English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For January 27/2022
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2021/english.january27.22.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, “We see”, your sin remains
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint John 09/26-41/:”‘What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?’He answered them, ‘I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?’Then they reviled him, saying, ‘You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.’The man answered, ‘Here is an astonishing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to one who worships him and obeys his will. Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.’They answered him, ‘You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?’ And they drove him out. Jesus heard that they had driven him out, and when he found him, he said, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’ He answered, ‘And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him.’Jesus said to him, ‘You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he.’He said, ‘Lord, I believe.’ And he worshipped him. Jesus said, ‘I came into this world for judgement so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind.’Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, ‘Surely we are not blind, are we?’Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, “We see”, your sin remains..

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on January 26-27/2022
Claude A Hillar Hajjar: Hallelujah Alléluia .. Thank you Jesus
Al-Rahi Fears 'Imbalance' in Lebanese Components after Hariri’s Decision
Aoun Says Lebanon Welcomes Kuwaiti Paper of Demands
Aoun condemns fresh attack on UN forces in Lebanon, announces probe
Aoun Tells Wronecka Lebanon to Probe New Attack on UNIFIL
Lebanon Signs Power Deal with Jordan, Syria to Boost Ailing Grid
Lebanon to Receive Jordan Electricity Via Syria, Deal Signed
Miqati Thanks Jordan, Syria for Power Deal as Cabinet Continues State Budget Discussions
BDL Extends Circular Allowing Banks to Buy Dollars at Sayrafa Rate
Lebanon Seizes Captagon Concealed in Tea Shipment
Geagea Says Kuwaiti Paper Can Save Lebanon from 'Hell', Urges Official Cooperation
Mustaqbal Officials and Supporters Lash Out at 'Treacherous' Geagea
Human Rights Watch Says Lebanese Staffer Hit with NSO Spyware
Hariri's exit/Khairallah Khairallah/The Arab Weekly/January 26/2022
Michel Aoun, a Postponed Saad Hariri/Hazem Saghieh/Asharq Al-Awsat/January,26/2022
Lebanon Plans to Adopt ‘Realistic Exchange Rate’ in 2022 Budget, Says Ministry
This government is totally subdued to the Iranian occupation/Jean-Marie Kassab/January 26/2022

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 26-27/2022
Raisi Says Revival of Nuclear Deal Possible if US Lifts Sanctions
Blinken Says ‘A Few Weeks Left’ for Vienna Talks
U.S. Sees 'Every Indication' Putin Plans Force against Ukraine by Mid-February
Biden Warns Putin with Sanctions as West Steps up Ukraine Defenses
UK: Iran Nuclear Talks Approaching Dangerous Impasse
Russian, Ukrainian Officials Meet in Paris in Bid to Ease Tensions
Ukraine Diplomat Sees Little Chance of War, but Local Conflict Possible
Britain Hints at Putin Sanctions, Drawing Warning from Kremlin
Russia Adds Kremlin Critic Navalny to 'Terrorists' List
Syria Kurds Say Prison Recaptured after IS Attack
Explosion Damages Offices, Stores in Athens; 3 Hurt
Attack on home of Halbousi seems to reflect desperation in pro-Iran ranks
US administration approves massive $2.5 billion arms sale to Egypt
Tunisian Opposition Proposes National Dialogue without the President
Libyan parliament obstructs Dbeibah's bid to remain prime minister
Canada/Global Affairs Canada statement on military coup in Burkina Faso

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on January 26-27/2022
A Revived Nuclear Deal Will Not Solve Iran’s Advanced Centrifuge Threat/Andrea Stricker/The national Interest/January 26/2022
'Hajj' Robert Malley/Tariq Al-Homayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/January,26/2022
The Crisis in Syria is Not Over/Omer Onhon/Asharq Al-Awsat/January,26/2022
Where Do Great Presidents Come From? The Campaign Trail/Jonathan Bernstein//Asharq Al-Awsat/January,26/2022
Call the Houthis What They Are — Foreign Terrorists/Richard Kemp/Gatestone Institute/January 26/2022
The Importance of Upholding the Constitution, the Right to Counsel and the Presumption of Innocence/Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/January 26/2022
US pipeline withdrawal marks new EastMed chapter/Henri J Barkey/The Arab Weekly/January 26/2022
Ukrainian Cold War Redux /Charles Elias Chartouni/January 26/2022

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on January 26-27/2022
Claude A Hillar Hajjar: Hallelujah Alléluia .. Thank you Jesus
January 26/2022
Thank you St. Charbel, the Saint of Lebanon, for all your miracles .Please, don´t forget Patricia Lorentzen Eva HJ
https://www.facebook.com/616920511/videos/1307261639739893/

Al-Rahi Fears 'Imbalance' in Lebanese Components after Hariri’s Decision
Naharnet/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022  
Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi said Wednesday he was surprised by ex-Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s decision. “I wasn’t expecting it, neither did I expect that his decision would include al-Mustaqbal Movement,” he stated. “If Hariri had his reasons, why did his decision include the entire movement,” the Patriarch asked. He considered that Hariri’s decision might create an imbalance in the Lebanese components, adding that he would have preferred if he hadn’t taken it. He hoped for the Sunnis to know how to maintain their place in the country. “They are a main component of the Lebanese society,” he explained. Al-Rahi spoke of Hariri with great affection. “He has a friendly character, and like his father he always chose moderation,” he said.

Aoun Says Lebanon Welcomes Kuwaiti Paper of Demands
Naharnet/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022 
President Michel Aoun informed, Wednesday, U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Joanna Wronecka that the Lebanese response to the Kuwaiti paper will be given by the end of the week. Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib will give Beirut's response during a meeting of Arab foreign ministers on January 30 in Kuwait, Aoun said. Aoun told Wronecka that Lebanon "welcomes" the Kuwaiti initiative to rebuild confidence between Lebanon and Arab and Gulf states. He added that "sisterly Kuwait has always offered its support to Lebanon." Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Ahmed al-Nasser, who visited Lebanon over the weekend, gave Lebanese authorities a list of suggested measures to be taken to ease the diplomatic rift with Gulf Arab countries. Media reports said he demanded a response by the end of the week, which marks the date of the ministers' meeting in Kuwait. Sheikh Ahmed said he was "carrying a Kuwaiti, Gulf, Arab and international message containing measures and ideas to build confidence again with Lebanon." The measures include Lebanon's commitment to U.N. resolutions related to Hizbullah's disarmament, according to a leaked copy of the paper.Aoun had reportedly stressed that “the issue of Hizbullah’s arms and its regional role is not a local issue that has to do with Lebanon alone, but rather a regional and international issue.”

Aoun condemns fresh attack on UN forces in Lebanon, announces probe
Najia Houssari/Arab News/January 26, 2022
Hezbollah is striking troops to show rejection of Kuwaiti initiative, claim analysts
Anonymous source with Hezbollah links rejects this analysis, tells Arab News attack was due to water tank breakage by Ghanaian troops
BEIRUT: Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun has condemned “any attack that targets the UN Interim Force in Lebanon,” after UNIFIL troops were injured during violence on Tuesday. In a meeting on Wednesday, Aoun informed Joanna Wronecka, the UN’s special coordinator in Lebanon, that the government had launched a probe into the attack west of the southern village of Ramyeh. He pledged to establish who was responsible. UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said on Tuesday night that a number of peacekeepers on a routine patrol were attacked after their cars were intercepted. The incident left one soldier wounded. He said that “the attackers sabotaged two vehicles and stole a number of items,” adding that “the Lebanese armed forces were present at the scene and managed to defuse the situation.”Tenenti stressed that “the peacekeepers weren’t in private properties but on a public road they usually take.”
They were doing their job, executing decision No. 1701, and maintaining stability in south Lebanon, he said. Tenenti warned in a statement that “the attacks on the men and women who serve the cause of peace are considered crimes pursuant to the Lebanese and international laws.”
He called on the Lebanese authorities to “investigate this incident and prosecute those responsible for it.”The UNIFIL patrols have been the target of two other attacks recently. Troops were targeted in the border village of Chakra at the end of last year and in Bint Jbeil village earlier this month.
The area where these attacks took place is considered critical to Hezbollah as it is adjacent to the border, where several important Israeli military positions are found on the other side. The latest attack on the UNIFIL patrol occurred while Lebanese officials discussed messages conveyed by Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Ahmed Nasser Al-Mohammed Al-Sabah, in the name of Kuwait, the Arab and Gulf family and the international community, to Lebanon at the end of last week. The minister sent a message of “sympathy, solidarity, synergy and love for the brotherly Lebanese people,” urging Lebanese officials to adopt a position of neutrality and ensure that the country “will not be a platform for any aggression, while refraining from interfering in the internal affairs of Arab countries in general, and the Gulf in particular.”
Al-Sabah reaffirmed a regional desire “to see a stable, secure and strong Lebanon by implementing international and Arab resolutions.”Kuwait is expecting to receive a response through the Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdullah Bou Habib next Saturday during his visit to Kuwait. While Hezbollah has not reacted to the Kuwaiti initiative, some political observers saw the attack on the UNIFIL patrol as an indirect display of Hezbollah’s objection. However, a source who works as a link between the UNIFIL, the villagers and Hezbollah, told Arab News: “The attack that took place has nothing to do with any political or security messages.”He said: “The patrol that was attacked is affiliated to the Ghanaian force participating in the UNIFIL.
“It appeared that while it was using a public road, one of its cars hit, intentionally or unintentionally, a water tank belonging to a farmer who used it to water his plants. “The patrol didn’t stop but instead kept going without probably noticing that it had hit the tank. The tank owner, joined by a number of villagers who usually stand by each other in the village, followed the patrol and attacked it. This is what happened.”The source, who requested anonymity, said the previous two attacks were different. “One of them happened because some UNIFIL soldiers were taking pictures in internal alleyways, whereas the other one took place because they entered some private properties and this is not allowed as per decision no. 1701.”The source added that “this attack doesn’t align with any of Hezbollah’s positions regarding the Kuwaiti initiative. “If Hezbollah wanted to object to the Kuwaiti initiative that targets in its essence the management of the country, attacking the Ghanaian force is not going to be the response.” This development coincided with the announcement by Israeli Minister of Energy Yuval Steinitz that “border negotiations with Lebanon on US-mediated maritime demarcation, hosted by the UNIFIL in its headquarters in Naqoura, will resume next week.”Lebanon has been waiting since the end of last year for the return of the US mediator Amos Hochstein to the region with fresh proposals to resume talks over maritime borders demarcation between Lebanon and Israel. UN Secretary-General António Guterres announced during his visit to Lebanon at the end of last year that “the nations are ready to sponsor these negotiations.”Meanwhile, Lebanon signed deals on Wednesday to purchase electricity from Jordan via Syria to help the country deal with its crippling energy crisis. The electricity will be transmitted through Syria. The deals are expected to bring Lebanon up to 250 MW of electricity a day within two months, enough for about two hours of power a day.
The World Bank is expected to finance the deals, with negotiations underway.

Aoun Tells Wronecka Lebanon to Probe New Attack on UNIFIL
Naharnet/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
President Michel Aoun informed Wednesday U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Joanna Wronecka that Lebanon has launched an investigation into an attack on a UNIFIL patrol that took place Tuesday, west of the southern village of Ramyah. UNIFIL Spokesperson Andrea Tenenti had called on the Lebanese authorities to investigate the attack. He said that one peacekeeper was injured, two vehicles were vandalized and the perpetrators stole a number of items. “Attacks on men and women serving the cause of peace are crimes under both Lebanese and international law," Tenenti said. For his part, Aoun denounced the attack and stressed the need to coordinate with the army in order to avoid the recurrence of such acts.

Lebanon Signs Power Deal with Jordan, Syria to Boost Ailing Grid
Naharnet/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
The energy ministers of Lebanon, Jordan and Syria signed Wednesday an agreement in Beirut for supplying Lebanon with Jordanian electricity via Syria. A power cut at the Ministry of Energy caused a short delay before the agreements of purchase and transit were signed.
Lebanon will secure through the agreement 250 megawatts of electricity, equivalent to a total of two additional hours of power daily, Energy Minister Walid Fayyad said. He described the deal as a "modest but very important agreement for the Lebanese people, who need every extra hour of electricity."
Fayyad praised what he described as speedy Arab cooperation that has enabled the transmission of electricity in two rather than six months. Parliament must now ratify the agreement, which was funded by the World Bank, Fayad said, adding that he expects payments to be finalized within two months before the start of implementation. Power sector reform is one of the key conditions set by international creditors for disbursing billions of dollars in desperately needed financial support. Importing electricity from Jordan will cost Lebanon about $200 million per year, Fayad told AFP in an interview last week.
Jordanian Energy Minister Saleh Kharabsheh said the agreement with Lebanon reinforces cooperation between the neighboring countries and comes at a “critical time for Lebanon.” He called it a deal to help Lebanon, and not a “commercial deal” — suggesting it is only covering its cost.
“This is not only to the benefit of Lebanon but in the interest of all. Any cooperation between Arab countries is an interest for all,” Kharabsheh said. The government is also in talks with Egypt to import gas through the Arab Gas Pipeline, which passes through Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
Beirut and Cairo are currently finalizing commercial agreements so that the two sides can sign a deal by spring. Lebanon and Jordan also signed an electricity transit agreement with Syria, which said that it stands ready to connect its power grid. Speaking in Beirut after the signing ceremony, Syria's Energy Minister Ghassan al-Zamil said the U.S. sanctions, known as the Caesar act, are of no concern to his government. Despite sanctions on Syria, Washington has endorsed different deals to help Lebanon handle its energy crisis. It has offered reassurances to Lebanon and waivers from sanctions to companies sending gas and electricity through Syria. But there has been some push back from Congress against offering what seems to be a relief for the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad. “Caesar is imposed by a country. It is not a law,” Zamil told reporters. “What concerns us in this deal, despite the Syrian government putting up with a lot of expenses to fix the pipelines which were not a priority for the government or the electricity ministry, is the insistence of the government to offer more to support Arab cooperation.”Syria's government has been largely boycotted by its Arab neighbors since the start of the war in 2011. Most countries blamed Assad's government for the war's atrocities. But as the war dies down and Assad remains in power, many Arab neighbors have began reconsidering their ties with Damascus, re-opening their embassies and exchanging visits.

