English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For 23 July/2022
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2021/english.july23.22.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
The Wheed & Good Wheat Seed Parable/The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field
Matthew 13/24-30: “Jesus put before them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, “Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?” He answered, “An enemy has done this.” The slaves said to him, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?”But he replied, “No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’.

Question: “Why is church attendance/going to church important?”
GotQuestions.org?
Answer: Simply put, the Bible tells us we need to attend church so we can worship God with other believers and be taught His Word for our spiritual growth. The early church “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). We should follow that example of devotion—and to the same things. Back then, they had no designated church building, but “every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts” (Acts 2:46). Wherever the meeting takes place, believers thrive on fellowship with other believers and the teaching of God’s Word.
fear of God
Church attendance is not just a “good suggestion”; it is God’s will for believers. Hebrews 10:25 says we should “not [be] giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” Even in the early church, some were falling into the bad habit of not meeting with other believers. The author of Hebrews says that’s not the way to go. We need the encouragement that church attendance affords. And the approach of the end times should prompt us to be even more devoted to going to church.
Church is the place where believers can love one another (1 John 4:12), encourage one another (Hebrews 3:13), “spur” one another to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24), serve one another (Galatians 5:13), instruct one another (Romans 15:14), honor one another (Romans 12:10), and be kind and compassionate to one another (Ephesians 4:32).
When a person trusts Jesus Christ for salvation, he or she is made a member of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27). For a church body to function properly, all of its “body parts” need to be present and working (1 Corinthians 12:14–20). It’s not enough to just attend a church; we should be involved in some type of ministry to others, using the spiritual gifts God has given us (Ephesians 4:11–13). A believer will never reach full spiritual maturity without having that outlet for his gifts, and we all need the assistance and encouragement of other believers (1 Corinthians 12:21–26).
For these reasons and more, church attendance, participation, and fellowship should be regular aspects of a believer’s life. Weekly church attendance is in no sense “required” for believers, but someone who belongs to Christ should have a desire to worship God, receive His Word, and fellowship with other believers. Jesus is the Cornerstone of the Church (1 Peter 2:6), and we are “like living stones . . . being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). As the building materials of God’s “spiritual house,” we naturally have a connection with one another, and that connection is evident every time the Church “goes to church.”
 

Titels For English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on July 22-23/2022
UN Special Coordinator briefs Security Council on implementation of Resolution 1701
Al-Hajj meets Aoun in Baabda, briefs him on arrest circumstances
Oueidat asks officials to amend Israel boycott law if they don't want it enforced
Bassil: Aoun eagerly waiting to leave Baabda, resistance can't be strong without state
Justice Minister after meeting al-Rahi: My powers over judiciary are limited
UN coordinator says protecting vulnerable Lebanese, refugees 'humanitarian imperative'
Smoldering Beirut Port Silo Risks Total Collapse amid Fire
Lebanon gas deal creates strangest of connections/Jonathan Spyer/Jerusalem Post/Jult 22/2022
2022 Presidential Elections: Perpetuating Chaos and Isolation/Hanna Saleh/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 22/2022
Israel anxious as Nasrallah becomes unpredictable/Ben Caspit/Al Minitor/July 22/ 2022

Titles For Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on July 22-23/2022
Iran doesn't want a nuclear deal, British spy chief says
Iran’s Nuclear Program Is ‘Galloping Ahead’, IAEA Chief Says
Children among 7 Killed in Alleged Russian Strike in Syria
Angry Iraqis clash with police over attack blamed on Turkey
Two Bomb-Laden Drones Downed Near Turkish Base in Iraq
Turkey Says Needs No Permission for North Syria Military Operation
Lavrov in Egypt Next Week as Part of African Tour
Israeli Chief of Staff Meets with Jewish Community in Marrakech
Saudi arrested after Israeli reporter sneaks into Mecca

Titles For LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 22-23/2022
Will new nuclear deal render Israel’s capabilities hollow?/Jacob Nagel and Mark Dubowitz/Israel Hayom/July 22/2022
Israel Needs to Speak Out and Hold Putin Accountable for His Crimes and Lies/Ivana Stradner/The Algemeiner/July 22/2022
Erdogan returns emptyhanded from talks with Putin, Raisi/Fehim Tastekin/Al Monitor/July 22/2022
Putin’s Imaginary World Order/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 22/2022
Jeddah Summit: A New Scene in the Arab World/Radwan al-Sayyed/Asharq Al Awsat/July 22/2022
Australia: New Government Maintains Hardline Stance on China/Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute/July 22, 2022/

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on July 22-23/2022
UN Special Coordinator briefs Security Council on implementation of Resolution 1701
Naharnet/Friday, 22 July, 2022
United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon Joanna Wronecka and Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations Jean-Pierre Lacroix have briefed the Security Council on the latest report of U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on the implementation of Resolution 1701.
"Noting the unrelenting socio-economic crisis and its dire impact on people’s daily lives, the Special Coordinator warned that Lebanon stands at a crossroad between rebound or collapse, and underscored that its trajectory will depend on the ability and willingness of the country’s leaders to urgently initiate sustainable solutions," Wronecka's office said in a statement. "The Special Coordinator emphasized in this regard the importance of functioning state institutions that can deliver on required reforms and address people’s needs. She echoed recent calls by the Security Council and the International Support Group for Lebanon for Lebanese stakeholders to prioritize the country’s national interests, avoid political deadlocks and speed up the formation of a government. She supported calls for the conduct of presidential elections within the constitutionally stipulated timeline, given the current presidential mandate expires on 30 October 2022. "The Special Coordinator praised the efforts of Lebanon’s Armed and security forces to preserve Lebanon’s fragile stability and prevent a security deterioration, praising in particular their performance during the legislative elections. She encouraged support to the LAF and other state security forces as indispensable and a worthwhile investment in Lebanon’s stability."Underlining the crucial importance of a Lebanese agreement with the IMF and that time is running out, the Special Coordinator said both Parliament and Government should quickly take the required prior actions to make that deal possible, including fiscal, monetary, financial and governance reforms," the statement went on to say. As Lebanon is set to mark the second anniversary of the devastating Beirut Port explosion on 4 August, the Special Coordinator noted "the lack of progress in judicial proceedings which was weighing heavily on the families of the victims and the thousands of injured." She reiterated calls for unblocking the judicial process and for "an impartial, thorough and transparent investigation into the case."On the border situation between Lebanon and Israel, the Special Coordinator highlighted the Secretary-General’s calls on all parties "to honor their commitments to fully implement resolution 1701 (2006), to cease all violations, and to respect the cessation of hostilities."The Special Coordinator encouraged Lebanon and Israel to reach an agreement to delineate their maritime boundary and emphasized "the continued readiness of the United Nations to support that process as requested by the parties and within its capacity and mandate."The Special Coordinator stressed the commitment of the United Nations to continue standing by Lebanon and its people.

Al-Hajj meets Aoun in Baabda, briefs him on arrest circumstances
Agence France Presse/Friday, 22 July, 2022
President Michel Aoun met Friday with Archbishop Mussa Al-Hajj who briefed him on the circumstances of his arrest in Naqoura as he was returning to Lebanon from the occupied Palestinian territories. The Archbishop of the Archeparchy of Haifa and the Holy Land and Patriarchal Exarch of Jerusalem and Palestine and Jordan had been questioned for 12 hours earlier this week upon his return from Israel with large quantities of medicines, foodstuffs and canned goods, in addition to $460,000. A military court summoned him for further questioning Wednesday, which drew angry reactions from Christian leaders.
Many Lebanese rely on remittances from family abroad to weather a crushing economic crisis that began in 2019, but transporting products or money from Israel to Lebanon is illegal.

Oueidat asks officials to amend Israel boycott law if they don't want it enforced
Naharnet/Friday, 22 July, 2022
State Prosecutor Ghassan Oueidat has said there are no political backgrounds to the search procedure that Archbishop Mussa al-Hajj had been subjected to in Naqoura, negating that Mussa had been arrested or offended. "Judge Fadi Akiki has enforced the law," Oueidat told Asharq al-Awsat newspaper, in remarks published Friday, as transporting products or money from Israel to Lebanon is illegal. The Patriarch of the Diocese of Haifa and the Maronite Holy Land had been questioned for 12 hours earlier this week upon his return from Israel with large quantities of medicines, foodstuffs and canned goods, in addition to $460,000. “The funds that he was transporting, around $460,000, are not owned by the church but they rather came from collaborators residing in Israel, the majority of whom work for the enemy in the occupied territories,” Akiki said in an interview. "Transporting products from Israel is prohibited by law," Oueidat said, blaming the politicians who had criticized the move. "Do not attack the judiciary for enforcing a law that you have made," he said. "Amend the law, if you don't want it," he added.The arrest of al-Hajj had drawn angry reactions from Christian leaders, who considered it "an attack on the Maronite Church". Earlier this week, Maronite Patriarch Bechara al-Rahi headed an emergency meeting with other Maronite clerics , condemning al-Hajj's arrest, which they dubbed a "charade", and called for the case to be "closed immediately"."We demand... the confiscated aid be returned to the archbishop so that it can reach its beneficiaries," they said in a statement.

Bassil: Aoun eagerly waiting to leave Baabda, resistance can't be strong without state
Naharnet /Friday, 22 July, 2022
President Michel Aoun is eagerly waiting to leave the Baabda Palace when his term ends and "then we will return to our nature away from the palace’s limitations," Free Patriotic Movement chief Jebran Bassil said on Friday. "The caretaker cabinet is not eligible to practice presidential powers and the presidential vote must be held on time to prevent vacuum," Bassil added, in an interview on al-Manar TV. As for the formation of a new government, the FPM chief said "there is no hope that a government will be formed" soon, adding that he does not have "any demands.""We call for forming a government so that we don't enter a full vacuum, " he added. "The PM-designate has no intention to form a government and he is not exerting efforts," Bassil charged. Mikati "wants to keep this government because he doesn't want to shoulder the responsibility of three matters -- removing the central bank governor, the border demarcation file and the issue of refugees," the FPM chief added. Moreover, he stressed that it is Mikati and not the FPM who does not want a new government because he was "the one who visited Baabda and presented a line-up to the president, telling him 'I changed three of your ministers and a I've changed a fourth in agreement with Speaker (Nabih) Berri.'"Bassil also said that he "will not insist on the energy portfolio in the new government," adding that he has informed France of this. "We have not held onto the energy portfolio and in Hariri's government we suggested allotting it to Hezbollah but it refused it," he noted. As for the relation with Hezbollah, Bassil said: "The resistace was betrayed in the July War and I will defend Hezbollah no matter what, because there is a scheme to liquidate it and eliminate it.""The resistance cannot be strong without a state," he added, criticizing Hezbollah's alliance with Berri. "We won over Israel in war but we didn't win over it in peace, and victory does not only come through weapons but rather in living with dignity. Why should the resistance be at the expense of the state?" Bassil asked. "Without a state, there would be no homeland, but rather sectarian fiefdoms," he warned.

