English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For 04 July/2022
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2021/english.july04.22.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
You received without payment; give without payment
Matthew 10/08-15: "Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment. Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for labourers deserve their food. Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave. As you enter the house, greet it. If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town."

Titels For English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on July 03-04/2022
Israel condemns Hezbollah in Lapid’s first cabinet meeting as PM
Lapid: Hezbollah undermining Lebanon ability to reach sea border deal
Lapid Says Israel Would Take Any Step Necessary to Defend Itself after Hezbollah Launches Drones
Lebanon's Hezbollah Confirms it Launched Drones Towards Karish Field
Israel shoots down Hezbollah drones over Mediterranean
Bou Habib expects border deal with Israel in September
Arab Foreign Ministers Renew Confidence in Lebanon's Stability, Future
Rahi determines how a Christian should deal in political affairs
Hajjar meets religious, civil officials in Jordan
Fayyad participates in water sector damage assessment meeting in Cairo
Corona - MoPH organizes Pfizer Marathon tomorrow
Bushkian: Lebanon is determined to restore its stability
Yazbek: Hezbollah does not want to demarcate borders to preserve its weapons and strengthen Iran's role in Lebanon
Qubaisi calls on parties to form a government

Titles For Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News publishedon July 02-03/2022
Mystery Shrouds Iran’s Downplaying of Israeli Assassinations
Iran purges security apparatus amid Israeli espionage fears
Iran's Chief Nuclear Negotiator Arrives in Moscow on Unannounced Visit
Israel Says it Will Test Bullet that Killed Abu Akleh, Palestinians Disagree
Russia takes Lysychansk, completing conquest of Luhansk Oblast
Russian laser scientist dies two days after arrest for state treason
Russia says it has complete control over Luhansk Oblast, Ukraine denies
Battle rages for Ukraine city, Belarus says downed missiles
Iraq: Sadr Challenges Rivals, Prepares for New Protests
De Mistura Visits Rabat to Discuss Disputed Western Sahara
Hundreds of anti-coup protesters in Sudan defy security forces
'Fragile situation' as Libya anger boils over living conditions

Titles For LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 02-03/2022
The US and Iran’s indirect nuclear deal negotiations in Doha ended in failure/Tariq Al-Homayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/July, 03/2022
Democrats Need Patriotism Now More Than Ever/Jedediah Britton-Purdy/The New York times/July 03/2022
Compromises Make Agreements/Najib Saab/Asharq Al-Awsat/July, 03/2022
The Woke Inquisitors Have Come for the Freethinking Heretics/J.B. Shurk/Gatestone Institute./July 03/2022
The Race Between Fateful Summits from Madrid to Ashgabat/Raghida Dergham/The National/July 03/2022
Violence surges in countryside surrounding Damascus/Haid Haid/The Arab Weekly/July 03/2022
Marshall Plan for the Middle East/Ronald S. Lauder/Arab News/July 03/2022

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on July 03-04/2022
Israel condemns Hezbollah in Lapid’s first cabinet meeting as PM
The Arab Weekly/July 03/2022
Israel’s Prime Minister Yair Lapid accused Hezbollah of undermining Lebanon’s efforts to reach an agreement on their disputed energy-rich maritime border, as the new premier hosted his first cabinet meeting Sunday.
Lapid, who retains his previous post as Israel’s foreign minister, took over as prime minister on Friday from Naftali Bennett, his partner in a now defunct eight-party coalition. On Saturday, Israel’s army said it had intercepted three drones launched by Hezbollah that were headed towards an offshore gas field in the Mediterranean, near a disputed area that is the subject of US-mediated maritime talks. “Hezbollah is continuing on the path of terrorism and is hurting Lebanon’s ability to reach an agreement on a maritime border,” Lapid said. Lebanon’s Iran-backed Hezbollah movement confirmed it had launched drones towards the Mediterranean’s Karish gas field. Israel said the drones, which were not armed, were downed by a fighter jet and missiles launched from a warship as they headed towards the offshore area. Israel and previous United Nations maps put Karish within Israel’s maritime borders, and not in the disputed area subject to ongoing negotiations. But Lebanon last month condemned Israel when a vessel chartered by Israel and operated by London-listed Greek energy firm Energean entered the Karish field. Hezbollah at the time warned Energean against proceeding with its activities. Lebanon and Israel resumed negotiations on their maritime border in 2020, but the process was stalled by Beirut’s claim that the map used by the UN in the talks needed modifying. Lebanon initially demanded 860 square kilometres (330 square miles) of waters it said were under dispute, but then asked for an additional 1,430 square kilometres (552 square miles), including part of the Karish field. Rising tensions with Lebanon are among a growing list of foreign challenges facing Lapid, who will serve as a caretaker premier until elections set for November 1, Israel’s fifth vote in less than four years. He is scheduled to hold talks in Paris this week with French President Emmanuel Macron as world powers revive efforts to restore a nuclear accord with Iran, which Israel opposes. US President Joe Biden is also due in Israel later this month for his first trip to the Jewish state since taking office.

Lapid: Hezbollah undermining Lebanon ability to reach sea border deal
Associated Press/Sunday, 03 July, 2022
Israel's caretaker Prime Minister Yair Lapid on Sunday warned that Israel would take any step necessary to "defend" itself, after it shot down three drones launched by Hezbollah a day earlier. Hezbollah launched the unmanned aircraft toward an area where an Israeli gas platform was recently installed in the Mediterranean Sea. The move appeared to be an attempt by Hezbollah to influence U.S.-brokered negotiations between Israel and Lebanon over their maritime border, an area that is rich in natural gas. "Hezbollah continues its path of terrorism, undermining Lebanon's ability to reach an agreement on the maritime border. Israel will continue to protect itself, its citizens and its assets," Lapid said. He noted that the drones "attempted to damage Israeli infrastructure in Israel's economic waters."Referring to Israel's domestic political turmoil, Lapid said: "The education crisis cannot wait. Budgets for hospitals cannot be postponed. The Iranians, Hamas and Hezbollah are not waiting. We have to act against them in all arenas, at any given moment, and that is exactly what we will do."On Saturday, in his first speech as caretaker PM, Lapid had said: "I stand before you at this moment and say to everyone seeking our demise, from Gaza to Tehran, from the shores of Lebanon to Syria: Don't test us.""Israel knows how to use its strength against every threat, against every enemy," he added. Israel last month set up a gas rig in the Karish field, which it says lies within part of its internationally recognized economic waters. Lebanon has claimed it is in disputed waters. Hezbollah issued a short statement, confirming it had launched three unarmed drones toward the disputed maritime issue over the Karish field on a reconnaissance mission. "The mission was accomplished and the message was received" by Israel, it said. Israel and Hezbollah are bitter enemies that fought a monthlong war in the summer of 2006. Israel considers the Iranian-backed Lebanese group its most serious immediate threat, estimating it has some 150,000 rockets and missiles aimed at Israel. The U.S. last week said that mediator Amos Hochstein had held conversations with the Lebanese and Israeli sides. "The exchanges were productive and advanced the objective of narrowing differences between the two sides. The United States will remain engaged with parties in the days and weeks ahead," his office said in a statement last week. Lebanon and Israel, which have been officially at war since Israel's creation in 1948, both claim some 860 square kilometers of the Mediterranean Sea. Lebanon hopes to exploit offshore gas reserves as it grapples with the worst economic crisis in its modern history. On Saturday, careraker Prime Minister Najib Mikati told reporters that Lebanon received "encouraging information" regarding the border dispute but refused to comment further saying Beirut is waiting for the "written official response to the suggestions by the Lebanese side."

Lapid Says Israel Would Take Any Step Necessary to Defend Itself after Hezbollah Launches Drones
Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 3 July, 2022
Israel's caretaker Prime Minister Yair Lapid held his first Cabinet meeting on Sunday since taking over as leader, promising a functional government despite the political instability that is sending Israel to its fifth elections in less than four years. Lapid, sitting next to his predecessor power-sharing partner Naftali Bennett, also warned that Israel would take any step necessary to defend itself after it shot down three unmanned aircraft launched by Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Lapid faced his first challenge on Saturday, when Hezbollah launched its unmanned aircraft toward an area where an Israeli gas platform was recently installed in the Mediterranean Sea. “Hezbollah continues its path of terrorism, undermining Lebanon’s ability to reach an agreement on the maritime border. Israel will continue to protect itself, its citizens and its assets,” he said. Lapid took over last week as prime minister as part of an agreement forged last year that created the coalition government. Bennett led it initially but stepped down following a series of defections and legislative defeats. Parliament dissolved itself, triggering new elections and handing power to Lapid. Israel will head to the polls again on Nov. 1, when Lapid will seek to convince voters to adopt his centrist vision and deny former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was ousted last year after more than a decade in power, a chance to return to lead the country. Bennett will not run in November. “In the coming months our goal, of this whole table, is to run the government as if there is no election campaign. The citizens of Israel deserve a functioning government at any given moment,” Lapid said.

Lebanon's Hezbollah Confirms it Launched Drones Towards Karish Field
Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 3 July, 2022
Lebanon's Hezbollah said Saturday it had launched three drones towards an offshore gas field in the Mediterranean, after Israel's army said it had intercepted drones belonging to the Iran-backed movement."On Saturday afternoon, three unarmed drones were launched towards the disputed Karish field for reconnaissance missions," the Shiite group said in a statement. "The mission was accomplished," it added, without mentioning any Israeli interception. The launch of the aircraft appeared to be an attempt by Hezbollah to influence US-brokered negotiations between Israel and Lebanon over their maritime border, an area that is rich in natural gas. In a statement, the Israeli army said the aircraft were spotted early on and did not pose an "imminent threat.” Nonetheless, the incident drew a stern warning from Israel’s caretaker prime minister, Yair Lapid. "I stand before you at this moment and say to everyone seeking our demise, from Gaza to Tehran, from the shores of Lebanon to Syria: Don’t test us,” Lapid said in his first address to the nation since taking office on Friday. "Israel knows how to use its strength against every threat, against every enemy.”