Lebanon to Receive Jordan Electricity Via Syria, Deal Signed
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
Lebanon signed deals on Wednesday to purchase electricity from Jordan via Syria to help the small Mediterranean country deal with its crippling energy crisis. The deals are expected to bring Lebanon up to 250 megawatts of electricity a day within two months, enough for about two hours of power a day. The electricity will be transmitted through Syria. The World Bank is expected to finance the deals, and negotiations are underway. Lebanon’s Energy Minister Walid Fayyad said he expects financing negotiations to conclude in two months, The Associated Press said.
“After signing today, we are left with the financing through the World Bank, something I will work on as soon as possible. The details will be clear in the next two months,” Fayyad told reporters during the signing ceremony. ”We don’t want to promise the Lebanese people that as soon as we sign electricity will come.”Lebanon’s electricity company offers only a couple of hours of power a day, and residents have heavily relied on costly and polluting private generators. The aging national grid has not been able to provide 24-hour electricity in the country since the end of the civil war in 1990, and fuel oil subsidies for the state electricity company have been the main driver of the country's massive national debt. The energy crunch is at the heart of Lebanon’s snowballing economic crisis, described as one of the world’s worst since the 1850s. A massive public deficit and a crashing national currency have made shortages perennial amid continuously soaring prices. Shortages of medicine, fuel and basic supplies have often brought the country to standstill and driven more than half of the population deep into poverty. Political disagreements have delayed efforts to form a government to negotiate a rescue package with international financial institutions. The government is currently negotiating a draft budget. Fayyad praised what he described as speedy Arab cooperation that has enabled the transmission of electricity in two rather than six months. Jordanian Energy Minister Saleh Kharabsheh said the agreement with Lebanon reinforces cooperation between the neighboring countries and comes at a “critical time for Lebanon.” He called it a deal to help Lebanon, and not a “commercial deal” — suggesting it is only covering its cost. “This is not only to the benefit of Lebanon but in the interest of all. Any cooperation between Arab countries is an interest for all,” Kharabsheh said. Lebanon has also negotiated receiving Egyptian natural gas, set to be transmitted through Jordan and Syria. Another deal with Iraq helps it secure fuel for its power plants.

Miqati Thanks Jordan, Syria for Power Deal as Cabinet Continues State Budget Discussions
Naharnet/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022`
Prime minister Najib Miqati chaired Wednesday a Cabinet session to continue studying the draft law of the 2022 state budget. Cabinet will reconvene on Thursday morning, the National News Agency said. Miqati had earlier met with Jordanian Energy Minister Saleh Kharabsheh and Syrian Energy Minister Ghassan al-Zamil. The Prime Minister thanked Jordan and Syria for their cooperation to resolve the energy crisis in Lebanon. The energy ministers of Lebanon, Jordan and Syria had signed today an agreement for supplying Lebanon with Jordanian electricity via Syria. "We are thankful for this practical contribution," Miqati said. The government is also in talks with Egypt to import gas through the Arab Gas Pipeline, which passes through Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Beirut and Cairo are currently finalizing commercial agreements so that the two sides can sign a deal by spring. Passing the state budget and starting a reform in the power sector are key conditions set by international creditors for disbursing billions of dollars in desperately needed financial support.

BDL Extends Circular Allowing Banks to Buy Dollars at Sayrafa Rate
Naharnet/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022`
The central bank on Wednesday extended until the end of February the implementation of Circular 161. In a statement, the bank said that the extension can be renewed beyond February. “The Governor also stressed that the exchange of USD cash in return for LBP banknotes will continue with the banks without a specific ceiling, based on the rate of the Sayrafa platform,” the statement added. The circular has led to a major recovery of the Lebanese lira value on the black market in recent weeks. Critics have however warned that the decision might deplete the central bank’s foreign currency reserves in the absence of a financial and economic recovery plan.

Lebanon Seizes Captagon Concealed in Tea Shipment
Agence France Presse/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022`
The Lebanese authorities have seized a large quantity of Captagon hidden in a tea shipment bound for Saudi Arabia, the interior minister announced. "Painstaking police work led to the seizure of a Captagon shipment, which was headed to Togo in Africa," Bassam Mawlawi said at a press conference.
The shipment's final destination was meant to be Saudi Arabia, which the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime says is the world's biggest consumer of Captagon, a stimulant derived from a banned fenethylline-based drug. The amphetamine pills, likely manufactured in Lebanon or Syria, were concealed in a seven-ton shipment of tea at Beirut port, Mawlawi said. Saudi Arabia slapped devastating trade restrictions last year on Beirut after a huge shipment originating from Lebanon was seized, containing Captagon concealed in pomegranates. Lebanon is embroiled in its worst ever economic crisis and is keen to mend ties with the kingdom and other Gulf countries. In another major seizure at Beirut port last month, around nine million Captagon pills were found hidden in fake oranges. According to an AFP count, more than 25 million pills of Captagon have been seized across the region since the start of the year alone.

Geagea Says Kuwaiti Paper Can Save Lebanon from 'Hell', Urges Official Cooperation
Naharnet/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022`
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said Wednesday that he highly values the Kuwaiti paper and considers it "a real opportunity to pull Lebanon out of hell."He added that the paper shows the keenness of the Gulf on Lebanon's interests by wanting it to become a state that offers its people decent living conditions, within Arab support and international legitimacy. Geagea warned against "wasting the chance." He said he wished for President Michel Aoun and Prime Minsiter Najib Miqati to seize the opportunity that will bring back prosperity to Lebanon and save it from the collapse.
He also advised Lebanon to take practical steps and to cooperate with the Kuwaiti initiative that reflects "the vision of the Lebanese yearning for freedom and justice."

Mustaqbal Officials and Supporters Lash Out at 'Treacherous' Geagea
Naharnet/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022`
Al-Mustaqbal Movement officials and supporters have launched vehement verbal attacks on former ally Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, accusing him of betraying ex-PM Saad Hariri and seeking to capitalize on his withdrawal from politics in the upcoming elections.
“All the past events have proved that he is deeply involved in in stabbing al-Mustaqbal Movement and its leader in their backs and necks,” al-Mustaqbal bloc MP Walid al-Baarini tweeted. Mustaqbal Movement spokesman Abdul Salam Moussa meanwhile condemned Geagea’s announcement that he insists on Mustaqbal’s participation in the elections despite the Movement’s declaration that it will not take part. “Play in your playground and do not climb our shoulders,” Moussa added, stressing that Mustaqbal “will not allow any politician to take advantage of its supporters, especially LF leader Samir Geagea.”
Supporters of Mustaqbal also took to Twitter to lash out at Geagea, describing him as “treacherous”, “insolent” and “the Judas of the modern age.”“Saad Hariri, al-Mustaqbal Movement and the Sunni community are all cursing you! You will get more votes if you coordinate with the Hindu community,” one of the supporters said. “The Sunni community will not vote for you, even if you do the impossible,” another tweeted. Addressing him as “Judas,” another supporter stressed that Mustaqbal does not want Geagea’s “friendship” anymore.Geagea has been accused of inciting Saudi Arabia against Hariri, especially following the latter’s ordeal in Riyadh in 2017.

Human Rights Watch Says Lebanese Staffer Hit with NSO Spyware
Associated Press/January 26/2022
Human Rights Watch said Wednesday that one of its senior staff members was targeted last year with spyware designed by the Israeli hacker-for hire company NSO Group. The New York-based rights group said the software was used against Lama Fakih, the director of its Beirut office who also oversees its crisis response in several countries, including Syria, Myanmar, Israel and the Palestinian territories, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and the United States. NSO Group has been mired in controversy following revelations its spyware was used in several countries against journalists, activists and even U.S. diplomats. The U.S. barred the firm from accessing American technology last year, saying its tools have been used by repressive regimes, and Facebook and Apple have filed lawsuits against NSO over hacks against their products. NSO Group does not disclose its clients but says it has safeguards in place to ensure its products are only used to target suspected criminals and terrorists. It says it does not have access to the intelligence its clients gather. Its Pegasus spyware grants full access to a person's phone, including photos, emails and real-time communications. The targeted person does not have to take any action, such as clicking a link, and would not be able to detect the breach without a sophisticated technical analysis. NSO Group issued a statement expressing support for an "international regulatory structure" for cyber intelligence tools, but said any calls to suspend their use until one is established would benefit criminals who evade other forms of surveillance. It did not directly address the hacking reported by Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch said Fakih, a dual U.S. and Lebanese citizen, was targeted on five occasions between April and August. Apple informed her of the breach on Nov. 24, and forensic analysis by Human Rights Watch confirmed the presence of the software, the group said. "It is no accident that governments are using spyware to target activists and journalists, the very people who uncover their abusive practices," Fakih said. "They seem to believe that by doing so, they can consolidate power, muzzle dissent, and protect their manipulation of facts."

Hariri's exit
Khairallah Khairallah/The Arab Weekly/January 26/2022
Saad Hariri withdrew because the world abandoned Lebanon after the
For Saad Hariri to suspend his political activity in Lebanon, whether temporarily or permanently, means that Lebanon is edging closer and closer to great danger. The decision taken by the former prime minister is further evidence that Lebanon has fallen into a real vacuum after coming under the rule of Hezbollah, which is nothing but a brigade in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. In other words, Lebanon has come under Iranian occupation, nothing more, nothing less. Well, let the Lebanese, all the Lebanese, assume their responsibilities, now that Hezbollah has come to decide who is the president of the republic. These days, someone like Hezbollah MP Muhammad is not ashamed to say “We are the masters of the country.”Saad Hariri has done everything he could to save what could be saved since the assassination of his father on February 14, 2005. He has endured much more than a single human being can endure. He took risks by endorsing Michel Aoun, Hezbollah's candidate for the presidency. He paid dearly for counting on a man who had no other concern than to reach Baabda Palace, regardless of the price he had to pay. Indeed, all of Lebanon has paid the price for betting on that man, along with his son-in-law Gebran Bassil. Aoun agreed to be a mere cover for Hezbollah even though in the past he had warned the Lebanese to learn the meaning of the concept of velayat-e faqih, which confers “guardianship" of the state on the Shia clergy. Before obtaining Hezbollah’s support, Michel Aoun said in a recorded speech, “There are dangers in the country, the Persians are coming, and velayat-e faqih will control Lebanon. Yesterday I implored you that whenever you hear someone talk about velayat-e faqih, ask him to understand what it means and what it is.”After Michel Aoun became Hezbollah's candidate for the presidency, the Persian conquest of Lebanon became halal and velayat-e faqih turned into just an ordinary concept. In fact, Michel Aoun only became a candidate for Hezbollah after that party tested him for ten years, between the signing of the Mar Mikhael Document in February 2006 and his election as president of the republic on October 31, 2016. Saad Hariri leaves a great void. The Sunnis will not suffer alone from his absence. Every Lebanese will feel the pain. Because what Saad Hariri did, transcends his own person and the Sunni sect to which he belongs. He exposed the Lebanese crisis for what it really is. It is now clear that the repercussions of the assassination of Rafik Hariri are still unfolding on Lebanese soil. There is no longer any benefit from the elections to be held on May 15. What is being determined, through Saad Hariri's decision, is the fate of Lebanon, in a region where the temperature can at the least be described as boiling. Saad Hariri made major concessions, which he described as “concessions that came at my expense,” in order to shield civil peace. He specifically referred to the Battle of Beirut, the Doha Agreement, his having to go to Damascus ... and the loss of his fortune.
Regardless of the personal position of Saad Hariri, who for most Lebanese is a politician of a different kind and regardless of those who hate any Lebanese who rejects subordination to Iran or any other power than Iran, it remains true that the decision of the leader of the Future Movement indicates that the entire region is on the verge of major developments.
Saad Hariri had enough courage to speak openly about “Iranian influence” in Lebanon. Yes, a person like him cannot do anything in the face of this kind of influence. Iran does not care about the elections and their results. Iran decides who is the next president of the republic in Lebanon, who is the prime minister and whether the prime minister can put together a government. Saad Hariri's withdrawal from political life turned a page in Lebanon's history. What can a single person do when the country suffers not only from Arab isolation, but from international neglect as well?
The weapons of Hezbollah, which are Iranian weapons remain. They have the first and last word in the country. Saad Hariri did not withdraw from a showdown with Hezbollah. He withdrew because the world abandoned Lebanon after the Lebanese abandoned their country.
A very important question remains: do the developments, which the region seems to face, serve Lebanon … or has the country, established as "Greater Lebanon" in 1920, now lost everything that is necessary for its existence in light of the collapse of all sectors on which the economy and society depend, starting with the disintegration of the banking system and all banks?

