat: Macron Initiative Brave but Darkness Forces May Ruin Everything
Lebanese president, PM and parliament speaker express satisfaction with Saudi-French agreement

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on December 05-06/2021
Israel Urges Hard Line against Iran at Nuclear Talks
US Reluctance to Lift All Sanctions Main Obstacle to Reviving 2015 Pact, Says Iranian Official
US Accuses Iran of 'Deception' in Vienna Talks
Iran Currency Falls as Nuclear Talks Seem to Hit Roadblock
Iran Holds Unannounced Air Defense Drill over Natanz
Al-Azhar, Vatican Agree to Fight Extremism, Hatred
Israel Protests UN Commemoration of Partition Plan
Hamas Will Not Release 4 Israeli Prisoners without Swap Deal
Abbas, Tebboune Discuss Preventing Admission of Israel into African Union
Syrian Authorities Release 21 Detainees in Daraa
Israeli Police Questioned on Palestinian Attacker’s Shooting
UN Security Council Extends Travel Exemption to Gaddafi’s Widow
EU’s Borrell: Turkey, Russia Should Exit Libya to Resolve Crisis
Fatah Alliance Calls for Annulment of Iraq Elections Results
Canada/Minister Joly concludes participation in NATO Foreign Ministerial and OSCE Ministerial Council meetings

Titles For The Latest The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on December 05-06/2021
Sorry, Everyone, Hamas is Still a Terrorist Group/Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/December 05/2021
Unprecedented/Michael Anton/New Criterion/December 05/2021
Deal or no deal, Iran’s problems are only going to worsen/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/December 05, 2021
Biden’s ‘diplomacy’ ignores looming Iranian threat/Dalia Al-Aqidi/Arab News/December 05, 2021

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on December 05-06/2021
US Reopens File of Hezbollah's American Hostage Taking in Beirut
Beirut - Nazeer Rida/Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
The United States has reopened the case of the American hostage crisis during the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990). The Rewards for Justice program released a reminder of a reward of up to $5 million for information that brings to justice those responsible for these attacks. "Numerous kidnappings and murders were a part of the decade-long Lebanese hostage crisis undertaken by Hezbollah-related terrorists. The hostage crisis lasted from 1982 to 1992," it said on its website. "On March 16, 1984, terrorists kidnapped William Buckley, the CIA Station Chief in Beirut. Buckley was interrogated, tortured and held captive for 15 months before the estimated date of his death." "On December 3, 1984, American University of Beirut librarian Peter Kilburn was reported missing. Sixteen months later, he and two other captives were shot and killed, their bodies dumped in the mountains east of Beirut."
"On February 17, 1988, terrorists kidnapped Col. William Higgins from his United Nations peacekeeping vehicle. As a hostage, Col. Higgins was interrogated and tortured before being killed. The exact date of his death is unknown." Diplomatic sources in Beirut told Asharq Al-Awsat that this was not the first time such a reward has been put up. American University of Beirut history professor Dr. Makram Rabah said that period of the civil was "very critical" because it witnessed the birth of Hezbollah. The kidnappings during the war were carried out by various parties, such as the "Islamic Jihad" and others, he continued. Hezbollah never declared its responsibility for kidnappings. Everyone was aware of Iran's role in the hostage-taking of foreigners, especially under the term of President Ronald Reagan, he added. He noted the "Irangate" affair, which was an attempt by Tehran to eliminate the US role in Lebanon, whether through bombing the Marine headquarters or by taking hostages. Rabah said it was significant that Washington is bringing up the hostage crisis again at a time when nuclear negotiations with Iran have resumed in Vienna. Hezbollah and all other Iranian militias are not being discussed at the negotiations. Washington's terrorist designation of pro-Iran militias that are responsible for the murder of Americans, whether through kidnappings or bombings, is also not up for negotiations or discussion, added Rabah. The 1980s were the darkest years of the Lebanese civil war. Over a hundred foreigners are estimated to have been kidnapped in Lebanon between 1982 and 1992. The majority of the victims were Americans and western Europeans. Eight victims died in captivity: some were killed and others died from lack of sufficient medical care. An FBI report in 1994 held Hezbollah responsible for the hostage-taking of at least 44 foreigners, including 17 Americans, three of whom died in captivity.

Macron pushes for Saudis to 'fully engage' in Lebanon but obstacles remain
The Arab Weekly/December 05/2021
French President Emmanuel Macron called Saturday on Saudi Arabia to "fully engage" with France in trying to resolve the crisis between the Gulf kingdom and Lebanon. The way to that kind of engagement is however strewn with a number of obstacles, analysts caution. They point out that Lebanon's internal dynamics might ironically stand in the way, with Hezbollah unlikely to be enthusiastic about a return of Riyadh to the Lebanese scene, especially if it is on Saudi terms. The Saudi are also said to be sceptical about the intent of Hezbollah, which is seen as adamant about its control of Lebanese institutions and pursuing Iran's agenda in the country and the region at large. The reluctance of Lebanese political actors to implement needed reforms could also hinder any Saudi-French role aimed at helping the small Arab country out of its current impasse. Saudi Arabia and France issued a common statement after Macron's visit saying that the Lebanese government must implement comprehensive reforms in the fields of finance, energy, anti-corruption and border control, the Saudi state news agency (SPA) reported. The French-Saudi position came after Macron's meeting in the Red Sea city of Jeddah with Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Macron said that he and Prince Mohammed held a joint telephone conversation with Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati in an effort to resolve the crisis that was sparked in October between Beirut and several Gulf states by Lebanese information minister's remarks deemed hostile to Saudi Arabia.
"With Saudi Arabia, we have made commitments towards Lebanon: to work together, to support reforms, to enable the country to emerge from the crisis and preserve its sovereignty," Macron said on Twitter. Mikati said later that the phone call was "an important step towards resuming historical brotherly relations" with Riyadh. Macron said he would speak with Lebanese President Michel Aoun by telephone on Sunday. The Lebanon-Gulf dispute has exacerbated an already dire situation in Lebanon, which is in the grip of a deep economic and financial crisis.
Lebanese Information Minister George Kordahi resigned on Friday in a clearly well-synchronised move to help end a diplomatic spat with Saudi Arabia over comments he had made in October criticising Saudi Arabia's role in the war in Yemen, which had prompted Riyadh to recall its envoy to Beirut and ban Lebanese imports. The resignation was interpreted by experts as a way for Hezbollah to gain favour with Macron.
The French president has spearheaded international efforts to help Lebanon out of its economic downturn, as the country's fragile government has been struggling to secure international aid, particularly from regional Arab powers. Lebanon's ties with Gulf states have grown increasingly strained in recent years due to the unchecked influence of Iran-backed Lebanese movement Hezbollah. Macron and Prince Mohammed also discussed bilateral relations, areas of partnership and prospects for cooperation, according to the official Saudi Press Agency. Macron said he had a "no taboos" discussion about human rights with the Saudi crown prince. The French president's departure from Jeddah ended his Gulf tour, which also saw him visit the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Dialogue with Saudi Arabia was necessary to "work for stability in the region", Macron said on Friday. Macron stressed that France had a role to play in the region. "But how can we work for regional stability and on Lebanon and many other issues while ignoring the first Gulf state in terms of geography and size?" he said, referring to the kingdom which is the Arab world's largest economy, and the world's biggest crude exporter. Business interests were also promoted by the French president in his Gulf tour. France's Airbus said it signed a contract in Jeddah on Saturday to sell 26 civilian helicopters to a Saudi firm, while French waste management company Veolia said it had won a contract for drinking water management in Riyadh. On Friday, the United Arab Emirates signed a record 14-billion-euro ($15.8 billion) contract for 80 French Rafale warplanes and committed billions of euros in other deals during Macron's stopover.

Cyprus Maronites Dream of Return to Occupied Villages
Agence France Presse/December 05/2021
Only a few times a year Ninos Josephides, a Greek Cypriot, is allowed to visit his home village in the Turkish-occupied part of divided Cyprus. But he can't visit his house. It was destroyed long ago. In the aftermath of a visit by Pope Francis last week, the Vatican-affiliated Maronite was allowed an extra visit to the town he had to flee 47 years ago. "My house used to be here, opposite the church. It's demolished. There were a lot of houses here," Josephides told AFP on Saturday. Maronites first migrated to Cyprus centuries ago from Syria and Lebanon. Like other communities on the eastern Mediterranean island, they suffered from its turbulent history, the scars of which remain to this day. Cyprus has been divided since 1974 when Turkish troops invaded and occupied the northern third of the island in response to a coup sponsored by the military junta then ruling Greece. The Republic of Cyprus, an EU member, controls the mostly Greek Orthodox south while the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is only recognized by Ankara. TRNC authorities allow Maronites to visit Agia Marina an average of just five times a year, during religious holidays. An exception was made on Saturday as a gesture to Maronite Patriarch Bechara al-Rahi, who had come to Cyprus from Lebanon for the pope's two-day visit. Around 50 people registered for the trip organised by the Maronite church. As they reached Agia Marina their cars were stopped by Turkish security forces in civilian clothes who searched their vehicles and checked identification. After the invasion, a military camp was set up in Agia Marina and some of the homes abandoned by the Maronites who fled south were occupied by Turkish troops. The small Agia Marina church is one of the few buildings unused by the Turkish soldiers. On Saturday men in uniforms bearing the Turkish word for police mingled with the faithful inside. A single bulb provided electricity as Rahi said he would keep lobbying in favour of the Cypriot Maronites. Before leaving Cyprus for Greece early Saturday Pope Francis called the island's division a "terrible laceration".
'Happy and sad' Several rounds of UN-led talks to reunite Cyprus have resulted in failure, including the last failed attempt in 2017. Saturday's tour also took in the village of Asomatos, just north of Agia Marina, where visitation rules are more relaxed.
Each Sunday, Maronite Cypriots are allowed back to attend mass but right after the service they must head back south again. "I lived here from my birth till 1974. I got married here," said Maria Partella Stefani, 71. The invasion forced her to move south. "My house (in Asomatos) was built three months before the invasion... now it is occupied by the commander of the army," she said. Because of the coronavirus pandemic Stefani said she had not been able to visit her home village for a year. "I'm very happy and sad today," she said, adding that her dream is to live permanently in Asomatos. Her sister Annetta, also in her 70s, harbours the same dream of returning. "There's so much land here for us but we're (forced to be) away." In the 8th century about 80,000 Maronites lived in 60 villages in Cyprus while today only about 7,000 Maronites are left. "If nothing changes, they will disappear altogether," said Bartelis Hajji Faisal, the mayor of Agia Marina who lives in the south.

KSA, France Say Arms Must be Exclusively in Hands of Lebanese State
Naharnet/December 05/2021
Saudi Arabia and France stressed in a joint statement issued after talks between French President Emmanuel Macron and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that the Lebanese government needs to “carry out comprehensive reforms.”It also needs to “abide by the Taef Accord, which is entrusted with national unity and civil peace in Lebanon,” the statement said.The statement also called for “limiting the possession of arms to the legitimate institutions of the Lebanese state,” while emphasizing that “Lebanon should not be a launchpad for any acts of terror that would undermine the region’s security and stability, nor a source for the trade of drugs.”