Israel shoots down Hezbollah drones over Mediterranean
AP/July 03, 2022
JERUSALEM: The Israeli military on Saturday said it shot down three unmanned aircraft launched by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah heading toward an area where an Israeli gas platform was recently installed in the Mediterranean Sea. The launch of the aircraft appeared to be an attempt by Hezbollah to influence US-brokered negotiations between Israel and Lebanon over their maritime border, an area that is rich in natural gas. In a statement, the Israeli said the aircraft were spotted early on and did not pose an “imminent threat.” Nonetheless, the incident drew a stern warning from Israel’s caretaker prime minister, Yair Lapid. “I stand before you at this moment and say to everyone seeking our demise, from Gaza to Tehran, from the shores of Lebanon to Syria: Don’t test us,” Lapid said in his first address to the nation since taking office on Friday. “Israel knows how to use its strength against every threat, against every enemy.”Israel earlier this month set up a gas rig in the Karish field, which Israel says lies within part of its internationally recognized economic waters. Lebanon has claimed it is in disputed waters. Hezbollah issued a short statement, confirming it had launched three unarmed drones toward the disputed maritime issue over the Karish field on a reconnaissance mission. “The mission was accomplished and the message was received,” it said. Israel and Hezbollah are bitter enemies that fought a monthlong war in the summer of 2006. Israel considers the Iranian-backed Lebanese group its most serious immediate threat, estimating it has some 150,000 rockets and missiles aimed at Israel. The US last week said that mediator Amos Hochstein had held conversations with the Lebanese and Israeli sides. “The exchanges were productive and advanced the objective of narrowing differences between the two sides. The United States will remain engaged with parties in the days and weeks ahead,” his office said in a statement last week. The two countries, which have been officially at war since Israel’s creation in 1948, both claim some 860 square kilometers (330 square miles) of the Mediterranean Sea. Lebanon hopes to exploit offshore gas reserves as it grapples with the worst economic crisis in its modern history. On Saturday, Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati told reporters that Lebanon received “encouraging information” regarding the border dispute but refused to comment further saying Beirut is waiting for the “written official response to the suggestions by the Lebanese side.”

Bou Habib expects border deal with Israel in September
Naharnet/Sunday, 03 July, 2022
Caretaker Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib said Sunday that he expects Lebanon and Israel to reach a sea border demarcation agreement in September. Bou Habib made the announcement in remarks to LBCI television. The statement comes a day after Hezbollah sent three unarmed drones towards an Israeli gas rig in the Karish field, in what it said was a reconaissance mission over a "disputed" territory.Hezbollah also said that the launching of the drones was aimed at sending a "message" to Israel. Hezbollah's move appears to be an attempt to influence U.S.-brokered negotiations between Israel and Lebanon over their maritime border, an area that is rich in natural gas. Israel last month set up a gas rig in the Karish field, which it says lies within part of its internationally recognized economic waters. Lebanon has claimed it is in disputed waters. The U.S. last week said that mediator Amos Hochstein had held conversations with the Lebanese and Israeli sides. "The exchanges were productive and advanced the objective of narrowing differences between the two sides. The United States will remain engaged with parties in the days and weeks ahead," his office said in a statement last week. Lebanon and Israel, which have been officially at war since Israel's creation in 1948, both claim some 860 square kilometers of the Mediterranean Sea. Lebanon hopes to exploit offshore gas reserves as it grapples with the worst economic crisis in its modern history.On Saturday, careraker Prime Minister Najib Mikati told reporters that Lebanon received "encouraging information" regarding the border dispute but refused to comment further saying Beirut is waiting for the "written official response to the suggestions by the Lebanese side."

Arab Foreign Ministers Renew Confidence in Lebanon's Stability, Future
Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 03 July, 2022
The Arab foreign ministers reaffirmed Arab support and solidarity with Lebanon, reflecting "confidence in Lebanon's stability and future," announced Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit. Arab foreign ministers arrived in Beirut to participate in the consultative meeting in preparation for the Arab Summit that will be held in Algeria in November. The meeting concluded on Saturday with the participation of the Arab Foreign Ministers except for Syria, whose membership remains suspended. Ahead of the meeting, a delegation of participants visited the presidential palace in Baabda and met with President Michel Aoun, who stressed the importance of Arab-Arab relations. "Lebanon, despite its difficult circumstances, is determined to face challenges and find solutions to get out of its crises,” said Aoun. He reiterated that Lebanon could no longer bear the burden of the large numbers of refugees and displaced persons on its land.
"We hope that you will help us to face these challenges."Aoun said the Arab world is facing several challenges that require consultation and cooperation, adding that solidarity between Arab countries is essential in light of the current crises.The President told the ministers that Lebanon suffers from a series of accumulated crises, adding that the large numbers of refugees and displaced people in Lebanon put a burden on the country. "The international community's position does not encourage finding quick solutions," said Aoun. The President hoped the Arab Foreign Ministers would "help face these challenges," stressing that "Lebanon, despite its difficult circumstances, is determined to face challenges and find solutions to get out of its crises." Aboul Gheit pointed out that the Arab League supports Lebanon, its government, and its people. He asserted that meetings between Arab Foreign Ministers are essential for communication, which would led to agreements on projects and programs that benefit the League.
Aboul Gheit considered holding the meeting in Beirut at this time essential and significant to assert that the Arab countries stand by Lebanon, its political leadership, and its people. He said the League hopes "this beautiful country and its long history will overcome the economic and political problems it faces."
Later, the Arab delegation met with Speaker Nabih Berri, who reiterated that Lebanon "will not forget its Arab brothers, nor forget Taif, Doha, or Kuwait." Berri asserted that Lebanon is in a "state of cessation of payment (of debt) and possesses all the elements of revival and resurrection from crises" with the sincere help of its people and Arab countries.Lebanon has an expatriate community spread out in the Arab states and worldwide, said the Speaker, adding that it has an important humanitarian, cultural, and financial tributary that can constitute an important and pivotal factor in advancing alongside the water, oil, and gas wealth in the sea, especially at the borders with Palestine.
The Meeting
The consultative meeting was chaired by the caretaker foreign minister, Abdullah Bouhabib. Lebanon chairs the current session of the Council of Arab Foreign Ministers. After the meeting, Assistant Secretary-General Ambassador Hossam Zaki told reporters that they discussed the preparations for the Arab summit in Algeria and the catastrophic situation of famine in Somalia in light of the difficult climatic conditions and Arab food security. He noted that General Secretariat prepared the plan, which will be submitted in September, adding that they also discussed the Palestinian issue. "The conferees expressed support and solidarity with Lebanon, but no side issues were put forward," added Zaki. Upon his arrival, the Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki affirmed the importance of Lebanon among Arab countries, noting that the arrival of foreign ministers to Beirut is significant. He told reporters that his visit confirms the unique relations that unite Lebanon with Palestine and freely discuss Palestinian concerns and issues. Jordan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi conveyed King Abdullah's greetings to the Lebanese President, expressing the King's keenness to enhance the "historical and brotherly" relations between the countries.Safadi said that Jordan supports Lebanon's efforts to overcome the challenging conditions and restore its crucial role, stressing that protecting Lebanon's stability is fundamental to regional security and stability.

Rahi determines how a Christian should deal in political affairs
NNA/Sunday, 03 July, 2022
Maronite Patriarch, Cardinal Bechara Boutros Al-Rahi, presided over the Sunday mass in Bkerke, this morning. In his sermon, Patriarch Al-Rahi considered that the Christian who deals with political affairs is called to exercise his service in the spirit of impartiality and sincere dedication to serving the common good. Al-Rahi demanded the formation of a new government because Lebanon needs it, and that it be an inclusive government that inspires confidence through its national line and its seriousness in completing the outstanding issues. The Patriarch also called for the election of a new president to bring Lebanon out of the gutter, at least one month before the end of the president's term, or two months at the most.

Hajjar meets religious, civil officials in Jordan
NNA/Sunday, 03 July, 2022
Caretaker Minister of Social Affairs Hector Hajjar, held, during the second day of his visit to Jordan, a number of meetings with the aim of informing a group of spiritual and civil officials about the social conditions in Lebanon, and searching for ways of cooperation and assistance. Hajjar began his tour with a visit to the Chargé d'Affairs of the Papal Embassy in Jordan, Monsignor Mauro Lalli, then met with the Latin Archbishop of Jordan Jamal Khader and the former Latin Patriarch of Jordan Fouad Twal.

Fayyad participates in water sector damage assessment meeting in Cairo
NNA/Sunday, 03 July, 2022
Caretaker Minister of Energy and Water, Walid Fayyad, chaired the meeting dedicated to following up on “presenting a study assessing the damages of the water and sanitation sector in Gaza as a result of the recent Israeli aggression” at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo. The minister called on the international and Arab community to redouble efforts to help the safe return of Syrians from Lebanon to their country, stressing that this matter in itself will contribute significantly to restoring the water security balance in Lebanon and in a number of receiving countries. The minister believed that the greed of the neighborhood in the Arab waters has always posed a major threat to Lebanon’s water security. "The enemy’s greed for the waters of the Palestinians, the Jordan River, the water sources in the occupied Golan, the Hasbani and the Litani rivers, and the water disputes on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and most importantly today, the great threat posed by the Renaissance Dam to Egypt’s water security requires us to take a stand Unified and resolute every time one of our countries needed this position, regardless of political or geopolitical considerations," he added. In this regard, Fayyad demanded the development of a comprehensive reconstruction plan that can be implemented and financed.

Corona - MoPH organizes Pfizer Marathon tomorrow
NNA /Sunday, 03 July, 2022
The Ministry of Public Health announced the organization of the Pfizer Marathon, which will start tomorrow, Monday, and lasts until Thursday, July 7.

Bushkian: Lebanon is determined to restore its stability
NNA/Sunday, 03 July, 2022
Caretaker Minister of Industry, George Boushekian, said that Lebanon is determined to restore stability and recovery to Lebanon despite the difficult economic situation. He considered that the Lebanese are innovating with individual, creative, and complementary initiatives at an accelerating and unstoppable pace, that restore Lebanon to its pride and dignity, the jewel of the East, when security and stability are established and an environment incubating business is secured.

Yazbek: Hezbollah does not want to demarcate borders to preserve its weapons and strengthen Iran's role in Lebanon
NNA/Sunday, 03 July, 2022
Ghiath Yazbek deemed that Lebanon is losing in the border demarcation file, because it did not take the measures that preserved its rights.Speaking during an interview, the deputy denied the existence of an international resolution that prevents Lebanon from starting to extract oil, pointing out that the breach is Lebanese. According to him, Hezbollah does not want to demarcate the border so as not to lose its right to keep its weapons and to strengthen Iran's role in Lebanon. Finally, he confirmed that the drones that were launched, Saturday, are an Iranian message, noting that we are waiting for Amos Hochstein's response to know its repercussions on Lebanon.