Michel Aoun, a Postponed Saad Hariri
Hazem Saghieh/Asharq Al-Awsat/January,26/2022
Despite the tragic state of Lebanon, a farcical movement can be seen by conjuring up a past that still exists and is expanding: Since its founding, the Free Patriotic Movement has demanded the “reclamation of Christians’ rights” and going back to the pre-Taif Agreement (1989) days. That means that the powers granted to the Sunni prime minister by the Agreement must be given back to the Christian president of the republic. Because these demands coincided with the meteoric rise of Rafik Hariri, he seemed the perfect embodiment and symbol of the mandate taken away from the Christians who, in the view of Aoun’s supporters, must reclaim it.
This premise allowed the Aounists to reach a simple conclusion: the Taif Agreement is the enemy. It has granted Sunnis power that neither Lebanese coexistence nor the National Pact can withstand - power that has reached such alarming proportions as to amount to an assault against Lebanon’s other sects. However, the excessively powerful soon lost that very leader in a horrible crime in 2005. Only with immense effort and great sacrifices was the Special Tribunal for Lebanon enabled to investigate this crime, though it could not arrest those who had been charged. Since then, the Lebanese Sunnis’ political power has been receding: neither could the Taif stop this process, nor could the electoral victories that came one after the other prevent it.
This decline reached new lows in recent days: Saad Hariri withdrew from political life, vowing only to keep his home’s doors open! The home has become the last line of defense. Other leading Sunni political figures, brought together in the so-called Prime Minister’s Club, may similarly abstain from running for the elections that might (?) be held next May.
The decline of the Lebanese Sunnis’ power, then, has turned into political shrinkage and marginalization, leaving observers comparing it to the Christians’ marginalization between the late 1980s and 2005.
This experience leads us to a more accurate conceptualization of Aounism, a pure exercise in futility: It is a waging, a raging, unending battle against a foe that has already been killed or has given up. This futility is compounded by its alliance with Hezbollah, which, alone, has all the “pejoratives” that had not been stipulated by the Taif Agreement. On top of that, it managed to accumulate power in clear violation of the Taif Agreement, severely undermining its implementation. Those demanding that the Taif be implemented properly were depicted as “conspiring against the resistance,” and neither they nor their demands were paid any mind.
Amid all of this, Aounists focused on this miserable document rather than the reality of politics and power relations in Lebanon. This is how we arrived at a situation in which all parties are weak and marginalized with the exception of the only power at the core of all power relations, Hezbollah. The latest disruption of the Council of Ministers’ session, at a time when the country’s economy is in dire need of cabinet sessions, is only the latest in a series of incriminating pieces of evidence, if anyone is still looking.
However, the Sunni leaders’ bluntness in revealing their weakness does not make those who are better at concealing their weakness any more powerful. That is, unless, perhaps, we were to believe, with all the gullibility that exists in the world, that the “strong ruler” is in fact strong.
In fact, the weakness of the Sunni leadership is undoubtedly self-inflicted to a degree, as they are responsible for their weak and staggered resistance to Hezbollah and the expansion of its influence. As for the Free Patriotic Movement leaders, their responsibility for their weakness is far greater. It stems from their alliance with Hezbollah, which has ensured its longevity while shortening the political lives of its allies, who have been so proud of their ignorance.
This degradation of Aounist political awareness is, again, rooted in prioritizing the text over reality and the obvious over substance. The threat Hezbollah poses does not stem from powers the Taif Agreement grants it or deprived it of, nor is the party dangerous because it is “Shiite” or, as some like to say, “Persian.” It is dangerous primarily because it is an ideological party, a one-party project that has nothing to offer Lebanese political life and its diversity but death, while it offers the political forces in Lebanon either subordination or defeat. Only then can we discuss the other dangerous factors, like Hezbollah being an armed party and a close affiliate of Iran, raising generations of children on values that diverge with that of other Lebanese children, in addition to the party amalgamating a modern organizational structure with a religious sectarian project.
Because Hezbollah is a one-party project, political life in Lebanon invariably becomes impossible. Even a well-established, highly advanced democracy, it would be facing a grave ordeal if a party like Hezbollah were to receive a fourth of a third of the popular vote.
Here, Saad Hariri and his latest announcement seems like an omen to all of Lebanon’s politicians, including the president of the republic and the parliamentary speaker. Each of them is a postponed Saad Hariri, and there are ways to deal with those who do not choose to do things the easy way and disregard the offer that cannot be refused. This is how we can make sense of the occasional “finger” raised in our faces, the occasional raising of the voice, and the statements and speeches advising political rivals to watch their step. We thus understand such behaviors as more than personal bad habits that should be overcome.

Lebanon Plans to Adopt ‘Realistic Exchange Rate’ in 2022 Budget, Says Ministry
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
Lebanon plans to adopt a "realistic exchange rate" for the local pound in the 2022 budget, according to a document published by the finance ministry on Wednesday that did not specify a rate. The draft budget put the average exchange rate of the pound in the final quarter of 2021 at 20,000 Lebanese pounds to the dollar, and at 10,083 pounds for the whole of 2021. The pound's official exchange rate, still applied on government transactions including customs duties, is about 1,500 to the dollar. The rates mentioned in the ministry's report on the budget are informal "street rates", outside the banking system. The total budget deficit in 2022 is forecast at about 2.3% of gross domestic product, compared with an actual deficit of 1.1% in 2021, according to the document. Lebanon is battling since end 2019 one of the world's worst national economic depressions, fueled by massive, unsustainable debt accumulated following the 1975-1990 civil war, described by some economists as a nationally regulated Ponzi scheme. The government will continue to suspend payment on its foreign currency bonds in 2022, according to the finance ministry document.

This government is totally subdued to the Iranian occupation
Jean-Marie Kassab/January 26/2022
Task Force Lebanon thanks the Arab Coalition for its everlasting interest and efforts towards Lebanon. We seize the opportunity of the last visit of the minister of Foreign Affairs of Kuwait HE Sheikh Ahmed Nasser Al Mohammed Al Sabah, to express our full support to the contents of the message addressed to the current government of Lebanon. However, we regretfully add our doubts that such a government could or would respond accordingly. This government is totally subdued to the Iranian occupation of the country and does not work in favor of a free Lebanon.
For Task Force Lebanon
Jean-Marie Kassab
https://www.facebook.com/taskforcelb

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 26-27/2022
Raisi Says Revival of Nuclear Deal Possible if US Lifts Sanctions
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
Iran's hardline President Ebrahim Raisi said on Tuesday a revival of Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal is possible if the United States removes sanctions that have crippled Tehran’s economy. "If the other party removes the sanctions, there will be possibility to revive the pact," Raisi told Iran's state TV. Iran and world powers have begun another round of nuclear talks in Vienna, Austria aimed at salvaging the tattered 2015 nuclear deal. The meetings include all the deal’s remaining signatories — Iran, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. The US has participated only indirectly in the ongoing talks because it withdrew from the accord in 2018 under then-President Donald Trump. Trump later re-imposed crushing sanctions on Iran and Tehran responded by increasing the purity of uranium it enriches and its stockpiles, in breach of the accord. President Joe Biden has signaled that he wants to rejoin the deal and the US has said it is prepared to hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program, a position it reiterated Monday.

Blinken Says ‘A Few Weeks Left’ for Vienna Talks
Washington - Ali BaradaAsharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has confirmed that there are only “a few weeks left” for the Iran nuclear talks in Vienna as they near the end of the road. The potential failure of diplomacy will prompt Western countries to return the Iranian nuclear file to the UN Security Council (UNSC) in New York, where several tools are available, including the “snapback” procedure to automatically re-impose international sanctions, a Western diplomat who requested anonymity told Asharq Al-Awsat. However, bringing back the issue to the UNSC will not happen immediately, the diplomat cautioned. “If the Iranian escalation continues, and there is no progress in the Vienna talks, we will have to have UNSC talks,” they explained, confirming that snapback sanctions were on the table. Despite being an option, such sanctions will not be used hastily nor as a last resort, the diplomat added. As for recent attacks by Iranian proxies against Saudi Arabia and the UAE, meant to expand Tehran’s leverage at the Vienna talks, the diplomat slammed them as destabilizing but said that nuclear negotiations were a different file. “It’s a problem for us that Iran is destabilizing the region through proxies, whether it’s in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, or anywhere else, but we have traditionally kept the nuclear issue separate,” said the diplomat. “We have a fundamental opposition to Iran getting two levels of enrichment and bomb-making capabilities,” he added. He pointed out that after two months of talks in Vienna, the United States, Britain, France and Germany confirmed that “time is running out.”

U.S. Sees 'Every Indication' Putin Plans Force against Ukraine by Mid-February
Agence France Presse/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
The United States believes that Russian President Vladimir Putin remains poised to use force against Ukraine by mid-February despite a pressure campaign to stop him, a top diplomat said Wednesday. "I have no idea whether he's made the ultimate decision, but we certainly see every indication that he is going to use military force sometime perhaps (between) now and the middle of February," Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman told a forum. Sherman, who met with her Russian counterpart earlier this month in Vienna in an attempt to warn Moscow against invading its neighbor, said that Putin's planning may be affected by the Winter Games in Beijing, which the United States and several allies are boycotting due to human rights concerns. "We all are aware that the Beijing Olympics begin on February 4, the opening ceremony, and President Putin expects to be there," Sherman told the Yalta European Strategy forum. "I think that probably President Xi Jinping would not be ecstatic if Putin chose that moment to invade Ukraine, so that may affect his timing and his thinking."

Biden Warns Putin with Sanctions as West Steps up Ukraine Defenses
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
US President Joe Biden said on Tuesday he would consider personal sanctions on President Vladimir Putin if Russia invades Ukraine, as Western leaders stepped up military preparations and made plans to shield Europe from a potential energy supply shock. The rare sanctions threat came as NATO places forces on standby and reinforces eastern Europe with more ships and fighter jets in response to Russia's troop build-up near its border with Ukraine.Russia denies planning an attack and says the crisis is being driven by NATO and US actions. It is demanding security guarantees from the West, including a promise by NATO never to admit Ukraine. Moscow sees the former Soviet republic as a buffer between Russia and NATO countries. Following multiple rounds of US-Russia talks over Ukraine that failed to reach a breakthrough, Biden, who has long warned Moscow of economic consequences, upped the ante on Tuesday by saying Putin could personally face sanctions. If Russia were to move into Ukraine with the estimated 100,000 soldiers it has massed near the border, Biden said it would be the "largest invasion since World War Two" and would "change the world."Speaking to reporters, Biden was asked if he would see himself imposing sanctions on Putin directly if Russia invaded Ukraine. "Yes," he responded. "I would see that." Direct US sanctions on foreign leaders are rare but not unprecedented. Others who have faced sanctions include Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro, Syria's Bashar al-Assad and Libya's Moammar al-Gaddafi. On Tuesday, a US plane carrying military equipment and munitions landed in Kyiv, the third installment of a $200 million package to shore up Ukraine's defenses. The Pentagon has put on alert about 8,500 US troops in Europe and the United States to be ready to deploy to NATO's eastern flank if needed.Russia said it was watching with great concern and accused Washington of fueling tensions over Ukraine, repeating its line that the crisis was being driven by US and NATO actions rather than by its own build-up of forces near the Ukrainian border. Biden said on Tuesday he may deploy US troops in the nearer term but ruled out sending unilateral US forces to Ukraine, which is not a NATO member."There is not going to be any American forces moving into Ukraine," he said.
So far, NATO has about 4,000 troops in multinational battalions in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, backed by tanks, air defenses and intelligence and surveillance units. As Western leaders appeal for unity, differences have emerged among European nations over how best to respond. Putin is due to meet Wednesday with the heads of some of the biggest companies in Italy, Russia's fifth biggest trading partner, despite the rising tensions. "It is absolutely vital that... the West is united now, because it is our unity now that will be much more effective in deterring any Russian aggression," British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said, adding Britain was discussing with the United States the possibility of banning Russia from the SWIFT global payments system. French President Emmanuel Macron said he would seek clarification over Russia's intentions in a phone call with Putin set for Friday. Political advisers from Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France are due to meet in Paris on Wednesday.
Gas diversion plans
With fears of a new Russian military assault high after its invasion of Crimea in 2014, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy urged his compatriots on Tuesday to stay calm and said work was underway to bring about a meeting between him and the leaders of Russia, Germany and France. "There are no rose-colored glasses, no childish illusions, everything is not simple. ... But there is hope," Zelenskiy said in a televised address. "Protect your body from viruses, your brain from lies, your heart from panic." In Washington, senior Biden administration officials said the United States was in talks with major energy-producing countries and companies around the world over a potential diversion of supplies to Europe if Russia invades Ukraine. The EU depends on Russia for around a third of its gas supplies. Any interruptions to its Russian imports would exacerbate an existing energy crisis caused by shortages. "We've... been working to identify additional volumes of non-Russian natural gas from North Africa and the Middle East, Asia, and the United States," White House spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters. "We're in discussion with major natural gas producers around the globe to understand their capacity and willingness to temporarily surge natural gas output and to allocate these volumes to European buyers," she said. Psaki and other officials did not name specific countries or companies but said they included a broad range of suppliers, including sellers of liquefied natural gas (LNG). An escalated conflict would likely further increase energy costs for many countries, keeping headline inflation rates elevated for longer, said Gita Gopinath, first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund.