France to Work with Saudis to Resolve Crisis with Lebanon
Associated Press/December 05/2021
France's president and Saudi Arabia's crown prince held a joint phone call with Lebanon's prime minister during Emmanuel Macron's visit to the kingdom on Saturday, in a significant gesture amid an unprecedented crisis between Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. During the calls with Prime Minister Najib Miqati, Macron said France and Saudi Arabia expressed their commitment to Lebanon, despite Saudi Arabia's uneasiness with Iran's sway over the small Mediterranean country. Macron did not, however, say whether punitive measures targeting Lebanon by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations will be revoked. The kingdom withdrew its ambassador from Lebanon last month, with several Gulf states taking similar action to protest their frustration with Iran-backed Hizbullah's perceived domination of Lebanese politics. Riyadh also banned imports from Lebanon.
Lebanese Information Minister George Kordahi, whose comments sparked the crisis, resigned Friday, paving the way for the French leader to start dialogue with Saudi Arabia. Kordahi had criticized the Saudi-led war in Yemen against Iran-backed Houthi rebels. Kordahi, backed by Hizbullah, had refused to resign for weeks, prolonging the crisis that affected hundreds of Lebanese businesses. Hizbullah has been blamed for the recent paralysis that has plagued the Lebanese government following the group's disapproval over the course of the investigation into a deadly blast at Beirut's main port last year. Hizbullah has demanded the lead judge in the investigation, Tarek Bitar, be removed. Macron said during the call that he and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman relayed "a clear message Saudi Arabia and France want to be fully committed.""We want to commit ourselves to supporting the Lebanese people and therefore do everything possible to ensure that trade and economic reopening can take place," Macron told reporters in remarks before departing the kingdom. "We also want the (Lebanese) government to be able to work in a normal way and therefore to meet as soon as possible, and to carry out useful reforms," he added. It was the first call between Miqati, who took office in September, and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, a traditional ally of Lebanon. Miqati said the call with the French and Saudi leaders "is an important step" toward restoring historic relations with Riyadh. The French president indicated that France and Saudi Arabia will work together to offer essential, humanitarian assistance to Lebanon, which is facing an unprecedented slew of economic crises brought on by failures in government and pervasive corruption. It marked another intervention by Macron to try and aid Lebanon, a nation that was once a French protectorate. It also marked the first call between the Saudi crown prince and Lebanon's prime minister since Najib Miqati took office in September. Macron, 43, has consistently kept a line of communication open with the 36-year-old heir to the Saudi throne, including during times of international controversy. Most notably, the French president's intervention was seen as key in 2017 in assisting Lebanon's then-Prime Minister Saad Hariri to leave Saudi Arabia after allegedly being compelled to resign from his post during a visit to the Saudi capital, Riyadh. He acknowledged that relationship with the kingdom, saying that a large part of the future of the Gulf region is playing out in Saudi Arabia with its overwhelmingly youthful population in a country of over 30 million people. He noted Saudi Arabia's demographic, economic, historical and religious weight, saying for these reasons "dialogue with Saudi Arabia is a necessity." Macron's visit to Saudi Arabia was the final step in a two-day tour of three Gulf states. Concerns over Iran's nuclear program, the multiple crises in Lebanon and the ongoing war in Yemen were aired in the meetings.

Aoun: Parliament Can Rule on Jurisdiction for Trying Presidents, Ministers
Naharnet/December 05/2021
President Michel Aoun has said that parliament can issue a ruling stating to whom the jurisdiction to try presidents and minister belongs, which would end the controversy related to Judge Tarek BItar’s investigations into the port blast case. “We might find diverging opinions over this point in parliament, but it is up to the majority to decide,” Aoun said in an interview with Qatar’s al-Sharq newspaper. “We must abide by the opinion of the parliamentary majority, whether it approves the investigative judge’s measures or it decides to limit the jurisdiction to try ministers, MPs and officials to parliament’s court,” the president added. Responding to a question, Aoun said he expects parliament to convene soon to settle the matter, noting that the move would “represent an exit for resuming the work of Cabinet and state institutions.”Separately, Aoun stressed that he is very keen on holding the parliamentary elections on time, warning that Lebanon cannot bear an extension of the term of “the political class that caused the economic and social collapse.”He also said that he will seek to provide the appropriate circumstances for holding the presidential vote.

Geagea Vows to Confront Any Bargain Aimed at 'Besieging' Bitar
Naharnet/December 05/2021
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea has pledged that his party would confront any “bargain” aimed at restricting the work of Beirut port blast investigator Judge Tarek Bitar. “As for what is being said about a bargain related to besieging Judge Bitar in parliament in agreement with the Free Patriotic Movement, in return for accepting the appeal against the electoral law, that would be a major crime against Lebanon, the Lebanese, the judiciary and the investigation,” Geagea said in an interview with Kuwait’s al-Jarida newspaper. “We will work on confronting it with all our strength and we will not allow it. We will study the decisions that will be taken should they decide to resort to this bargain,” the LF leader added. He separately noted that “Lebanon went through a lot of difficulties in the past but it managed to beat them” and that “Hizbullah cannot control Lebanon, because the model it is presenting contradicts with the nature of the Lebanese.”“Information Minister George Kordahi’s resignation is the biggest example that no side can tolerate what Hizbullah wants, and in the end the party was obliged to offer concessions and submit,” Geagea added, describing Kordahi’s exit as “a strong blow” to Hizbullah. “This might push it to resort to security options due to its limited choices,” Geagea went on to say, noting that “the crisis is bigger than this and is related to the policies of Lebanon as a state.”He added: “Kordahi’s resignation will not lead to resolving the crisis with the Gulf states, but it might open a door for discussions and dialogue for the sake of reaching a common ground with which everyone in Lebanon would be convinced, regarding the need to alter the political course and prevent Hizbullah from controlling the state and its decisions.”

Qaouq Sees 'Good Chances' to Resolve Govt. Crisis
Naharnet/December 05/2021
A top Hizbullah official announced Sunday that there are “good chances” to resolve the crisis that led to the suspension of Cabinet sessions. “We are keen on securing the success of all the efforts that are being exerted to restore the government’s role and resolve the governmental crisis,” Hizbullah central council member Sheikh Nabil Qaouq said.“The chances are good, the road is not blocked and the obstacle is not impossible to resolve,” Qaouq added. “We are urging a solution for this crisis so that the government can resume its meetings and shoulder its responsibility towards the prices of foodstuffs, controlling the Lebanese lira exchange rate in the face of the dollar’s surge, the resumption of the talks with the International Monetary Fund, and finding solutions that can curb the collapse and alleviate the suffering of the Lebanese,” the Hizbullah official went on to say.

Franjieh: We Won't Name Replacement for Kordahi
Naharnet/December 05/2021
Marada Movement chief Suleiman Franjieh on Sunday announced that his party will not name a successor for Information Minister George Kordahi, who resigned on Friday over a diplomatic crisis with the Gulf states. "With our respect and love for all the names that have been raised in the press, our stance that we expressed in Bkirki about not naming a successor to ex-minister George Kordahi has not and will not change," Franjieh tweeted. Kordahi stepped down Friday in a move he said could open the way for easing an unprecedented diplomatic row with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab nations that has compounded Lebanon's multiple crises. The resigned minister had criticized the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen during an interview which was recorded before he became minister but was aired after he joined the Cabinet. His comments angered Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE, which responded by recalling their ambassadors from Beirut. Saudi Arabia also blocked imports and Kuwait said it would limit visas issued to Lebanese, prompting fears that a Gulf backlash could endanger the interests of millions of expatriates living in Arab states of the oil-rich Gulf. The standoff marked a fresh blow for Lebanon, whose government was only formed in September after a 13-month deadlock.

Jumblat: Macron Initiative Brave but Darkness Forces May Ruin Everything
Naharnet/December 05/2021
Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat on Sunday described French President Emmanuel Macron’s initiative to resolve Lebanon’s row with Saudi Arabia as “brave,” but he warned that it might be obstructed by whom he called the “forces of darkness.”“As we cross the desert, with the risks of falling into the abyss of the unknown, the initiative of French President Emmanuel Macron for rescuing Lebanon is remarkably brave, but we must not forget the forces of darkness and their traditional role in ruining everything and killing everything,” Jumblat tweeted.

Lebanese president, PM and parliament speaker express satisfaction with Saudi-French agreement
Najia Houssari/Arab News/December 05, 2021
BEIRUT: Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati has affirmed his government’s commitment to honoring its undertakings for reform. Mikati said that his joint phone call on Saturday with Saudi and French leaders was “an important step toward restoring historic brotherly relations with Riyadh.”A joint Saudi-French statement, following the joint phone call between Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and French President Macron with Mikati, linked “economic aid to Lebanon with the implementation of the required reforms.”The statement reiterated demands that Lebanon should “implement comprehensive reforms, monitor borders, abide by the Taif Agreement, limit arms to the legitimate state institutions and not be a launching pad for any terrorist acts that destabilize the region (nor) a source of drug trafficking.”Mikati also said: “I thank President Macron and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for their keenness in maintaining the friendship toward Lebanon.”Mikati called both President Michel Aoun and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and briefed them on the phone call. Mikati’s media office said that Aoun and Berri “expressed their satisfaction and stressed their adherence to the best relations with Saudi Arabia and all brotherly Arab countries, especially the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.”
Mikati called “all parties in Lebanon to appreciate the sensitivity of the situation and circumstances and not to take any action or interfere in any matter that offends the Arab brothers and harms the Lebanese.” He added: “It is time to commit again to the policy of disassociation and not to involve ourselves and our country in what has nothing to do with us.”The Saudi position toward Lebanon left the Lebanese anxiously relieved about the extent of the seriousness of the ruling authority in implementing what was agreed on in Jeddah between French President Emmanuel Macron and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Although Macron succeeded in opening the door to a solution to Lebanon’s diplomatic and economic crisis with Saudi Arabia, and thus the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, after the resignation of Information Minister George Kordahi from the government following his statements about the Kingdom, there is a fear that Hezbollah will continue to embroil Lebanon in regional politics. However, MP Ali Darwish, who is from Prime Minister Mikati’s parliamentary bloc, expects “positive signs to emerge in the coming days.”Darwish said that appointing a parliamentary committee to try presidents, ministers and MPs in return for allowing Cabinet sessions to take place was “one of the proposals.” Darwish told Arab News that “the Saudi-French move has undoubtedly breached the wall of stalemate in Lebanon’s relationship with the Gulf, which Lebanon is keen to be extremely good in the midst of the conflict in the region.”On the implementation of the French-Saudi statement, Darwish said: “The reforms are contained in the ministerial statement of Prime Minister Mikati’s government, and they are his government’s agenda, and he is striving to achieve them.”Darwish added: “The most important thing now is to restore the connection that was cut off, to return the ambassadors to Saudi Arabia and some Gulf countries, and to return the Arab ambassadors to Lebanon.” Darwish said that the Mikati government would “never interfere in the judicial matter, as there is a separation of powers.”However, he indicated that activating the Parliamentary Council for the Trial of Presidents and Ministers was possible but it required steps to be taken by parliament. Darwish added: “However, the trade-off between this matter and any other matter, especially the dismissal of the governor of the Banque du Liban, is not on the table.”Darwish said that Mikati’s concern “is securing the livelihood of the Lebanese people in light of the current severe economic crisis.” He said work was “now focused on rounding the corners and bringing the views closer.”