Justice Minister after meeting al-Rahi: My powers over judiciary are limited
Naharnet/Friday, 22 July, 2022 
Minister of Justice Henry Khoury met Friday with Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi over the controversial detention and interrogation of Archbishop Mussa al-Hajj. Khoury said that dismissing Judge Fadi Akiki is not within his powers as a minister. "The judiciary is self-governed and the Justice Minister's powers are limited," Khoury said, adding that he can not invest nor judge over the matter. Khoury said that he had asked State Prosecutor Ghassan Oueidat to provide him with the available information regarding al Hajj's file and that he hasn't obtained any answer yet. Oueidat had said in an press interview, that Akiki had enforced the law by questioning al-Hajj earlier this week upon his return from Israel with large quantities of medicines, foodstuffs and canned goods, in addition to $460,000. Maronite clerics had asked for the dismissal of Akiki and for the confiscated aid to be returned immediately.

UN coordinator says protecting vulnerable Lebanese, refugees 'humanitarian imperative'
Naharnet/Friday, 22 July, 2022 
U.N. Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Lebanon Najat Rochdi stressed Friday the importance of protecting the most vulnerable populations, regardless of their nationality. "Over the past weeks, public discussions over the return of Syrian refugees to Syria have increased in Lebanon. On behalf of the International Humanitarian Community and in my capacity as Humanitarian Coordinator for Lebanon, I reiterate that the protection of refugees is a humanitarian and moral imperative and lies at the heart of all humanitarian actions," Rochdi said in a statement. Rochdi recognized "the incredible generosity of the Lebanese people and authorities who have hosted refugees at a time when they have been struggling with their own vulnerabilities, and I would like to express our gratitude for the continued solidarity." She said that the longstanding collaboration of the Lebanese Government in responding to the ongoing impact of the Syria crisis on Lebanon and its people, under the Lebanon Crisis Response Plan (LCRP), and in supporting the most vulnerable populations affected by the unfolding economic crisis under the Emergency Response Plan (ERP), is "highly appreciated and commended.""Amid Lebanon’s unprecedented economic meltdown and significant increases in poverty levels and humanitarian needs, the United Nations and its partners remain committed to supporting the most vulnerable populations based on needs regardless of their nationality, disability, religion, gender, sexuality, or place of origin," the U.N. Coordinator added. The statement went on to say that over the past year, the Humanitarian Community, including the U.N. through the LCRP and ERP, has increased its support to the Lebanese people, families, communities, and public institutions to lessen the impact of the multiple crises and meet the dire needs of the most vulnerable, as part of its primary mission to Leave No One Behind. "These efforts have translated (from 2021 up to May 2022) into the provision of direct humanitarian assistance to over 1.6 million Lebanese, including cash assistance, food, health, education, protection, shelter, and water services; in addition to supporting around 200 Lebanese municipalities in strengthening their basic service provision and reducing resource pressure in high-risk communities. Other resources are also being invested in development and capacity-building in response to the ongoing crisis," Rochdi said. She added that "the humanitarian community wishes to reiterate and clarify that the protection of the most vulnerable women, men, boys, and girls is of high priority to the U.N. and its partners and that the U.N. is always willing to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Government of Lebanon (GoL)." Rochdi also recalled "the commitment of the GoL to the principle of non-refoulement under international law, and to the principle of ensuring the safe, voluntary, and dignified return of refugees."Rochdi concluded the statement by calling on everyone "to refrain from fueling the media and social media with negative sentiments and hatred, and I count on all to continue to display the spirit of solidarity and mutual respect in these difficult times."

Smoldering Beirut Port Silo Risks Total Collapse amid Fire
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 22 July, 2022
Lebanon's prime minister on Friday warned that the ruin of a massive grain silo risks total collapse due to an ongoing fire that's expanding amid the summer heat at the Beirut port where a devastating blast two years ago tore through the Mediterranean city.
A fire in the structure has been smoldering for the past two weeks due to 800 tons of grain inside fermenting in the hot weather. The government said the fire expanded after flames reached nearby electrical cables. The fire and the dramatic sight of the smoldering, partially blackened silo is reviving memories and in some cases trauma for survivors of the gigantic explosion that tore through the port two years ago. Experts say part of the structure is leaning and in danger of tipping over. Prime Minister Najib Mikati, who oversees a caretaker government, ordered firefighters and civil defense volunteers to step back Friday for their safety. Civil Defense volunteer Youssef Mallah told The Associated Press that they are still at the port, but have been ordered to stay far from the silo. The August 2020 blast was caused by hundreds of tons of ammonium nitrate, a highly explosive material used in fertilizers, that had been improperly stored for years at the port’s warehouse. The tall structure withstood the force, effectively shielding the western part of Beirut from the explosion that killed over 200 people, wounded more than 6,000 and badly damaged entire neighborhoods. The government said experts had warned that trying to put out the fire with water could worsen it due to humidity, but the Interior Minister on Thursday ordered firefighters to try to contain the fire with water anyway. Over the weekend, the Lebanese army sent a helicopter to try to douse the fire with water as well. Another minister warned last week that the situation at the port was “tricky and complicated”, and warned of a collapse. Emmanuel Durand, a French civil engineer who volunteered for the government-commissioned team of experts said the north block of the silo was “on path for catastrophic failure” and that a collapse was inevitable at this point. He told the AP the grain fire could not be extinguished by water, which actually fuels the process of fermentation and can make the silo tilt faster. Durand, who is based in Switzerland, has been monitoring the silo for two years via sensors, and sending warnings to the government. The silo that has been tilting at no more than 0.5 millimeters a day two weeks ago is now moving at “cruise speed” with 2 millimeters an hour, he said. Earlier this year, the Lebanese government moved to demolish the silo, but was forced to suspend the decision following protests from families of the blast’s victims and survivors, who have yet to see justice served. They argue that the silo may contain evidence useful for a judicial probe. Some also say the silo should stand as a memorial for the tragic incident. The judicial probe revealed that a range of government officials, including the president, knew about the dangerous substance that had been stored at the port for years, but did not take meaningful action to remove it or dispose of it. No officials have been yet been convicted. Those implicated have lodged legal complaints against the judge leading the investigation. A rally organized by the Hezbollah group against the judge leading the probe turned deadly last year, with six people were killed and dozens wounded.

Lebanon gas deal creates strangest of connections
Jonathan Spyer/Jerusalem Post/Jult 22/2022
BEHIND THE LINES: A look at the geopolitical significance in this deal, how it benefits the Lebanese people and the Assad regime, offsets Iran and Hezbollah and how Israel is involved.
In a much-reported move, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt signed an agreement at the Lebanese Energy Ministry in Beirut on June 21 for the provision of Egyptian natural gas to Lebanon, via Syria. According to the deal, Egypt will export 650 million cubic meters of natural gas per year to the Deir Ammar power plant in Lebanon. The gas will reach Lebanon through the Arab Gas Pipeline (AGP), which runs through Jordan and Syria.
This agreement, which requires final approval from the World Bank, which is set to partially finance it, and from the United States, is significant from a number of points of view.
Firstly, if implemented it will go some way toward alleviating the plight of Lebanese citizens, for whom daily power outages and long hours without electricity have become a part of daily life. The agreement promises to generate an additional 450 megawatts of electricity, according to a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This is set to give Lebanese homes an additional four hours of electricity per day. The state-owned generator in Lebanon has been barely functioning in recent months, leaving citizens dependent on private generators that run on diesel fuel.
Secondly, the agreement represents a significant achievement for the Assad regime in Syria. United States approval is still required, because the agreement is in contravention of the US Caesar Act, which maintains financial sanctions on the Syrian regime, because of the mass killings of civilians it carried out in the period of the Syrian civil war.
Gas was pumped from Egypt to Lebanon prior to the war, but this process was stopped in 2011 because of instability and attacks on the pipeline in Syria. So the agreement will enable the Syrian regime to bypass sanctions and project an image of a return to normality, as well as gaining a modest injection of income from the transfer of the gas.
The agreement also has geopolitical implications. If the US gives the final go ahead, it will be at least partly in order to offset efforts by Iran and its local proxy Hezbollah to use provision of fuel from Iran as a way of further cementing Tehran’s hold on the country.
Since September, three Iranian oil tankers carrying diesel fuel have made their way from Iran to Syria’s Baniyas Port. From there, the diesel was brought by truck via an informal border crossing at Qusayr. While the quantities so far brought from Iran are far from the amounts needed to address the energy crisis, they represented a propaganda victory of sorts for the Iranian interest in Lebanon. The June deal serves to reverse this, tying in the provision of energy for electricity on a strategic level to Western-aligned states, rather than to Iran.
Will gas come from Israel?
In this regard, and perhaps most significantly of all, it appears that some or all of the pipelined gas that will be reaching the Deir Ammar power plant via the pipeline will be Israeli – extracted from Israel’s Leviathan gas field in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The likelihood that the gas to be transferred via the AGP will originate in the Leviathan field was indignantly denied by the Lebanese government, following a Channel 12 report on the matter in January.
The Lebanese Energy Ministry issued a statement following the Channel 12 report that the account was “totally and completely untrue” and that “the gas supply agreement that is being worked on between the Lebanese government and the sisterly Egyptian government clearly and explicitly stipulates that the gas should come from Egypt.”
The Lebanese Energy Ministry’s defensiveness is understandable. Lebanese law forbids all contact with Israel and Israelis. Hezbollah, which is represented in the caretaker cabinet that currently officially rules Lebanon, is committed to the destruction of Israel. Were it to become apparent that the country’s energy needs were being to a considerable extent met by the import of Israeli gas, these positions might be subject to ridicule. Considerable evidence, nevertheless, points in this direction.
Amit Mor, CEO of EcoEnergy Financial Strategic Consulting and a senior lecturer at Reichman University, is unequivocal in his assessment.
“The commercial deal is with the Egyptian gas company,” Mor told The Jerusalem Post. But “the gas itself will be molecules from the Leviathan field as Israeli gas is flowing these days in the Arab pipeline via Jordan to Egypt.”
Closer observation of the pattern of Egyptian gas consumption, and of the pipeline infrastructure that will supply the gas to Lebanon, appears to support this view.
Egypt uses almost all of its locally extracted gas for domestic consumption. According to a recent report by the Egyptian Mada Masr website (associated with the Egyptian opposition), Egypt’s current daily local production of gas is between 7 and 7.5 billion cubic feet. Local consumption is currently at 6 billion cubic feet per day. The Egyptian government takes 5 billion, with the partnering excavation company taking the rest, and the Egyptian government then buys one million from the company to cover domestic needs. Thus, Egypt does not at present possess a large stock of domestically extracted reserves available for export. Egypt does export some gas to Europe, from its two liquefaction plants at Idku and Damietta. Some of this exported gas is itself imported from Israel.
More fundamentally, the pipeline structure as currently in use would not allow for Egyptian locally extracted gas to be piped to Jordan and then Syria and Lebanon using the AGP. This pipeline intersects with Israeli pipelines at two points: in Arish in Egypt, and with an Israeli pipeline from the Leviathan gas field, which meets the AGP at a point in the city of Mafraq, in Jordan. For Egypt to pipeline gas to Jordan using the AGP, it would need either to halt this import of Israeli gas, or to build a new pipeline to transport locally extracted gas from Port Said to Arish, which would then be transferred to the AGP. Neither of these actions would be practical, and neither appears to be under way.
It thus appears clear that the gas that will reach Lebanon via Jordan and Syria, if and when the June 21 deal receives final approval, will indeed be extracted by Israel from the Leviathan field.
So the deal, if implemented, will represent a notable achievement for the Assad regime in its efforts to end its isolation. It will also introduce a situation whereby Hezbollah’s leadership will be able to light and heat (or cool) their bunkers in south Beirut (where presumably they’re planning their next war against Israel) courtesy of Israeli extraction of gas from the Eastern Mediterranean.
To add a further layer of absurdity, this is set to take place even as the Hezbollah leadership threatens Israel with war if it extracts gas from the neighboring Karish field. The Middle East never fails to recall Dostoevsky’s “underground man,” who defined a human being as a “creature that walks on two legs and has no sense of gratitude.”