Qubaisi calls on parties to form a government
NNA/Sunday, 03 July, 2022
MP Hani Qubaisi said, on Sunday, that the current time is not conducive to controversy and the sharing quotas. During a ceremony held in southern Lebanon, the MP called on all parties to assume their responsibilities to form a government that would save the country.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on July 03-04/2022
Mystery Shrouds Iran’s Downplaying of Israeli Assassinations
London - Washington - Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 03 July, 2022
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/109811/%d8%ba%d9%85%d9%88%d8%b6-%d8%ad%d9%88%d9%84-%d8%aa%d9%82%d9%84%d9%8a%d9%84-%d8%a5%d9%8a%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86-%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a3%d9%87%d9%85%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d8%a7%d8%ba%d8%aa%d9%8a%d8%a7%d9%84-%d8%a5%d8%b3/
A senior member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard colonel Sayyad Khodai was killed outside his home in Tehran on May 22 by unidentified gunmen on a motorbike.In Iran, thousands grieved for Khodai and held his funeral procession, where he was remembered as a hero for fighting ISIS.
However, Israeli media focused on Khodai’s role in planning a series of terror operations against Israeli diplomats in India and Thailand. Khodai also conspired for kidnapping Israelis abroad. For its part, Tehran blamed Israel for being behind Khodai’s assassination and vowed retaliation.
Khodai was one of seven Iranian officials and scholars who appear to have been killed since late May, but his death was the only one that Iran has officially recognized as an assassination carried out by Israel. There is little doubt among US, Iranian and Israeli analysts and former security officials that the assassination is part of a clandestine shadow war between the two rival countries. Nearly all the Iranians who died recently—a geologist, two engineers, and two members of the Revolutionary Guards' space unit—appear to be linked to either Iran's nuclear facilities or the military infrastructure that Tehran uses to employ its proxies. “Israel never acknowledges that it has acted to kill Iranians, but it is typically assumed that the Israelis have been responsible for a number of killings and attacks,” Dennis Ross, a Middle East negotiator who has worked for several US presidents, told Foreign Policy. “That is certainly the case with the killing of officials linked to the Revolutionary Guards or scientists driving the Iranian nuclear program.”
Yet while Israel has, according to analysts, upped the ante of shadow warfare with Iran through its spike in alleged assassinations, Iranian officials appear to be underplaying the killings. For instance, a week after Khodai’s death, Ayoob Entezari, an aerospace engineer who worked on missile-related projects at an IRGC-run research and development center in the Iranian city of Yazd, fell sick and died after returning from a dinner party, the New York Times reported. The host of the party has since vanished. In 2019, Khodaei was photographed with then-Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, indicating he may have been an important cog in Iran’s defense machinery.
At first, a governor called Entezari “a martyr” while a city council member described his killing as a case of “biological terror.” But officials later backtracked, saying labeling Entezari a martyr was an error. They also claimed he was not an aerospace engineer, as reports indicate, but rather an ordinary employee. When Foreign Policy asked an Iranian analyst believed to be close to the government about the recent killings, the analyst feigned ignorance and responded with texts like “Who are they?” and suggestions that a colonel is not a very senior rank. US and Israeli analysts believe Tehran responded this way because it was embarrassed and saw the killings as an intelligence failure amid Israel’s escalation of covert warfare. Farzin Nadimi, an associate fellow with the Washington Institute, told Foreign Policy that the recent killings, alongside attacks on Iranian military infrastructure and cyberattacks on state-owned services, “significantly damaged Iran’s perceived deterrence” and “showed Israel’s determination and freedom of action in Iran.”

Iran purges security apparatus amid Israeli espionage fears
Arab News/July 03/2022
LONDON: The Iranian regime has purged senior leaders in its security apparatus, including a general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, amid fears that Israeli espionage has caused a recent spate of blunders and assassinations, the Telegraph reported.
The British daily said a senior general in the IRGC had been arrested on suspicion of spying for Israel a week after the corps’ intelligence boss Hossein Taeb lost his job. Taeb was fired after several embarrassing security blunders, with Israeli officials describing the Iranian regime as “shocked” and “rattled.”
Israel scuppered an Iranian plot to kill Israelis in Turkey, publicly warning its citizens of an imminent attack and arresting several people allegedly linked with IRGC cells. In May, Israel published a collection of Iranian documents that detailed threats to its nuclear program. More recently — and most troublingly for the regime — two nuclear scientists were poisoned and killed at separate dinner parties, which Tehran suspects was carried out by Israel. Israeli officials told the Telegraph that the recent mixture of information and attacking operations were part of a strategy called the “Octopus doctrine,” which compares the regime’s leadership to the head of an octopus and its various proxies and forces — such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the IRGC across the region — as the tentacles. But rather than limiting the effect of those tentacles, Israeli forces are now shifting to directly striking the head of the beast.
“The Iranians saw all of that information released by Israel as a huge slap in the face. And they were shocked. They were rattled by it,” an Israeli security official told the Telegraph, adding that the doctrine “has proven to be effective. It has caused shockwaves throughout the leadership of Iran.”
Iran analysts told the Telegraph that Taeb was a major figure in Tehran’s leadership, enjoying a close relationship with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. “His unceremonious sacking heralds more political purges within the regime as it faces growing domestic discontent and challenges to its regional policy,” said Dr. Reza Taghizade, a London-based Iran observer. Dr. Kylie Moore-Gilbert, an Australian-British academic and former hostage of the regime, said Taeb was referred to as “The Judge” because he observed interrogation and hostage practices. “Most theories for Taeb’s removal are due to IRGC Intel’s inability to prevent Israel from operating inside Iran’s borders, including conducting high-profile assassinations,” said Moore-Gilbert. “The IRGC Intelligence Organization is not a professional intelligence agency, its members are recruited on the basis of ideological and religious affiliation, and everything is kept ‘in the family’ — you have to have contacts and already know people on the inside in order to get a foot in the door,” she added. “As a result, many of its operatives are incompetent and poorly skilled for the job. Many of them lack a security mindset or a proper understanding of the conduct of espionage.”

Iran's Chief Nuclear Negotiator Arrives in Moscow on Unannounced Visit
London - Tehran - Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 3 July, 2022
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Bagheri-Kani arrived in Moscow on an unannounced visit after the talks between Tehran and Washington ended in Doha. The Russian Permanent Mission to the International Organizations in Vienna announced the visit on its Twitter account. However, Iranian media outlets did not report the news. Bagheri-Kani met with his Russian counterpart, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. The meeting was attended by Moscow's chief negotiator Mikhail Ulyanov, who described the meeting as a "very professional exchange of views."Ulyanov tweeted: "It was a very professional exchange of views on the current situation around the JCPOA and prospects of the Vienna Talks. My assessment: despite all the difficulties, the nuclear deal still can be restored."He called on the US to "demonstrate greater flexibility."Earlier in the week, Bagheri-Kani met in Doha with the EU coordinator, Enrique Mora, who chaired year-long talks in Vienna to revive the 2015 agreement. On Friday, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Rosemary DiCarlo, said that achieving the "landmark" Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) took determined diplomacy, adding that restoring it will require additional effort and patience. DiCarlo called Washington and Tehran to "quickly mobilize in this same spirit and commitment to resume cooperation under the JCPOA."

Israel Says it Will Test Bullet that Killed Abu Akleh, Palestinians Disagree
Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 3 July, 2022
Israel said on Sunday it would test a bullet, which killed Palestinian-American journalist and Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh on May 11, to determine whether one of its soldiers shot her and said a US observer would be present for the procedure that could deliver results within hours.
The Palestinians, who on Saturday handed over the bullet to a US security coordinator, said they had been assured that Israel would not take part in the ballistics. The Palestinians accuse the Israeli military of killing the journalist deliberately. Israel denies this, saying Abu Akleh may have been hit by errant army fire or by one of the Palestinian gunmen who were clashing with its forces. "The (ballistic) test will not be American. The test will be an Israeli test, with an American presence throughout," said Israeli military spokesman Brigadier-General Ran Kochav.
"In the coming days or hours it will be become clear whether it was even us who killed her, accidentally, or whether it was the Palestinian gunmen," he told Army Radio. "If we killed her, we will take responsibility and feel regret for what happened."Akram al-Khatib, general prosecutor for the Palestinian Authority, said the test would take place at the US Embassy in Jerusalem. "We got guarantees from the American coordinator that the examination will be conducted by them and that the Israeli side will not take part,” Al-Khatib told Voice of Palestine radio, adding that he expected the bullet to be returned on Sunday. An embassy spokesperson said: "We don't have anything new at this time."

Russia takes Lysychansk, completing conquest of Luhansk Oblast
Grayson Quay, Weekend editor/The Week/July 3, 2022
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu told President Vladimir Putin on Sunday that the eastern Ukrainian city of Lysychansk had fallen to Russian and Russian-backed separatist forces, Reuters and CNN report.
Lysychansk — along with its sister city of Sievierodonetsk, which Russia captured about a week ago — represented the last bastion of Ukrainian-controlled territory in Luhansk Oblast. Ukrainian regional Gov. Serhiy Haidai said Russia appeared to have "deployed all their forces at Lysychansk" and "attacked the city with inexplicably brutal tactics."After failing to capture the capital city of Kyiv in the early months of the war, Russia redirected its focus to capturing the eastern oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk, both of which have been partially controlled by Russian-backed separatists since 2014. Russian forces now control virtually all of Luhansk and about half of Donetsk. The U.S.-based Institute for the Study of War assessed Friday that, following the capture of Lysychansk, Russian forces will likely consolidate their control over Luhansk and "then prioritize drives on Ukrainian positions in Siversk before turning to Slovyansk and Bakhmut."

Russian laser scientist dies two days after arrest for state treason
Mark Trevelyan/Reuters/July 3, 2022
A Russian scientist who was arrested in Siberia last week on suspicion of state treason and flown to Moscow despite suffering from advanced pancreatic cancer has died, lawyers and a family member said on Sunday. Physicist Dmitry Kolker, 54, had been taken from his hospital bed, where he was being fed through a tube, and bundled onto a flight of more than four hours to Moscow, where the lawyers said he was taken to Lefortovo prison and later died in a nearby hospital. His cousin Anton Dianov told Reuters from the United States that the accusation against the laser specialist - that he had betrayed state secrets to China - was preposterous. "He was a scientist, he loved his country, he was working in his country despite many invitations from leading universities and labs to go work abroad. He wanted to work in Russia, he wanted to teach students there," he said. "These charges are absolutely ridiculous and extremely cruel and unusual to be levied on such a sick man. They knew that he was on his deathbed and they chose to arrest him."The family and lawyers said Kolker was detained, and his house searched, by the FSB security service. They said the treason charges - which carry a sentence of up to 20 years - were based on lectures Kolker had delivered in China, even though the content had been approved by the FSB. Reuters did not receive a reply to an emailed request for comment from the FSB. Lawyer Alexander Fedulov told Reuters he had attempted to contact the authorities on behalf of Kolker but been turned away from the FSB investigative department and from the prison. He said he would file a legal complaint on Monday over the circumstances of Kolker's detention. On Saturday, state news agency TASS said Russia had detained a second scientist in Novosibirsk on suspicion of state treason. It was not clear if the two cases were connected. A number of Russian scientists have been arrested and charged with treason in recent years for allegedly passing sensitive material to foreigners. Critics of the Kremlin say the arrests often stem from unfounded paranoia. Dianov, the cousin, said Kolker was also a highly accomplished concert pianist and organist who performed in both Russia and Europe."To me, somebody who was producing such beautiful things could not have done what they accuse him of. And that's for ever how I'm going to remember him," he said, fighting back tears. "That's who Dima is to me and the rest of the family."(Reporting by ReutersEditing by Alexandra Hudson)

Russia says it has complete control over Luhansk Oblast, Ukraine denies
The New Voice of Ukraine/Sun, July 3, 2022
According to the message, Shoigu claims Moscow is now in “full control” of Lysychansk – the last contested major city in the region. In an interview with the BBC, Ukrainian Interior Ministry Adviser Yuriy Sak denied the Russian claim, and said that Lysychansk is not under “full Russian control,” adding that the situation in the city “is very tense, and has been for a while.”“Human life remains the paramount value for Ukrainians, so we might withdraw from certain areas, only to reclaim them later,” the official said. Ukraine’s National Guard denied earlier claims by Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov that Ukrainian forces in Lysychansk were encircled. According to the National Guard, the city is not surrounded and is still heavily contested. Putin declared revised aims of the war in Ukraine on June 30, saying that Moscow intends to capture Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts in their entirety.