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on December 05-06/2021
Israel Urges Hard Line against Iran at Nuclear Talks
Associated Press/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on Sunday urged world powers to take a hard line against Iran in negotiations aimed at reviving an international nuclear deal, as his top defense and intelligence officials headed to Washington to discuss the flailing talks. Israel has been watching with concern as world powers sit down with Iran in Vienna in hopes of restoring the tattered 2015 deal. Iran last week struck its own hard line as talks resumed in Vienna, suggesting everything discussed in previous rounds of diplomacy could be renegotiated. Continued Iranian advances in its atomic program have further raised the stakes in talks that are crucial to cooling years of tensions in the wider Mideast. The original deal, spearheaded by then-President Barack Obama, gave Iran much-needed relief from crippling economic sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear activities. But then-President Donald Trump, with strong encouragement from Israel, withdrew from the deal in 2018, causing it to unravel. Last week's talks in Vienna resumed after a more than five-month hiatus and were the first in which Iran's new hard-line government participated. European and American negotiators expressed disappointment with Iran's positions and questioned whether the talks would succeed under Iran's stern approach. Israel has long opposed the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, known as the JCPOA, saying it didn't go far enough to halt the country's nuclear program and doesn't address what it sees as hostile Iranian military activity across the region.
Prominent voices in Israel are now indicating the U.S. withdrawal, especially without a contingency plan for Iran's continuously developing nuclear plan, was a blunder. But Israel's new government has maintained a similar position as former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, rejecting a return to the original deal and calling for diplomacy to be accompanied by military pressure on Iran.
"I call on every country negotiating with Iran in Vienna to take a strong line and make it clear to Iran that they cannot enrich uranium and negotiate at the same time," Bennett told a meeting of his Cabinet. "Iran must begin to pay a price for its violations."The United States left the deal under Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran in 2018. But that approach appears to have backfired. Since the deal's collapse, Iran now enriches small amounts of uranium up to 60% purity - a short step from weapons-grade levels of 90%. Iran also spins advanced centrifuges barred by the accord, and its uranium stockpile now far exceeds the accord's limits. For now, Iran is showing no signs of backing down. Ali Bagheri Kani, the Iranian deputy foreign minister leading the negotiations in Vienna, suggested over the weekend that Iran plans to give a third list of demands to his counterparts. These would include proposed reparations after two pages worth of demands last week. "Any sanctions in violation and not consistent with the (deal) should be removed immediately," Bagheri Kani told Al-Jazeera. "All the sanctions which have been imposed or re-imposed under the so-called maximum pressure campaign of the United States should be removed immediately."
President Joe Biden has said America is willing to re-enter the deal, though the U.S. is not a direct participant in the latest round of talks due to Washington's withdrawal. Instead, U.S. negotiators were in a nearby location and briefed by the other participants - including three European powers, China and Russia.
Although Israel is not a party to the negotiations, it has made a point of keeping up lines of communication with its American and European allies during the talks, which are set to resume this week. The current Israeli government objects to a return to the 2015 deal, urging instead an accord that addresses other Iranian military behavior, such as its missile program and support for anti-Israel militant groups like Lebanon's Hizbullah. Israel also supports a "credible" military threat against Iran as leverage. Israeli spy chief David Barnea headed to Washington late Saturday on a previously unannounced trip and Defense Minister Benny Gantz leaves Wednesday for meetings with his U.S. counterpart Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Foreign Minister Yair Lapid was in London and Paris last week to discuss the talks with Israel's European allies.
Bennett said Israel was using the time between rounds to convince the Americans to "use a different toolkit" against Iran's nuclear program, without elaborating. Israel and the U.S. are widely believed to have carried out covert operations against Iranian nuclear personnel and infrastructure in a bid to sabotage the program. A senior State Department official said negotiators expected Iran to "show seriousness" at the talks. He said that even Russia and China, important trading outlets for Iran which have traditionally taken a softer line in their relations with the country, left the talks last week concerned about the prospects for a deal. "Every day that goes by is a day where we come closer to the conclusion that they don't have in mind a return to the JCPOA in short order. What they have in mind is what I'd - what we'd call their own plan B, which is to use the talks as a cover, as a front for continued build-up of their nuclear program to serve as leverage for a better deal for them," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to brief reporters on the U.S. assessment. He said that Iran's acceleration of its nuclear program threatens the success of the talks. European negotiators also expressed frustration with the Iranians. Senior diplomats from Germany, Britain and France said Iran has "fast-forwarded its nuclear program" and "backtracked on diplomatic progress." "Unclear how these new gaps can be closed in a realistic timeframe on the basis of Iranian drafts," they said. Iran maintains its atomic program is peaceful. However, U.S. intelligence agencies and international inspectors say Iran had an organized nuclear weapons program up until 2003. Nonproliferation experts fear any brinkmanship could push Iran toward even more extreme measures to try to force the West to lift sanctions.

US Reluctance to Lift All Sanctions Main Obstacle to Reviving 2015 Pact, Says Iranian Official
Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
The reluctance of the United Sates to lift all sanctions on Iran is the main challenge to reviving the 2015 nuclear pact, a senior Iranian foreign ministry official was cited as saying by Iranian media on Sunday. Indirect talks between Washington and Tehran on reinstating their nuclear pact broke off on Friday, with both sides saying they would resume the following week, as Western officials voiced dismay at sweeping demands by Iran. "It is now clear that Washington's reluctance to give up sanctions altogether is the main challenge to the progress of the talks," the unnamed official was quoted as saying by Iran's Tasnim news agency."We believe that a deal is within reach if the US government gives up its campaign of maximum pressure and the European parties show serious flexibility and political will in the talks."Iran and major powers started talks in April aimed at bringing back Tehran and Washington into full compliance with the pact, which was abandoned by former US President Donald Trump three years ago. But the talks stopped after the election of Iran's hardline President Ebrahim Raisi in June. A year after Trump's reimposition of harsh sanctions on Iran, Tehran began to gradually violate nuclear limits of the agreement. Iran wants all sanctions imposed by the United States to be lifted in a verifiable process. While stressing that the United States still wanted to revive the deal, under which Iran had limited its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions, a senior US State Department official said on Saturday time was running short.

US Accuses Iran of 'Deception' in Vienna Talks
Washington - Ali Baradai/Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
Iran continues to accelerate its nuclear program in particularly "provocative ways," claiming it needs time to get ready to resume the talks on a joint return to compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), announced a senior US State Department official. The official gave a briefing on the seventh round of the JCPOA talks. He explained that the Iranian government said that it needed time to get ready, and "what we've seen over the last week or so is what getting ready meant for them. [..] I think our partners and others – Russia, China, others – have seen – have witnessed what Iran meant by getting ready." He indicated that their latest provocation as reported by the "IAEA only on Wednesday, i.e., while we were still in the middle of talks, was to prepare for the doubling of their production capacity of 20 percent enriched uranium at Fordow."The official explained that getting ready meant "to continue to stonewall the IAEA despite efforts – again, by all of the P5+1 – constructive efforts to find a way forward between Director General Grossi and Iran."He indicated that the Russians, the Chinese, and the GCC countries support engaging economically and diplomatically with Iran. "Iran has to show seriousness at the table and be prepared to come back in short order in compliance with the deal, as the US has said that it is prepared to do and as President Biden has said he is prepared to do and to stay in compliance with the deal as long as Iran is,” he said. Asked about Russia and China's concerns about Iran's continued lack of compliance, the official indicated that they would share Washington's view entirely, but "I think they do think they do share a sense of disappointment, to put it diplomatically, at what the last several months – what Iran has chosen to do with the last several months of preparation." He did not clarify whether the United States would withdraw from the negotiations if Iran were not serious about them. "I would say that the time that we have for – the time that the JCPOA has for remaining a viable deal is inversely proportional to the speed with which Iran advances its nuclear program. If they choose to accelerate their nuclear program, as they seem to have done of late, then there'd be less time left for the JCPOA to be resurrected." The official asserted that accelerating the technological clock of the nuclear program carries "very troubling implications for whether the JCPOA can be revived."

Iran Currency Falls as Nuclear Talks Seem to Hit Roadblock
Asharq Al-Awsati/Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
The Iranian rial currency dipped on Saturday but remained above historic lows after news that talks with world powers to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear accord may have run into difficulties, Reuters reported. Indirect US-Iranian talks on saving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal broke off on Friday until next week, with European officials voicing dismay at sweeping demands by Iran's new, hardline government. Washington said Tehran "does not seem to be serious". In Iran, the US dollar was selling for as much as 302,200 rials on the unofficial market on Saturday, up from 294,000 on Friday, according to the foreign exchange site Bonbast.com. "The market has received a first shock from the nuclear accord (talks)," wrote the economic news website eghtesadnews.com. It said the dollar gained 6,000 rials to 299,500 before rising above 300,000 on Saturday.
In October 2020, the rial currency hit a record low of about 320,000 to a dollar as a drop in oil prices deepened the economic crisis in the country already reeling under US sanctions and the highest COVID-19 death toll in the Middle East.

Iran Holds Unannounced Air Defense Drill over Natanz
Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
Iranian air defenses fired a missile as part of an exercise on Saturday over the central town of Natanz, which houses nuclear installations, state TV reported, after local residents reported hearing a large blast. The TV said air defense units fired the missile to test a rapid reaction force over Natanz. "Such exercises are carried out in a completely secure environment ... and there is no cause for concern," Army spokesman Shahin Taqikhani told the TV. Iranian news agencies earlier reported a large explosion in the sky above Natanz, but said there was no official explanation of the incident. The semi-official Fars news agency quoted its reporter in nearby Badroud as saying a short blast was heard which was accompanied by an intense light in the sky.

Al-Azhar, Vatican Agree to Fight Extremism, Hatred
Cairo - Walid Abdul Rahmani/Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
Al-Azhar and the Vatican have agreed to continue efforts to fight extremism and hatred, pointing to their ongoing work to ensure that love and stability prevail across the world. This came during a meeting at Al-Azhar in Cairo on Saturday, between Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Ahmed El-Tayyeb and Cardinal Miguel Angel Ayuso Guixot, the head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and a specialist in Islamic studies. Vatican ambassador in Egypt Archbishop Nicholas Henry attended the meeting. “The relationship between Al-Azhar and the Vatican remains an effective and real model for spreading tolerance and peace and confronting extremism, hatred, wars and conflicts,” Tayeb said, adding that the road of peace and dialogue is full of hardships. He added that the world is in dire need for the values of brotherhood, peaceful coexistence and respect in order to achieve stability. In October, Al-Azhar Grand Imam and Pope Francis met on the sidelines of the meeting on climate change entitled “Faith and Science: Towards COP26 Summit.” Many challenges require strength and determination to endure hardships and difficulties, they indicated, adding that returning to the teachings of religions is the way to save the world from extremism and division. According to a statement by Al-Azhar on Saturday, Tayeb said that “the leaders and scholars have a religious and societal duty to confront negative phenomena, especially with regard to moral aspects.” Al-Azhar and the Vatican will take the necessary steps and measures to implement the articles mentioned in the historic Human Fraternity Document announced by Abu Dhabi in 2019.