2022 Presidential Elections: Perpetuating Chaos and Isolation
Hanna Saleh/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 22/2022
Lebanese presidents were never made in Lebanon. Foreign powers have always been involved in choosing them. The degree of Lebanese influence in this matter is always dwarfed during crises and “exaggerated” during good times. In the end, it is never a domestic decision as much as it reflects external balances and interests!
In the mid-twenties, before Lebanon obtained its independence, the French High Commissioner summoned Lebanon’s notables to discuss who should be president. The day following this consultation, Charles Debbas, who had been not invited to the meeting, was appointed! Independent Lebanon’s first president, Bechara El Khoury, won because of a conflict between the French and the English, while the second president of the republic, Camille Chamoun, the Socialist National Front’s candidate, won because of an Anglo-Syrian intersection of interest. Even President Fouad Chehab, whose term we owe for the development of a state of institutions, justice and social welfare in which the constitution and laws are adhered to, was not elected as a result of the 1958 “revolution” in as much as his presidency emerged because of an agreement between Abdel Nasser and the Americans.
In 1964, following Chehab’s refusal to amend the constitution and extend his time in office with a second term, the parliamentary majority, Al-Nahij (The Approach), decided to elect Deputy Prince Abdul Aziz Chehab as president. The prince slept a president and woke up to the majority electing Charles Helou to the presidency after a night of calls with the Egyptians, Syrians, and Americans. Parliament then decided in favor of Suleiman Franjieh in 1970. He famously defeated his rival Elias Sarkis by a single vote. However, the facts of the matter are different, as he would not have won if it had not been for the “Mirage” crisis, when the Second Bureau exposed Russia’s attempt to hijack the “Mirage” plane, pushing the Russian ambassador to intervene and demand that Deputy Kamal Jumblatt not elect Sarkis. Jumblatt divided the votes of his bloc, which caused a surprising upset.
Between 1975 and 2005, the occupying Syrian regime forces imposed the country’s presidents. The only exception came in 1982 when the Israeli occupying forces decided the question as Bashir Gemayel was elected during a parliamentary session guarded by Israeli tanks. After the Syrian army left the country, Michel Suleiman was named president during the Lebanese National Dialogue Conference in Doha under Arab-international auspices. This remarkable precedent left Parliament with nothing to do but sign the agreement!
The protected vacuum in the Presidency of the Republic began in 2014 and went on for 30 months. Hezbollah suspended Parliament by boycotting the sessions and preventing the quorum from being reached until its only candidate, Michel Aoun, was imposed president on October 31, 2016. On that day, Representative Strida Geagea said that the president had been made in Lebanon. However, it was apparent from the beginning that he was chosen because the US had been keen on the “Iranian option” as it was signing the nuclear agreement with Iran. The 2016 presidency was a turning point for US engagement with the region. Its 2016 decision is similar to that of US Iraq Envoy Paul Bremer announcing the dissolution of the Iraqi army, thereby handing Iraq over to the loyalists of the mullah regime in Iran!
What happened in 2016 warrants some contemplation. Although the nuclear agreement undermined Arab interests and destabilized Arab countries, the parliamentary majority opposed to Hezbollah saw it as the fate of Lebanon and the region. They made it easy to “pass the rifle” from shoulder to shoulder, so people witnessed the “Merab moment” as the alliance between Geagea and Aoun that would lead to the latter’s election was announced. Later on, Saad Hariri would vote for Aoun, despite his team’s broad opposition and the decision’s unpopularity, in return for the premiership. On the ground, agreements were reached with Hezbollah, and the faction enforcing Iran’s hegemony got the keys to the country. The state and its decision were kidnapped, with the Presidency of the Republic falling under Iranian occupation after the actual president became the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah. This dangerous development prompted the Maronite Patriarch to demand the liberation of the presidency as the country continued to be isolated from its allies and made into a country hostile to the region from which Captagon is exported and the internal affairs of Arab countries are interfered with!
Before going to the 2022 elections, many questions can be raised. They can be summed up in one core question about the lack of influence of Lebanese political forces in deciding who occupies the country’s most prominent office, the presidency? Is it the result of the sectarian political system, which links sectarian parties with external power, and sectarian identification is more powerful than patriotic sentiments? Historians might have to be called in to answer this question.
One thing we can be sure of is that the context in which this year’s election is being fought differs from that of 2016. Domestically, it comes after the country’s great collapse, Hezbollah has complete control, and Aoun’s presidency was shown to be a failure. This state of affairs ignited the October 17 revolution, which exposed the political class and its corruption, pushing the political elites out of public spaces and turning them into pariahs, but it neither toppled this political class nor held it accountable, despite the sectarian-quota-based spoil-sharing system showing cracks. Nonetheless, October 17 forced Hezbollah to become the spearhead of defending this corrupt political system, enabling it to overpower the state and monopolize decision-making and making it impossible for Hezbollah to avoid taking responsibility for what it has done to Lebanon and its people.
The Party lost its parliamentary majority after many of its allies lost out, and others were weakening. It is thus unable to dictate and impose its will. Meanwhile, the arrival of 13 deputies associated with October 17 shook things up. These are representatives of the revolution, figures who make up part of the fabric of this country, its regions, and communities. Despite the brevity of the time they have so far spent in the office, they imposed an unfamiliar approach to politics in terms of their commitment to respecting the constitution and the country’s laws. They are now faced with the challenge of putting forward a dignified and impartial candidate for the presidency whom the public is convinced of and who is committed to the constitution, who can represent the nation and be a role model.
Doing so would allow these deputies to thwart the authoritarians’ attempts to reach a “deal” that satisfies some of the external forces and allows the coalition led by Hezbollah to continue to dominate the country, replacing Aoun with Suleiman Franjieh or even Gibran Bassil. The latter scenario would mean disregarding the people’s suffering and the steps needed to allow the country to rise again... What is happening today in the presidential tug-of-war between the Presidential Palace and the Governmental Palace comes against the backdrop of the struggle for shares in the government; it is deeply reflective of the political class’s schizophrenia and political decadence!
In parallel, the regional context has also changed, despite the incursions of the mullah regime. However, the “Iranian option” is not in full swing with the failure of “Vienna;” nor is the Arab world in the same position, as demonstrated by the summits in Jeddah that included US President Joe Biden, and what these summits reflected in terms of concern for Lebanon, support for its sovereignty, stability and security, and determination to help its people. There can be no doubt that both externally and domestically, things have changed. Though relative, these domestic changes saw people mobilize and take politics into their own hands, which, if it continues, will lead to the development of a “historic bloc.” If this course is stopped in its tracks and no popular movement is capable of influencing change emerges, the vacancy in the presidency will be protracted, and our hopes for change will remain on hold!