UK: Iran Nuclear Talks Approaching Dangerous Impasse
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
Talks to revive a 2015 nuclear deal between Western powers and Iran are approaching a dangerous impasse, British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said on Tuesday. "This negotiation is urgent and progress has not been fast enough. We continue to work in close partnership with our allies but the negotiations are reaching a dangerous impasse," Truss told parliament."Iran must now choose whether it wants to conclude a deal or be responsible for the collapse of the JCPOA (nuclear deal). And if the JCPOA collapses, all options are on the table."

Russian, Ukrainian Officials Meet in Paris in Bid to Ease Tensions
Agence France Presse/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
Russian and Ukrainian delegations met in Paris for talks on Wednesday in a bid to defuse soaring tensions, with France seeking to usher both sides down a "path to de-escalation." The high-level meeting, attended by senior diplomats from France and Germany, brings together the four countries in a format that has been used repeatedly since Russia's 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian province of Crimea. Russia is represented by vice-prime minister Dmitri Kozak and Ukraine by presidential advisor Andriy Yermak, with diplomatic advisors to President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz also taking part in the talks that began at 1100 GMT. France, which floated ideas for a "de-escalation" on Monday and is keen for Europe to try to solve the crisis, is hoping that Russia is prepared to engage in talks at a time when it has massed 100,000 troops on Ukraine's border. "It's very encouraging that the Russians agreed to enter into this diplomatic format again, the only one in which the Russians are stakeholders," an aide to Macron said on Wednesday on condition of anonymity. "This meeting will give us a clear indication of the Russians' mindset before the call between Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday," the aide added. Each side is expected to brief the media later in the day. Separate talks between Russia and the United States have been held in recent weeks to discuss Russian security demands in Europe, including that Ukraine should never become a member of the US-led NATO military alliance.
After discussions last Friday in Geneva, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken promised his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov that Washington would give a written response to Russian demands and also floated the idea of a presidential meeting.
'Play the game'
The talks in Paris on Wednesday come as Western powers keep up their warnings of massive economic sanctions in the event of a Russian attack on pro-Western Ukraine. U.S. President Joe Biden warned Tuesday of personal sanctions on Putin, while the White House says the risk of a Russian invasion of Ukraine "remains imminent."Concerned about the rhetoric in Washington and London, and their decision to withdraw some embassy staff and families in Kyiv, an aide to Macron warned on Monday about "creating any ambiguity or creating any additional volatility.""We want a de-escalation, which means both dialogue and dissuasion," the aide said on Wednesday. "Discussions about sanctions with our European and American partners, with institutions, is taking place to ensure that this dissuasion is sufficiently credible, so that the dialogue is credible. They are linked," the aide added.
"But the sanctions must not lead to retaliation that will boomerang on us and have a cost," the aide said. "Sanctions are not be-all and end-all of the response."The U.S. has also been drawing up plans to shore up European gas supply should Russia cut off shipments through its pipelines in response to Western sanctions. The White House announced Tuesday that Biden would meet with the emir of gas-rich Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, on January 31 to discuss, among other issues, "ensuring the stability of global energy supplies."
Confidence building
The French plan, as detailed by an aide to Macron on Monday, would entail both sides taking steps to build confidence. Ukraine's government has made the first move envisaged by the French by withdrawing a bill in parliament governing the status of Russian-backed separatist provinces in the east of the country, which Moscow sees as violating previous commitments. Paris is hoping that Russia will agree to some "humanitarian measures" such as prisoner exchanges in eastern Ukraine and the opening of checkpoints manned by the separatists. France also would push for "a public statement from the Russians about their intentions that reassures everyone," the aide said. One major possible area of discord is France's backing for talks between the Ukrainian government and Russian-backed separatists in the east -- something President Zelensky has refused to do.Senior diplomatic advisors from the four Normandy Format countries last spoke by video-conference in September last year, according to Macron's office.The leaders last met for a four-way summit in Paris in December 2019.

Ukraine Diplomat Sees Little Chance of War, but Local Conflict Possible
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
Ukraine is committed to seeking a diplomatic solution to the current tension with Russia, its ambassador to Japan, Sergiy Korsunsky, said on Wednesday, adding that he saw little chance of all-out war, although there might be smaller conflicts. Korsunsky warned an attack on a country with more than a dozen nuclear reactors would bring about a devastating regional impact on Europe. "I believe that full-scale war is very, very, very difficult to expect, but we may see more localized conflict," Korsunsky told a news conference in the Japanese capital Tokyo. "If we come to military terms, let me tell you, we are very much ready, our army is very well prepared." Russia has massed tens of thousands of troops on its borders with Ukraine, and Western states fear Moscow is planning a new assault on a country it invaded in 2014 to annex the Crimean peninsula. US President Joe Biden said on Tuesday he would consider personal sanctions on President Vladimir Putin if Russia invades Ukraine, as Western leaders stepped up military preparations and made plans to shield Europe from a potential energy supply shock. "If war is going to happen, that will be the first ever in the history of mankind, war against a country which has on its territory 15 nuclear reactors, which has 30,000 km of gas and oil pipelines, full with gas and oil," said Korsunsky. "If all these infrastructure is destroyed, there is no more Ukraine. But this is just one consequence. There is no more central Europe and probably western Europe would be affected, too."An accident at the Chernobyl reactor, located in what is now Ukraine, spewed tons of nuclear waste into the atmosphere in 1986, spreading radioactivity across swathes of the continent and causing a spike in cancers in the more immediate region. Russia's Ambassador to Australia, Alexey Pavlovsky, said on Wednesday that Russia did not plan to invade Ukraine. "We don't intend to invade at all," Pavlovsky told Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio. "Our troops on the border...These troops are not a threat, they are a warning. A warning to Ukraine's rulers not to attempt any reckless military adventure," he said. "As to the sanctions, I think that by now everybody should understand that it is not the language which should be used when talking to Russia. The sanctions just don't work."

Britain Hints at Putin Sanctions, Drawing Warning from Kremlin
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
Britain said on Wednesday it was not ruling out personal sanctions against President Vladimir Putin if Russia invades Ukraine, drawing a warning from the Kremlin that such a move would be destructive. US President Joe Biden said on Tuesday he would consider personal sanctions on Putin if Russia invades Ukraine, as Western leaders stepped up military preparations and made plans to shield Europe from a potential energy supply shock. Russia has massed more than 100,000 troops around Ukraine and the West fears it may invade in an attempt to annex its former Soviet republic. Russia has dismissed such speculation as a symptom of Russophobia which it says is gripping the West. Asked about possible sanctions on Putin, British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss told Sky: "We're not ruling anything out." "We'll be bringing forward new legislation to make our sanctions regime tougher so we are able to target more companies and individuals in Russia. We will be bringing that forward in the next few days. I'm not ruling that out."Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said such a move would be "destructive" for relations but not at all painful for Putin, who rose to the top Kremlin job on the last day of 1999 when Boris Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned. Truss said Britain was supplying defensive weapons to Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly said it has no intention of invading Ukraine and that it can deploy troops wherever it wants on its own territory.

Russia Adds Kremlin Critic Navalny to 'Terrorists' List
Asharq Al-AwsatWednesday, 26 January, 2022 - 11:45
Russia on Tuesday added jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny and a number of his allies to a list of "terrorists and extremists", as authorities further clamp down on the opposition. Navalny and several allies, including key aide Lyubov Sobol, appeared Tuesday in a database of banned individuals compiled by the Federal Service for Financial Monitoring (Rosfinmonitoring), said AFP. The past year has seen an unprecedented crackdown on dissent in Russia, including the jailing of President Vladimir Putin's top critic Navalny last January and the outlawing of his political organizations. Almost all of his top allies, including Sobol, have since fled the country. According to Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation -- which was declared extremist and shut down last year -- a dozen Navalny allies were added to the list on Tuesday. They include anti-corruption investigator Georgy Alburov, lawyer Vyacheslav Gimadi and several former coordinators of Navalny's regional offices that were also branded extremist last year. The decision puts them on a par with right-wing nationalist groups and foreign "terrorist" organizations, including the Taliban and the ISIS extremist group. Sobol, 34, was a lawyer for Navalny's anti-corruption foundation and producer of the opposition politician's YouTube channel. She has been wanted by Russian police since October. "Participated in elections and was fighting corruption? Extremist," Sobol tweeted.
- 'Super team of terrorists' -Earlier this month, two other key Navalny aides -- Ivan Zhdanov and Leonid Volkov -- were added to the list. They mocked the "terrorist" tag on Tuesday. Volkov, who used to oversee Navalny's regional offices, tweeted that he was "proud to work in our team of 'extremists and terrorists'". "It's great that our super team of 'terrorists' is being joined by such great people," Zhdanov, who headed the now-disbanded Anti-Corruption Foundation, said on Twitter. The United States and European Union both condemned the move, which comes amid high tensions over fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. "This latest designation represents a new low in Russia's continuing crackdown on independent civil society," US State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters in Washington. "We urge Russia to cease the abuse of 'extremism' designations to target nonviolent organizations, to end its repression of Mr. Navalny and his supporters, and to honor its international obligations to respect and ensure human rights and fundamental freedoms," Price said.
Last month, investigators questioned several former regional Navalny coordinators, including Ksenia Fadeyeva, who is also a lawmaker in the Siberian city of Tomsk. She was also added to the "terrorists" list on Tuesday.
Navalny's brother
Separately, in an apparent attempt to put further pressure on the opposition, prison officials have asked a Moscow court to convert a suspended sentence handed to Navalny's brother Oleg into real jail time. On Monday, Moscow's Lyublinsky district court registered that request. Last year, Oleg Navalny was handed a one-year suspended sentence for breaking anti-coronavirus restrictions during protests demanding his brother's release. Navalny was detained in January 2021 on arrival from Germany, where he was recovering from a nerve agent poisoning attack he and the West blame on the Kremlin. In February, he was jailed for more than two years on old fraud charges. His poisoning and arrest sparked widespread condemnation abroad as well as sanctions from Western capitals. The European Parliament last year awarded Navalny the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought after he was nominated but passed over for the Nobel Peace Prize. Investigators launched a new extremism probe against Navalny in 2021 that could see the opposition leader spend up to 10 more years in jail. Authorities have designated dozens of rights groups, media outlets, journalists and anti-Kremlin figures "foreign agents".In December, courts ordered the shutdown of the country's most prominent rights group, Memorial.

Syria Kurds Say Prison Recaptured after IS Attack
Agence France Presse/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in Syria said Wednesday they had fully recaptured a prison that was attacked by the Islamic State group, ending the country's biggest jihadist assault in three years. In a statement, Farhad Shami of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces said operations since the attack started last Thursday had "culminated with our entire control" over the prison after all holdout IS fighters surrendered. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also said that the SDF was mostly in control of the prison in Hasakeh, a northeastern city held by a semi-autonomous Kurdish administration. But the war monitoring group cautioned that the SDF have not yet combed all areas inside the jail, warning that potential hideout jihadists may still be present. More than 100 jihadists attacked Ghwayran prison on January 20 in a brazen assault that involved a double suicide truck bombing and saw the militants free fellow IS members, seize weapons and take over several cell blocks. It is considered the most sophisticated attack carried out by the group since it was territorially defeated in Syria nearly three years ago. Heavy fighting in and around the prison since Thursday has killed 181 people, including 124 IS jihadists, 50 Kurdish fighters and seven civilians, says the Observatory. According to the war monitor, an unknown number of jihadists had managed to escape but their exact number was not immediately clear.

Explosion Damages Offices, Stores in Athens; 3 Hurt
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
An explosion left three people injured and seriously damaged an office building while shattering nearby storefronts in a busy part of central Athens early Wednesday. Fire department officials said a 77-year-old man was hospitalized with burns. Two others received medical attention for smoke inhalation, The Associated Press reported. The pre-dawn blast occurred 200 meters from the ancient Temple of Olympian Zeus on the busy Syngrou Avenue. Firefighters were using aerial ladders to look for anyone possibly trapped inside the damaged buildings. As dawn broke, they forced their way into damaged stores to free several people trapped inside.The cause of the blast wasn't immediately clear.