Israel Protests UN Commemoration of Partition Plan
Ramallah /Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan slammed the UN for commemorating the voting anniversary of the 1947 partition plan with an event held in solidarity with the Palestinians. The plan, known as Resolution 181, called to partition the area of British Mandatory Palestine into two states - one Jewish and one Arab. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to recognize the establishment of a Jewish state in parts of the Mandate. The Jews accepted the plan, while the Palestinians and neighboring Arab states rejected it and launched the War of Independence. Erdan also deemed “outrageous” the UN for promoting a Palestinian “right of return,” a demand for the millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to come back to their ancestors’ lands in what is now modern day Israel. Israel rejects the demand, saying that it represents a bid by the Palestinians to destroy Israel by weight of numbers. Israel’s population is almost nine million, some three-quarters of whom are Jewish. An influx of millions would mean Israel could no longer be a Jewish-majority state. “Israel accepted this partition plan... the Palestinians and the Arab countries rejected it and tried to destroy us,” Erdan said in a video message marking the occasion on his Twitter page. “They also persecuted, massacred, and ultimately expelled the Jewish communities in their own countries,” he added, accusing the international community of ignoring those events and only focusing on the Palestinians. “Instead, the UN has the audacity to hold a solidarity event for the Palestinians on the anniversary of the Palestinians’ own decision to choose violence,”Erdan stressed. “On the day that the Palestinians chose violence, the UN also dares to advance the outrageous and false right of return, a demand that would lead to the total obliteration of the Jewish state.”In order to underscore this issue, Israel’s mission to the UN launched a campaign together with the World Jewish Congress that will see trucks driving around New York with the message “Don’t erase Jewish history.” According to the Israeli media, Erdan wants to focus on the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were expelled from Arab lands after the establishment of the State of Israel and their properties confiscated. “By advancing and amplifying on the one side the false and dangerous narrative of the Palestinians and by silencing the true, tragic stories of the Jewish refugees who were expelled from the Arab countries and from Iran, the UN is erasing Jewish history and distorting the truth and we will never allow this to happen,” Erdan warned.

Hamas Will Not Release 4 Israeli Prisoners without Swap Deal
Ramallah/Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
Hamas will not release four Israeli soldiers captured in the Gaza Strip without a deal to release Palestinian political prisoners held by Israel, announced the movement's politburo chief Ismail Haniyeh. Speaking at the 12th Pioneers of Jerusalem Conference in Istanbul, Haniyeh reaffirmed that the issue of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails is a top priority for the movement. Haniyeh's statement confirms that Hamas is proceeding with a separate exchange deal. Hamas informed Egypt, which is mediating the talks, that it is ready for an exchange deal, whether comprehensive or over two stages. Hamas has requested the release of more than 100 prisoners. The movement proposed a two-stage deal. The first includes the release of two Israeli civilian prisoners, Avera Mengistu and Hisham al-Sayed, and information about soldiers Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners. The second stage negotiates the release of 800 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli soldiers. Tel Aviv did not respond to that. There are four Israelis held by Hamas in Gaza, including Shaul and Goldin, who were captured by the movement in the war that broke out in the summer of 2014. Israel believes they are dead. However, Hamas does not provide any information about their fate. Hamas is also detaining Mengistu, an Israeli of Ethiopian descent, and Sayyid, of Arab descent. Both crossed Gaza borders at two different times after the war. There are about 4,500 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons. Israel refuses to release prisoners with "blood on their hands," a top priority for Hamas, known as the VIP list. Israeli sources said Prime Minister Naftali Bennett fears his coalition will collapse if he takes a step that includes the release of senior prisoners.

Abbas, Tebboune Discuss Preventing Admission of Israel into African Union
Algiers/Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will arrive in Algiers on Sunday on a two-day visit, during which he will discuss preparations for the Arab League Summit that Algeria will host in late March 2022. Abbas will also meet with his Algerian counterpart Abdelmadjid Tebboune to discuss means of preventing Israel from joining the African Union. He will ensure the Palestinian cause tops the Summit’s agenda, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki told reporters in Ramallah. Talks will tackle giving Israel an observer status at African Union (AU), Maliki added, noting that Algeria is leading a protest movement within the AU to prevent its access. Abbas will later visit Tunisia in response to an invitation by President Kais Saied to discuss bilateral ties and Tunis’s role in the United Nations and regional and international organizations. He will also inaugurate the new building of the embassy of State of Palestine in Tunis. Abbas has recently concluded a tour including Russia, Qatar, Italy and the Vatican. He has intensified his diplomatic efforts amid frustration from the US administration’s slow pace in supporting a political process. Abbas hopes the international community responds to his plan to activate the work of the International Quartet on the Middle East before organizing an international peace conference. He looks forward to the committee, which includes Russia, the United States, the United Nations and the European Union, to establish practical mechanisms to advance the settlement process in the Middle East by sponsoring negotiations between Palestine and Israel. The president launched an initiative in a September speech at the UN, where he called on the Secretary-General to convene an international peace conference. He gave Israel one year to withdraw from the occupied territory or he said he would no longer recognize the Jewish state based on pre-1967 borders.

Syrian Authorities Release 21 Detainees in Daraa
Daraa, London/Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
Syrian authorities in Daraa released 21 detainees, "who did not spill the blood of Syrians," as part of the recent settlement agreement proposed by the state and sponsored by Russia. Daraa Governor Louay Kharita stressed that everyone is responsible for providing advice and guidance to those released so that they can be active in society. Secretary of the Arab Socialist Baath Party branch Hussein al-Rifai said this is the 14th batch of detainees who are being released to resume their normal lives. Over the past two months, the Daraa province has witnessed settlement processes as part of the agreement, including in the Daraa al-Balad neighborhood and most villages, towns, and cities in the Daraa countryside. The settlement was accompanied by combing operations carried out by the Syrian Arab Army’s units paving the way for the return of state institutions to the province. Meanwhile, deputy head of the Russian Reconciliation Center, Rear Admiral Vadim Kolet, announced that four Syrian soldiers were wounded by snipers in the governorates of Idlib, Latakia and Aleppo. Snipers affiliated with terrorist groups from the Fatterah area in Idlib opened fire at government forces positions in the vicinity of the Milja area, wounding two Syrian soldiers, he revealed. Other terrorist snipers wounded one Syrian soldier in Kafr Halab village in Aleppo. “A sniper affiliated with terrorist groups in Qaramanly (al-Hayat) area in Latakia's northern countryside sniped government forces positions, injuring a soldier,” Kolet confirmed. The Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group launched eight assaults in the de-escalation zone in Idlib earlier, he stated. “The Russian Reconciliation Center calls on the leaders of illegitimate armed groups to reject provocations and work to reach a peaceful settlement in the areas they control,” he urged.

Israeli Police Questioned on Palestinian Attacker’s Shooting
Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
Israel's Justice Ministry said Sunday that two police officers were brought in for questioning following the shooting death of a Palestinian who had stabbed an Israeli man in east Jerusalem. Israeli police released surveillance video in which the attacker can be seen Saturday stabbing the ultra-Orthodox Jewish man and then trying to stab a Border Police officer before being shot and falling to the ground. Police identified the attacker as a 25-year-old from Salfit, in the occupied West Bank. Police could later be seen carrying the body away on a stretcher.
A widely circulated video shot by a bystander appeared to show an officer from Israel’s paramilitary Border Police shooting the attacker when he was already lying on the ground, and another appeared to show police with guns drawn preventing medics from reaching him, prompting calls for an investigation into possible excessive use of force. The shooting drew comparisons to a 2016 incident in which an Israeli soldier was caught on camera shooting a wounded Palestinian attacker who was lying on the ground. The Justice Ministry’s police investigations unit said the police officers were questioned shortly after the incident and released without conditions. Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett released a statement in support of the officers. Other leaders also defended their actions.
“It's not clear if the terrorist maybe has an explosive belt. All sorts of things could happen,” Public Security Minister Omer Barlev, who oversees the police, told Israeli Army Radio Sunday. “They acted correctly.”The incident happened near Damascus Gate just outside Jerusalem’s Old City, a tense and crowded area that is often the scene of demonstrations and clashes. The Old City is in east Jerusalem, which Israel captured in the 1967 war along with the West Bank and Gaza. Israel annexed east Jerusalem in a move not recognized internationally and considers the entire city its capital. The Palestinians want east Jerusalem to be the capital of their future state, to include the West Bank and Gaza. There have been dozens of attacks in recent years in and around the Old City, nearly all carried out by individual Palestinians with no known links to armed groups. Palestinians and Israeli rights groups say security forces sometimes use excessive force in response to attacks, killing suspected assailants who could have been arrested or who posed no immediate threat to security forces. Rights groups also say Israel rarely holds members of its security forces accountable for the deadly shootings of Palestinians. Investigations often end with no charges or lenient sentences, and in many cases witnesses are not summoned for questioning. Israel says its security forces make every effort to avoid harming civilians and that it investigates alleged abuses. In the widely publicized 2016 case, Israeli soldier Elor Azaria was caught on camera shooting a wounded Palestinian attacker who was lying on the ground. Azaria later served two-thirds of a 14-month sentence after being convicted of reckless manslaughter. His case sharply divided Israelis. The military pushed for his prosecution, saying he violated its code of ethics, while many Israelis, particularly on the nationalist right, defended his actions. In a more recent case, a Border Police officer was charged with reckless manslaughter in the deadly shooting of an autistic Palestinian man in Jerusalem’s Old City last year.
The indictment came just over a year after the shooting of Eyad Hallaq, whose family has criticized Israel’s investigation into the killing and called for much tougher charges. The shooting has drawn comparisons to the police killing of George Floyd in the United States.

UN Security Council Extends Travel Exemption to Gaddafi’s Widow
Cairo - Jamal Jawhar/Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
The United Nations Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1970 (2011) concerning Libya decided to extend a travel exemption to slain Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s widow, Safia Farkash, for “humanitarian purposes.”The decision, effective from December 1, 2021 through May 31, 2022, also includes Aisha Muammar Gaddafi and Mohammed Muammar Gaddafi. Dr. Mustafa al-Fituri, who had attended the trial of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi at the International Criminal Court as an independent observer, said the Council’s decision to extend the period rather than lifting the restrictions permanently "has to do with the internal political situation.”“Perhaps members of the UN Security Council believe that setting Gaddafi’s family members free may allow them to be involved politically,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat. He also assumed Farkash did not assign an advocate who communicates with the UN sanctions committee and insists on lifting these travel restrictions. The Council issued a resolution on February 27, 2011, under which travel bans and asset freezing decisions were issued against Gaddafi, his family members and some of his aides. However, it began to gradually lift restrictions on Gaddafi’s widow, and two of his sons, Aisha and Mohammed, for a period of six months, the last of which was from June to November 2021. Farkash fled Libya after the outbreak of the revolution and sought refuge in Algeria, Oman and Cairo with her daughter, Aisha. Mohammed, Gaddafi’s son from his first wife Fathia, followed them, while his other son Hannibal is still held in Lebanon. Under the humanitarian travel exemption granted, travel information shall be provided by the aforementioned individuals for information purposes of the Committee prior to and within one month after travel, as per the Provisional Guidelines of the Committee and the Committee’s Implementation Assistance Notice. The Committee could consider extending or renewing the exemption, should circumstances warrant, and any future decision would take into account the level of information provided. Many Libyan academics, journalists and jurists have previously called for launching an initiative of solidarity with Gaddafi’s widow.

EU’s Borrell: Turkey, Russia Should Exit Libya to Resolve Crisis
Cairo- Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
The European Union’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, called on Russia and Turkey to exit Libya “as a means to resolve the crisis in the country.”This comes amid efforts by the Libyan and international parties to find a mechanism for the exit of thousands of mercenaries and foreign fighters.
“There are many interventions and foreign forces in Libya, like Russia and Turkey, and they must leave the country as part of solving the crisis in Libya,” he told the Mediterranean Dialogues Conference held in Rome according to Sputnik.
“Elections in Libya are necessary for government legitimacy,” the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy stressed. The EU is ready to send observers to the country to monitor the presidential elections, scheduled to be held on December 24, he affirmed.