Israel anxious as Nasrallah becomes unpredictable
Ben Caspit/Al Minitor/July 22/ 2022
Since the surprise eruption of the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Israel has invested a major effort in trying to read Hezbollaz leader Hassan Nasrallah and understand the way he operates. “This is the most stable and responsible leader in the Middle East,” a top military intelligence official told Al-Monitor recently on condition of anonymity. “We should be praying for his well-being. He is calculated, credible, plays by the rules, sticks to his promises — and at the same time he is deterred. I wish we had others like him on other fronts.”
This assessment is now being challenged. On July 2, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced the interception of three Hezbollah drones launched toward Israel’s Karish gas drilling platform in its Mediterranean economic waters. At least two were struck down by the navy’s Barak class interceptor system (a facsimile of the ground-based Iron Dome) deployed on its Eilat missile boat. Nasrallah did not appear overly concerned, but declared that if Lebanon’s economic water rights are undermined, he would go to war. He even set a deadline: September, just over a month away.
Israel is trying to understand his real intentions. “He has been a little unclear recently,” a senior Israeli security source told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. “It seems that he is losing his cool and credibility. He has embarrassed himself at least twice in recent weeks. Once, when he posted a video of the Karish gas rig that was aired on Israeli TV and claimed it showed footage from his drones, and again when he boasted of having brought down an Israeli UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle], a claim vehemently denied by the IDF. This is not the Nasrallah we know.”
Israeli assessments explain this shift as a diversionary tactic, with Nasrallah drawing attention to the supposed threat from Israel to deflect attention from his sensitive standing in domestic Lebanese politics, while accusing Israel and indirectly the United States for his country’s dire energy crisis.
“It is convenient for him to explain to Lebanese citizens that they are having to line up at the gas pumps because of Israel. It’s simply classic,” a senior Israeli diplomatic source told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. “He is trying to line up a win-win situation for himself. If negotiations between Israel and Lebanon [on demarcating their economic waters] yield positive results, he will take credit for himself and his threats against Israel; if the results are bad, he will escalate things and brand himself as Lebanon’s savior and the protector of Lebanon’s natural gas treasures.”
But Nasrallah is playing a dangerous game. “He does not want war,” an Israeli intelligence source told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. “But he could find himself in the midst of a war. He did not want war in 2006 and still found himself fighting one. He must understand the same thing could happen now.”
How should Israel respond if Nasrallah keeps sending drones toward the Karish rig? Israel’s top brass is divided on the answer, which depends first of all on the type of action he takes. Nasrallah has various options. He could launch another unarmed, intelligence collection drone of the type Israel intercepted, or an armed drone that would try to hit the platform. He could also deploy diverse or explosive-laden motor boats to strike the rig.
Israeli officials are in agreement that any attempt to hit the rig would be a clear violation of its red line, prompting a massive attack on Lebanon. The disagreement revolves around the question of what Israel should do if Nasrallah keeps up with more of the same, meaning unarmed drones.
Some in the military leadership think Israel should respond even to such a lower-level provocation. That decision will be left up to the politicians. Israel has a varied response menu and a huge target bank. It could hit Hezbollah targets in neighboring Syria, strike empty Hezbollah facilities on the Lebanon-Syria border, or remote and unimportant Hezbollah infrastructure, or even important but vacant infrastructure facilities. At the radical end of the spectrum, it could bomb one of Hezbollah’s rocket depots, an attack that would set off a war.
Israel knows it, Lebanon does, too. Neither side wants war of this type at the moment, but, as mentioned, no one wanted one in 2006, either.
Israel’s caretaker Prime Minister Yair Lapid is trying to portray himself as the “determined but responsible adult” on this front. This week, he overflew the Karish rig on a chopper and declared that gas discoveries in the Mediterranean could ease the global energy crisis and resolve Lebanon’s.
On the sidelines of the Biden visit to Israel on July 13-14, Lapid told Amos Hochstein, the US mediator in the Israel-Lebanon maritime border talks, that Israel would like to accelerate the pace of negotiations and reach an agreement with Lebanon as soon as possible.
Reportedly, Lapid wants to douse the flames on this volatile issue, but he knows that Nasrallah is in a bind. He cannot recognize any agreement with Israel, a move that would imply recognition of Israeli sovereignty. On the other hand, if an agreement benefits Lebanon, Nasrallah could stake a claim to its success and declare that he had made it happen. Lapid is interested in helping Nasrallah make up his mind as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, with interesting timing, the military censor lifted July 20 a gag order in place for two decades on the fact that Israel has been using UAVs to carry out targeted assassinations and military strikes. In 2012, for example, it used drones to kill Ahmed Jabari, the Hamas military wing’s second-in-command, in an attack that triggered a round of fighting between Israel and the Gaza Strip codenamed Operation Pillar of Defense.
Israel is a global pioneer in UAV development and the first to have used them for attacks, not just for intelligence and reconnaissance missions. In fact, Israel has been using various versions of these unmanned aircraft for over 20 years but has only now owned up to it in public.
What is behind the censor’s surprising decision? As far as we can tell, there was no political involvement and no particular reason. “Someone simply concluded that the use of the term 'an air force plane' — in announcing various attacks — was simply pathetic,” a former senior Israeli military source told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. “The whole world knows what Israel has developed, and our defense industries proudly display their top-of-the-line drones at numerous international fairs. Someone decided to stop playing games,” the source added.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on July 22-23/2022
Iran doesn't want a nuclear deal, British spy chief says
ASPEN, Colorado, Reuters/July 22.2122
Britain's spy chief said on Thursday he was skeptical that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei actually wants to revive a nuclear deal with world powers but said Tehran won't try to halt talks either. Richard Moore, chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) known as MI6, said he still believed that reviving the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement was the best way to constrain Iran's nuclear program. Under the deal, Iran had limited its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions. "I'm not convinced we're going to get there. ... I don't think the Supreme Leader of Iran wants to cut a deal," Moore told the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado. Still, Moore cautioned: "The Iranians won't want to end the talks either, so they could run on for a bit." Since then-U.S. President Donald Trump pulled Washington out of the deal and reimposed sanctions against Tehran in 2018, Iran has breached many of the deal's limits on its nuclear activities. It is enriching uranium to close to weapons-grade.

Iran’s Nuclear Program Is ‘Galloping Ahead’, IAEA Chief Says
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 22 July, 2022
Iran's nuclear program is "galloping ahead" and the International Atomic Energy Agency has very limited visibility on what is happening, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi told Spain's El Pais newspaper in an interview published on Friday. In June, Iran began removing essentially all the agency's monitoring equipment, installed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. Grossi said at the time it could be a "fatal blow" to chances of reviving the deal following 2018's pullout by the United States. "The bottom line is that for almost five weeks I have had very limited visibility, with a nuclear program that is galloping ahead and, therefore, if there is an agreement, it is going to be very difficult for me to reconstruct the puzzle of this whole period of forced blindness," he told El Pais. Grossi had said in June there was a window of just three to four weeks to restore at least some of the monitoring that was being scrapped before the IAEA lost the ability to piece together Iran's most important nuclear activities. Since then-US President Donald Trump pulled Washington out of the deal and re-imposed sanctions against Tehran in 2018, Iran has breached many of the deal's limits on its nuclear activities. It is enriching uranium to close to weapons-grade. Western powers warn it is getting closer to being able to sprint towards making a nuclear bomb. Iran denies wanting to. "It is not impossible (to reconstruct the puzzle), but it is going to require a very complex task and perhaps some specific agreements," Grossi, who was visiting Madrid, said in his interview with El Pais. Indirect talks between Iran and the United States on reviving the 2015 deal have been stalled since March. Grossi said he was concerned and worried about these weeks with no visibility. "The agency needed to reconstruct a database, without which any agreement will rest on a very fragile basis, because if we don't know what's there, how can we determine how much material to export, how many centrifuges to leave unused?" he said. Asked about a Reuters report that Iran is escalating its uranium enrichment further with the use of advanced machines at its underground Fordow plant, Grossi said "the technical progress of the Iranian program is steady".

Children among 7 Killed in Alleged Russian Strike in Syria
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 22 July, 2022
Russian air strikes on a rural swath of northwest Syria on Friday killed at least seven people including four children, a war monitoring group and rescuers said, following months of relative calm in the area. Four strikes by aircraft identified as Russian by ground spotters hit the countryside in Idlib, the last opposition-held zone in war-torn Syria, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors such events in the war as operations and casualties.The four children killed had been siblings, the Britain-based group said. The White Helmets rescue group gave the same figures and said another dozen people, among them eight children, had been wounded in the strikes. Russia has been carrying out air strikes in Syria since 2015, helping its ally President Bashar al-Assad reclaim territory from opposition and extremist groups. The strikes had become increasingly rare in recent months, the war monitoring group said. The northwestern province of Idlib is under the control of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, an al-Qaeda-linked group, while northern Aleppo province is under the control of Turkish-backed opposition groups. More than 90% of the population in that area live in extreme poverty, relying on humanitarian aid to survive. The Syrian government in Damascus, alongside key ally Russia, frequently launch airstrikes in the area. Turkey has warned it intends to launch a new military operation targeting the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in northwestern Syria. Turkey says the Kurdish-led forces pose a security threat and deem them a terrorist group.

Angry Iraqis clash with police over attack blamed on Turkey
Associated Press/Friday, 22 July, 2022
Hundreds of angry Iraqis took to the streets late Thursday to decry deadly strikes on an Iraqi tourist resort the previous day that the government has blamed on Turkey. The protests erupted just hours after the families of those killed in the shelling buried their loved ones. Turkey's foreign minister rejected accusations that his country's military carried out Wednesday's attack on the district of Zakho in Iraq's semi-autonomous northern Kurdish region. At least eight Iraqis were killed, including a child, and 20 were wounded. Turkey frequently carries out airstrikes and attacks into northern Iraq and has sent commandos to support its offensives targeting the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK. The insurgents, who have for decades battled the government in Ankara, have bases in the mountainous Iraqi region. And though civilians, mostly local villagers, have been killed in the past, Wednesday's attack marked the first time that tourists visiting the north from elsewhere in Iraq were killed. Speaking with Turkish state broadcaster TRT, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said Turkey was willing to cooperate with Iraqi authorities to shed light on the "treacherous attack." He offered to bring the wounded to Turkey for medical treatment. The protests outside what was formerly the Turkish Embassy in Baghdad's neighborhood of Waziriah started peacefully but later escalated. Some in the crowd carried signs that read: "Turkey's attacks on civilians is a crime against humanity." Others threw stones at the riot police and burned tires. At one point, clashes erupted when some demonstrators tried to storm in to replace the Turkish flag that was still flying over the building with an Iraqi one.
Several protesters were hurt when the police threw back some of the stones hurled at them. The Turkish Embassy, which had relocated to the heavily fortified Green Zone last year, cancelled visa appointments for the day. Earlier Thursday, Iraq's government summoned Turkey's ambassador in protest and caskets carrying the bodies of victims were flown from the semi-autonomous Kurdish-run northern region to Baghdad for burial. Before the flight, the Iraqi Kurdish region's president, Nechirvan Barzani, laid a wreath on one of the caskets and helped carry it onto a military plane. At the Baghdad airport, Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi received the dead and met with the families of those killed, offering his condolences. He promised the wounded would be taken care of. There remained a discrepancy over how many were killed in Wednesday's attack. Iraq's military said eight people died but nine caskets were loaded onto the military plane Thursday. Cavusoglu, Turkey's top diplomat, claimed the attack was a "smokescreen" aimed "at preventing Turkish military operations in the region.""We did not conduct any attack against civilians," he said and insisted that Turkey's "fight in Iraq has always been against" the PKK.
Meanwhile, mourners carried the coffin of Abbas Abdul Hussein, a 30-year-old Iraqi killed in Zakho. Hussein had just gotten married five days earlier, his cousin Said Alawadi said, demanding the government "initiate deterrent measures against Turkey," even cut all political and economic ties.
The attack catapulted into the spotlight Turkey's ongoing military operations against Turkey's Kurdish insurgents in northern Iraq — an issue that has long divided Iraqi officials. With deep economic ties between the two countries, many hesitate to damage relations with Ankara. Baghdad and Ankara are also divided on other issues, including the Kurdish region's independent oil sector and water-sharing. But in the aftermath of the attack, anger against Turkey is mounting on the Iraqi street. In April, Turkey launched its latest offensive in northern Iraq, part of a series of cross-border operations that started in 2019 to combat the PKK. The Iraqi government condemned Wednesday's attack as a "flagrant violation of Iraq's sovereignty," convened an emergency national security meeting and ordered a pause in dispatching Iraq's new ambassador to Ankara. Iraq's Parliament was also to convene on Saturday to discuss the Turkish attack. Al-Kadhimi accused Turkey of ignoring "Iraq's continuous demands to refrain from military violations against Iraqi territory and the lives of its people." The PKK, listed as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States and the European Union, has led an insurgency in southeastern Turkey since 1984 that has killed tens of thousands of people. Ankara has pressed Baghdad to root out the PKK from the Kurdish region. Iraq, in turn, has said Turkey's ongoing attacks are a breach of its sovereignty.