Attack on home of Halbousi seems to reflect desperation in pro-Iran ranks
The Arab Weekly/January 26/2022
Ismail Qaani, commander of the Quds Force, the expeditionary arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, rushed back to Baghdad on Tuesday, for a second visit in less than two weeks. With their political margin for manoeuvre narrowing, pro-Iran factions in Iraq are hoping Qaani's last ditch effort will help limit the political damage they stand to suffer from the October election and the supreme court's decision Tuesday to validate the parliamentary speaker's election. Analysts say that these pro-Iran groups currently have no choice but to accept Moqtadar al-Sadr’s conditions to participate in the "national majority" government or join the opposition. They are waiting for the outcome of Qaani's efforts. Iraqi political sources say that Qaani is trying to persuade Sadr to lower the ceiling of his demands, mainly in connection with the disbandment of all armed militias and the handing over of their weapons to the state. Qaani is also said to be pushing for the inclusion of Coordination Framework members in the new government, even if not of the Rule Of Law party chief, Nuri al-Maliki. In the meanwhile, violent escalation seems to reflect the growing desperation among the pro-Iran ranks. Hours after Iraq's top court confirmed Mohammed al-Halbousi's re-election as speaker of parliament, two children were wounded Tuesday night when rockets were fired towards the home of Iraq's speaker of parliament, security sources said. Three Katyusha rockets landed some "500 metres" from the home of Halbousi in the Gurma district of Anbar province, west of the capital Baghdad, a security source said. Halbousi was the target of the attack, but it was not clear if he was at home at the time. The two wounded children were "taken to hospital in Gurma", Iraqi police said in a statement. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack. Halbousi, 41, is a Sunni politician and has headed parliament since 2018. Several grenade attacks have in recent days targeted political figures from parties that could team up with Shia leader Moqtada Sadr to form a parliamentary coalition in the wake of Iraq's October legislative elections.
Sadr, whose bloc took the largest share of seats, is seeking to build a coalition bringing together Taqadom, Halbussi's party, with a second Sunni party and a Kurdish grouping. Iraq’s top court on Tuesday confirmed the re-election of Mohammed al-Halbousi as parliament speaker, following appeals against the chamber's conduct, thus paving the way for the formation of a new government. The ruling will allow the resumption of parliamentary sessions and along with them, deliberations over the selection of a new president, who will, in turn, choose the next prime minister, to be approved by the legislature.
Lawmakers have until February 8 to elect a president, a post historically allocated to a Kurd. Iraq's post-election period since the October 10 vote has been marred by high tensions, violence and allegations of vote fraud, after pro-Iran political parties, such as the Al-Fatah (Conquest) party, lost the October election to the Sadrist Movement. In multi-confessional and multi-ethnic Iraq, the formation of governments has, ever since the 2003 US-led invasion toppled President Saddam Hussein, involved complex negotiations Moqtadar al-Sadr, the head of the largest party that bears his name, has vowed to form "a majority government" instead of the traditional consensus-based cabinet. Parliament met after the polls and elected the speaker. This opened up furious arguments between rival factions of Shia lawmakers as members of the pro-Iran Framework Alliance claimed to have enough seats to be the leading bloc in parliament. The Sadrists rejected their implausible claim. The Sadrist Movement garnered about a fifth of the seats, 73 out of the legislature's total 329, while the Fatah (Conquest) Alliance, the political arm of the pro-Iranian Hashed al-Shaabi, won only 17 seats, sharply down from the 48 seats the used to control in the outgoing assembly. Appeals against the speaker’s re-election were filed by Mashhadani and another MP, Bassem Khachan.

US administration approves massive $2.5 billion arms sale to Egypt
The Arab Weekly/January 26/2022
The Biden administration on Tuesday approved a massive $2.5 billion arms sale to Egypt despite ongoing concerns in Congress over human rights.
The sales were announced just hours after congressional Democrats urged the administration not to release a much smaller package of military assistance that had been put on hold last year pending the Egyptian government meeting certain rights-related conditions. The State Department said Tuesday's sale was unrelated to $130 million in foreign military financing that was frozen in September and remains in limbo. But the size of the sale dwarfed the amount of withheld assistance and is likely to draw criticism from some lawmakers who are demanding the administration make good on pledges to tie arms transfers to countries meeting minimal human rights standards. Tuesday’s sale included 12 Super Hercules C-130 transport aircraft and related equipment worth $2.2 billion and air defence radar systems worth an estimated $355 million. “This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major non-NATO ally country that continues to be an important strategic partner in the Middle East,” the State Department said. “We maintain that our bilateral relationship with Egypt will be stronger and America’s interests will be better served, through continued US engagement to advance our national security interests, including addressing our human rights concerns,” it said. Shortly before the sale was announced a group of six House Democrats, including the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Gregory Meeks and Senator Chris Murphy called on the administration to insist that Egypt meet human rights criteria for military transfers. “While we recognise and reaffirm important steps Egypt has taken in recent weeks to address such concerns by releasing certain political prisoners and individuals unjustly detained, the Egyptian government must meet the administration’s conditions in full by the communicated deadline,” Meeks and his colleagues said in a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
“If not, we urge you to stand by your word and immediately reprogramme withheld funds,” they said. Meanwhile, Murphy said, “Egypt looks unlikely and unwilling to meet the narrow conditions on the remaining $130 million in military aid by the deadline, while the human rights situation more broadly has only deteriorated over the last few months.”"If Egypt doesn’t meet the conditions in full, the administration has to stand firm and show the world that our actions live up to our stated commitment to democracy and human rights,” Murphy said. In September, Blinken announced that the administration would proceed with providing Egypt with $300 million in foreign military financing but would withhold another $130 million until the government “affirmatively addresses specific human-rights related conditions.”It was not immediately clear if Tuesday's arms sale indicated that Blinken had decided that Egypt has satisfactorily addressed those issues. Egypt imposed a state of emergency in April 2017, following deadly church bombings and attacks on Coptic Christians that killed more than 100 people and wounded scores. It allowed for arrests without warrants, swift prosecution of suspects and the establishment of special courts in terror cases. The state of emergency has since been extended several times. However, President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi announced in October, when the last extension expired, that his government will no longer renew it.

Tunisian Opposition Proposes National Dialogue without the President
Tunis - Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 26 January, 2022
Opposition parties in Tunisia have proposed to launch a national dialogue without President Kais Saied. The secretary-general of the Republican Party, Issam Chebbi, told the German News Agency (dpa) that parties discussing the proposal will announce it during a press conference on Thursday.
The initiative is led by social democratic parties, including the Democratic Current, the Democratic Forum for Labor and Freedoms, and the Republican Party. Chebbi warned that the country is on the verge of collapse, saying: "We believe that the dialogue we have been calling for in the past year is the best solution to get out of the crisis."Saied, who last year announced extraordinary measures to suspend the parliament and boost his constitutional powers, has so far avoided this demand despite foreign pressure. The president launched a national consultation through an electronic platform in preparation for a popular referendum on political reforms. Opposition parties and organizations said that the consultation could not substitute national dialogue. Chebbi explained that Saied categorically rejected the dialogue. "We do not want the country to be dependent on the will of one person, nor for dialogue to depend on the president. We are in the process of coordinating our efforts, and we will determine the necessary steps for an inclusive dialogue."Meanwhile, Tunisia Press Agency (TAP) said authorities suspend flights of the national carrier, Tunisair, between Tunisia and Burkina Faso until further notice. Four security sources and a diplomat from West Africa said army officials had ousted Burkina Faso President Roch Kabore and detained him in an army camp after heavy gunfire around his house on Sunday evening in the capital Ouagadougou. The military coup also suspended the country's constitution, dissolved the government, and closed the national borders.

Libyan parliament obstructs Dbeibah's bid to remain prime minister
The Arab Weekly/January 26/2022
The Libyan parliament on Tuesday thwarted outgoing Prime Minister Abdulhamid Dbeibah’s bid to stay in power through a government reshuffle. This would have included opposition figures and opened the door to a new Dbeibah term of office that could have lasted a few more years in light of the ongoing debate over the elections and the constitution. Parliament put an end to speculation that it might agree to a government reshuffle. Such speculation was triggered by a statement supporting the Dbeibah government, apparently put out by 62 deputies on Saturday. However, some of the signatories subsequently denied knowing about the announcement. Sources told The Arab Weekly that Dbeibah is likely to have been behind the statement, which was published by pro-government media. It said the government would stay on for a period of two years from the date of the agreement or until elections are held. It also called for ministerial changes that would allow the government to impose its authority on the entire country and for the prime minister to be allowed to introduce ministerial changes. Remarks made by Parliament Speaker Aguila Saleh had reinforced the expectation of a government reshuffle, especially since they coincided with the refusal of UN Special Adviser Stephanie Williams to contemplate a new transitional phase. Saleh had said that if Dbeibah wanted to run again, he should present a new line-up and submit it to the parliament. However, observers downplayed the importance of the speaker’s remarks after it emerged Tuesday that parliament would enforce the requirement that a prime minister needs to hold a university degree. There have been conflicting reports for months about Dbeibah's lack of academic credentials and even allegations that he falsified his degrees. In a session with 120 MPs present, the parliament “approved the conditions to be met by candidates to head the next government”, spokesman Abdullah Bliheg said. At the beginning of the session, Saleh proposed a list of 13 criteria that must be met by candidates for the job of prime minister. These included the condition that the candidate resigns from office before presenting his candidacy for premiership; that he pledges in writing to leave office before running in future elections; that he holds at least a university degree or its equivalent from an accredited university; does not hold citizenship from another foreign country “unless he is authorised to do so,” and has obtained 25 endorsements from the House of Representatives and 100 from registered voters in his electoral district. During the session, the parliament also voted to exclude the State Council from the list on institutions that could endorse candidates to head a new government. Some speculated this exclusion doomed Dbeibah’s planned new administration. "In this way, Aguila Saleh has driven the first nail in the coffin of the government formation," political analyst Faraj Farkash said in a comment on his Facebook page.
There were initial reports that the House of Representatives and the State Council had agreed to end the UN-brokered Dbeibah government, whose mandate expired on December 24. But Dbeibah has refused to hand over power except to an elected government.
The December 24 election was postponed indefinitely following months of wrangling over its legal basis and who could stand. State Council member, Belgacem Goziet, said the body should protest parliament’s decision to exclude it from institutional endorsements. He stressed that parliament should adhere to the legal and political rules of the transitional phase, which stipulated “the need for the House of Representatives to consult with the State Council regarding the government.”
Libyans fear that the emerging sharp differences could spark new political strife, especially in the light of Dbeibah's refusal to step down along with the positions taken by international and regional powers, recently reflected by UN Secretary General’s Special Advisor Stephanie Williams, after a tour to Egypt, Turkey and Russia. Williams, an American diplomat, returned to urge the Libyan protagonists to focus on the elections as a way out of the crisis and rejected a proposal for the new transitional phase, which may take years. Washington has warned it could impose sanctions on the parties obstructing Libyan elections, calling on all players to provide the necessary support to the High National Election Commission. This was emphasised by the US Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN Jeffrey Deluentis. During Monday’s Security Council session, he said "I want to remind those who are interfering in the Libyan elections or fuelling violence that the UN Security Council may impose sanctions on anyone, Libyan or otherwise, who obstructs or undermines the elections," and insisted on the council to target "election spoilers" to promote accountability. He urged parties to support the High National Election Commission, highlighting that 2.8 million people have registered to vote in Libya, of which more than 2.5 million have collected their voting cards. "It is time to respect the will of the Libyan people and transcend the back-to-back deals that are going on between a small circle of powerful individuals backed by armed groups."