Fatah Alliance Calls for Annulment of Iraq Elections Results
Baghdad - Fadhel al-Nashmi/Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 5 December, 2021
Fatah Alliance leader Hadi al-Amiri accused the Iraqi Electoral Commission of several legal and technical violations, describing it as "incompetent."Amiri asserted that the Alliance would follow legal measures and not resort to escalation through protests and demonstrations. Some Baghdad political observers expect the coordinating framework groups to return to protests to impose their conditions. The final results of the Electoral Commission showed that Fatah won 17 seats, compared to 48 seats in the previous parliamentary session. Fatah based its arguments on an old report that claimed the voting machines of the German firm, Hensoldt, were not adequate. Hensoldt was tasked with auditing the devices and software used to count and compile votes of the 2018 elections. "The election results proved the incompetence of the [electoral] commission to manage it [the vote]," Amiri a press conference. He indicated the Alliance had doubts about these devices from the beginning, saying the Commission did not submit any report on the elections until the dissolution of the parliament, and this is a legal violation. The Commission should have handed over the results to all the candidates, but it did not abide by this, said Amiri, adding there is a vast difference in votes handed over to the candidates and the announced results. The Alliance submitted appeals to the Federal Court with evidence of forgery, and it has six reports on the Commission's violations of the law. During a press conference, lawmaker Adnan Faihan, a member of Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, said that the German company confirmed there were issues in reading voters' fingerprints. Last week, the Electoral Commission responded to reports about the German company, stressing that there was no election fraud and judicial verdicts are decisive and binding to all. Member of its media team, Imad Jamil, said that claims about the company were observations reported before the elections. Jamil explained that the company was brought to the counting center and examined the devices and spare parts, and the producing Korean company processed them. He stressed that the Commission did not conceal the report of the German company, which indicated that the procedures for opening, closing, transferring, and other related procedures were done correctly. Jamil also indicated that the Commission responded to several voting issues promptly, and the electoral system's problems did not impact the results.
The company pointed in its report that the Commission addressed quickly and effectively all problems, which allowed the verification of data inputs and outputs on multiple levels, Jamil noted, stressing that no foreign party attempted at any time to influence the review or interfere with it.

Canada/Minister Joly concludes participation in NATO Foreign Ministerial and OSCE Ministerial Council meetings
December 4, 2021 – Stockholm, Sweden – Global Affairs Canada
The Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs, concluded her trip to Europe, where she participated in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Riga, Latvia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Ministerial Council Meeting in Stockholm, Sweden.
These meetings provided the Minister with an opportunity to advance shared priorities, including upholding the rules-based international order, advancing security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic region, protecting and promoting democracy, and increasing gender equality, diversity and inclusion.
While in Latvia, Minister Joly visited Camp Ādaži alongside Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO, and Artis Pabriks, Latvia’s Minister of Defence. She thanked Canadian and Allied troops contributing to the Canada-led enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group Latvia. Minister Joly also met with the Prime Minister of Latvia and with her Latvian counterpart, to acknowledge our excellent bilateral relationship.
At the NATO meeting, Minister Joly reiterated Canada’s unwavering support for the Alliance, which plays an essential role in transatlantic security. The Minister engaged in key discussions on the preparation of NATO’s new Strategic Concept, on lessons learned in Afghanistan, and on challenges in the Black Sea region and the Western Balkans.
Minister Joly continued her multilateral discussions at the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting, where she reiterated the important role democracies play in standing up to the actions of authoritarian regimes. She highlighted the troubling ongoing human rights abuses in Belarus, along with its instrumentalization of migrants, and expressed concern regarding the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Throughout her trip, Minister Joly underscored Canada’s deep concern with the recent build-up of Russian troops and equipment in and around Ukraine in addition to accompanying hybrid tactics. The Minister called on Russia to reduce tensions, cease these actions and uphold its OSCE and other international commitments.
Quotes
“I am pleased I was able to join my counterparts in Europe during my first overseas trip as Minister of Foreign Affairs. During these meetings, my counterparts and I engaged in constructive dialogue and explored ways we could work together to protect the stability and peace of the Euro-Atlantic region. There is much work ahead for the international community, but our unity and resolve will help us address our shared security challenges.”
- Mélanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Quick facts
The Minister met over 30 of her counterparts from Armenia, Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom as well as with NATO’s Secretary General and the OSCE’s Secretary General.
Canada’s contributions to NATO demonstrate our unwavering commitment to the Alliance, and strengthen Allied capacity to respond to the evolving security environment.
Currently, Canada is:
Leading the multinational NATO eFP Battle Group in Latvia;
Periodically deploying CF-18 fighter aircraft to conduct surveillance and air policing activities in Europe (including in the Black Sea);
Commanding the Standing NATO Maritime Group One, with HMCS FREDERICTON as the Flagship. We also deploy a frigate on a continual basis to the Standing NATO Maritime Groups.
Continuing to support training and capacity building efforts in the Middle East, including through NATO Mission Iraq; and,
Deploying personnel to Kosovo.

The Latest The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on December 05-06/2021
Sorry, Everyone, Hamas is Still a Terrorist Group
Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/December 05/2021
First, the document reportedly depicting Hamas as a moderate group that accepts the "two-state solution" is a bluff intended to dupe the international community.
As Mashaal himself explained, even if Hamas accepts a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, that does not mean that it would ever recognize Israel's right to exist.
Second, Hamas has not renounced violence and terrorism. In fact, it intends to continue the "resistance" and jihad (holy war) against Israel after the establishment of the Palestinian state with the purpose of "liberating all of Palestine."
Third, the new document did not cancel or change the content of the Hamas charter, which, according to Hamas leaders, remains valid and relevant to this day.
Hamas's representative in Iran, Khaled Qaddoumi, confirmed.... that the talk about Hamas accepting a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem was in the context of a plan to destroy Israel in phases.
"There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by jihad." — Hamas charter, Article 13.
Hamas, of course, never misses an opportunity to remind its followers and the rest of the world that it remains faithful to the words of the prophet Mohammed, who said: "The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!" — Hamas charter, Article 7.
Days after the decision was announced, the Hamas leadership leader said...: "Palestine - all of Palestine - from its [Mediterranean] sea to its [Jordan] river, is for the Palestinian people, and there is no place or legitimacy for strangers over any inch of it." — hamas.ps, November 29, 2021.
The statements of Hamas leaders show that they dissemble less than many of their own apologists in the West, who claim that they understand Hamas better than Hamas understands itself.
The document reportedly depicting Hamas as a moderate group that accepts the "two-state solution" is a bluff intended to dupe the international community. As Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal (pictured) explained, even if Hamas accepts a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, that does not mean that it would ever recognize Israel's right to exist.
One of the arguments that is being raised against the British government's recent decision to designate Hamas an extremist terrorist organization is that the Gaza-based movement, which does not recognize Israel's right to exist, has changed and now supports the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel.
Opponents of the UK's decision claim that in 2017 Hamas "softened its stance on Israel by accepting the idea of a Palestinian state in territories occupied by Israel in the six-day war of 1967."
The purported change, they argue, was included in a new document announced by Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal at a press conference in Doha, Qatar. Mashaal was quoted as saying:
"Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine, but is ready to support the [Palestinian] state on 1967 borders without recognizing Israel or ceding any rights."
A year later, however, Mashaal said in an interview with the Qatari-owned Al-Jazeera television network that the document was "not a tactical or strategic change," adding that Hamas has not changed or abandoned its 1988 charter. "We want to continue the resistance [against Israel]," the Hamas leader said.
There are three points that need to be taken into consideration when talking about the 2017 Hamas document.
First, the document reportedly depicting Hamas as a moderate group that accepts the "two-state solution" is a bluff intended to dupe the international community. As Mashaal himself explained, even if Hamas accepts a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, that does not mean that it would ever recognize Israel's right to exist. Hamas, in short, is saying: We will take whatever you give us now -- starting with a Palestinian state -- and we will use this to slaughter you.
Second, Hamas has not renounced violence and terrorism. In fact, it intends to continue the "resistance" and jihad (holy war) against Israel after the establishment of the Palestinian state with the purpose of "liberating all of Palestine." When Hamas leaders talk about "resistance," they are referring to the murder of Jews through various methods, including suicide bombings, stabbings, drive-by shootings and rockets fired from the Gaza Strip at Israeli cities and towns.
Third, the new document did not cancel or change the content of the Hamas charter, which, according to Hamas leaders, remains valid and relevant to this day.
Hamas's representative in Iran, Khaled Qaddoumi, confirmed in 2017 that the Hamas document does not mean that his group "would give up any part of the land of Palestine" or halt its terror attacks against Israel. Qaddoumi clarified that the talk about Hamas accepting a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem was in the context of a plan to destroy Israel in phases.
Qaddoumi was asked: "We understand that you (Hamas) are seeking to liberate Palestine in phases?"
He replied by explaining that even if Hamas accepts a Palestinian on the pre-1967 lines, it will never recognize Israel's right to exist:
"We don't accept the concept of recognizing the Zionist entity in return for a Palestinian state. The concept we accept is one that says that you can liberate part of the homeland now in order to liberate the other part [later]. This is what Hamas means, and this is what happened specifically when the Gaza Strip was liberated, or when the Zionist entity was forcibly evicted from there. After [the Israeli withdrawal], we set out to build our [military] capabilities and equipment to embark on the comprehensive stage of liberation."
This Hamas official deserves credit for one thing: being transparent about Hamas's real goals. He's also right regarding what happened after the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Although Israel withdrew from the entire coastal enclave, Hamas continued to fire rockets towards Israel.
Hamas and other Palestinians viewed the Israeli pullout as a retreat in the face of terrorism. In addition, they saw the Israeli move as a sign of weakness and an opportunity to use the Gaza Strip as a launching pad to "liberate the rest of Palestine" and drive the Jews not only out of their homeland, but also the entire region. This is exactly what Qaddoumi is referring to when he talks about Hamas moving towards the "stage of comprehensive liberation."
Like most Hamas leaders, Qaddoumi, too, is saying that his group remains committed and loyal to its 1988 charter, which outlines the group's strategy:
"The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection; no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President ... have that right." (Article 11)
Here is what the charter says about peace initiatives and plans to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict:
"[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion... the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their jihad [against Israel]... There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by jihad." (Article 13)
Hamas, of course, never misses an opportunity to remind its followers and the rest of the world that it remains faithful to the words of the prophet Mohammed, who said:
"The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!" (Article 7)
While Hamas apologists are condemning the British decision to label it a terrorist organization, the leaders of the group continue to discuss their unwavering commitment to the destruction of Israel.
Days after the decision was announced, the Hamas leadership leader said in a statement published on November 29, 2021:
"Palestine -- all of Palestine -- from its [Mediterranean] sea to its [Jordan] river, is for the Palestinian people, and there is no place or legitimacy for strangers over any inch of it. The comprehensive resistance is a legitimate right guaranteed to us by all international laws, foremost among which is the armed resistance against the Zionist enemy that has usurped our land. Reversing the facts, and integrating the occupation in the region will not succeed, and the Zionist enemy will remain the main enemy of our Palestinian people and the Islamic nation."
While Hamas supporters are saying that the British decision is harmful to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, the group's leaders are continuing to talk about thwarting any form of normalization between Arabs and Jews.
On December 2, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh called for a "comprehensive plan to foil normalization" between Israel and the Arab world. "We must topple normalization and prevent this cancerous tumor from metastasizing to the body of the Islamic nation," he said. The Hamas leader, in effect, is saying that his group, with the help of other Muslims, is determined to fight against peace treaties between Israel and the Arab countries.
Hamas, evidently, has not changed or "softened" its position towards Israel. In fact, the opposite is true. Since the 2017 document was announced by Mashaal, Hamas has fired thousands of rockets at Israel and carried out dozens of terrorist attacks against Israelis. The statements of Hamas leaders show that they dissemble less than many of their own apologists in the West, who claim that they understand Hamas better than Hamas understands itself.
Hamas apologists, especially non-Arabic speakers, should be paying attention to translations from Arabic to understand the true nature of Hamas and the statements made by its leaders. Perhaps that will prompt some of them to stop misrepresenting Hamas and twisting the facts -- mainly, it seems, out of a hatred for Israel and a refusal to accept its presence in the Middle East.
*Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.
© 2021 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.