Battle rages for Ukraine city, Belarus says downed missiles
Agence France Presse/Sunday, 03 July/2022
Fighting raged as Russian troops intensified their offensive in parts of the hard-fought Ukrainian city of Lysychansk on Sunday, after Belarus announced its military had intercepted missiles fired by Kyiv's forces.
"The Russians are entrenching themselves in a district of Lysychansk, the city is on fire," Sergei Gaidai, governor of the Lugansk region, said on Telegram. "They attacked the city with inexplicably brutal tactics," he added. Lysychansk is the last major city in the Lugansk area of the eastern Donbas region still in Kyiv's hands. Located across the river from neighboring Severodonetsk, which Russian forces seized last week, its capture would signal a deeper push into the Donbas which has become Moscow's focus since failing to capture Ukraine's capital. Gaidai's update came hours after Ukraine denied claims by Moscow-backed separatists that they had encircled Lysychansk. "The city has not been encircled and is under control of the Ukrainian army," Ruslan Muzytchuk, a spokesman for the Ukrainian National Guard, said on Ukrainian television on Saturday. Earlier in the day, Andrei Marochko, a spokesman for the separatist forces, told the TASS news agency that Lysychansk was "completely encircled."
Belarus interception -
The intense fighting came as Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko accused Kyiv of "provoking" his country and said his army intercepted missiles fired at his country by Ukrainian forces "around three days ago."The claim came one week after Ukraine said missiles struck a border region from Belarus, a long-term Russian ally that supported the February 24 invasion. But Lukashenko denied any involvement, which would represent an escalation of the conflict. "As I said more than a year ago, we do not intend to fight in Ukraine," he was quoted as saying by state news agency Belta on Saturday. The violence also spilt into Russia on Sunday, with at least three people killed and four injured in "strong explosions" in Belgorod, which borders Ukraine. Belgorod governor Vyacheslav Gladkov said 11 residential buildings and 39 houses were damaged but stopped short of accusing Ukrainian forces of being behind the strikes. But Russia has previously accused Kyiv of conducting strikes on Russian soil, particularly in the Belgorod region.
'Heavy losses' -
Missiles continued to rain down across Ukraine, killing dozens. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky cited six strikes as of the evening in his daily address to the nation late Saturday. "Fierce fighting continues along the entire front line, in Donbas," he added, noting as well that "enemy activity in the Kharkiv region is intensifying." In the small Donetsk town of Siversk, one resident told AFP that "the bombing goes on day and night."Two people were killed and three wounded -- including two children -- in a strike on the town of Dobropillya, local authorities in Donetsk said. Rockets also struck residential properties in Sloviansk in the heart of the Donbas, killing a woman in her garden and wounding her husband, a neighbour told AFP Saturday, describing debris showered across the neighborhood. The witness said the strike, which took place on Friday, was thought to use cluster munitions, which spread over a large area before exploding, striking buildings and people who were outdoors. Zelensky warned against "a feeling of relaxation" in many rear cities. "The war is not over," he said. "Unfortunately, its cruelty is only increasing in some places, and it cannot be forgotten." Russian defence ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said Ukraine was "suffering heavy losses on all fronts", listing what he said were military targets across the country hit with artillery and missiles.
'Rebuilt from scratch' -
In his address, Zelensky also looked forward to a conference on Ukraine's reconstruction set to start Monday in Switzerland. Leaders from dozens of countries and international organisations will gather in the city of Lugano with the aim of providing a roadmap for the war-ravaged country's recovery.
Rebuilding Ukraine "requires colossal investments -- billions, new technologies, best practices, new institutions and, of course, reforms," Zelensky said. He said 10 regions of Ukraine had been affected in the war, with many towns and villages needing to be "rebuilt from scratch". The roadmap is expected to lay out reconstruction needs in terms of damaged and destroyed infrastructure, Ukraine's devastated economy, and also environmental and social recovery needs. The effort is expected to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Ukraine will also face demands for broad reforms, especially in cracking down on corruption. The need for reforms had been underscored by European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who has said the coveted European Union membership was "within reach" for Ukraine, but urged Kyiv to work on anti-corruption measures. In peacetime, Ukraine is a major agricultural exporter, but Russia's invasion has damaged farmland and seen Ukraine's ports seized, razed or blockaded -- sparking concerns about food shortages, particularly in poor countries. Farmer Sergiy Lioubarsky, whose fields are close to the frontline, warned time was running out to harvest this year's crop. "We can wait until August 10 at the latest, but after that, the grains are going to dry out and fall to the ground," he said. Western powers have accused Putin of using the trapped harvest as a weapon to increase pressure on the international community, and Russia has been accused of stealing grain.

Iraq: Sadr Challenges Rivals, Prepares for New Protests
Baghdad - Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 03 July/2022
Leader of the Sadrist movement Muqtada al-Sadr has continued to challenge his opponents of the Shiite Coordination Framework and former allies in the Sovereignty Alliance and the Kurdistan Democratic Party. Sadr has condemned President Barham Salih following reports that he did not sign the law criminalizing normalization with Israel. Sadr revealed other reasons for his withdrawal from the parliament, aside from what he announced earlier about not wanting to participate with the corrupt. He held his Shiite opponents from the forces of the Coordination Framework full responsibility for abandoning his plans to form a national majority government. He blamed his opponents for disapproving the nomination of his cousin, Jaafar, for the position of prime minister, knowing that Jaafar is "the son of their religious reference and their martyr, and they rejected him."
Sadr also attacked the politicians and their blocs who betrayed him without naming them. Sadr denied his previous statement about withdrawing from the parliament for not wanting to join the corrupt, saying some parties are under the illusion that his decision meant handing Iraq to the corrupt.
He asserted that the decision must submit to the people's will and determination. Earlier, pictures and banners were hung on several streets and central and southern cities in Baghdad with the phrase "be fully prepared."
Moreover, Sadr's Shiite opponents are still unable to resolve their differences on how to share positions between the Coordination Framework that includes the State of Law Coalition, Fatah Alliance, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, Sanad, and Ataa movement. Sadr justified his participation in the October 2021 elections, saying that "our return to the elections was for two important things: to confront normalization with Israel, which was criminalized, and against obscenity [homosexuality], so let's see what they do." "Will they enact a new and detailed law, especially with the escalation of Western colonial pressures against those who oppose it?" wondered Sadr. The Sadrist leader also said he withdrew to see what his opponents would do, especially after they said the elections were rigged. "Will they continue to form a government from fraudulent elections?"
Meanwhile, political observers fear that the delay in forming the cabinet may justify protests by Sadr supporters and may include an operation to storm the Green Zone, especially after several top Sadrist leaders supported Sadr's steps. The government formation did not witness any positive progress after Sadr withdrew, and the Coordination Framework became the biggest parliamentary bloc. The Framework forces disagreed over the positions of prime minister and first deputy speaker, coupled with another disagreement between the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union regarding nominating a President. A parliament dissolution and early elections are possible if the Sadrist demonstrations erupt, which the Tishreen Movement is expected to join.

De Mistura Visits Rabat to Discuss Disputed Western Sahara
Asharq Al-Awsat/Sunday, 3 July, 2022
UN special envoy for the Western Sahara Staffan de Mistura arrived in Morocco on Friday to hold talks with Moroccan officials on advancing the political process in the disputed region, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said. Observers see that de Mistura’s visit aims to discuss the disputed Western Sahara issue, which has been on hold since the resignation of the former UN envoy, Horst Kohler. “It is also his intention to visit Western Sahara in the course of this trip,” the spokesman said during a news briefing. “During this phase of the engagement, the personal envoy intends to remain guided by the clear precedents set by his predecessors,” Dujarric added. In a question on whether de Mistura is looking to have new roundtable with the four parties, he responded, “I think he is… what he's looking for is how we can move forward the dialogue within the context of the relevant Security Council resolutions.”Responding to another question regarding de Mistura’s visit not including Algiers and Mauritania, the spokesman said, “This is what we're announcing right now. If we have more as the trip continues, we will share that with you.”

Hundreds of anti-coup protesters in Sudan defy security forces
Agence France Presse/Sunday, 3 July, 2022
Hundreds of Sudanese protesters demanding an end to military rule took to the streets of the capital Khartoum and its suburbs for a fourth straight day Sunday, witnesses said. A violent crack down by the security forces during mass rallies on Thursday killed nine people, the deadliest day for several months in the long running protests against a military takeover last October led by army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Recent protests have seen crowds burn tyres and barricade roads with bricks, with security forces firing barrages of tear gas canisters and using powerful water cannons.
Demonstrators demand a restoration of the transition to civilian rule that was launched after the 2019 ouster of longtime autocrat Omar al-Bashir, which the coup derailed. The death toll from protest-related violence has reached 114 since last year's coup, with the latest fatality recorded Sunday when a demonstrator died from wounds sustained at a June 16 rally, according to pro-democracy medics.The coup plunged Sudan further into an political and economic turmoil which has seen rising consumer prices and life-threatening food shortages.
On Sunday, witnesses reported a heavy deployment of security forces on the streets of Khartoum, including both army vehicles as well as those of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a feared paramilitary unit commanded by Burhan's deputy Mohamed Hamdan Daglo. The RSF incorporated members of the Janjaweed militia, which was accused by rights groups of atrocities during the conflict that erupted in 2003 in the western region of Darfur. More recently, the RSF has been accused of taking part in crack downs on protesters marching against the army. The international community has condemned the recent bloodshed, with the United Nations' rights chief urging an independent probe into Thursday's violence. The U.N., African Union and regional bloc IGAD have tried to facilitate talks between the generals and civilians, which the main civilian factions have boycotted. On Friday, the three bodies jointly condemned the violence and "the use of excessive force by security forces and lack of accountability for such actions, despite repeated commitments by authorities."