Canada/Global Affairs Canada statement on military coup in Burkina Faso
January 25, 2021 - Ottawa, Ontario - Global Affairs Canada
Global Affairs Canada today issued the following statement:
“Canada joins the Economic Community of West African States, the African Union and the international community in strongly condemning the military coup in Burkina Faso. We call on those responsible for these acts to restore constitutional order and to proceed with the immediate release of President Roch Marc Christian Kaboré and other democratically elected members of the government.
“Canadians in Burkina Faso who are in need of urgent consular assistance should send an email to ouaga@international.gc.ca or contact Global Affairs Canada’s Emergency Watch and Response Centre 24/7 by telephone at 1 613 996 8885, by email at sos@international.gc.ca or by SMS at 1 613 686 3658.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on January 26-27/2022
A Revived Nuclear Deal Will Not Solve Iran’s Advanced Centrifuge Threat
Andrea Stricker/The national Interest/January 26/2022
Any nuclear agreement that does not permanently remove Iran’s advanced centrifuge threat really is not worth the paper it is written on.
Depending on the day, media reporting suggests that nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers have either recently progressed or are on the brink of failure. Yet even if the parties to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal succeed in reviving it, the accord is wholly inadequate to address the growing threat posed by Tehran’s advanced gas centrifuge uranium enrichment program.
Although Iran in 2019 began exceeding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action’s (JCPOA) limits on its use of advanced centrifuges—machines that can enrich uranium more rapidly and in greater quantities than Iran’s older centrifuge models—the nuclear agreement ultimately permits a major expansion of Tehran’s enrichment program, including the use of advanced machines. The deal’s advanced centrifuge provisions begin a phased expiration from 2024 until 2029.
The JCPOA permits Tehran to enrich no more than 300 kilograms of up to 3.67 percent enriched uranium—a quantity well below weapons-grade—using 5,060 IR-1 machines, which are Iran’s earliest centrifuge models. At the same time, the accord temporarily restricts enrichment using newer and more advanced models, which, termed in order of chronological development, include machines such as the IR-2m, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, IR-6s, IR-7, IR-8, and various offshoots of the IR-6 and later generation centrifuges.
When Tehran and world powers negotiated the JCPOA, Iran was trying to get its IR-4 and other machines to operate reliably. It was, therefore, imperative for the nuclear accord to verifiably restrict Tehran’s development of advanced centrifuges before the clerical regime could master the technology.
The JCPOA ultimately required Iran to store, but not destroy, most of its advanced centrifuges, including those it held in greatest quantities, such as 1,000-1,200 IR-2m and 164 IR-4 machines. Pursuant to the accord, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would monitor Iran’s production of certain centrifuge components to ensure it was not building whole machines.
Nevertheless, the JCPOA did not prevent the regime from working with raw materials and from stockpiling and preparing equipment for a future surge in centrifuge manufacturing. The JCPOA also did not restrict Tehran from carrying out additional advanced centrifuge research and development (R&D) and from testing limited quantities of these centrifuges. The accord permitted Iran to continue R&D via computer modeling of centrifuges, carry out mechanical testing to improve the centrifuges’ functionality, and even test certain advanced models with uranium. The JCPOA did prohibit tests that use uranium from producing any enriched uranium product. But the tests that the deal permitted would still help Iran improve the machines’ performance.
Following President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Iran proceeded to violate the deal by deploying and enriching uranium in large numbers of advanced centrifuges—namely, hundreds of IR-2m, IR-4, and IR-6 models. Perhaps most alarmingly, Tehran has now installed at least 400 IR-6 centrifuges and plans to install a few hundred more. The Institute for Science and International Security estimates that Iran, using just 650 IR-6 machines—which are more than five times more powerful than the IR-1—could make enough weapons-grade uranium for an atomic bomb within a month. Overall, Iran’s breakout time—that is, the amount of time it would take the regime to accumulate enough fissile material for a single nuclear weapon —currently stands at just three weeks.
Still, even if Iran were complying with the JCPOA, the deal itself paves the pathway for the enrichment program’s legalized expansion.
Near the end of 2024, the JCPOA permits Iran to prepare for a “gradual evolution to the next stage of its enrichment activities.” Tehran can produce—without a necessary component called rotors, which facilitate uranium enrichment—up to 200 IR-6 and 200 IR-8 centrifuges per year. Between 2026 and 2029, Iran may deploy and operate a total of between 2,500 and 3,500 IR-2m and IR-4 centrifuges or their equivalent in capacity. Tehran may also test with uranium 150 IR-6 centrifuges and eighty-four IR-8 centrifuges.
These capabilities would considerably reduce Iran’s potential breakout time. After 2031, Iran faces no additional restrictions on its ability to stockpile weapons-grade uranium. Thus, by re-entering the JCPOA, the Biden administration would—at best—buy only a short period of time before the nuclear crisis resumes. At the latest talks, Iran reportedly wants to keep its existing advanced machines intact, and it is highly unlikely that Washington will demand their destruction. Whether the regime’s advanced machines are ultimately dismantled and stored—or shipped out for temporary consignment by another party—Tehran will build back its program in a handful of years.
Through its work to date, Iran has already substantially exceeded the JCPOA’s enrichment limits, including by producing 60 percent enriched uranium, which has no legitimate civilian purpose. As a result, the JCPOA’s provisions are essentially obsolete in delaying the regime’s acquisition of relevant know-how. Yet it appears that the Biden administration will allow the Islamic Republic to extort the United States out of billions of dollars for little in return.
Congress must intervene. Lawmakers should strengthen their oversight role by invoking legislative provisions in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 that would force a congressional vote on any decision by the White House to lift sanctions on Iran. At a minimum, congressional hearings are in order.
Any nuclear agreement that does not permanently remove Iran’s advanced centrifuge threat really is not worth the paper it is written on.
Andrea Stricker is a research fellow on nonproliferation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy. Follow Andrea on Twitter @StrickerNonpro.

'Hajj' Robert Malley
Tariq Al-Homayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/January,26/2022
Reuters quoted the lead US nuclear negotiator, Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley, as saying that his country was unlikely to reach an agreement with Iran in Vienna, unless Tehran releases four US citizens it is holding as hostages.
“They’re separate and we’re pursuing both of them. But I will say it is very hard for us to imagine getting back into the nuclear deal while four innocent Americans are being held hostage by Iran,” Malley told Reuters in an interview. Well, is it about a rational political statement, or a provocative stance for our entire region? It is true that the US envoy takes into account the interests of his country, and we would even say that it is a human issue, but what about an entire region suffering from Iranian terrorism?
In Washington, Robert Malley is nicknamed “Hajj Malley”. Is it reasonable for the Hajj to talk about four prisoners and ignore four Arab capitals that were destroyed because of Iran?
Is it conceivable that “Hajj Malley” points to the four prisoners, while Sanaa, Beirut and Damascus are under the control of Iranian militias and Baghdad is fighting the Iranian blockade and Tehran’s proxies?
Is it logical for “Hajj Malley” to say a nuclear agreement with Iran cannot be completed because of the four prisoners, while Iranian ballistic missiles and drones threaten the security of Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Iraq, and others?
This is unbelievable, and can only be explained politically by inability and failure. I will not describe it as a desire to provoke, but rather recklessness in every sense of the word. Someone might argue that “Hajj Malley” is in charge of serving American interests. This is true, but the security of the region falls within US interests. The simplest example is the Houthis’ targeting of Al Dhafra base in Abu Dhabi, where around 2,000 US soldiers are stationed. The US approach in the Vienna negotiations does neither serve Washington’s interests, nor does it enjoy the support of all members of the US negotiating team there.
Recently, The Wall Street Journal revealed differences within the US delegation, forcing a senior member of the negotiating team, deputy US envoy to Iran Richard Nephew, to leave his post.
Accordingly, the objection to the US approach in Vienna - specifically the stance of “Hajj Malley” - came from the deputy US special envoy to Iran, and no one else! Therefore, the US failure to deal with Iran is not a matter of point of view. It is rather dangerous because it opens the door to nuclear armament in the region, and threatens maritime security, and the security and stability of all neighboring countries.
Failure to deal with Iran portends the collapse of the Iraqi project to build a state of law, the fall of Lebanon, the disappearance of what remains of Syria, and the burning of Yemen, which means igniting sectarian wars that will be catastrophic for the region and Europe in terms of refugees, and more.
This approach also threatens the security of countries that are key for stability in the region, specifically Saudi Arabia and the UAE. No one has any interest in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi fighting wars that will affect the entire region and the international economy. “Hajj Malley’s” statement is provocative, and does not reflect a trustworthy political vision.

The Crisis in Syria is Not Over
Omer Onhon/Asharq Al-Awsat/January,26/2022
The global coalition declared victory against ISIS in Iraq in December 2017 and in Syria in March 2019. ISIS lost territorial control but it did not disappear. A great number of militants were killed. Those who were captured alive were put into prisons like the one in Hasaka. Some managed to flee Syria and Iraq. Some went underground, waiting for the call. ISIS began to reorganize in Iraq, mostly in and around Kirkuk, Diyala, and Salahaddin and in the vicinity of Baghdad. In Syria, Al Sukhna and Deir Ezzor deserts are at the forefront. ISIS has been conducting hit and run operations, ambushes since a long time now. This year, they struck in Diyala in Iraq and Deir Ezzor in Syria causing deaths and other casualties. The attack on Guwayran (Al Sina’a) prison has been the most alarming ISIS action recently.
Is history repeating itself ? Back in the 2000s there was a process in Iraq which ended up with ISIS. The Iraqi army was dissolved. Sunnis were left outside of the system. Kurds and Shiites were made the main pillars of the new Iraq. On top of that, came the sectarian policies of Nuri al-Maliki. Sunnis were enraged and ISIS soon grew in strength.
Today in Syria, the areas where ISIS is growing bigger and stronger are where Iran is very active in terms of establishing itself and in areas which have fallen under the control of Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
These are majority Arab/Sunni and tribal areas. Many locals have decades and in some cases centuries old sensitivities and are not happy with the Shiite and Kurdish presence. It is no surprise that these places have become fertile ground for ISIS activities.
In the north of Syria, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) controls Idlib. The area is administered by the Syrian Salvation Government. Economic activity is dependent basically on Turkey. But trade with other parts of Syria including regime controlled is also ongoing.
HTS is on the terrorist groups lists of almost all countries and international organizations, but is trying to portray a different image. Last year, it carried out operations against armed groups consisting of mainly foreign fighters including East Turkistanis and Central Asians. They were pacified.
By now, all the actors are familiar with HTS and if it is gone, no one can know for sure what its replacement would be. Maybe a much more radical entity. HTS continues to survive and some even question the possibility of a Taliban model here.
In any case, Russia keeps reminding everyone of its presence through aerial bombardment. Among its targets are poultry farms, water depots and sometimes spots nearby refugee tents.
Turkey is very cautious about Idlib. Renewed fighting there, among other things, could lead to a new refugee wave and who knows who else would go to Turkey. Further to the east and north, Afrin and Ayn al-Isa are also volatile. Afrin city center was the target of a car bomb attack and was later hit by shells fired from YPG/regime controlled areas. There were civilian casualties. YPG is testing dangerous waters.
On the other hand, YPG seems adamant to preserve its gains which accumulated over the years. It controls almost 30 percent of Syria. They run these areas through the North and East Syria Autonomous Administration. On several occasions, YPG spokespeople made it clear that they will not accept to return to pre 2011 conditions.
Mazlum Kobani, the YPG leader, stated in a recent interview that the autonomous rule for Kurds must be engraved in the new Syrian constitution and its armed forces (SDG) and Asayish (internal security force) be recognized officially. Russians have established contact between Assad and YPG. Russia and the US are in close coordination on that issue. Assad and YPG may have what they can call common adversaries, but when it comes to the future shape of the country, the two sides are far apart from each other.
In the south of Syria, there is a very complicated state of play with Jordan, Russia, the US, Iran, Israel, the Assad regime and armed opposition, which are neutralized but still fight the regime when needed. Assassinations and armed attacks have not ceased and all sides are on full alert.
Many thought that last year the Assad regime achieved a lot in terms of normalization. The jewel of the crown was expected to be Syria’s taking back its seat at the Arab League (AL) at the summit to be held in March in Algeria. Syria is one of the six founding members of the AL but its membership was suspended in November 2011.
Last week, after in-house consultations within the AL, Algeria announced that the Summit was postponed due to uncertainties of the pandemic.
But most probably, the real cause for the postponement was major problematic issues such as, Algeria-Morocco tensions, war in Yemen and Syria’s return to the AL. Rather than having an unsuccessful meeting, postponement may have been regarded as the better alternative.
Against some AL members’ support for Syria’s return to the Arab League, some Arab countries have been known to be cautious, to say the least.
Many countries outside the AL, among them, the US, most EU members and Turkey are on the same page as regards to relations with the Assad regime.
The crisis in Syria is not over. Assad portrays himself as the victor and he acts as if he is calling the shots. But that is not really the case is it? Reconstruction and return of millions of refugees should be important for Syria. Assad has called upon the Syrians abroad to return, but to no avail. Because they do not trust the Assad regime. They are not sure about what future in Syria holds for them. Nothing is moving in the direction of a political solution. Unless there is a genuine political solution based on UNSC resolution 2254 and genuine support from all parties, normalization and peace and stability seem distant. Nobody really wants crisis to spark again but as things are, this remains to be one of the possibilities.