Unprecedented
Michael Anton/New Criterion/December 05/2021
https://newcriterion.com/issues/2021/12/unprecedented
On the novelty of our cultural predicament.
The theme is “Western civilization at the crossroads.” Far be it from me to doubt that the West is on the precipice of something enormous. But “crossroads” implies a map. Do we have one? Is a piece of paper showing the way forward—whether predictive or hopeful—even possible?
I’ve noticed that a lot of people more or less “on my side,” or who see things basically as I do, are extremely confident that they know what is going to happen next. Their certainty is entirely independent of what they think they know.
Some believe that the end—the collapse of present ruling arrangements—is imminent, if not tomorrow or next week, then soon, within a year or five. Others assert that the present regime is stable and not only can but will last for decades or even centuries. Some insist that the regime will fall of its own incompetence, others that its end will require an external push—which some are certain will come, and others are equally sure will not.
When I have thought about this, I have been in some part inclined to the opinion that present arrangements are unstable and may be approaching their end. Yet in thinking it through further, I am forced to admit that our times are marked by so many unprecedented trends and events that making predictions seems foolhardy.
Both Rome and America were founded by kings—or, in our case, under the auspices of a king.
But before going into those differences, let’s first consider the one historical parallel that all sides of this debate draw on for precedent: the rise, peak, decline, and fall of Rome. At first glance, the two cases seem to have a lot in common. Not only was the United States founded by men educated in the classics who took Roman pseudonyms and named the government’s top legislative body after Rome’s, and not only did those founders revive republicanism after centuries of abeyance following the transformation of the Roman republic into an empire, but our country’s history itself seems to have tracked Rome’s, if not precisely then certainly thematically.
Both Rome and America were founded by kings—or, in our case, under the auspices of a king. In both instances, the descendants of those kings ruled in ways their subjects found intolerable and were overthrown. Both peoples then established a mixed-republican form of government, with monarchical, aristocratic, and popular elements. Both of those governments were, at first, weighted toward their aristocratic elements but gradually—owing in part to popular discontent and strife—became more balanced and eventually biased toward the popular element. Both societies fought constant wars, self-justified as “defensive” but more often than not expansionist. Both rapidly conquered what we might call their immediate “neighborhoods”—the Italian peninsula and major Mediterranean islands, the North American continent, respectively—and then went on to win major wars against competing “superpowers,” in the process becoming world-bestriding hegemons. Indeed, we may say that no other power in history, save for perhaps the British Empire, acquired such extensive spheres of influence and so dominated their respective eras for so long. If other empires held more territory, or perhaps technically lasted longer, none exerted nearly as much enduring influence on the rest of the world.
The Roman case
In Rome’s case, its government formally made the transition from republic to empire after a long expansion that bloated the treasury, increased the size and power of the military, concentrated wealth in the hands of a few who controlled not just the economy but the government, and impoverished ordinary citizens. While much of that may sound familiar, much is different, making the analogy (like all such historical comparisons) inexact. Rome conquered and directly administered territory throughout the entire Mediterranean basin and over most of the (then-) known world. America’s “empire,” by contrast, is quasi-metaphoric or at the very least indirect; the only external territories of any consequence it controls are Puerto Rico and Guam. Then there are all the differences in religion, philosophy, society, economics, technology, and so on, far too numerous to list. (One might also ask: where’s our bloated treasury?)
America has yet formally to transform (if it ever will) from republic to empire. Yet in all important respects, our country is no longer a republic, much less a democracy, but rather a kind of hybrid corporate-administrative oligarchy. This lack of formal transition causes some to speculate that America is in the “late republican” stage, with the republic (it is alleged, or hoped) soon to fall to a “Caesar.” Those who assert that the transition, however informal its appearance, has already happened are more likely to place America in the “late imperial” stage, i.e., much closer to total collapse and replacement by an entirely new order.
Cycle theory predicts that every more or less good regime—whether monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy—falls when it inevitably becomes overbearing and odious.
All such speculations presuppose the truth of the classical theory known as the “cycle of regimes.” Just as Rome was born, grew, matured, peaked, declined, and eventually fell, so will—and must—America. Cycle theory predicts that every more or less good regime—whether monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy—falls when it inevitably becomes overbearing and odious. Thus do monarchies degenerate into tyrannies, which are replaced by aristocracies that decay into oligarchies, which are overthrown by democracies that descend into mob-rule or even anarchy. In that case, we should expect our present oligarchy, sooner or later, to give way to democracy.
While that possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand, the prospect seems laughable. If there is to be, as cycle theory predicts, a popular revolt against our corrupt oligarchy, it would seem much more likely to be led by a charismatic, centralizing figure who ascends to the leadership of the popular party and then installs himself as the head of government—in other words, Caesarism. And even that would depend on a Caesar of sufficient talent and institutional support, as well as a sufficient level of spirit and virtue in the people (and on much else besides).
More fundamentally, classic cycle theory presupposes an ethnically, linguistically, and religiously unified people. Indeed, in his Politics, Aristotle says that “dissimilarity of stock is conducive to factional conflict,” i.e., ethnic differences in and of themselves, irrespective of disagreements over regime form (typically few versus many), can drive revolution. Aristotle seems to admit the possibility of assimilation: dissimilarity, he says, leads to conflict “until a cooperative spirit develops.” But he cites no examples, forcing one to wonder how likely it is for this theoretical possibility to be actualized in the real world. It seems, instead, that the fundamental conflict between the few and the many emerges only where the more fundamental conflict between differing peoples is absent. Where it is not, the few and the many alike rally to their fellow ethnics; ethnicity itself, rather than “class,” is their prime motivator.
Multi-ethnic polities are hardly unknown to history. Of these, Aristotle gives several examples—all of which ended up fighting civil wars along ethnic lines.
The most common (one may say only) way that multi-ethnic societies have been successfully governed is centrally, from the top, by some form of one-man rule, whether monarchical, Caesarist, or tyrannical. This, ultimately, is how Rome “solved” the problem of admitting so many foreigners to citizenship, to say nothing of its far-flung conquest of peoples whom it never made citizens. In more recent times, one may think of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Tito’s Yugoslavia.
America today
Consider, now, the contemporary United States of America. At first glance, it seems to belie Aristotle’s implied assertion that regime-ending ethnic conflict is unavoidable wherever more than one group lives under the same government. Americans pride themselves, and their country, on their exceptional track record of assimilating peoples from all over the world.
Yet before we congratulate ourselves overmuch, let us reflect, first, on the fact that the United States has not merely abandoned but utterly repudiated the traditional understanding of assimilation, which is now denounced by all elite opinion as “racist” and evil. Not only does no American institution encourage (much less demand) assimilation, they all foment the opposite. Immigrants to America are exhorted to embrace their native cultures and taught that the country to which they’ve chosen to immigrate is the worst in world history, whose people and institutions are intent on harming them, and that their own cultures are infinitely superior. In this respect, one supposes, immigrants are encouraged to “assimilate”—to the anti-Americanism of the average Oberlin professor.
Be that as it may, no nation in recorded history has ever willingly opened its doors to millions of immigrants only to insist that they must never adapt to the traditional ways of their new country—indeed, insisting that they forever remain as foreign as the day they arrived. Similarly, no country in recorded history has ever welcomed millions with the message that their new country, along with its existing citizens, are inherently evil and out to get them.
Second, assimilation works best among peoples with some common underlying similarity, whether political, linguistic, ethnic, religious, or cultural (preferably a combination of all these). Its effectiveness declines as the differences among the disparate peoples increase. Historically, the closer in the above categories an immigrant group was to founding-stock Americans, the more quickly and smoothly its members assimilated. American immigration policy and practice has drifted steadily away from prioritizing this practice. In particular, since the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act and the de facto (since the 1970s at least) non-enforcement of America’s borders and immigration laws, newcomers to America have become more and more distant—not just from existing Americans but from one another. America now takes in, and has been importing for more than fifty years, people from every part of the globe, of every faith, speaking every language. This, too, has never before happened in world history.
Third is the size of the wave. Precise numbers are hard to come by, but if we count immigrants legal and illegal plus all their direct descendants, then something like a hundred million newcomers have arrived in America since 1965. Only fourteen countries today have total populations exceeding that figure. In 1965, there were just under two hundred million Americans. Today it is estimated that 333 million live within our borders. At least two-thirds of that growth has been immigrant-driven. This large a migration wave, in so short a time, to one country, from so many different sources, has also never happened before in human history. Need a “respectable” source to vouch for that? Here’s Bill Clinton in 1998:
But now we are being tested again—by a new wave of immigration larger than any in a century, far more diverse than any in our history. Each year, nearly a million people come legally to America. Today, nearly one in ten people in America was born in another country; one in five schoolchildren are from immigrant families. Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than fifty years, there will be no majority race in the United States [applause]. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time.
Note the applause. The venue of the above speech was a university commencement: a sitting president addressing freshly minted college graduates and their parents, i.e., the elite speaking to the elite. Demographic decline was literally applauded. And this is only one example. Mere months ago, when the Census announced that, for the first time in American history, the white population had declined in absolute numbers, The Tonight Show’s audience cheered. No native-born population of any country has ever literally cheered its own dispossession.
That which cannot be said
The “Great Replacement” is happening, not just in America but throughout the West. Elites both deny and affirm it. When they write op-eds in TheNew York Times entitled “We Can Replace Them,” that’s a good thing and the phenomenon under discussion is absolutely right and just. When you notice and express the mildest wish not to be replaced, it’s a racist conspiracy theory that you are evil for even mentioning—your evil being further proof that you deserve to be replaced. They get to say it; you’re required not merely to pretend that you didn’t hear it but also to insist that they never said it. No majority stock in any nation has ever deliberately sought its own replacement, much less insisted that those who might have misgivings lie to themselves that it’s not happening.
The “Great Replacement” is not just happening; under the Biden-Harris regime, it is accelerating. Among the few promises Biden has kept are those not to build a single new inch of the border wall or to enforce immigration laws. As a result, illegal migrants are pouring across the southern border at an unprecedented rate. The ridiculous former practice of “catch-and-release”—catch an illegal immigrant, release him on American soil—has been replaced by “catch-and-bus” or even “catch-and-airlift.” The U.S. government places illegal border-crossers on buses and planes and distributes them throughout the heartland, unannounced, often followed by official denials. Naturally, none of these people is vetted in any way—not for covid, which has the rest of us in semi-permanent lockdown, nor for criminal records or anything else. Couple this with the regime’s policy to settle throughout middle America as many unvetted Afghans as possible—some of whom are likely terrorists, several of whom have already committed sex crimes—and it is fair to describe current practice as demographic warfare. The concept is not exactly new; tyrants have been known from time immemorial to move populations around so as to hold conquests more securely. What’s unprecedented is a regime importing foreigners to harm its own people.
The question of immigration is inseparable from that of race. “Critical Race Theory,” much in the news lately, is but the latest iteration of intellectual and academic anti-whiteness that has been central to leftist ideology since the mid-1960s. The ur-specimen is Susan Sontag’s 1967 belch that “the white race is the cancer of human history.” Examples are so numerous today that cataloguing them all would be a full-time job for an entire think tank—but a pointless one, since the Left will in the same breath deny and affirm their own words quoted back to them: “We didn’t say that, and it’s good that we did.” Many whites, apparently, believe they deserve to be replaced because their race makes them uniquely, and irredeemably, evil. While cultural self-loathing is hardly unknown to history, I know of none so explicitly race-based or widespread—or so eager to pursue self-abnegation all the way to the end.
This hatred of the core stock of the nation, by other members of that same stock, also appears to be unprecedented. Examples can be found of a new elite rising to preeminence above an older one, which it then displaces with prejudice. But of a ruling class coming to despise its own (broadly speaking) ethnic group and seeking ways to rob their fellow co-ethnics of power, standing, and influence? I can’t think of any other such cases.
The matter becomes even more complicated when one reflects that this is mostly an intra-white civil war. One group of whites pronounces the entire white race evil, seeks policies to hurt it, but somehow exempts itself. So far, these upper-caste whites have found ways to protect their own privilege but haven’t developed consistent rhetoric to defend that privilege. They appear to believe that no matter how much anti-white poison they vomit or how many destructive policies they enact, none will ever blow back on them. In particular, they seem to believe that the “allies” in whom they stir up anti-white hatred will never turn and bite them; at least, they appear not to have seriously considered the possibility. This situation, too, is unprecedented.
Tyranny old & new
Tyrants or ruling classes that despoil their countries for personal gain are nothing new. If that were all we had today, our situation would be much more understandable. And we do, in part, have that. Our ruling class is rich and rapacious—rich because rapacious, and eager to be richer still by taking what little you have left.
Yet elite enthusiasms extend well beyond mere greed. There is a malice in them atypical to the native despot, one found historically only or largely among the most punitive conquerors. A tyrant fears a healthy population, to be sure, because such is always a threat to his power. This fear typically inspires little beyond efforts to ensure that the population is dependent and unarmed—two aims of our overlords, it need hardly be added.
Tyrants or ruling classes that despoil their countries for personal gain are nothing new.
But our elites also go much further. They seem determined to make the American population fat, weak, ugly, lethargic, drug-addled, screen-addicted, and hyper-sexualized, the men effeminate and the women masculine. Those last two actually barely scratch the surface of the agenda, which includes turning males into “females” and vice versa—or into any one of a potentially infinite number of “genders.” (The number varies depending on which source you check; sixty-three is the highest I could find. Needless to say, no establishment source stops at “two.”)
The regime promotes every imaginable historic form of degeneracy—and then invents new ones undreamt of by Caligula, the Borgias, or Catherine the Great. All these it pushes through every available media channel, social and legacy, in programming and advertising alike, even in books stocked in elementary-school libraries. As I write, the Virginia governor’s race is being roiled by the presence in said libraries of Gender Queer: A Memoir, an illustrated “children’s” book as sexually explicit as 1970s hardcore pornography—and arguably illegal to boot, since it depicts minors. One candidate for governor and his supporters indignantly insist that this kind of material must be forced on your kids at public expense and that only Nazis object. Degeneracy in tyrants is of course as old as the hills, but prior despots had the “decency,” if one could call it that, to restrict their perversions to the satisfaction of their own private pleasures. To force degeneracy on the whole of society, with the explicit intent of bringing the rest us to our knees, literally and figuratively—that, I think, has never happened before.
An odd feature of our time is the coupling of mass hyper-sexualization with mass barrenness. Some argue, plausibly, that the link is direct: hyper-sexualization disconnected from procreation inevitably leads to fewer babies. The degree to which crashing fertility is simply an effect of modernity versus a deliberate plan by our rulers is an open question. It is certainly true that every economically and technologically developed society, regardless of region, culture, race, or religion, suffers from cratering birthrates.
But it’s also true that our rulers advocate and celebrate careerism, consumerism, self-centeredness, casual sex, delayed marriage, (let us say) “non-fecund” couplings, and, where and if all that fails, small families—“for the environment,” you understand. In other words, when and where the (allegedly) inexorable process of modernity is overcome by the innate human desire for love and family, the regime eagerly steps in with propaganda to bully men and women out of such longings. I suppose there is a near-historical precedent for this, namely China’s one-child policy, in effect from 1980 to 2015. But that was implemented to relieve (it was thought) a looming Malthusian crisis, a fear that cannot reasonably apply to contemporary America, whose birthrate is 1.64 and falling like a stone. China itself, whose leaders want its people to live on, abandoned the policy. Meanwhile, America unofficially does everything it can to suppress native births. Has this ever happened before in a country not even plausibly facing a “population crisis”?
The promotion of ugliness deserves special attention. The autocrats of old wanted to be known for their patronage of beauty, the arts, and great works. This is one meaning of Shelley’s “Ozymandias,” and also of Augustus’s boast that he found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble (to say nothing of having commissioned the Aeneid). A stroll through any city in Europe, and in most of the Americas, finds the same sentiment everywhere—until about the middle of the twentieth century, when suddenly everything turned brutalist, and brutally ugly, and not just the buildings, but the art, the literature, the music, almost everything.
One attempts to state the following as delicately as possible, even though regime propaganda on this score is anything but delicate, but today the ugliness extends to people. One hesitates also to say anything that could be interpreted as praise of underwear ads, but, within living memory, the sirens of Times Square billboards were lithe and lovely; today they are, quite deliberately, obese and angry. That is, when they’re not cross-dressers or pierced like an East Village junkie and tattooed like a C-list porn star. All this, we are commanded to believe, is “beautiful,” though no healthy person does. The point seems to be humiliation: forcing us little people to say “the thing which is not.” That trick is also as old as the hills, but the deliberate promotion of ugliness seems to be a new way to play it. Antiquity abounded in wicked tyrants, yet try to find an ancient statue anywhere near as hideous as a modern lingerie model.
But in terms of what we choose to elevate, nothing illustrates the perversity of present America more than the deification of George Floyd. There are now monuments to him all over the country that are treated as sacred. In a rare instance when one is defaced, the resultant outcry resembles the Athenian people’s reaction to the desecration of the Hermai. One may insist that George Floyd did not deserve to die the way he did and still see that neither did he live his life so as to make the possibility remote. He was convicted of eight crimes and charged with or detained for at least nineteen (though one must here concede the difficulty of finding reliable relevant information, since unflattering facts about Floyd’s life are effectively suppressed and are taboo to discuss). The worst of his crimes was an armed robbery in which he pointed a gun at the belly of a woman who may (or may not) have been pregnant. Floyd’s admirers insist she wasn’t, but more careful sources assert only that no one has ever definitively proved she was. Floyd was the father of five children, from whose lives he was by all accounts absent, and none of whose mothers he ever married. At the time of his death, Floyd was in the process of being arrested for yet another crime and was not cooperating with the arresting officers. A serial drug abuser, he had in his system not just methamphetamine but a potentially lethal dose of fentanyl—an extremely dangerous synthetic opioid—which may well have contributed to his death. Even if one fully accepts the trial court’s finding that the drugs played no role, one must still admit that had Floyd only gotten into the back of the police vehicle as officers instructed, he could not have died in the way prosecutors (and the media) alleged. Above all, we must confront the painful fact that Floyd did not, according to moral standards that for centuries were taken for granted, live a life worthy of admiration, much less of veneration. Yet our society treats him as a saint, if not something higher. The pagan gods were not always well-behaved, to say the least. But has any people ever chosen such an undeserving object of worship?
Bad education
We may tie these points together under the broad rubric of “education,” though that word is risibly inapt to what is “taught” today. The word’s root is Latin and means “to lead forth”—that is, to coax out of imperfect but improvable human nature that which makes each human being better. Or, as the classics understood it, not merely to impart knowledge but also to form character.
In both respects, our system does the opposite. It teaches lies, attacks and suppresses truth, and encourages people to behave worse. It tells children to hate themselves (or their classmates) because of their race and to hate their country. It encourages boys to declare themselves girls, and vice versa. It badgers kids into professing themselves attracted to members of the same sex, or of all sixty-three sexes, regardless of, or despite, their natural inclination. It firehoses them with sexualized messaging and imagery, always taking care to decouple orgasmic self-indulgence from love and family.
The people who run the system, or many of them, can only be described as sadists. How sick does one’s mind have to be to think it a good idea to teach a black kindergartner (through the taxpayer-financed public education system, no less) to hate his white classmates, or those white classmates to hate themselves? A sane society would call this child abuse.
The system now protects predators at the expense of the vulnerable and attacks parents who object. In Virginia, a boy in a skirt entered a girls’ bathroom and raped a student. The school and the district hushed it up and transferred him to another school—where he did it again. When one victim’s father complained at a school-board meeting, cops roughed him up and arrested him. The superintendent, principal, and all others in authority furiously denied that any assault had ever taken place—that is, except for the father’s impassioned plea, which the school board referred to the Attorney General of the United States, who then ordered the fbi and U.S. attorneys to investigate outspoken parents as “domestic terrorists.” This is not merely insane but deliberately evil. The Carthaginians cast living children into furnaces to satiate their (false) god Baal; we sacrifice our children’s mental heath and adult futures to appease our false god Woki. Plus ça change?
(We may note in passing that when similar atrocities occurred in the pre-woke Catholic Church, an institution the ruling class feared and despised, demands for “accountability” were deafening. Today, the only sounds one hears are from establishmentarians and their Conservatism, Inc., enablers: this isn’t happening, it’s a “culture-war trope” ginned up by maga “racists,” and anyway it’s no big deal so lighten up.)
The most prevalent failures of education in history, it is widely accepted, have stemmed from a lack of it: failing to teach the poor basic skills such as reading and writing, or even deliberately depriving them of such learning. Now we have come full circle, but worse. We barely teach kids to read, write, or add anymore—indeed, the most “progressive” corners of the education system denounce such emphasis on standards and core knowledge as “white-supremacist.” There’s ample historical precedent for widespread illiteracy. But for teaching one’s own citizens self-hatred, degeneracy, and despondency—without teaching them to read and write?
Barbarians at the gates
The typical tyrant enjoys wealth and power, which are easier to extract from a productive populace than from zombies. He therefore, typically, does not prioritize degrading his population beyond measures necessary to produce obedience. The serial humiliations inflicted on our people by its ruling class—not all of which, to say the least, generate profits—appear to be another element of contemporary life without historical precedent.
Crime is a case in point. No society, whether free or despotic, benefits from crime, all else being equal—though it’s certainly true that a tyrant can find it useful to exempt his own partisans from criminal enforcement, and even to encourage them to terrorize his enemies. Criminals being criminals, this is a hard dynamic to keep from spinning out of control. In 2020, for instance, the ruling class unleashed blm hordes and Antifa predators, plus assorted rioters and looters, to despoil and burn some 220 American cities.
Sacking was not uncommon in the ancient world. Rome was sacked many times, but always by foreigners and never at the instigation of her leading citizens: the senate never riled up the plebs to scorch the Capitoline. Yet in the summer of 2020, our ruling class actively encouraged, through state-aligned media, the repeated sacking of Manhattan, the very beating heart of the Davos Archipelago, where our richest and most powerful overlords live and work. They fired up mobs to trash huge swaths of Washington, D.C., their cherished imperial capital, which to this day has yet to recover. Why did they do that? Was there some nefarious plan to derive benefit that I don’t understand? Or was this an instance of losing control of the shock troops? Either way, the events were unprecedented.
The modern economy that technology enables is anti-human.
Then there are the related issues of technology and our fake economy. These subjects are far too large to explore here and so must be treated cursorily. Let us merely say that modern digital technology is unlike any previous “advance” in human history. It threatens not only to become man’s master and destroyer (other technologies have also threatened that) but also to remake his very soul—or kill it.
The modern economy that technology enables is similarly anti-human. It deprives billions of the dignity of meaningful work at fair remuneration while it enriches a tiny minority adept at manipulating bits and bytes to no discernible purpose or benefit. The world has had to endure oligarchs for millennia. But our empty plutocrats create nothing but new ways to waste time and enervate the spirit. They are, like the technologies that make them rich and powerful, an entirely new phenomenon.
Finally, there is the endless insistence that every new dawn must begin a fresh Year Zero; we must start continually anew. What was acceptable yesterday is anathema today and will be more so tomorrow. All that came before must be swept aside and destroyed with extreme prejudice, on a rolling basis.
The most ferocious revolutionaries of yesteryear didn’t do this. The Jacobins changed the calendar and guillotined a lot of nobles but otherwise allowed France to remain French. The Bolsheviks did not touch the Russian literary or concert canons; to the contrary, they celebrated both. Mao made an attempt to start over—until the more sensible Party bosses realized that the old man (and especially his wife) had lost their minds and were destroying China, sidelined him, and quietly put an end to the Cultural Revolution four years before formally declaring mission accomplished. The Ayatollah did not ban Nowruz or other cornerstones of Persian tradition beloved by the Iranian people, but which predated his puritanical version of Islam.
Our overlords, by contrast, insist on changing everything and will not stop until everything familiar is gone. When this is pointed out, they smirk about the “slippery-slope fallacy” and gleefully lie. That will never happen, they say, until they insist on it, and, once accomplished, move on to the next target. They are cultural locusts devouring everything in their path. If the internal “logic” (if one may use that word in this context) of their passionate hatred is allowed to play out, no statue can be left standing, no traditional holiday observed, no name unchanged. If that outcome does not come to pass, it will not be because those driving toward it have a change of heart, nor is it likely to be because the Right suddenly becomes effective in opposition. It will rather be because the locusts destroy too many of the country’s remaining functioning parts too soon, causing the system to collapse before their program is complete, thereby making further “progress” impossible.
Any one of the above elements would appear to be unprecedented; just a few of them in combination surely are. All of them together?
How, therefore, can anyone be confident that he “knows” what is going to happen—whether imminent collapse, drawn-out decline, or centuries of tyranny?
The end?
If forced to bet, I would have to place my chips somewhere between imminent collapse and drawn-out decline. I occasionally read theories of triple bank-shots and four-dimensional chess—they really know what they’re doing!—only to marvel. Our regime cannot, at present, unload a cargo ship, stock a store shelf, run a clean election, handle parental complaints at a school board meeting, pass a budget bill, treat a cold variant, keep order in the streets, defeat a third world country, or even evacuate said country cleanly. And that’s to say nothing of all the things it should be doing, that all non-joke countries do, that it refuses to do. If our ruling class has a plan, it would seem to be to destroy the society and institutions from which they, at present, are the largest—one is tempted to say only—beneficiaries. Do they think they can benefit more from the wreckage? Or are they driven by hatreds that blind them to self-interest? Perhaps they’re simply insane?
Whatever the case, couple all this unprecedentedness with all this incompetence, and going long on Wokemerica seems a sucker bet. But, to end where we began, the very unprecedentedness of our situation means that all bets are off.
A MESSAGE FROM THE EDITORS
At The New Criterion we will always call things by
their real names.
As a reader of our efforts, you have stood with us on the front lines in the battle for culture. Learn how your support contributes to our continued defense of truth.
YES, I WILL SUPPORT YOUR ENDEAVORS
Michael Anton is a Lecturer in Politics and a Research Fellow at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies in Washington, D.C. He served on the National Security Council Staff in the administration of President Donald J. Trump.
**This article originally appeared in The New Criterion, Volume 40 Number 4, on page 4
Copyright © 2021 The New Criterion | www.newcriterion.com
https://newcriterion.com/issues/2021/12/unprecedented