'Fragile situation' as Libya anger boils over living conditions
Agence France Presse/Sunday, 3 July, 2022
Libya's rival leaders are under growing street pressure after protesters stormed parliament as anger exploded over deteriorating living conditions and political deadlock. Libyans, many impoverished after a decade of turmoil and sweltering in the soaring summer heat, have been enduring fuel shortages and power cuts of up to 18 hours a day, even as their country sits atop Africa's largest proven oil reserves. The country has been mired in chaos and repeated rounds of conflict since a NATO-backed uprising toppled and killed dictator Moamer Kadhafi in 2011. Protesters stormed the seat of the House of Representatives in the eastern city of Tobruk on Friday night, ransacking its offices and torching part of the building. In both the main eastern city of Benghazi -- the cradle of the 2011 uprising -- and the capital Tripoli, thousands took to the streets to chants of "We want the lights to work".
Some brandished the green flags of the former Gadhafi regime.Calm appeared to have returned to Tobruk on Saturday, though there were calls on social media for more protests in the evening. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on "all actors to refrain from any actions that could undermine stability" and urged them "to come together to overcome the continued political deadlock," spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in a statement. U.N.-mediated talks in Geneva this week aimed at breaking the stalemate between rival Libyan institutions failed to resolve key differences.
'Extremely painful' year
Presidential and parliamentary elections, originally set for December last year, were meant to cap a U.N.-led peace process following the end of the last major round of violence in 2020. But voting never took place due to several contentious candidacies and deep disagreements over the polls' legal basis between the rival power centres in east and west. In Tripoli on Friday, hundreds came out to demand elections, fresh political leadership and an end to the chronic power cuts. The sudden eruption of unrest appeared to be spreading to other areas of the country, with Libyan media showing images of protesters in the oasis city of Sebha, deep in the Sahara desert, torching an official building. A local journalist said protesters in Libya's third city Misrata were blocking roads after setting fire to a municipal building on Friday night. After dark, protesters also gathered at several points in Tripoli, shutting down some roads and burning tyres, according to images broadcast by local media. Interim prime minister Abdulhamid Dbeibah leads a Tripoli-based administration while former interior minister Fathi Bashagha draws support from the Tobruk-based House of Representatives and eastern military strongman Khalifa Haftar. Haftar's forces said Saturday that they "support the citizens' demands" but called for protesters to "preserve public property."Libya expert Jalel Harchaoui told AFP that "for more than a year, the overwhelming majority of diplomatic and mediation efforts around Libya have been monopolized by the idea of elections, which won't happen for at least two years, given the failure of the Geneva negotiations."This year "has been extremely painful for Libyans" because the country "imports almost all its food and the Ukraine war has hit consumer prices," Harchaoui said.
'Fragile situation'
Libya's energy sector, which during the Kadhafi era financed a generous welfare state, has also fallen victim to political divisions, with a wave of forced closures of oil facilities since April. Supporters of the eastern-based administration have shut off the oil taps as leverage in their efforts to secure a transfer of power to Bashagha, whose attempt to take up office in Tripoli in May ended in a swift withdrawal. "There is kleptocracy and systematic corruption in the east as in the west, as the fancy cars and villas of the elite constantly remind the public," Harchaoui said, accusing militias from both camps of carrying out "massive" fuel trafficking. The European Union's envoy to Libya, Jose Sabadell, said Friday's events "confirm people want change through elections."But he urged peaceful protests, adding that "special restraint is necessary given the fragile situation."U.S. ambassador to Libya Richard Norland said that "no single political entity enjoys legitimate control across the entire country and any effort to impose a unilateral solution will result in violence." He urged Libya's "political leaders across the spectrum and their foreign backers to seize the moment to restore the confidence of their citizens in the country's future."

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 03-04/2022
The US and Iran’s indirect nuclear deal negotiations in Doha ended in failure
Tariq Al-Homayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/July, 03/2022
The US and Iran’s indirect nuclear deal negotiations in Doha ended in failure, with an American official saying that reviving the deal with Iran has become less likely after the meeting in Qatar.
The question now is: Why have the negotiations failed? Last week, I wrote that time is not on the side of Washington nor Tehran: neither can the US President offer concessions, nor does Iran have any cards to play or the ability to commit, as the Iranian regime is designed for extremism only.
The Doha negotiations failed because their foundations were not solid. They were built on mere hopes or, let us say, European illusions that Tehran might comply and wake up to dangers it would face if the negotiators ran out of time to find a deal for which no deadline had been set.
I understood my sources as saying that the Europeans tried to convince the Americans that President Biden’s visit to the region, specifically the upcoming summit in Saudi Arabia, would put the Iranians under pressure and that the Doha negotiations could thus be an opportunity.
The Europeans thought, deludedly, that Iranian concerns regarding the upcoming summit would push Tehran to offer concessions. The US agreed, despite the fact that concerned officials in Washington were saying that nothing would be achieved before the Doha negotiations had begun.
Some in Washington say that for two reasons. The first is that those opposed to the version of the agreement that has been put forward since president Biden’s accession to the presidency have had their voices heard. The second is that time is not in favor of the US administration, and the President is unable to offer any concessions. And that is what actually happened. The European Union was forced to say that the indirect negotiations between Tehran and Washington, which aimed at breaking the ice on the nuclear deal, ended without making the progress “that the European Union team had been hoping for.”Iran’s UN Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi summed it up at the Security Council like this: “Iran has demanded verifiable and objective guarantees from the US that JCPOA will not be torpedoed again, that the US will not violate its obligations again, and that sanctions will not be re-imposed under other pretexts or designations.”According to Reuters, a US official responded by saying that there is no legal mechanism allowing us to compel future administrations to do anything, adding that they looked for other ways to offer anything that could reassure Iran…
And these statements demonstrate that the Iran nuclear negotiations were unsuccessful. Neither is the American President able to guarantee that future administrations will not withdraw from the agreement, nor is Iran able to commit and avoid games and lies.
Thus, we reach a moment of truth, with Reuters quoting a US official saying: “The prospects for a deal after Doha are worse than they were before Doha and they will be getting worse by the day.”
Adding: “You could describe Doha at best as treading water, at worst as moving backwards. But at this point treading water is for all practical purposes moving backwards.”
Accordingly, we now face the known facts of the Iran nuclear deal, not new ones, but the same ones that were there during the administration of President Obama. Therefore, it is time for plan B to deal with Iran and its disastrous nuclear program.

Democrats Need Patriotism Now More Than Ever
Jedediah Britton-Purdy/The New York times/July 03/2022
Fourth of July fireworks echo eerily in a divided country. In theory, this patriotic holiday marks what holds us together, beyond all our disagreement. In practice it amplifies American division. The year that Independence Day memorializes, 1776, also lends its name to the Trumpist 1776 Project, a riposte to the 1619 Project. The very idea of patriotism risks becoming a partisan marker: In 2019, fully 76 percent of Republicans and only 22 percent of Democrats said they were “extremely proud” to be American, according to Gallup.
A recent Quinnipiac poll asked Americans whether they would fight or flee if the country were invaded: 68 percent of Republicans said they would stay and fight, compared with 40 percent of Democrats. Although such questions can only be conjectural, this one does suggest that some progressives are not so sure the country is worth saving, or at least risking their lives to save. Conservatives often say that liberals don’t really like this country, and these figures suggest they might have a point. In progressive circles, claiming patriotism is, at best, an eyebrow-raiser. As the 246th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence arrives in a country with the world’s highest incarceration rate, sky-high per capita carbon emissions, an epidemic of gun violence and abortion bans across much of the American map, progressive disgust has clear appeal.
But progressives need patriotism, more than ever in a time of understandable anger and despair. We want to make the world better by our lights, and to do that we need a stronger democracy. Patriotism in the right spirit fosters the civic trust and solidarity that democracy needs.
Patriotism shouldn’t be an excuse for glossing over failures and crimes — just the opposite. It adds responsibilities, even sorrows, to our lives. But it also fosters affection and, yes, pride.
The patriotism we need is the patriotism of July 5, which used to be a rallying day for abolitionists, particularly in New York State. Before the Civil War, July 5 was a rejoinder to the hypocrisy of Independence Day, which trumpeted liberty in a country full of race slavery. It was also, for many abolitionists, a day to continue the founding work of Emancipation, to build on and extend a flawed but radical inheritance.
Of course, some radicals, such as William Lloyd Garrison, embraced a fundamentally bleak vision of the country. Garrison denounced the Constitution as “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell” and pronounced himself “ashamed of my country.” But others such as Frederick Douglass, who was more intimate with the horrors of American life, concluded that American politics was not just a grim fate but also a crucible of transformation.
Douglass, in the famous July 5 speech often called “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” denounced national crimes in blistering terms, but also praised the Declaration of Independence as the pivot-point of Americans’ “yet undeveloped destiny.” Douglass called liberty and equality “saving principles” that the country could still make real.
Many progressive achievements have roots in the July 5 style of patriotism. When President Lyndon Johnson made the case for the Voting Rights Act in a national TV broadcast before Congress in 1965, he called the United States “the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose”: creating a free society of equal citizens. That purpose was a measure of failure as well as success.
In a country where “Emancipation is a proclamation and not a fact,” Johnson warned, if inequality was not addressed, America would “have failed as a people and as a nation.” The country could “gain the whole world and lose his own soul,” he said, paraphrasing the Book of Mark. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., too, called the principles of the American founding “a promissory note” that had come due, and urged the country to “rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed.”
This version of patriotism links criticism of our country’s failings with a commitment to changing them. It cleaves to principles of freedom and equality because they are right, and also because they are ours, they are us. It addresses America’s worst aspects, not as enemies to be eliminated (as in our many domestic “wars” on this or that) but as we would approach a friend or family member who had lost their way. In this spirit, even the harshest reproach, the most relentless list of wrongs, comes with a commitment to repair and heal, to build a more just and decent country. It also entails a practical faith: As long as change might be possible, we owe it to one another to try.
These may sound like the gentle tones of a more naïve time. Don’t we know more now than earlier generations did about the cruelty and complexity of history, the intensity of white supremacy in the early Republic, the constitutional compromises with slavery? Haven’t we outgrown complacent patriotism? But this is wrong and, really, embarrassingly parochial. We do not know more about American injustice than King, or, for that matter, Johnson, the son of bigoted East Texas who became a complex but effective civil rights champion. There was nothing complacent in their patriotism.
They insisted that every American ought to shoulder some of the responsibility for their country’s crimes and failings, whether or not they had personally benefited or suffered from them. And, for Johnson and King, everyone deserved to take some pride in American progress toward justice. Patriotism was a practical task: to appreciate and preserve what is good, work to change what is bad, and remember that part of what is good in a country is that citizens can change it. Patriotic effort came with no guarantee of success, but it was an obligation nevertheless — a duty akin to what the philosopher William James once called “the moral equivalent of war.”
Today, America faces threats to national well-being and even survival: climate change, racial inequity, oligarchy, the economic collapse of whole regions. But the enemy is not an invader: These slow-moving crises pit us against one another. Spewing our carbon, living in our economically and ideologically segregated neighborhoods and regions, trading accusations of bigotry and bad faith, we are one another’s problems. In these conditions, it is hard to find threads of commonality. At some point, a liberal gets tired of saying, “We are better than this,” when we seem resolutely not to be.
But there is something beyond both one last “We are better than this” and your preferred update of Garrison’s “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell.” Progressive patriotism justifies risks and sacrifices to try to create a country that deserves them. Loyalty to the country, in this light, means faith that you and other citizens can still build better ways of living together.
Progressive frustrations such as climate inaction, gun proliferation and the erosion of reproductive freedom are rooted in ways our political system stops majority opinion from ruling — through the Senate, the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court, for starters. Earlier political transformation, such as the New Deal and the civil rights movement, had to shift political power and make the country more democratic in order to make it better. Because democracy is power, and power is scary and dangerous, political trust and a generous vision of the country are especially important in making a country more democratic.
By the same token, peaceful political change is much harder among people who fear and mistrust one another, and who feel it intolerable for the other side to hold power. Only a quarter of Republicans, and about two-fifths of Democrats, believe the other party’s voters sincerely have the country’s best interests at heart. On the whole, Americans suspect that they live among people who are trying to destroy the country, and quite possibly to destroy them.
This is our dilemma. We need basic change, but cannot tolerate making it alongside fellow citizens who are also our partisan enemies. Yet we also cannot make it without them. We need one another’s support, maybe, and one another’s consent and cooperation, absolutely.
Patriotism softens the dilemma. It gives assurance that anger and criticism have affection and loyalty behind them. It conveys what Walt Whitman presented as the democratic promise: “I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms.”
With the trust that this promise can support, it is possible to hear, even welcome, complex and critical ideas — support for troops but criticism of certain wars and policies abroad, decrying inequality because it means the country is not asking enough of itself. Without this trust, any disagreement can become existential, and in politics we veer between fighting for our lives and trying to ignore one another altogether.
Readers may bridle at any suggestion that progressives need more patriotism. Democrats are trying to hold Donald Trump responsible for his bid to steal the 2020 election, while Republicans are mostly obfuscating or worse. Isn’t saving American democracy the apogee of patriotism? Yes, true enough; but in a time this deeply divided and unstable, it isn’t enough to be the party that insists on following the rules.
Rules are distillations of a deeper picture of how to live together. Saving — or perhaps achieving — democracy will require convincing enough people to embrace a vision of the country in which everyone can vote, votes count and majorities rule. Our rules and institutions depend, in the end, on our attachment to living with a shared politics. With that attachment, win or lose, many things are possible. Without it, nothing lasts long.
Patriotism may look masochistic. Nation-states have done terrible things and killed hundreds of millions of people. The desire to get out from under them is a recurrent theme in modern life, from Stalin’s and Mao’s regimes to the antebellum and Jim Crow South. But large and complex societies, such as we all inhabit today, have found no other way to organize themselves. We cannot avoid the dilemmas of political power. We can only try to use it for good.
Patriotism can seem morally arbitrary. Why should a border or citizenship papers mark the boundary of solidarity? Of course they shouldn’t: Progressive patriots should work for the rights of migrants and for humane international policies. (Two examples: support for refugees and for a global vaccine program.) But patriotism is a practical political attitude, and countries are the units in which most political power exists.
We humans have just a few ways to come together and cooperate. Sometimes we are market actors, worth precisely as much as our money. Sometimes we are co-ethnics, measured by shared language and religion, and the myth of bloodlines. Both economics and ethnicity bring us together as insiders and outsiders, or those who have and those who have not — particularly in the United States, with its braided histories of plutocracy and racial hierarchy. Only when we meet as democratic citizens do we become equals who can change the world together.
In a democracy, even a flawed one, patriotism supports our best chance to live as equals. As King explained in his denunciation of the Vietnam War, American empire and capitalist materialism at Riverside Church in 1967, his loyalties as a Christian radical went well beyond any nationalism, but as a citizen he called on fellow citizens to “recapture the revolutionary spirit” in American life and “make democracy real.”
Patriotism isn’t just a warm feeling, “loving the country.” It can fire anger when your own country upholds injustice or strips away essential freedoms, grief when pointless war abroad or avoidable violence at home makes America a destructive force. In politics as elsewhere, grief and anger are admissions of how much we have at stake in one another, and how much cause we have to care.
Patriotism isn’t a neutral, generic principle that somehow avoids taking sides. King and Johnson were fighting for their country’s soul against Americans with very different goals. But their way of evoking that fight — and, for King at least, of living it — could inspire what Ebony editor Lerone Bennett, Jr., writing about the crowd hearing King’s speech at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, called “a certain surprise, as though the people had discovered suddenly what they were and what they had.”
Patriotic feeling is always attached to some vision of the country’s future, and, inevitably, to some Americans who share that vision more than others. It doesn’t transcend partisanship, but enriches partisan struggle, making it always an invitation to others to join you. It is a way of saying that we will not give up on one another, because the country that ties us together also gives us the power to remake it — in a better way, and, a patriot may feel, truer to itself.