Where Do Great Presidents Come From? The Campaign Trail
Jonathan Bernstein//Asharq Al-Awsat/January,26/2022
The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf asks: “You can appoint any American citizen to one term as president...so long as your choice has never run for president before. Who do you appoint to the White House and why?”
This sparked … let’s just say that political scientists on Twitter were less than thrilled. Hans Noel of Georgetown University, for example, put it this way: “The problem is in the question, asking people to think of a specific (great) person. The best executive is not anyone in particular, but someone who can work with the rest of the government and their party.” He added, “‘Vote the person not the party’ is perhaps the most pernicious thing in political thinking.”
You may be wondering just what’s so wrong with a hypothetical question that it could rile up people who study the presidency and the US political system, and who of course understand that it was not intended as a literal proposal to do away with elections and let one of us just select a president.
The first thing is the implied importance of the president to begin with. Presidents are important political actors, but they have all sorts of constraints in office, including that they are only one person within a presidency that includes a large White House staff and others within the Executive Office of the President. Because of this, it is easy to vastly overestimate how important the president is.
Much of what is wrongly attributed to a president’s personality, style and character really have nothing to do with such things. On many matters, anyone nominated by the president’s party would have done the same thing. On others, the interests of the nation are what count, and at least most people sitting in the Oval Office would have seen things the same way. And in many cases, the president turns out to be peripheral at best to decisions that are actually made by Congress, by the courts, by executive branch bureaucracies, by state or local governments or by private individuals.
But I think another part of Friedersdorf’s hypothetical bothers me more — the part about appointing someone.
What’s the point of elections? We usually think of elections as mainly about the ability of voters — of citizens — to control the government. And that’s surely important! If people think things are bad, they’ll throw out one set of bums and elect the other set of bums, while if things seem good, they’ll keep the current bums in office. That does set up healthy incentives for politicians, but in a limited way, since few citizens pay close attention to politics and public affairs, and those who pay the most attention tend to be strong partisans and therefore least likely to be swing voters.
But there’s more. The process of running for office, when it’s working well, should tend to produce presidents who have the proper skills for the job. Those are (as Noel implies) political skills. Good politicians thoroughly understand the system. They excel at digging out useful information that allows them to deal successfully with those the president must deal with, most of whom represent various groups of citizens. They are good at bargaining, forming and maintaining coalitions, and more.
Elections don’t just tend to select for those skills; they also teach them to the candidates, because bargaining and coalition-building are the kinds of capabilities that it usually takes to win major party nominations. When nomination systems and parties become dysfunctional (as they were for Democrats in the 1970s and Republicans currently), candidates don’t learn the proper lessons and are likely to be terrible at presidenting if they win.
Another way of looking at the role of elections is through the lens of representation. Presidents, like all elected officials, establish representative relationships with their constituents by making promises during their initial campaigns and then governing with those promises in mind. These promises, which could include everything from specific policies to style in office, are central to republican government. The idea is that governance that will satisfy the nation results not from a president who has deep insights into the best possible policies, but from a whole bunch of politicians, including the president, who are good at picking up clues to the sorts of things that will make them politically successful — which in turn are the things that will turn out to be good public policy.
The notion of “appointing” a president is consistent with completely different concepts of government. One, which presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter espoused, is that by virtue of being elected by the whole nation, the president has some sort of mystical connection with the people and can ascertain what they really want. Such presidents often believe they know the people better than members of Congress or interest group leaders. They are invariably wrong.
That idea is often combined with a notion that politics gets in the way of governing, and that what’s really needed is expertise. That, too, is a bad bet. Neutral expertise is an important source of information for presidents and other politicians, but it is not sufficient. For one thing, no president has all that much expertise; the US government is just too complicated for any individual to know enough. Nor is it sufficient to just hire and defer to experts. The choices politicians must make involve complicated judgments, competing interests and complex trade-offs. They are, that is, political.
The best people for the job aren’t those who embody some abstract conception of greatness. They’re people who have sophisticated political skills, the kinds that are learned by running for lower offices, by serving in legislatures and in elected executive positions, and then by running for presidential nominations. It doesn’t guarantee success. Nothing does. But the democratic wager is that leaders chosen through elections, possessing those political skills, give us a fighting chance at both high-quality self-government and good public policy. What got a bunch of political scientists so annoyed is that the other ways of thinking about political leadership are popular, and have prominent champions in US political culture and history — including presidents such as Wilson and others. There are a lot fewer people standing up for the virtues of politics as usual.

Call the Houthis What They Are — Foreign Terrorists
Richard Kemp/Gatestone Institute/January 26/2022
Following last week's Abu Dhabi attack, Biden said he will consider reversing the decision. That would be the right move and he should do it immediately.
Biden's moves were a classic example of the failure of appeasement. Inevitably, the Iranian ayatollahs were not won over by these and other US placations. Instead they have become increasingly hard-nosed, demanding more US compromises in exchange for fewer restrictions on their nuclear weapons project -- a typical Iranian regime response to perceived weakness.
Ansar Allah still represents a direct terrorist threat to the US. In the past it has taken American citizens hostage and in 2016 fired anti-ship missiles at US vessels off the coast of Yemen.... Ansar Allah also jeopardises wider American interests in the region, as well as its allies.
So far the West has proved impotent in helping to end this devastating war, with all efforts at agreeing a negotiated settlement frustrated largely due to Ansar Allah's intransigence. Its violent offensive against Yemen's Marib Governorate that began last February is further evidence that — with Iranian backing — it continues to seek only the path of war. As events since Biden became president have shown, appeasement is the opposite of the answer.
It is essential that the US renew its strong opposition to Iran's expansionist actions, countering them at every opportunity.... An implacably hard-line stance towards these terrorists is essential to reassure US allies that there are consequences for violence against them.
Re-designation would not prevent Iran from continuing to fuel the Yemen insurgency but it would send a message of US strength to Tehran, one sorely needed in the months following the Afghanistan debacle and the administration's open desperation to renew the nuclear deal at almost any price.
The US administration could overcome this [problem of delivering humanitarian aid] by granting broad licenses and waivers to organizations and companies operating in and around Yemen, enabling essential supplies including food, fuel and medicines to be delivered. This would also need to take account of Ansar Allah's demands for bribes from aid agencies, and their propensity to steal aid for their own profit. This is a challenge the US administration has so far side-stepped but must now clarify.
No doubt such a licensing regime would introduce further complications to the already desperate and fraught humanitarian programmes — on top of the theft of aid by Ansar Allah. But such additional bureaucratic effort is a price that needs to be paid for the wider political and strategic benefits in countering Iranian and Ansar Allah violence.
Despite the depredations of Yemen's Ansar Allah (the Houthis), US President Joe Biden removed the group's Foreign Terrorist designation. Reversing the decision would be the right move and Biden should do it immediately. His administration could overcome the problem of delivering humanitarian aid by granting broad licenses and waivers to entities operating in and around Yemen, enabling essential supplies including food, fuel and medicines to be delivered. This would also need to take account of Ansar Allah's demands for bribes from aid agencies, and their propensity to steal aid for their own profit. Pictured: A girl waits to fill a jerrycan with water at a camp for displaced persons, in Hajjah province, Yemen, on January 16, 2022.
This week, Ansar Allah ("Supporters of God"), also known as the Houthis, an Iranian-backed armed militia in Yemen, launched ballistic missiles against civilian targets in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. This followed a missile and drone strike last week that killed three in Abu Dhabi, capital of the UAE.
These are only the latest aerial attacks by Ansar Allah against the two countries, on top of the large-scale violence, deprivation and suffering it has inflicted on the civilian population of Yemen. Despite Ansar Allah's depredations, almost immediately after he took office US President Joe Biden removed the group's Foreign Terrorist designation that had been imposed by President Donald Trump.
Following last week's Abu Dhabi attack, Biden said he will consider reversing the decision. That would be the right move and he should do it immediately.
Before he de-listed Ansar Allah, Biden also ended Obama's and Trump's policies of support for Saudi Arabia's offensive military operations against the group, including arms supplies. Together these steps emboldened Ansar Allah and their Iranian sponsors and reduced Saudi Arabia's capacity to fight against them.
A US State Department spokesman claimed at the time that the de-listing of Ansar Allah had "nothing to do with" their "reprehensible conduct". So what was it about? Biden claimed the de-listing and cessation of military support to the Saudis would somehow contribute towards ending the conflict. He also suggested it would enable more effective delivery of humanitarian aid to the destitute people of Yemen whom the Ansar Allah have been holding as hostages, and which Ansar Allah had apparently been blocking.
Two other factors undoubtedly influenced Biden's decision, perhaps even more than what he must have known was a vain hope of conflict resolution.
First, he was already on a spree of reversing any policy with Trump's fingerprints on it. Perhaps even more importantly however, was that Biden, desperate to restore Obama's deeply-flawed nuclear agreement with Iran, may have hoped these concessions would play well in Tehran, given the reality of the ayatollahs' use of Yemen as a proxy war against Saudi Arabia.
Biden's moves were a classic example of the failure of appeasement. Inevitably, the Iranian ayatollahs were not won over by these and other US placations. Instead they have become increasingly hard-nosed, demanding more US compromises in exchange for fewer restrictions on their nuclear weapons project -- a typical Iranian regime response to perceived weakness.
Meanwhile, according to the UN, since being de-listed Ansar Allah has stepped up its aggression, including increased Iranian-supported drone strikes against US allies in the region as we have seen continuing in recent days.
The Ansar Allah insurgency, now in its seventh year, has led to a humanitarian crisis branded by the UN as the worst in the world, with large-scale human rights abuse and more than 230,000 estimated dead. Vast numbers have been displaced, deprived of food, medicines and basic services and the country has seen the largest cholera outbreak ever recorded, with 2.5 million suspected cases. An estimated 400,000 children are suffering from malnutrition. Twenty million people, two thirds of the population, are assessed by the UN to be in need of humanitarian aid.
Ansar Allah now controls Yemen's capital, Sanaa, and 60% of the country, with around 50% of the population under its tyranny, which is reminiscent of the Islamic State. Ansar Allah carries out mass public executions, torture, assassinations and bomb attacks on government officials; murders civilians with snipers, missiles, drones, mines and car bombs; uses child soldiers and sexual violence and destroys civilian infrastructure and aid warehouses. It has been confirmed seizing vessels and accused of attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. It has sought to blackmail the UN by imposing ever more conditions on plans to make safe a deteriorating oil storage tanker, the Safer, moored off the city of Al Hudaydah. The vessel contains an estimated 1.1 million barrels of crude oil, and threatens an environmental crisis that will devastate much of the region, destroy local fish stocks and deprive eight million Yemenis of access to running water.
Ansar Allah's bloodthirsty motto is: "Allah is greater, death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews, victory to Islam". Previous US military defensive action may have deterred it, but Ansar Allah still represents a direct terrorist threat to the US. In the past it has taken American citizens hostage and in 2016 fired anti-ship missiles at US vessels off the coast of Yemen. The first damaged a US transport ship leased to the UAE and subsequent strikes against two US warships were deflected by naval countermeasures.
Ansar Allah also jeopardises wider American interests in the region, as well as its allies. As mentioned, we have seen strikes on Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both members of the Arab coalition fighting against them. Its ambitions may be broader. Ansar Allah has frequently threatened Israel, and last May one of its leaders proclaimed the movement was "shoulder to shoulder" in the fight against the Jewish state. It has the Iranian-supplied drones and missiles to turn such rhetoric into reality, perhaps as part of a Tehran-coordinated attack.
So far the West has proved impotent in helping to end this devastating war, with all efforts at agreeing a negotiated settlement frustrated largely due to Ansar Allah's intransigence. Its violent offensive against Yemen's Marib Governorate that began last February is further evidence that — with Iranian backing — it continues to seek only the path of war. As events since Biden became president have shown, appeasement is the opposite of the answer. Appeasement not only emboldened the group; it granted a major concession without any reciprocation, making its cooperation in any negotiations less likely and further undermining the already virtually non-existent leverage of the international community.
Like America, Britain has significant national interests to defend in the Gulf, and Saudi Arabia and the UAE are key allies and trading partners. Despite strong pressure, the UK did not follow the US lead in ceasing arms supplies and other military support to Saudi. It continued to recognise the value of providing precision weapons, intelligence and targeting support both in the interests of reducing collateral damage and increasing the effectiveness of operations against Ansar Allah.
Lord Sharpe, a British government front bench spokesman, commented last week that the UK was keeping under review the designation of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps acknowledging that its role includes supporting Ansar Allah. The government should certainly do this, and also designate Ansar Allah as a Proscribed Terrorist Group, irrespective of any US decision.
Re-designating Ansar Allah, a move that is supported by the internationally-recognised government of Yemen, will not end the conflict. But it will damage the terrorist group, enabling asset-freezing and further US sanctions and pressurising other nations to follow suit. However, as Ansar Allah depends mainly on clandestine support from Iran, illegal taxation, theft of resources including international aid and profiteering, rather than the international financial system, the economic effects will be limited.
Re-designation will enable prosecution of Ansar Allah members and those supporting them as well as potentially providing a useful tool in any future peace talks. Re-designation would not prevent Iran from continuing to fuel the Yemen insurgency but it would send a message of US strength to Tehran, one sorely needed in the months following the Afghanistan debacle and the administration's open desperation to renew the nuclear deal at almost any price.
Yemen is only one front in Iran's widespread regional aggression that embraces Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Israel. It is essential that the US renew its strong opposition to Iran's expansionist actions, countering them at every opportunity. That would include supporting regional allies and fully restoring arms sales to Saudi Arabia for its fight against Iranian proxies in Yemen. An implacably hard-line stance towards these terrorists is essential to reassure US allies that there are consequences for violence against them.
Such policies, of course, are in direct opposition to Biden's over-arching determination to return to the nuclear deal, which should in any case be abandoned in the interests of regional and global security.
Other than the nuclear deal miscalculations, the only argument against re-designation of Ansar Allah is the effect it might have on commercial imports and international aid which are vital to the people of Yemen. Suppliers and shipping companies would be concerned about the consequences of breaching US sanctions and humanitarian agencies would be worried that their work could lead to legal action for cooperating with a designated terrorist group.
The US administration could overcome this by granting broad licenses and waivers to organizations and companies operating in and around Yemen, enabling essential supplies including food, fuel and medicines to be delivered. This would also need to take account of Ansar Allah's demands for bribes from aid agencies, and their propensity to steal aid for their own profit. This is a challenge the US administration has so far side-stepped but must now clarify.
No doubt such a licensing regime would introduce further complications to the already desperate and fraught humanitarian programmes — on top of the theft of aid by Ansar Allah. But such additional bureaucratic effort is a price that needs to be paid for the wider political and strategic benefits in countering Iranian and Ansar Allah violence.
Colonel Richard Kemp is a former British Army Commander. He was also head of the international terrorism team in the U.K. Cabinet Office and is now a writer and speaker on international and military affairs. He is a Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
© 2022 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