Deal or no deal, Iran’s problems are only going to worsen
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/December 05, 2021
Without doubt, any revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal will provide the Iranian regime with financial benefits that it desperately needs.
The agreement will help the regime reintegrate into the global financial system and partially address one of the worst budget shortfalls since its establishment in 1979. The Tehran regime is estimated to be running a $1 billion deficit per month and, without the nuclear deal, this will further increase inflation and devalue the nation’s currency, the rial.
The nuclear deal will also indirectly assist Iran’s proxies, as Tehran is experiencing significant funding problems for its militias and terror groups across the region. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah previously made a public appeal for donations to the group, saying: “The sanctions and terror lists are a form of warfare against the resistance and we must deal with them as such. I announce today that we are in need of the support of our popular base. It is the responsibility of the Lebanese resistance, its popular base, its milieu (to battle these measures).”
It goes without saying that the cash-strapped clerical regime is desperate to see sanctions lifted and for billions of dollars to flow into its treasury once again. This would allow it to provide revenue for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and escalate its military adventurism and projects in the region, which include financing and arming terror and militia groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to argue that the revival of the nuclear deal will solve the Iranian regime’s core problems.
The social, economic and political landscape in Iran has changed significantly since 2015, when the nuclear pact was first reached with the UK, China, Russia, France, the US and Germany. To begin with, the regime is much more unpopular both at home and in the Middle East. Six years ago, the so-called moderate President Hassan Rouhani promised to improve people’s economic situations via the nuclear deal and to normalize relations with the rest of the world. Many people gave the Rouhani administration a chance, but soon came to realize that the deal did not help ordinary people or change the regime’s destabilizing behavior in the region.
Protests against the regime have increased in recent years, with thousands of demonstrators killed by the IRGC. According to Amnesty International, various branches of Iran’s government have been involved in these abuses and crimes. “Iran’s police, intelligence and security forces, and prison officials have committed, with the complicity of judges and prosecutors, a catalogue of shocking human rights violations, including arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, torture and other ill-treatment, against those detained,” it said.
Despite the regime’s deployment of brute force, the deep frustration and anger shared by many in the country continue to rise.
Despite the regime’s deployment of brute force, the deep frustration and anger shared by many in the country continue to rise. This discontent will not go away even if a nuclear deal is reached.
First, Iran’s economic problems are systemic and result from the country’s corrupt financial system. The current currency crisis is not an anomaly: The rial’s value has plummeted almost continuously for the past 40 years — from a dollar rate of 70 in 1979 to as low as 292,000 as of last week. This trend will continue as long as the Iranian regime fails to address the country’s rampant corruption. The financial system has been designed to benefit officials and those at the top rather than ordinary people.
Second, the Iranian regime needs to attract foreign investment to address its financial woes. But even with a revival of the nuclear deal, Western corporations and businesses will be extremely cautious and will prioritize political and economic stability for their investments. What if the nuclear deal collapses again?
Third, even with a deal, the US Congress can still impose sanctions on the Iranian regime, government organizations and individuals for human rights violations or terrorism.
Fourth, the Biden administration will be unable to lift many of the sanctions imposed during the previous US administration because these were passed by an overwhelming vote in Congress, with support from both sides of the aisle. Some of the most important curbs imposed on the Iranian regime came through the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017, a key initiative against Iran and one that will likely continue to be a robust blow to Tehran.
Overall, the Iranian regime’s underlying crisis will worsen even if a nuclear deal is reached with the world powers.
*Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh

Biden’s ‘diplomacy’ ignores looming Iranian threat
Dalia Al-Aqidi/Arab News/December 05, 2021
Anyone visiting Iraq and wandering the streets cannot fail to notice the disappointment, anger and desperation in people’s voices. If asked about the US, pro-Iranian citizens describe it as the “great evil,” while others blame Washington for presenting their country to the Iranian regime on a silver platter.
As 2022 approaches, we can see how the policies of the Washington administration have inflicted woes on the region, starting with Yemen and continuing through Iran and other regional countries that are facing security and political instability. In February, US President Joe Biden, along with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, revealed the “America’s Place in the World” plan and outlined the administration’s foreign policy goals for the next four years.
“Investing in our diplomacy is not something we do just because it is the right thing to do for the world. We do it in order to live in peace, security and prosperity. We do it because it is in our own naked self-interest. When we strengthen our alliances, we amplify our power, as well as our ability to disrupt threats before they can reach our shores,” Biden said in his first foreign policy remarks since taking office. Iraq, it seemed, had little part in this equation, despite the presence of US troops there.
When asked about the Middle East, a former senior national security official and close Biden adviser stressed that the region was not one of Biden’s Top 3 priorities. “It is Asia-Pacific, then Europe and then the Western Hemisphere. And that reflects a bipartisan consensus that the issues demanding our attention have changed as great power competition (with China and Russia) is resurgent,” Politico magazine quoted the unnamed source as saying.
Biden’s omission of Iraq shows that Washington views the country from an Iranian angle, giving priority to reviving the nuclear deal instead of limiting Tehran’s influence in Iraq and other neighboring countries and preventing the horrific crimes and human rights violations carried out by Iranian-backed militias against innocent Iraqi citizens. Pro-Iran militia leaders have been threatening to attack any US soldier who remains on Iraqi soil in 2022. The US leader decided to return to the lax policy pursued by his fellow Democrat, former President Barack Obama, that allowed the radical regime to target US bases and troops on Iraqi soil, along with countless civilians, without accountability or oversight. More recently, while Washington is still trying to convince Tehran to return to the nuclear deal, it has quietly decided to waive sanctions on the regime in order to allow the hard-line country to sell electricity to Iraq, according to the Washington Free Beacon website. “The timing of the waiver notification — which was signed Nov. 19 but not transmitted to Congress until Nov. 29, the day nuclear negotiations resumed — has prompted accusations the Biden administration is offering concessions to Tehran to generate goodwill as talks aimed at securing a revamped version of the 2015 nuclear deal restart following a months-long standoff,” Adam Kredo wrote, adding that a State Department spokesman confirmed at a background briefing that the decision was meant to help ensure Iraq can generate energy.
During his July meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, who only recently survived an assassination attempt involving two Iranian-made drones, Biden formally announced the conclusion of the US combat mission in Iraq by the end of 2021. “I think things are going well. Our role in Iraq will be to be available to continue to train, to assist, to help and to deal with Daesh — as it arrives. But we’re not going to be, by the end of the year, in a combat mission,” the US leader said, disregarding the real Iranian threat.
Nonetheless, what the US president does not know, or what the administration is trying to hide, is that pro-Iran militia leaders have been threatening to attack any US soldier who remains on Iraqi soil after the deadline, despite the change of job description. Not if, but when, this happens, Americans and Iraqis will remember the brave decision by former President Donald Trump to authorize the killing of Qassem Soleimani, the-then head of Iran’s Quds Force, who had American and Iraqi blood on his hands and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US citizens and thousands of Iraqis, Iranians, Yemenis and Lebanese. In 2022, the people of Iraq will be forced to face brutal Iranian aggression on their own, while wishing Trump was still in office. The Biden administration needs a wake-up call to comprehend that these oppressors and terrorists do not understand diplomacy.
Dalia Al-Aqidi is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy. Twitter: @Daliaalaqidi