Compromises Make Agreements
Najib Saab/Asharq Al-Awsat/July, 03/2022
As in politics and economics, so in environment and climate; it is compromises that allow for reaching major agreements, where facts are intertwined, interests are diverged and options are conflicting. Compromises are not a defect, as no one is the sole possessor of the truth in these complex issues.
Probably the initiative most expressive of the world’s recognition of the necessity of negotiating environmental issues in order to reach acceptable compromises is the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, which monitors international meetings on environment, development and climate on daily basis. Since its launch at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, this publication has become the most important reference for documenting the positions of countries and organizations in negotiation meetings, based on reports prepared by independent correspondents attending the discussions. The bulletin is issued by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), a non-governmental organization founded in Canada in 1988. The bulletin’s name reflects the reality facing environmental and development issues, as what the world needs to save this endangered planet is nothing less than serious and honest negotiations for Earth’s sake.Compromises accompanied international environmental action since its early days at the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. But they emerged strongly for the first time in the negotiations to protect the ozone layer, which began in 1982, and whose results were for years limited to general understandings about the need to reduce emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that deplete the ozone layer. However, scientific research during subsequent years found that reducing the use of these harmful substances is not enough, as it must be stopped completely and fast. Scientists suggested the year 2000 as a date for complete abolition of CFCs. But when negotiators failed to reach an agreement, a compromise was reached in 1987 to reduce production and use by half in 2000, and to give developing countries a grace period as well as technical and financial assistance to enable them to comply. With the success in implementing the provisions of the agreement being achieved faster than expected, member states later decided to bring forward the date of the total moratorium on ozone-depleting substances, not just 50 percent, to 1997. The world succeeded in implementing this goal.
When Mostafa Kamal Tolba, then Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), who was running the negotiations in 1987, reversed his initial position on completely ending production and use of ozone-depleting substances by the year 2000, some accused him of betraying the environmental cause. At the forefront of the attackers were non-governmental organizations, led by Greenpeace. To this, Tolba famously replied: “If we want to protect the environment, let us start with one step, and more steps can follow. What cannot be realized in full should not be totally abandoned.” Developments over the course of the few coming years proved that Mostafa Tolba had not betrayed the cause, he simply was more realistic, which paved the way for unprecedented success.
This does not mean at all giving up scientific facts and keeping silent about environmental crimes. Criminals who wreak havoc on the environment and nature must pay the full price, according to strict laws, whether it is related to polluting land, water and air, or depleting and wasting natural resources. While this type of crime should be outside the scope of compromises, complex issues, such as climate and the ozone, involve manifold aspects that affect each other, demanding solutions based on delicate balance between many options.
Things are not always black & white, as the interim solution sometimes may be grey. There are hard scientific facts that should not be bargained with. However, it may be necessary to subject the implementation plan to analysis that takes into account all the implications, leading to a phased plan on this basis. The hasty end of fossil fuels, for example, is not in the interest of the environment, if it occurs before providing alternatives, as it might lead to harmful consequences, such as deforestation caused by cutting forests in search of firewood for cooking and heating in poor countries.
A few days ago, I reminded Fouad Hamdan, a prominent global environment activist, currently working with German organizations on human rights and nature, of a conversation we had back in 1999, when he was leading Greenpeace campaigns in Beirut. At that time, Greenpeace activists were beaten by security guards when they stormed a polluting factory, and stopped its work for some hours. While most of the information they gave about pollution levels and types of pollutants was correct, one piece of data was wrong, a shortfall which was highlighted by the polluters. My advice was that environmental organizations should always adopt accurate scientific data in all their statements, because making one small mistake gives polluters an excuse to question all the other facts. My opinion at the time was that the activists did their duty by protesting, while the security guards did their job when they prevented them. Confrontation, within limits, is useful for environmental action, and if the police had not beaten the demonstrators with batons to prevent them from storming the factory, the media would not have paid attention to the issue and put it on front pages and in the headlines of news bulletins.
I also conveyed to Fouad Hamdan what Dr. Mostafa Tolba had confided to me while working on his memoirs in 2015: Tolba considered that the protests staged by environmental organizations, at the forefront of which was Greenpeace, and even accusing him of betraying the environmental cause when he accepted an interim settlement on the ozone issue, strengthened his position and gave him support to reach, after a few years, better terms than what Greenpeace considered to have been waived. In such a type of negotiation, the secret is to choose what to take and what to leave, in order to make a step forward towards achieving the ultimate goal at the earliest opportunity.
Here, I reveal another secret: when environmental activists stormed a conference of the Arab Forum for Environment and Development (AFED) to confront the head of an organization concerned with international development, who was among the speakers, demanding greater attention to environmental issues and clean and renewable energies, my response, as Secretary-General of the host organization, was to expel the protesters from the hall. I remember that the head of the organization at which the protest was directed told me: “They did their duty as you have done yours.” He also asked for footage documenting
the protest, because, as he said, those would help him convey the message of the protestors, reflecting change in public opinion, to member governments, “in order to facilitate better understanding leading to compromises.”
I mentioned ‘compromises’ in an article I wrote recently on the fiftieth anniversary of the Stockholm Conference on the Environment, to which a journalist friend replied that “had it not been for compromises, disasters would not have increased.” Thanks to him for inciting me to write this article, to make it clear that the right compromises may lead not only to preventing disasters and achieving goals in the medium run, but sometimes to strengthening goals and accelerating timelines, as was the case regarding the ozone agreement. This needs negotiators skilled in diplomacy, who can base their arguments on science and support their position by law.
*Najib Saab is Secretary General of the Arab Forum for Environment and Development- AFED (www.afedonline.org) and Editor-in-Chief of Environment & Development magazine (www.afedmag.com).