Two Bomb-Laden Drones Downed Near Turkish Base in Iraq
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 22 July, 2022
Two bomb-laden drones targeting a Turkish military base in northern Iraq were shot down Friday, a local mayor said, amid heightened tensions days after nine Iraqi civilians died in shelling blamed on Turkey. The Turkish army has maintained dozens of outposts over the past 25 years across northern Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region as part of its campaign against rebels. “Two bomb-laden drones that attacked the Turkish base in the village of Bamerne this morning were shot down without causing any casualties,” the village’s mayor, Miran Ismail, told AFP. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, but a pro-Iran Telegram channel popular among pro-Tehran armed factions in Iraq praised an action of “the Iraqi resistance.”On Wednesday, artillery strikes on a recreation area in Kurdistan killed nine civilians, including women and children, and wounded another 23.
Most of the casualties were tourists from southern or central Iraq who took to mountainous northern regions of the country to escape the summer heat. Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi blamed Turkey for the attack and warned that Baghdad reserves the “right to retaliate.”But Turkey denied responsibility and instead accused rebels of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). The tragedy, condemned by much of Iraq’s political class, provoked public indignation and sparked angry demonstrations.

Turkey Says Needs No Permission for North Syria Military Operation
Ankara - Saeed Abdulrazek/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 22/2022
In a Thursday meeting chaired by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish National Security Council discussed ongoing preparations for a possible military operation in northern Syria. This followed Ankara’s announcement that it won’t wait for anyone’s “permission” to protect its southern borders. “Turkey cannot stand idly in Syria,” Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said Thursday in a televised interview, adding that the operation in the Levantine country could start overnight. The comments from Cavusoglu came two days after a summit in Tehran at which both Russia and Iran urged against Turkey’s proposed new campaign in northern Syria. Since May, Erdogan has been talking about Turkey’s plans to launch a new military operation in Syria against the Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) in an effort to link up two areas already under Turkish control in the northern region near the Turkish border. Erdogan said the aim is to create a 30-km safe zone along the Turkish border with Syria. Ankara sees the YPG as the Syrian offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), listed as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the US, and the EU. The PKK has been rebelling against the Turkish government for over 30 years. Erdogan also stressed that the troops of the US should leave the western side of the Euphrates, and this was the common understanding of the last summit with the Russian and Iranian leaders. Turkey was in the same opinion because it believed that the US was giving support to the “terrorist organizations there,” he said. “Since America is harboring terrorist organizations and we are fighting against these terrorist organizations, our work will be easier if it withdraws from there or if it does not harbor these terrorist organizations,” Erdogan added. “The file of the new military operation in northern Syria will remain on our agenda until our national security concerns are dispelled,” the Turkish president told his National Security Council. Erdogan pointed out that the YPG, the largest component of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), believes in vain that it can deceive the Turkish army by raising the Syrian regime's flag over its positions in northern Syria.

Lavrov in Egypt Next Week as Part of African Tour
Cairo - Fathia Eldakhakhny/Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 22 July, 2022
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will kick off a tour of Africa next week that includes Egypt, which he described as Moscow’s “number one” partner in the continent. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said his trip, from July 24 to 28, will include Egypt, Ethiopia, Uganda and the Republic of Congo. Lavrov on Wednesday highlighted the joint projects between Egypt and Russia, most notably the construction of the Suez industrial zone and Dabaa nuclear power plant. He told Sputnik and RT that the “Soviet Union played a role in liberating many African countries from colonialism.” Director of Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs Ezzat Saad said Russia is aware of the development of Egyptian-African relations in recent years and it is keen on listening to Cairo’s view on the future of Russian cooperation with the continent. He told Asharq Al-Awsat that the bilateral projects between Egypt and Russia are tied to Africa, such as the Suez industrial zone, which gains significance with the implementation of the African free trade agreement. Egypt is keen on continuing cooperation with Russia in regards to its ties with Africa, he added. It is a welcome partner in Africa given its historic role in backing liberation movements during the Soviet era and its current support to thorny African files before international organizations, Saad went on to say. Lavrov visits Africa as the Russian-Ukrainian conflict enters its 150th day. Saad noted that it is important for Moscow to diversify its economic relations given the challenges it is facing and the sanctions imposed on it by the West.

Israeli Chief of Staff Meets with Jewish Community in Marrakech
Marrakech - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 22 July, 2022
Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kohavi concluded on Thursday a three-day official visit to Morocco, during which he held talks with senior commanders of the Royal Armed Forces and security and intelligence officers. He met Wednesday with the local Jewish community, headed by Jackie Kadosh, in the Old City of Marrakech. Kohavi paid tribute to the community members and thanked them for their contribution to the Jewish people in both Israel and the Jewish diaspora. “I feel a sense of pride and admiration to meet you, the Jewish community of Morocco, some of who fought for the State of Israel, and are today working here for the Jewish community and to deepen the connection with Israel.”He visited the local Jewish cemetery and attended a prayer service at the Slat al-Azama Great Synagogue. He also met with members of the community who fought in the Yom Kippur war and later returned to Morocco. Prior to his visit to Marrakech, Kohavi held talks with Commander the Moroccan Air Force Base Ben Greyer Colonel Major Hassan Mahwar. Both sides discussed means of bolstering cooperation ties between both countries’ air forces.