The Importance of Upholding the Constitution, the Right to Counsel and the Presumption of Innocence
Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/January 26/2022
[W]hen law professors such as Cornell University's Michael Dorf -- who is an acolyte, water-carrier and co-author of America's most prominent constitutional hypocrite, Professor Laurence Tribe -- set out to defame... anyone, for a principled representation of unpopular defendants, it becomes clear, and alarming, how much trouble the Constitution is in.
Dorf apparently does not remember the principle often attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
He also deliberately omits the fact that my "oeuvre" includes representing half of my clients on a pro bono basis and that many of my cases have focused on the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and the death penalty.
[T]he reader is given no idea even of how many people were included in this admittedly "unscientific poll," or how they were selected.
Sometimes it takes an absurd event to illustrate the high cost of upholding crucial principles, such as the right to counsel. For nearly 60 years, I have tried to emulate John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Clarence Darrow, Thurgood Marshall, Edward Bennett Williams and others in the pantheon of my legal heroes, by representing, as they did, the most hated and vilified defendants. In making that career choice, I knew that I would be criticized by those who do not understand the constitutional right to counsel and the need for every defendant to receive zealous representation.
But when law professors such as Cornell University's Michael Dorf -- who is an acolyte, water-carrier and co-author of America's most prominent constitutional hypocrite, Professor Laurence Tribe -- set out to defame me, or anyone, for a principled representation of unpopular defendants, it becomes clear, and alarming, how much trouble the Constitution is in. Dorf conducted what he called a "Highly Unscientific Twitter Poll for Most Embarrassing Yale Law School Alum" He put my name prominently on the list because "Dershowitz seems to take special pride in defending people whose alleged conduct he claims to disapprove--including, especially, Donald Trump." Dorf apparently does not remember the principle often attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Dorf acknowledges that some people might dislike me or others because "they disagree with his extreme conception of the lawyer as a zealous advocate."
Dorf also accuses me of a willingness "to say fairly outrageous things simply so people pay attention," but without citing a single example from my writings or statements. He could, of course, have cited examples of "outrageous things" from his mentor, Tribe, who garnered media attention by calling Senator Mitch McConnell a "flagrant dickhead" and then-President Donald J. Trump "dickhead-in-chief."
Dorf goes on speciously to say that I deserve special condemnation because I "represent men who behaved terribly towards women (e.g., Claus von Bulow, O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson, Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump) that suggests at least a possibility of misogyny." In his apparent ignorance and malice, he could not resist the temptation to make a gratuitous reference to the fact I once received a massage from a professional therapist in Jeffrey Epstein's home, years before I represented Epstein, but omitting the fact that it was a shoulder massage, that my wife also received a massage, and that I never even met the woman who falsely accused me of having sex with her years after that therapeutic massage.
In purporting to describe my "career-long oeuvre, a tendency to represent men," Dorf also maliciously omits the fact that I have defended more women than most other lawyers, including Mia Farrow, Patricia Hearst, Leona Helmsley, Gigi Jordan, Lucille Miller, Sandra Murphy and numerous less well-known women who alleged harassment by men. He also deliberately omits the fact that my "oeuvre" includes representing half of my clients on a pro bono basis and that many of my cases have focused on the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and the death penalty. In light of Dorf's deliberately misrepresentation of my "oeuvre," it is not surprising that I came out ahead of Justice Samuel Alito and even Stuart Rhodes (the founder of "Oath Keepers") in his slanted, left-wing unpopularity poll.
Normally, one would ignore such a childish and malicious enterprise, because the reader is given no idea even of how many people were included in this admittedly "unscientific poll," or how they were selected. He acknowledges that the poll was "lawyer-skewed" and "liberal-skewed," but the fact that so many highly educated people are prepared to condemn a lawyer for his "oeuvre" tells us something chilling about today's legal education that cannot be ignored.
So, I will take my victory in Dorf's dishonor roll as a red badge of courage and continue to represent people whom he and his readers despise. I am proud to have gone to Yale Law School and to be living a life of principle based on what I was taught there by professors such as Alex Bickel, Telford Taylor, Joseph and Abe Goldstein, Jay Katz and Guido Calabrese. I do not think they would be embarrassed by my "oeuvre." They understood the crucial role of a "zealous lawyer" in our adversary system of justice, even if Dorf and his ilk do not. More importantly, they understood the alternative system that prevails in so many tyrannies, where zealous advocates and their unpopular clients are treated much worse than finishing atop an "unpopularity poll" by an unprincipled partisan like Dorf.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School and served on the legal team representing President Donald Trump for the first Senate impeachment trial. He is the author of numerous books, including his latest, The Case for Color-Blind Equality in an Age of Identity Politics. His podcast, "The Dershow," is available on Spotify and YouTube. He is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
© 2022 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.

US pipeline withdrawal marks new EastMed chapter
Henri J Barkey/The Arab Weekly/January 26/2022
Earlier this month, the United States surprised Greece and its two primary partners in the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum, Israel and Cyprus, by withdrawing its backing for a natural gas pipeline that would have connected them to Europe. The American change of heart was ostensibly justified by the need to focus on clean energy sources and that this project did not align with Europe’s green energy plan. Instead, Washington urged the countries to consider two alternative electricity transmission projects; the EuroAfrica interconnector intended to deliver electricity from Egypt through Cyprus and then onwards to Greece and Europe via Crete and its sister EuroAsia project that starts in Israel and connects to Europe through Cyprus. Both projects integrate these countries’ electricity grids with Europe’s.The EastMed gas pipeline idea emerged after significant discoveries of gas deposits in the territorial waters of Cyprus, Egypt and Israel. The pipeline, which would have cost an estimated $6-7 billion, was seen by many as an unrealistic project given the potential changes in the European energy consumption patterns, its sheer complexity, cost and the financing needs. Chances were that it would not get off the ground much less be completed by 2025 as projected.The US State Department withdrew support for the project through the delivery of a non-paper, an informal manner of expressing a government’s preferences or requirement without direct attribution. Presumably, the content could have been delivered orally except that Washington may have tried to avoid a situation where its message was diluted.
Even if the US may have thought it had a responsibility as part of the 3+1 mechanism of meetings with Cyprus, Greece and Israel designed to encourage regional cooperation, the fact remains that the decision to build a pipeline rests with those three countries and the Europeans and not Washington.
Similarly, if the project did not fit the future European green energy plans, presumably this too was a European decision. After all, both Greece and Cyprus are members of the European Union. But as it stands now, this announcement will be perceived as an attempt by Washington at strong-arming the parties. The timing of the non-paper was awkward. Europe and the US are amid one of the most dangerous confrontations with Russia over Ukraine. Russian natural gas pipelines are the ones that heat European homes and fuel industry. If President Vladimir Putin were to attack Ukraine, it appears that the recently completed Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline to Germany would be the first target of retaliation. Even if the EastMed pipeline was an unrealistic option, would it not have been more astute to let Putin think that Europe has other options? The Biden administration’s opposition to the EastMed pipeline originates from its very public commitment, almost ideological, to speeding up the transition to renewable sources of energy.
This said, the EuroAfrica and the EuroAsia connectors have the advantage of flexibility in sourcing, that is, electricity can be generated from a variety of sources ranging from solar to natural gas. The EuroAfrica’s first phase, between Egypt and Cyprus, is planned to be operational by December 2023 and the second, from Cyprus to Greece, at the end of 2024. Planning for the EuroAsia connector, by contrast, is not as advanced as its Africa counterpart. Still, the gas in the region will find outlets in the region. Surprisingly Israel recently agreed for some of its gas to be shipped to Lebanon through a circuitous route but more importantly, Egypt has been ramping up its Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) capabilities. This will allow Cairo to export its own gas as well as that of its neighbours to a more diverse and flexible market.
The original January 2020 EastMed agreement between Cyprus, Greece and Israel and its incorporation of other countries including Egypt, Palestine and France, represented a fundamental geopolitical shift in the region that will endure irrespective of the pipeline’s fate. It helped create an anti-Turkish partnership designed to contain Ankara’s increasingly assertive policies in the region as well as to unlock new cooperative opportunities.
In a complete misreading of Washington’s decision, the Turkish government and its press acclaimed the move as an immense win for Turkey. Ankara had always voiced objections to the gas pipeline arguing that the only way to export gas to Europe was through Turkey. The problem was that the Erdogan government had alienated Israel and moreover, Turkey does not recognise Cyprus, which made any such deal impossible. Israel by aligning itself with Cyprus has made future cooperation with Turkey over gas highly unlikely.
Turkish-American relations have been fraught of late; Ankara has found itself on the receiving end of American ire as disputes over Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles that would endanger America’s front-line F-35 planes to disagreements over northern Syria and a litany of other discords have estranged the two allies. At a time when the Erdogan government is struggling to contain an economic crisis, increasing disenchantment at home and a sense of siege, it was not surprising for Ankara to play up the US pipeline decision as good news.
Herein also lies another problem: Given the Turkish leadership’s propensity to believe its own interpretation of events, will this cause them to miscalculate and once again up the ante in the Eastern Mediterranean? Only time will tell.

شارل الياس شرتوني: عودة الحرب الباردة الأوكرانية
Ukrainian Cold War Redux
Charles Elias Chartouni/January 26/2022
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/105886/105886/
The Ukrainian crisis that started in 2014 (Crimea and the Donbas) has never stopped and seems to usher a new critical stage which questions the post Cold War geopolitics, staggering borders, and alternative political cultures. Far from being restricted to the Belorussian, Georgian, Crimean, Donestian former Soviet oblasts…, the rising Russian imperialism seems to put at stake the new geopolitical order, threaten European and Western security, question their political culture and strategic consensuses, and elicit legitimate concerns all across the NATO political spectrum. The Russian massive movement of troops towards Ukraine, its overt insinuations and strategic subtexts have been carefully orchestrated on different frontiers: Belorussian-Polish, Baltic States entries matched with revisionist rhetorics jeopardizing the post Cold War equilibriums, through insidious triangulations, blatant destabilization strategies and instrumentalization of energy politics highlighted in the cases of Syria, Iran, Armenia,Lybia, and the European Union…,.
The Ukrainian crisis reflects the historical dilemmas of Russian geopolitical anchoring, civilizational quandaries and democratic travails. Putin is not only apprehensive of the extension of NATO’s strategic canopy which he deliberately recanted as a direct rebuttal to Gorbatchev’s philosophy of the “common European Home” (Strasbourg, Rome, Brussels 1989). This “Soviet” revisionism however reminiscent of older debates in Russia which pitted its European and Asian strategic and civilizational coordinates against each other, is quite hazardous since it runs against the grain of liberalization and westernization of Russian political and cultural values, the Russians aspiration to normalize and integrate the European and international community rules. The resuscitation of the imperial hubris and playbook, the cultivation of fear and distrust towards the West, and the tightening of autocratic controls highlighted by the presidential lifetime mandate (constitutional amendment,January 2020), and the mafia-drift exercise of power, the control of the domineering “Soviet” military nomenklatura, and the instrumentalization of sham democratic institutions, are the variables which account for the energized imperial drive. NATO, OSCE and the US have no choice but to counter the military movements throughout the European limes with Russia, raise the conventional and nuclear thresholds, solidify the demarcation lines, upgrade incrementally the financial and economic sanctions, and endorse the domestic political opposition.
The current Russian power politics revolve mainly around destabilization, perpetuation of frozen conflicts scenarios, catalyzing and creating synergies between rogue States and political wastelands (Iran, Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua…),arbitration of regional disputes and conflicts and active sabotaging (Israel, Syria, Turkey, Lybia….), promoting social, economic and civil unrest, hamstringing national security, disrupting self confidence and sowing discord in Western societies, and interfacing with Chinese imperial projections. The imperial juggling of a nasty autocrat is too dangerous to be left to its own devices and to the unrestricted usage of his discretionary power, especially that his imperial ambitions do not match his midget and underperforming economy, highly controversial foreign policy forays and oppressive domestic authoritarianism. The Ukrainian conflicts are highly symptomatic of the challenges of the New Cold War and its hazardous fallouts.