The Woke Inquisitors Have Come for the Freethinking Heretics
J.B. Shurk/Gatestone Institute./July 03/2022
Once governments normalize censorship and the punishment of points of view, free expression is firmly stamped with an expiration date.
Whenever censorship slithers back into polite society, it is always draped in the mantle of "good intentions." Fifteenth-century Dominican friar Girolamo Savonarola's "bonfire of the vanities" destroyed anything that could be seen to invite or reflect sin. The notorious 1933 Nazi book burning... in Berlin torched some 20,000 books deemed subversive or "un-German". During Communist China's decade-long Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and '70s, the vast majority of China's traditional scrolls, literature and religious antiquities went up in smoke.
All three atrocities were celebrated as achievements for the "greater good" of society... Much like today's new censors who claim to "fight hate" because "that's not who we are," the arsonists of the past saw themselves as moral paragons, too. They purged anything "obscene" or "traditional" or "old," so that theocracy, Nazism, or communism could take root and grow.
There will one day be much disagreement as to how the same Western Civilization that produced the Enlightenment and its hallowed regard for free expression could once again surrender itself to the petty tyranny of censorship.... The answer is that the West has fallen into the same trap that always catches unsuspecting citizens by surprise: the steady encroachment on free speech has been sold as a "virtue" that all good people should applaud.
First, certain thoughts became "aggravating factors" that turned traditional crimes into new "hate crimes" deserving of additional punishment. Then the definition of what is "hateful" grew until politicians could comfortably decree anything at odds with their agendas to be examples of "hate." Who would be for "hate," after all? Surely no-one of good sense or good manners.
Now "hate" has transformed into an elusive description for any speech that can be alleged to cause the slightest of harms. From there, it was easy for the state to decree that "disinformation," or rather anything that can be seen to contradict the state's own official narratives, causes "harm," too. Those who despise free speech told society, "If you do not punish hate, then you're a bigot." And today, if you oppose the government's COVID-19, climate change, immigration or other contentious policies, your harmful "disinformation" must be punished, too.
On a plaque in the square [where the Nazis burned books] is a commemorative engraving... "That was only a prelude; where they burn books, they will in the end also burn people." That warning comes with no expiration date.
Once governments normalize censorship and the punishment of points of view, free expression is firmly stamped with an expiration date.
Attacks on free speech are on the rise. A British college recently expelled a student for expressing support for the government's official policy of deporting illegal immigrants. A Wisconsin school district charged three middle-schoolers with sexual harassment last month for refusing to use the plural pronoun "they" when referring to a single classmate. US President Joe Biden's National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy recently encouraged social media companies to censor from their online platforms any opinions that contradict Biden's climate change narrative.
In its continued commitment to preserve the government's monopoly over COVID-19 information, Twitter actually suspended a medical doctor for merely sharing a scientific study that suggests the Pfizer vaccine affects male fertility. And the NFL's Washington Commanders fined defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio $100,000 and forced him to apologize only weeks ago for having expressed his opinion that 2020's summer of riots across the United States after George Floyd's death was more destructive than the few hours of mayhem at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
In contrast, it has become newsworthy that entertainment powerhouse Paramount has chosen not to censor old movies and television shows containing content that today's "woke" scolds might find "offensive." In a "cancel culture" world where censorship and trigger warnings have become the norm, preserving the artistic integrity of a film is now considered outright daring. In fact, even publishers of old literary classics have begun rewriting content to conform with "politically correct" sensibilities.
Examples such as these, where personal speech is either censored or punished, are becoming much more frequent, and anybody who minimizes the threat this increased intolerance for free expression poses to a democratic society is either gullibly or willfully blind. As any defender of liberty knows, nothing more quickly transforms a free society into a totalitarian prison than crackdowns on speech. Of all the tools of coercion available to a government, preventing individuals from freely expressing their thoughts is most dangerous. Denying citizens that most basic societal release valve for pent-up anger and disagreement only heightens the risk for outright violence down the line. Either silenced citizens become so enraged that conflict becomes inevitable, or the iron fist of government force descends on the public more broadly to preemptively curtail that possibility. Either way, the result is a disaster for any free society.
For Americans who cherish free speech, this undeniable war on language and expression is jolting but not shocking. Whenever censorship slithers back into polite society, it is always draped in the mantle of "good intentions." Fifteenth-century Dominican friar Girolamo Savonarola's "bonfire of the vanities" destroyed anything that could be seen to invite or reflect sin. The notorious 1933 Nazi book burning at the Bebelplatz in Berlin torched some 20,000 books deemed subversive or "un-German". During Communist China's decade-long Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and '70s, the vast majority of China's traditional scrolls, literature and religious antiquities went up in smoke.
All three atrocities were celebrated as achievements for the "greater good" of society, and people inebriated with "good intentions" set their cultural achievements aflame with fervor and triumph. Much like today's new censors who claim to "fight hate" because "that's not who we are," the arsonists of the past saw themselves as moral paragons, too. They purged anything "obscene" or "traditional" or "old," so that theocracy, Nazism, or communism could take root and grow. And if Western institutions today are purging ideas once again, then it is past time for people to start asking just what those institutions plan to harvest next.We in the West are running — not walking — toward another "bonfire of the vanities" in which normal people, egged on by their leaders, will eagerly destroy their own culture while claiming to save it. This time around the "vanities" will be condemned for their racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-science or climate-denying ways, but when they are thrown into the fire, it is dissent and free expression that will burn.
There will one day be much disagreement as to how the same Western Civilization that produced the Enlightenment and its hallowed regard for free expression could once again surrender itself to the petty tyranny of censorship. Many will wonder how the West's much-vaunted "liberal" traditions could meekly fold to the specter of state-controlled speech. The answer is that the West has fallen into the same trap that always catches unsuspecting citizens by surprise: the steady encroachment on free speech has been sold as a "virtue" that all good people should applaud.
First, certain thoughts became "aggravating factors" that turned traditional crimes into new "hate crimes" deserving of additional punishment. Then the definition of what is "hateful" grew until politicians could comfortably decree anything at odds with their agendas to be examples of "hate." Who would be for "hate," after all? Surely no-one of good sense or good manners.
Now "hate" has transformed into an elusive description for any speech that can be alleged to cause the slightest of harms. From there, it was easy for the state to decree that "disinformation," or rather anything that can be seen to contradict the state's own official narratives, causes "harm," too. Those who despise free speech told society, "If you do not punish hate, then you're a bigot." And today, if you oppose the government's COVID-19, climate change, immigration, or other contentious policies, your harmful "disinformation" must be punished, too.
It is a slippery slope, is it not? Once governments normalize censorship and the punishment of points of view, free expression is firmly stamped with an expiration date. After the Nazis went down this poisonous path, repentant Germans built a public memorial to remember the book burning at the Bebelplatz and ensure its tragic lesson was never forgotten. On a plaque in the square is a commemorative engraving, paraphrasing the 19th century German writer Heinrich Heine: "That was only a prelude; where they burn books, they will in the end also burn people." That warning comes with no expiration date.
JB Shurk writes about politics and society.
© 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 Race Between Fateful Summits from Madrid to Ashgabat
Raghida Dergham/The National/July 03/2022
In the closing days of June, NATO became a global organization, launching a vision for strategic transformation inside and beyond Europe. The transatlantic alliance designated Russia an adversary, considering it its most significant and direct threat, and China a foe who should not be underestimated, requiring a cohesive and forward-thinking strategy to address the threat it poses.
Russia’s war on Ukraine has overturned the relationship between the West and Russia. The war is not expected to end soon and may not conclude with a decisive victory or defeat for either Russia or Ukraine. But the winner has been NATO: The war has turned the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake, and expanded the alliance to include Sweden and Finland, when once the Russian goal was to stop further NATO expansion beginning with Ukraine.
The NATO summit in Madrid was not a mere spectacle. It carried major political and military significance. Its outcomes include increasing NATO forces on Russia’s doorsteps from 40,000 to 300,000 mostly in Poland and the Baltic States, and opening the door to US military deployment in Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland.
US President Joe Biden left the summit reassured by the consensus on Ukraine and by the European-wide agreement to increase their contributions to the NATO budget to 2 percent of their GDPs, increasing their share of the burden. But while this was happening in Madrid in late June, what was happening at the same time in Ashgabat, the capital of Turkmenistan at the 6th Summit of the Heads of State of Caspian littoral states?
The summit brought together the leaders of Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. There, President Putin sought to establish a structure to counterbalance the G7 group of the West’s largest economies, which had convened its summit on Monday in Germany. Not long ago, Russia used to be invited to the G7, before the time of crisis with the West. Putin could not contain his contempt for the G7 and its hostility to Russia, commenting on the G7 leaders taking off their suit jackets and ties by saying: “I don’t know whether they wanted to strip down to the waist or below…but I think that it would be a disgusting sight in any case”.
On a more serious note, among the key moves the Russian leader was pushing in Turkmenistan is upgrading relations with Iran, which saw him meet with Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in Ashgabat. Prior to the Caspian summit, the BRICS summit convened virtually hosted by China, and brought together the leaders of Russia, India, Brazil, and South Africa. During the summit, China and Russia approved the accession of Iran and Argentine to the group, opening the door to political leverage and economic opportunities to Iran.
In the view of the Russian president, the BRICS group is a serious challenge to the G7, which includes the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and Canada in addition to the European Union as a permanent guest. But according to an expert on the BRICS group, it is little more than a political poster, given the huge and serious differences between its largest members India and China. Yet Iran’s accession to the BRICS has long-term implications in the context of the troika comprised of China, Russia, and Iran, a troika that is a geopolitical cornerstone for each of the three parties for different reasons.
The talks between President Putin and President Raisi tackled this issue and affirmed the importance of signing a bilateral strategic cooperation pact soon, expected to take place during Putin’s visit to Tehran later this year. According to sources briefed on the talks, the two presidents affirmed what the Russian Foreign Minister had laid the ground for in his recent visit to Iran (see last week’s column). A key decision made by Putin during the Russian-Iranian summit was also to fully entrust Iran and its activities in Syria from now on with the protection of the regime of Bashar al-Assad. In other words, the Kremlin has upgraded relations to Iran to strategic outsourcing of the mission in Syria and the Middle East, with everything this entails.
There is still a sliver of hope left for nuclear talks with Iran to make a breakthrough, but the odds are decreasing and do not exceed five percent today, according to the assessment made by the two sides. Putin told Raisi that Russia would strongly defend Iran’s interests at the Vienna talks – which have moved to Doha – seeking to revive the JCPOA and lift sanctions on Iran. According to the climates emerging out of Russia and Iran, “the final bell has not been rung yet” to announce the death of the talks, as one former official familiar with the talks said.
Indirect talks between the United States and Iran in Doha did not conclude with the outcome hoped for by the Europeans. A compromise remains very difficult given Iran’s insistence on delisting the IRGC and on not revealing what is concealed in its nuclear program, both issues that the Biden administration cannot yield on. However, Iran is in dire needs to get the sanctions lifted. The Biden administration is in dire need to reap the fruit of its investment in the negotiations. Europe is still desperate for a deal. And Putin would want to be the broker of the success of the deal so he can say he is still able to facilitate or block important international issues. But if the negotiations culminate with a failure, Russia and Iran intend to blame the United States and Israel together, and exploit the failure to further their interests on several levels. For example, Russia would start making weapons deliveries to Iran agreed in a previous arms deal, which was disrupted due to sanctions on Iran. The failure of the Vienna talks would therefore ‘liberate’ Russia from its previous commitments, and it would supply these weapons to Iran, free of charge at the present time. In these circumstances, emphasizing the Russian-Iranian strategic partnership and the full extent of subversion it can bring is priceless.
According to the same sources, Putin told Raisi Russia is not interested in seeing a conflict erupt with Israel at this juncture. The reasons are unclear but may include the Kremlin not wanting another headache at this stage, and may be linked to the possibility of Netanyahu returning to power in Israel. Recall that Putin and Netanyahu enjoy an exceptionally good relationship.
New Russian weapons delivered to Iran are likely to be shared with Hezbollah fighters in Syria and Lebanon. Putin’s mood does not fully exclude a mini conflict between Iran and Israel if the Vienna talks fail. Such a mini conflict would also benefit Iran.
As soon as Iran would withdraw from the Vienna talks, its hands will be free with support from Russia, and the first front to open will likely be Syria and Lebanon. It is this game of brinkmanship that the Iranian regime and the IRGC needs, and the Putin regime in Russia needs.
Vladimir Putin may wait a little before responding to the humiliation and challenge from the NATO summit, but he will not be the one to back down on what is happening in Kaliningrad. He will wait until the Europeans make their decision on 10 July on transit through Lithuania to Kaliningrad. Moscow is hoping for a compromise to resume transit, but if that does happen, there is talk of forcing a land corridor from Belarus via Lithuania to the huge Russian base in Kaliningrad. In other words, the talk is of a direct military confrontation with NATO.
Everything is possible this summer, and many issues are interlinked. There is talk today that President Biden could cancel his trip to Israel and Palestine, not only because of differences within his administration regarding the Palestinian stop, but also because of the political crisis brewing in Israel. Traditionally, US leaders have avoided making such visits at the height of Israeli government crises. No announcement has been made yet about excluding the Israeli and Palestinian stops, or postponing or cancelling Biden’s visit to the Middle East altogether, despite some reports to this effect. Alongside the Israeli political crisis, reports also invoke as reasons for cancellation the possibility of the failure of the Vienna talks, and the decision by the OPEC+ grouping of increasing production by 648,000 barrels per day in July and August, which softens the energy emergency and allows the postponement of Biden’s rendezvous with the Arab Gulf States. Still, these remain unconfirmed reports.
The GCC summit scheduled for mid-July in Riyadh will be particularly important for strategic, energy, and economic reasons. The Gulf states are confidently and prudently realigning their relations with each other and the regional landscape, including with Arab states, Iran, and Turkey, intent to induce a qualitative shift in these relations. Turkey is responding and reinventing itself. As for Iran, it remains the permanent and most dangerous riddle of all.