Saudi arrested after Israeli reporter sneaks into Mecca
Agence France Presse/Friday, 22 July, 2022
A Saudi who allegedly helped a non-Muslim enter the holy city of Mecca has been arrested, police in the kingdom said on Friday, after online backlash against an Israeli journalist. The journalist, Gil Tamary of Israel's Channel 13, on Monday posted to Twitter video of himself sneaking into Mecca, Islam's holiest city, in defiance of a ban on non-Muslims. Mecca regional police have "referred a citizen" to prosecutors for alleged complicity in "transferring and facilitating the entry of a (non-Muslim) journalist", a police spokesperson said in comments reported by the official Saudi Press Agency. SPA did not name the journalist but said he is an American citizen, whose case has also been referred to prosecutors "to take the necessary procedures against him in accordance with the applied laws". Despite growing behind-the-scenes business and security contacts, Saudi Arabia does not recognise Israel and did not join the 2020 US-brokered Abraham Accords that saw the Jewish state establish ties with two of the kingdom's neighbours, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. In his roughly 10-minute clip, Tamary visits Mount Arafat, where robed Muslim pilgrims gather to pray during the climax of the hajj pilgrimage each year.  He makes clear he knows that what he's doing is outlawed but says he wanted to showcase "a place that is so important to our Muslim brothers and sisters". Tamary's justification, and subsequent apology, did little to quiet angry Saudi social media responses.  The controversy followed US President Joe Biden's visit to both Israel and Saudi Arabia last week.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 22-23/2022
Will new nuclear deal render Israel’s capabilities hollow?
Jacob Nagel and Mark Dubowitz/Israel Hayom/July 22/2022
Tehran wants to keep up the negotiations facade until such time as the IAEA convenes, but Iran's leaders must be made to understand that the era of impervious immunity is over. When dealing with Hamas in Gaza, the Israeli response to any provocation must be disproportionate.
Returning to reality after the euphoria that existed during US President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel and Saudi Arabia, the belligerent announcements by senior Iranian officials and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, and the convening of the Russia-Turkey-Iran conference in Tehran, require a sober assessment of the situation and the construction of a plan to preserve and increase deterrence vis-à-vis Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the continued communication with the USA to prevent any return to the dreadful nuclear agreement from 2015.
Prior to Biden’s visit, Israel set a number of key goals, some of which were not reached and some of which were partially achieved. Despite this, Israel must continue its actions and efforts, in light of events in the region and events that are expected to occur in the near future.
The most difficult undertaking quest during the visit was to underscore the dangers in reinstating the nuclear agreement, despite the ambitions of the administration headed by Biden and his envoy Robert Malley. As expected, Israel failed. The administration continues with determination, supported by irresponsible voices in Israel, to make every possible mistake in order to reinstate the agreement. Despite the aggressive American rhetoric, the claim that there will be no more concessions and the announcement that the other side can “take it or leave it,” is not really the case.
The visit’s secondary goals, which focused on strengthening technological cooperation between Israel and the US and attempting to advance initial steps of normalization with Saudi Arabia, yielded partial success. Announcements that dealing with the Palestinian issue is not currently appropriate, probably fell on attentive ears, despite US and Saudi declarations.
“The last round of talks between Iran, the US, and the Europeans in Qatar ended in failure and with no progress. The Iranians made new demands and refused to accept the agreement that had been reached in previous rounds. However, the parties did not regard this stage as a failure and are currently initiating ties to coordinate another round between the US and Iran and between the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and their counterparts in Tehran, to once again try to “turn the square into a circle.”
Even though the resulting agreement, entitled the “Putin Agreement”, was not signed, the fact that the dissolute agreement was led by Putin and drafted by his envoy Ulyanov, has not changed. This is happening while Russia continues its aggressive attacks in Ukraine and Iran assists it in fighting and in the economic siege, with advice on how to circumvent sanctions. Despite this, and while Putin arranges a summit meeting with Erdoğan in Iran, the US continues to align with the Russian leadership in its negotiations with Iran.
The summit in Tehran underscored the absurdity of American behavior and posed complex challenges. This bizarre meeting, officially titled a discussion on Syria, probably included more disagreements than agreements, as each side sought a solution to its own interests, despite the public announcements.
Turkey sought a solution to its ambitions in northeastern Syria, the expulsion of the Kurds and the return of Syrian refugees. Iran sought support for returning to the agreement on its terms and circumventing US sanctions. Russia sought Iranian, and possibly Turkish, support with weapons to fight Ukraine, but mostly to “poke a finger in the American eye.”
How can one explain such a meeting only days after Iran sent terrorists to Turkey to attack Israelis and violated its sovereignty? How does this encounter align with the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideological struggle? And with the Shiite / Suni struggle? Apparently, the struggle for personal interests triumphed.
Reinstating the nuclear agreement is a serious mistake and the former and current officials who support it are harming Israel and leaking their opinions to the media. Those in official office have both a right and duty to present their position, but only behind closed doors. When the decision is made by those in charge, the chief of staff, the head of the Mossad and GSS, and the political echelon, they must stop their harmful activities, as is required in a democracy.
The emerging agreement, and the danger that it will worsen if the new Iranian demands are accepted, is based on the bad agreement of 2015, with further concessions. It does not take into account the time that has elapsed and the short time remaining until the expiration of the restrictions. It does not take into account the findings from the nuclear archive and the violations revealed by the IAEA’s supervisory system.
The agreement will allow Iran to achieve a “nuclear threshold state” status and develop a bomb, leading to an extensive race for armament in our region. It does not include the tools and requirements that will force the Iranians to negotiate for a “longer and stronger” agreement, before the expiration date, as Biden promised and continues to do.
At the time of signing the agreement, the Iranians will receive hundreds of billions, enabling them to restore their economy, intensify the development and equipment of nuclear and conventional arms, and increase support for Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthi movement and terrorism.
The “stopwatch” that the parties are activating is based on local interests. Iran has no answers to the open investigations and it is important for them to continue displaying a misrepresentation of talks until the convening of the IAEA Board. They might have no intentions of reaching an agreement until they become a threshold state and secure an agreement on the terms they dictate. Waiving the investigation of the open cases will weaken the status of the IAEA and make it irrelevant.
Americans are probably comfortable with continuing the negotiations, at least until the elections in November.
Those who claim that reinstating the agreement is very bad, but at least this is the better of two evils, in order to buy time that will allow them to better prepare for future action, are wrong and misleading. Without being obligated to answer the operational question, which should not be discussed in public, if Israel needs additional time to prepare, the time that Israel will ostensibly “gain” will come at a high price. Under this agreement, Iran will move closer and reach a situation where the capabilities that will be built will become irrelevant. According to an agreement, even if Iran advances considerably, Israel will incur great difficulties in exercising skills that it allegedly built while “in the gaining stage.”
Without an agreement, Iran will be in a position of weakness and without any legitimate status. Even if they try to dodge this situation, Israel and the US will be legitimately able to painfully damage the program.
Statements made by Iranian officials about their nuclear capabilities emanate weakness and panic. The statements intend mainly to pressure the US to return to the agreement. Iran is at least 18 to 24 months away from having the technological ability to turn a highly-enriched fissile, which it is close to obtaining, into a bomb. This should not cause Israel to sway, in any way possible, in its attempt to stop Iran from developing both a fissile and a weapons system.
Recent threats by Nasrallah and Hamas also indicate weakness and panic. However, Israel cannot ignore Hezbollah provocations and the launch of UAVs toward Israel three times recently, and six times in the last year. In order to maintain a level of deterrence against Lebanon and Iran, Israel must respond and Nasrallah has given it the tools to change the rules of the game in Lebanon and deal, in response to antagonism, with precise arms that were recently developed and manufactured on Lebanese soil, contrary to unwritten understandings.
Facing Hamas in Gaza, Israel’s response to all provocations and launches must be disproportionate, taking advantage of “opportunities” to address strengthening and leaders.
While this can lead to escalation and decline, as the opponents are deterred and do not want to get into a confrontation, one must take a risk, otherwise, deterrence will be irrevocably marred.
In addition, Iranian leaders must be made to understand that the era of impervious immunity is over and only the operational arm will suffer. Prime Minister Netanyahu introduced this important change in 2018 regarding the perception of security and we must continue to implement it.
Israel must prepare for a strategic media campaign that will emphasize (not “explain”, as it is mistakenly called) Iranian behavior and the dangers anticipated from a nuclear Iran, and build legitimacy for increasing the “military campaign between wars.”
*Brig. Gen. (Res.) Professor Jacob Nagel, formerly the national security adviser to the prime minister, is a Senior Fellow at FDD and a visiting professor at the Faculty of Aeronautics and Space at the Technion. Mark Dubowitz is the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Follow Mark on Twitter @mdubowitz. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

Israel Needs to Speak Out and Hold Putin Accountable for His Crimes and Lies
Ivana Stradner/The Algemeiner/July 22/2022
Russian President Vladimir Putin says that his “special military operation” aims to “de-Nazify” Ukraine, portraying his troops as freeing ethnic Russians from a fascistic regime in Kyiv.
Yet despite falsely casting Russia as a bulwark against Nazism, Putin tolerates antisemitism directed at his enemies, while his army employs actual neo-Nazis to further his bid to subjugate Ukraine, a country led by a Jewish president. Israel should do more to expose Putin’s farcical attempt to disguise his war of imperial conquest as a crusade against Nazism.
Antisemitism has been rampant throughout Russia’s history. The Russian Empire witnessed several waves of pogroms, in which civilians massacred Jews, sometimes encouraged by a government that viewed Jews as antithetical to an empire grounded on Orthodox Christianity. This environment of state-permitted antisemitism eventually produced “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” one of the foundational pieces of antisemitic writing, which Hitler later adopted. During the Soviet Union, Jews continued to face pervasive discrimination. Stalin even attempted to relocate Jews to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia’s Far East — Birobidjan.
In modern Russia, the categorization of Jews as the “other” remains. To be fair, Putin has done more than his predecessors to combat antisemitism. Yet he and other Russian officials at times still “other” Jews by differentiating Jews’ civic Russian identity from their non-Russian ethnic identity. The Kremlin further divides the Russian Jewry into “good” Jews, who support the regime, and “bad” Jews, who don’t. Consequently, there is a stark contrast between how the Kremlin treats “good” versus “bad” Jews. Thus, while Moscow no longer passes blatantly antisemitic laws, the Kremlin condones frequent antisemitic commentary directed at “bad” Jews.
The Kremlin’s double standard is reflected in Moscow’s rhetoric toward Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy, a Jew whose family mostly perished in the Holocaust, frustrates Putin’s imperial ambitions and efforts to dismiss Ukraine’s national resistance as the manipulation of a neo-Nazi cabal. As a result, the Kremlin views him as a “bad” Jew and encourages hatred towards him.
In a widely read article published last November, Dmitry Medvedev, Putin’s former presidential placeholder and the current deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, accused Zelenskyy of betraying his Jewish identity by aiding nationalist groups in Ukraine. Medvedev compared Zelenskyy’s supposed betrayal to “the ludicrous situation where members of the Jewish intelligentsia … would be asked to serve in the SS.”
Moscow’s rhetoric has only intensified since its invasion of Ukraine began. “So what if Zelenskyy is Jewish?” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asked rhetorically in May, when asked how Ukraine could be run by Nazis if Zelenskyy is Jewish. “Hitler also had Jewish blood,” he said, adding that “wise Jewish people say that the most ardent antisemites are usually Jews.”
Members of the Jewish community worldwide quickly condemned Moscow’s statements. Then-Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid called Lavrov’s remarks “unforgivable and outrageous,” and “the lowest form of racism against Jews.” However, within Russia, laws restricting freedom of speech make opposition difficult. In March, Putin signed a draconian law that threatens a prison sentence of up to 15 years for deviating from the Kremlin’s talking points on Putin’s war. As a result, Russian Jews are worried they’ll soon become targets; many are consequently fleeing the country. Moscow’s Chief Rabbi, Pinchas Goldschmidt, fled Russia right after the war started and now lives in exile in Israel.
To truly hold Russia accountable for its antisemitism, getting an apology from Lavrov or Medvedev is not enough. Israel must actively counter Russia’s widespread antisemitism. That means speaking truth against the Kremlin’s propaganda both within Russia and on the world stage.
Countering Russia’s information operations will not be easy given how adept Moscow is at bullying others abroad and controlling information at home. Since the war began, Putin has shuttered what was left of Russia’s independent media and restricted Russians’ access to Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and various Western news agencies. Some Kremlin hawks even aspire to cut Russia off from the global Internet and use a homegrown “Ru-Net” instead.
Therefore, to penetrate Putin’s new Iron Curtain, Jerusalem will need to convey its messaging on social media platforms that everyday Russians use, such as Vkontakte, Telegram, and Odnoklassniki.
Furthermore, to help inform and communicate its messaging, Jerusalem should look to Israel’s substantial population from the former Soviet Union, as well as the many Russian Jews now fleeing Putin’s repression. Israel should consult and engage with these emigres and encourage them to spread the truth on Russian platforms.
Finally, Israel should partner with the United States and other like-minded democracies to counter Russia’s narrative globally. The US State Department just released a publication on how the Kremlin is resorting to antisemitism to vilify Ukraine while exploiting the memory of the Soviet fight against Nazism. Jerusalem should follow suit and instruct every Israeli embassy to post short social media videos, “myth vs. fact” analyses, and other content — including in Russian and on popular Russian social media platforms — to debunk Russian disinformation campaigns.
While Russia’s hybrid war in Ukraine may seem indefatigable, exposing and attacking its erroneous foundations is key to deterring progress. The contradictions between the Kremlin’s supposed anti-fascist initiatives in Ukraine and its antisemitic rhetoric demonstrate how hollow and self-serving Putin’s reasoning for the war is. To reach informational parity with Russia, however, a multilateral approach with Israel at the helm is necessary to counter Russian malign messaging and add international credibility to the campaign.
*Ivana Stradner is an advisor to the Barish Center for Media Integrity at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where her research focuses on Russia’s information operations and cybersecurity. Follow her on Twitter @ivanastradner. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, non-partisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

Erdogan returns emptyhanded from talks with Putin, Raisi
Fehim Tastekin/Al Monitor/July 22/2022
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan returned without any concrete results from talks with his Russian and Iranian counterparts in Tehran, to which he went with a thick dossier of bilateral problems. The many strains in Turkey’s ties with Russia and Iran remain unrelieved, and Erdogan’s quest for a green light for a new military intervention in Syria remains unanswered.
For Erdogan, the July 19 gathering held as part of the three-way Astana platform on Syria was a long-awaited face-to-face with Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Iran’s Ebrahim Raisi. Erdogan had repeatedly sought to host Putin in Turkey as part of his mediation efforts in the Ukraine war but to no avail. A preliminary deal reached last week on an export corridor for Ukrainian grain via Turkey paved the way for the two leaders’ meeting. And his plan for a bilateral visit to Tehran, mooted since December, had been postponed twice.
Several factors have strained ties between Turkey and Iran in recent times, atop their conflicting positions in Syria. Chief among them is the political impasse in Iraq, where they have backed rival blocs to form the government. Tensions in the Iraqi theater have stemmed also from influence wars in Kirkuk, Mosul and Tal Afar; Iran’s reproof of Turkey’s pursuit of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) on Iraqi territory; attacks on the Turkish base in Bashiqa by Iranian-backed militia groups; and their support for PKK-linked Yazidi forces in Sinjar. Meanwhile, a covert row has been brewing over potential Iraqi Kurdish gas exports via Turkey.
Furthermore, Iran fears that new transport corridors sought by Azerbaijan and Turkey in the wake of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war could cut off its land link with Armenia and charges that Turkey’s dam building on transboundary rivers has caused water shortages and drought in Iran. Another irritant is Turkey’s construction of a wall on the border, coupled with criticism that Iran is letting Afghan refugees cross into Turkey uncontrolled. Concerns that Ankara’s rapprochement with the Israeli-Arab axis is aimed at Iran and Turkish-Israeli intelligence cooperation over assassination plots against Israelis in Turkey have only added to the tensions.
Besides attending the three-way talks on Syria, Erdogan and Raisi chaired a meeting of the Turkish-Iranian High-Level Cooperation Council in Tehran. What did the trilateral and bilateral talks produce?
Erdogan’s supporters may find solace in how he gave Putin a taste of his own medicine by keeping the Russian leader waiting ahead of their meeting — a purported payback for Erdogan’s awkward moments in Moscow in 2020 — but judging by the joint statement of the summit and the remarks of the leaders, Erdogan failed to get what he wanted or make progress on outstanding problems. In short, the mountain did not even bring forth a mouse.
The eight deals that Turkey and Iran signed in various fields lack any strategic aspect or prospective economic value. A key topic on the agenda was the renewal of Turkey’s gas purchase contract with Iran, which expires in 2025 and will apparently take time to conclude. The two sides reiterated their target to expand bilateral trade to $30 billion from its current $7.5 billion volume. Commercial exchanges have remained well below the potential, not only because of the impact of US secondary sanctions but also Tehran’s deterring attitude vis-a-vis Turkish companies.
Erdogan, who has actively promoted the Turkish-made Bayraktar armed drones on his foreign trips, spoke of defense industry cooperation with Tehran for the first time. “I attach great importance to solidarity in this field,” he said, adding that new endeavors in the defense, oil and gas sectors could help achieve the $30 billion trade target.
What exactly the two sides discussed in terms of defense cooperation remains unknown. US national security adviser Jake Sullivan said last week that Iran was preparing to provide Russia with hundreds of drones. Though Tehran denied the claim, the commander of the country’s ground forces said later that Iran was ready to export weapons to “friendly countries.”
Being a NATO and US ally, Turkey is unlikely to be among the countries that Iran would classify as friends. Moreover, any defense dealings with Iran would require Turkey to take into account the prospect of US sanctions, which it has already experienced for buying air defense systems from Russia.
And while Erdogan’s words on greater partnership with Iran appeared to be little more than wishful thinking, Russia’s ties with Iran are progressing. Hours before Putin landed in Tehran, Iran’s national oil company and Russia’s gas giant Gazprom signed a memorandum of understanding worth some $40 billion — a figure unprecedented for the Iranian energy sector. Under the deal, the Russians will help develop the Kish and North Pars gas fields and also six oil fields in Iran.
Moreover, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei justified Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine and blamed NATO — a remarkable show of solidarity that came off as a response to US President Joe Biden’s summit with Arab leaders where he pledged that the United States “will not walk away and leave a vacuum to be filled by China, Russia or Iran."
Similarly, the talks on Syria offered Erdogan little in which to rejoice. While Erdogan insisted on his plan for a new military operation in northern Syria, targeting Kurdish-held Tel Rifaat and Manbij, he failed to receive the understanding he hoped for from his counterparts. Drawing a clear red line, Khamenei told Erdogan that any military operation in Syria would be detrimental for the region and “play into the hands of terrorists.” Turkey, he stressed, should view Syria’s security as its own security. In his meeting with Putin, Khamenei called also for the removal of US troops from northeast Syria.
Speaking at the trilateral summit, Erdogan said Tel Rifaat and Manbij have become "hotbeds of terrorism" and "it is high time for them to be cleansed.” Putin, for his part, stressed that the Syrian government should take over control in the Kurdish-held northeast.
Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad, who traveled to Tehran on the same day, said after talks with his Iranian counterpart, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, that Erdogan had failed to achieve his goals during the summit. Amir-Abdollahian, for his part, said that “due to the prospect of conflict, the summit sought to change the course of developments and redirect it to a political path.”
Tehran was more explicit than Moscow in opposing a fresh Turkish military move in Syria, which could be attributed to several reasons beyond its hosting of the summit. First, Tehran is irked that major decisions on Syria have been increasingly shaped by the Russian-Turkish dialogue and wants to reassert its role in the Astana trio. And amid Russia’s preoccupation with Ukraine, it has raised its profile in Syria. Also, Iran believes that Russia has been making concessions to Turkey in Syria for the sake of its broader strategic interests and is no longer willing to leave decisions to the give-and-take between Ankara and Moscow. Accordingly, the Iranians have sought closer cooperation with Damascus, demonstrating their resolve to take the initiative by hosting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Tehran in May. Furthermore, Damascus and Moscow share concerns that Tel Rifaat and Manbij changing hands would jeopardize the city of Aleppo — a prospect of extra apprehension for Iran because of the Shiite settlements of Zahra and Nubl that sit on the route between Tel Rifaat and Aleppo.
As for the joint statement of the summit, the wording had a duller edge on Turkey’s sensitivities in Syria compared to that of the Astana meeting in June. The parties reiterated their commitment to fighting terrorism “in all its forms,” highlighting “serious concern” over terrorist groups in Idlib. Referring to the Kurdish-led autonomy drive in the north, the statement said the parties were determined to “stand against separatist agendas” and “rejected all attempts to create new realities on the ground under the pretext of combating terrorism, including illegitimate self-rule initiatives.” Though this paragraph reflects Ankara’s concerns, the ensuing one stresses that security and stability in northern Syria “can only be achieved on the basis of preservation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.”
The parties rejected unilateral sanctions against Syria and urged international support for basic infrastructure projects to help the return of refugees. The statement’s emphasis on unconditional reconstruction shows that Erdogan has diverged on this issue from Western allies.
Speaking to reporters on the flight back home, Erdogan said the differences between the leaders were obvious, but he vowed to keep the military option on the table until Turkey’s national security concerns were resolved. “We wish to have Russia and Iran by our side in our fight against terrorist organizations. They should give us the necessary support here,” he said. Recalling the joint statement’s call on Washington to withdraw its troops from the northeast, Erdogan said this would “make things easier” for Turkey because “it is America that has nourished the terrorist groups there.”
In sum, Erdogan appears bent on pressing for a military operation despite his failure to get a nod from his partners. What he could ultimately achieve is anyone’s guess.

Putin’s Imaginary World Order
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 22/2022
What a difference six months of a seemingly unwinnable war makes to a leader’s self-esteem. As the Russian war against Ukraine grinds on Vladimir Putin, the self-styled conqueror, seems to be descending from his high horse like the statue of Peter the Great in Pushkin’s famous poem to mingle with the lowly multitude. The first epiphany of this neo-Putin was observed last month in Ashgabat, capital of the Central Asian Turkmenistan, a former Soviet republic. The new image was confirmed this week with a visit to Tehran. The first new feature was that Putin was prepared to go through proper official visits rather than his usual blitzkrieg style of coming and getting out in a few hours. This time there was no sign of his eight-meters long anti-Covid desk to keep foreign interlocutors as far from him as possible. Also, this time he was prepared to go beyond a mere handshake with his chief hosts and shake the hands of all who happened to be around. He did not go as far as reviving the Brezhnevian tradition of kissing of foreign comrades, but did offer hearty hugs.
In Ashgabat, no longer wearing high-heel shoes to appear a bit taller, he reminded the Turkmen of a downsized Tengri, the Central Asian god of the highest mountain peak, coming to distribute favors. His instrument was a fountain pen with which he signed several “agreements” to inject countless billions of the money has doesn’t have in Turkmen, Iranian and other Caspian littoral states’ economies.
But that was not all. Putin had a new message: The necessity of authoritarian states banding together to create a “new multipolar world order. He marketed this as a new idea, arguing that all nations should be allowed to “organize themselves and pursue their goals the way they wish.”
His new idea, of course, is neither new nor tenable. It was first launched by the American diplomat George Kennan in the early stages of the Cold War and has become a shopworn cliché since the fall of the Soviet Empire and the Chinese Communists opting for capitalism.
In any case, a global political system with more than two opposite poles pulling the center away from each other is a recipe for chaos. What Putin, and Kennan before him, might have considered is a polycentric rather than multipolar world system.
In that case we have always had a polycentric world system made of numerous formal or informal political, economic and military groupings and alliances.
During the Cold War we had the Nonaligned Movement that at one point included a majority of the United Nations’ members. Then we also had the North Atlantic Treaty and the Warsaw Pact not to mention smaller military alliances or bilateral defense accords. The Arab League, the Organization of American States, the African Union, the European Union, the British Commonwealth were also part of a polycentric system.
Over time other “centers” were added: The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the G-7 (at times G-8), the G-20, the Southeast Asian nations’ grouping (ASEAN), Mercosur in South America, and the West African Economic Community (C.D.A.O).
To all those we have to add the “centers” created under Russian leadership since the end of the Cold War: The Commonwealth of Independent Nations which, ironically includes both Russia and Ukraine with its head office in Minsk the capital of Belarus, the Eurasian economic bloc, and the Shanghai Group, plus the so-called BRICS group of which Russia is a key member and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation of which Russia is an “adjunct” member. If we add the members of all those groups together, we have virtually the whole of 193 members of the United Nations in a polycentric system.
Putin is now inviting Iran, Turkey and Egypt to join what he sees as an expanded Eurasian economic bloc led by Russia. To achieve that he is ready to expose some of the contradictions in his perverted world view.
For example, he invaded Ukraine ostensibly to stop NATO from “expanding” its territorial reach. But he is now ready to turn his face the other way while Turkey, a NATO member, snatches a chunk of Syrian territory as large as Donetsk in Ukraine. Putin says he wants to invest $400 billion in reviving Iran’s moribund oil industry. But at the same time he is trying to steal as much of Iran’s market share in oil s possible by offering discounts on the “brown” oil market, especially to China.
Putin says his new world order would allow “each nation to choose its way of life”. Needless to say, his “each nation” doesn’t include Georgia and Ukraine that he has already invaded and Moldova that he plans to invade next, not to mention Syria where Russia blocks all avenues for a nation to choose its way of life. In any case, choosing one’s way of life is already a right guaranteed by the United Nation’ Charter. That, right, however, does not include invading other nations to prevent them from choosing their way of life.
The new kissing and smiling Putin claims that an anti-West bloc would be able to set the rules on the global stage.
He chooses to forget two points. First, there is no guarantee that a new anti-West bloc under Russian leadership would enjoy popular support in targeted nations such as India, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Egypt. Secondly, in economic, military, scientific, cultural and sheer social appeal terms, Russia and its only reliable ally Belarus lack the seductive power needed to claim world leadership.
What Putin, echoing Tehran’s mullahs, now calls “the arrogance alliance” consisting of the United States, the European Union, Japan, Great Britain, Canada and two dozen other countries from Mexico to Taiwan, South Korea and Australia, account for over 55 percent of the global gross domestic product (GDP), while an $1.8 trillion gdp puts Russia just bend South Korea and just ahead of Iran with a whisker. Of the world’s 500 largest companies over 180 are headquartered in the European Union while Russia is host to only two, both state-owned Russian energy companies.
The post-Cold War polycentric system didn’t do badly for Russia by helping it emerge from the sham egalitarian poverty of the Soviet era and build a new market-based economy capable of offering higher living standards.
In search of imaginary glory, Putin has put Russia’s achievements of the past three decades at risk. Now that he knows he won’t have that glory he is trying to cling to another fantasy: a new world order made in the Kremlin.