Violence surges in countryside surrounding Damascus
Haid Haid/The Arab Weekly/July 03/2022
Since recapturing the largely agricultural province surrounding Damascus in 2018, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad has sought to portray the capital as a haven of calm in a country riven by conflict. In addition to the city’s symbolic importance, securing Damascus and the outlying region known as Rural Damascus is essential for the regime’s political rehabilitation and economic recovery. It did not take long for some governments to accept Assad’s narrative. Based on the relative absence of anti-regime activities, Sweden and Denmark agreed that Damascus is safe enough for Syrian refugees to return home. But this oversimplified risk assessment is now being tested. Sixteen attacks have been reported in and around Damascus since April, killing a total of 13 people affiliated with the regime. While it is not clear who is behind the attacks, the high volume, more than one per week, raises questions about the stability of areas held by the government.
Local media recorded six assassination attempts in April. One attack was reported in the city of Damascus, while the rest took place in areas outside the capital, including Qatana, Al Kiswah, Beit Jinn and Al Worood district. Two casualties were reported.
A similar number of attacks took place in May, with six confirmed dead. All of these attacks were again concentrated in towns outside Damascus (including Beit Sahm, Hudjara, and Kfer Yaboos). Then in June, four attacks occurred, in Hawsh Nasri, Beit Jinn, Qudssaya and Sbeneh, killing a total of five people, three of whom died while dismantling improvised explosive devices.
Notably, pro-government media did not report on every incident, choosing instead to downplay the uptick in violence. Even when some of these attacks were publicised, regime-supported news outlets generally portrayed the targets as civilian.
Independent news sources, on the other hand, reported that most of the casualties were government fighters or combatants, not civilians. A tally of these sources finds that 11 of the 13 killed since April were members of local security and armed forces and two were Iranian-backed foreign militia members, one from Lebanese Hezbollah and the other from the Afghan Fatemiyoun. Despite the significance of these attacks, the perpetrators have generally remained silent. So far, ISIS is the only group that has claimed credit for any of the violence, the two attacks that occurred in Deir Khabiyeh, south of Damascus, in May.
As for the others, the means by which they were carried out offers clues to the responsible parties.
For instance, multiple media organisations reported that four of the casualties were found days after they disappeared, suggesting they were kidnapped first. Abduction for ransom has become a widespread phenomenon in Syria, which means that criminal groups might be responsible for some incidents. If so, the killings could have happened either because the operations were not successful or because the attackers wanted to cover their tracks.
Six of the unclaimed attacks involved the use of IEDs, while the rest were carried out with firearms. Given that the targets were all members of or supported by the Assad regime, it is likely that former rebels, people who have the motives, skills, and resources to carry out attacks, were responsible for some of these incidents.
In addition to failing to honour commitments pledged during surrender negotiations in 2018, including the release of detainees, the regime has increased its efforts to forcibly enlist into military service young men from the Damascus countryside. More importantly, deteriorating living conditions and rising rates of hunger may have motivated renewed resistance after nearly two years of relative calm.
To be sure, it is entirely possible that some of these attacks, especially the four that involved shooting, were “inside jobs.” The significant decrease in fighting in Syria has escalated competition between pro-regime groups over influence and resources. While some of these incidents have been settled through direct confrontations between the parties involved, others might have decided to use more discreet means to settle scores.
The identity of the perpetrators, however, is not the most important element of these attacks. The biggest unknown is whether the regime has the capacity to prevent them from striking again. While the answer remains unclear, the random pattern of these incidents, their spread across a relatively large area and the diversity of potential suspects make such a task a formidable challenge. Even if the regime can put an end to this wave of killing, recent developments have shown that the security of areas officially deemed safe is in fact precarious and fragile.
Western governments should not be fooled by Assad’s claim that the Syrian capital is safe for the country’s refugees, or anyone else. Syria remains in a state of war and the only path to lasting peace is a comprehensive and fair political solution.

Marshall Plan for the Middle East
Ronald S. Lauder/Arab News/July 03/2022
US President Joe Biden is about to embark on what might be the most important trip of his presidency so far. He will visit the oil-rich Middle East, in particular Saudi Arabia, to convey to the Kingdom the fact that it remains a strong ally and that the entire region is still vital to US strategic interests.
I believe this visit presents an even greater opportunity that the President should consider, which could solve one of the longest-running historical conflicts — one that is preventing stronger partnerships and long-term peace in the region. I am referring to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.
A growing number of Arab leaders are saying in private that they would very much like to take the same steps toward reconciliation with Israel that we witnessed with the Abraham Accords in 2020, but that they cannot do so until a solution is reached with the Palestinians. One official I met went so far as to say he would be happy if he at least “saw a greater effort on the Israeli side.”
We have also heard public statements of a kind never voiced in the past. In a stunning interview with Al Arabiya in 2020, veteran Saudi diplomat Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former ambassador to the US, spoke candidly about the mistakes made by Palestinian leaders over the years in failing to accept Israel’s peace proposals.
A recent secret military summit that took place in Egypt between the US Central Command and Israeli and Arab military officials is another indication of the changing attitudes due to the unifying threat from Iran.
It might seem counterintuitive, given the decades of failed peace efforts, but I believe this is exactly the right time to offer the Palestinians a new initiative — one that they cannot turn down. What I am suggesting is a “Marshall Plan” that would offer the next generation of Palestinians a future of wealth, success and self-reliance, rather than the dismal prospects of the past.
The original Marshall Plan, named after US Secretary of State George C. Marshall, formed the basis for rebuilding a shattered Europe after the Second World War and has been used ever since as a model for healing other conflicts. This is because it might have been the most successful foreign policy initiative in history. It accomplished many things at once. It rebuilt and modernized European industry destroyed during the war and it restored the confidence of an entire, demoralized continent. But its most important benefit was that it helped pacify Europe, which in the space of less than 40 years had endured two world wars that killed more than 100 million human beings.
This is exactly the right time to offer the Palestinians a new initiative — one that they cannot turn down.
If peace between the Israelis and Palestinians seems intractable, we should bear in mind that the strong, stable Europe we have known for the past seven decades was never a forgone conclusion after the Second World War.
Just as the Marshall Plan put Europe on a sound financial footing, the Palestinian plan should focus on the creation of small businesses, home building, hotels, restaurants and job creation that would offer a positive future to the next generation.
A fixed sum of money could be given to young entrepreneurs to create new businesses, which would be closely monitored. If they prove to be viable but need a financial boost after a year, another small infusion could be given. In other words, provide Palestinians with all the things that made Israel and other countries financially viable, which would help create a new and successful Palestine.
Within three-to-five years, I believe per capita wealth would double annually. The wealthier a future Palestinian nation becomes, the more likely it is that it could be the viable, successful country it should be — and every country in the region would benefit from this change.
The funding could be shared by the US, Europe, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East, including Israel which, along with the Palestinians, would be the chief beneficiary.
Israel is one of the leading high-tech incubators in the world. Younger Palestinians know this and are very interested in being involved in this sector. Palestinian parents would have to decide whether their hatred of Israel is so strong that they would prefer their children to grow up in poverty and die as “martyrs” — or share in a better economic future with their Jewish neighbors and have fuller lives and happier families.
In the past there has not always been adequate accountability in terms of the aid money given to Palestinians. The new plan would have to be closely monitored by an organization that is trusted by all sides, which would keep an eye on where the money goes and how it is used.
Many of the details still have to be worked out, as problems are sure to arise. But issues cropped up with the original Marshall Plan and had to be ironed out as it progressed. Nothing ever runs completely smoothly, especially when dealing with long-standing and visceral hatreds; there was enough animosity between Britain, France and Germany immediately after 1945 to fill volumes. If those countries were able to focus on a brighter, shared future then that is the model we can use today.
The Marshall Plan focused on bridge builders. I know there are bridge builders in the Middle East right now. I have met them. I know they want to move forward.
In the end, the Marshall Plan did not help Europe alone, it helped the entire world. In the same way, a new future for Palestinians and Israelis would have benefits that extend far beyond the immediate region.
President Biden and his team have, with their upcoming visit to the Middle East, a moment in which to create the same kind of opportunity for peace in a troubled region that the Marshall Plan represented 75 years ago. It is a moment that could change the world for the better.
• Ronald S. Lauder is President of the World Jewish Congress.