Jeddah Summit: A New Scene in the Arab World
Radwan al-Sayyed/Asharq Al Awsat/July 22/2022
In the week that followed the Jeddah Security and Development Summit, tens of reports were published in quick succession; some focused on the events, and others assessed its implications. Even the Tehran Summit that brought together the Presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey did not manage to turn attention away from the Jeddah Summit that brought together nine Arab states with US President Biden.
The Summit is doubtlessly extremely significant, as it came nineteen years after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and more than ten years after former US President Barack Obama announced a shift in the US Middle East policy, especially vis-a-vis Arab countries.
The Americans’ strategic withdrawal from the region, which saw the United States succeed Britain and France, has had political and military implications. The Americans- or this is how they saw it- appointed Israel, Iran, and Turkey to replace them in the Arab world. The Arabs were not only broke because of the invasion of Iraq and the country being handed over fully to Iran but also because of the massive rifts ensuing from the events of the so-called spring- which no one calls Arab anymore- that undermined the cohesiveness of the Levant’s regimes.
Although the nuclear deal with Iran signed in 2015 seemed to underline the status quo that the Americans wanted for the regime, President Trump’s decision to pull out of the deal did not result in significant changes because the US military withdrawal continued, and the US did not change how it behaved militarily on land or in seas and skies under his term.
Continuing along this approach of withdrawal and looking down on the Arabs were obvious during Biden’s presidential campaign, indeed, in his insistence that Trump had made a huge mistake in pulling out of the deal. This impression has become a reality for the Iranians and Turks. The Iranians didn’t seem too eager to return to the deal or improve ties with their Arab neighbors, and the Turks imitated the Iranians, carving out spheres of influence in Syria, Iraq, and the Eastern Mediterranean in Libya. Russia did not hesitate to intervene in Syria after it had been widely assumed that its ambitions did not go beyond retrieving parts of the former Soviet Union.
Why did all this happen over the last five years? Neither the Gulf states nor Egypt fell short in their efforts to restore stability and accelerate development. However, no comprehensive initiative for effective joint Arab action emerged on two issues: strategic security on land and at sea, and the restoration of control in the five Arab countries in turmoil, with their territory divided among the intervening parties that the US appointed to succeed it or over to them, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya and Yemen!
During the Jeddah Summit, the Saudi foreign minister reminded us that five years ago, the Saudi Crown Prince proposed an Arab initiative for security and defense. Yes, the Arab countries in the Levant have been under attack from the countries of the region and some international powers. Once again, the three powerful Arab states of the Levant, namely the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Arab Republic of Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, refused to acquiesce to regional aggression and the state of affairs resulting from the US turning its back. Instead, while continuing to make massive development leaps forward, they all tried to broaden their options by opening up to China, Russia, and India. However, each of them did so separately.
The point I want to make, a matter we had noticed before the Summit and in its implications for Saudi-American ties and Arab-American ties more broadly, is this: we have witnessed and are witnessing the emergence of a new Arabism that most of the countries of the Levant are working under. It is a project for security (and defense) and development, which was manifested and is being manifested in a shared vision on the following matters:
First - the Arabs share a single destiny; President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called it “one Arab security.” Making great progress in the Arab world is the essence of this project. This time, this progress is envisioned through interdependence, working together to safeguard security, and cooperating to ensure development through integration and cooperation.
Second - the nine countries must cooperate in confronting the problems in Palestine, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Iraq, whose prime minister had the courage to join this project, and his country will be connected to the electric grid through Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Third - that the nine Arab countries (and those who will join them) are originally US allies. However, the US (whose president admitted to making mistakes and committing sins) has at times turned its back on them and is undergoing a phase of what is called creative chaos. Superpowers cannot be the ones to spread chaos, nor can they allow it to spread. And the Arabs, despite everything that has happened, are ready to cooperate with the US on massive development projects and to build the future together. We are ready and rather need to cooperate with the United States to ensure the success of this immense development and humanitarian project, and solidify security and stability, and develop our defenses on land, air, and sea.
In return, we must work with the US on ensuring energy security and restoring global financial and economic stability. However, the Arab countries, or some of them, have opened up to other powers and have been pursuing alternative strategies (some of them military) that they are not ready to let go, not only because they facilitate progress and development but also because of their importance for strategic security. They do not need an Arab NATO or to normalize and create partnerships with Israel. On the other hand, they do not want war either, and thus they neither want nor need to join an axis led by the United States or anyone else.
Fourth - All Arabs want their region to be safe and free of weapons of mass destruction and thus do not oppose a return to the nuclear deal. They are, however, unsettled by Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region- its reliance on ballistic missiles, drones, and militias. Still, Iran is a neighbor, and they aspire to build positive relations with it and will continue to negotiate with it to this end. And the Emiratis want to send an ambassador to the country. Their condition for doing so has always been that Iran respects the countries’ sovereignty and refrain from interfering in their domestic affairs.
Fifth - the Arabs are proceeding with their comprehensive development project, which aims to benefit their people and the world. They are now beginning to get involved in solving global energy and food security problems, helping the world overcome inflation, and making major investments. However, they are not ready to take “blood tests” examining their human rights records or the rights of their citizens (!), be they administered by the US or anyone else. Those with one eye should not put a knife in the face of others. We have our values, traditions, customs and sovereignty, and we will not allow them to be undermined, regardless of the reasons.
The crucial aspect of everything that has happened is that a new Arab scene is taking shape- a new Arab project for sound and healthy relations, not only with the United States but with the whole world. President Biden’s visit was neither a success nor a failure; its outcomes hinge on how things will play out. However, one success we can be sure of is this crystallization of an Arab renaissance project.
Those looking for other indications besides the Summit statement need look no further than the visit of the Emarati President to France, which came immediately after the Jeddah Summit. The Arabs do not want to frighten the world, nor do they fear it. Rather, they all want to competently and bravely take part in ensuring our world’s security, progress and openness. The Jeddah Summit announced their intention to do just that.

Australia: New Government Maintains Hardline Stance on China
Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute/July 22, 2022/
Australia's new Labor Party government has signaled that it will maintain the hardline policies toward China pursued by the previous conservative government and expand security ties with the United States.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi blamed the previous government for the break-down in ties and warned the new government that it must "take concrete actions" to adopt a "correct understanding" of China. He then handed Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong a list of four demands the new government must meet to "recalibrate" the relationship: 1) do not treat China as a rival; 2) seek common ground; 3) do not do the bidding of the United States; and 4) build public support for China.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese replied: "Australia doesn't respond to demands; we respond to our own national interests."
In April 2022, China signed a security pact with the Solomon Islands. A leaked draft of the agreement indicates that China intends to establish a military presence in the South Pacific.
"A closed one-party state — that would never allow a foreign company near China's critical technologies — expects one-sided reciprocity and openness from Australia. China would also reject out of hand any similar attempt by another country to meddle in its domestic politics and foreign policy as a precondition for better relations." — Editorial Board of the Australian Financial Review, July 11, 2022.
Australia's new Labor Party government has signaled that it will maintain the hardline policies toward China pursued by the previous conservative government and expand security ties with the United States. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (R) and Foreign Minister Penny Wong speak during a press conference at the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji on July 13, 2022. (Photo by William West/AFP via Getty Images)
Australia's new Labor Party government has signaled that it will maintain the hardline policies toward China pursued by the previous conservative government and expand security ties with the United States.
Australia's fraught relationship with China was a key issue in the May 21 election and the Labor Party was said to have won due in part to hopes that a new left-leaning government could improve bilateral ties.
Those hopes have been dashed by China itself. On July 8, in the first high-level meeting since China froze bilateral relations in 2019, Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong met with her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Bali.
Wang blamed the previous government for the break-down in ties and warned the new government that it must "take concrete actions" to adopt a "correct understanding" of China. He then handed Wong a list of four demands the new government must meet to "recalibrate" the relationship: 1) do not treat China as a rival; 2) seek common ground; 3) do not do the bidding of the United States; and 4) build public support for China.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese replied: "Australia doesn't respond to demands; we respond to our own national interests."
Since taking office, the Albanese government has shown that there is a strong bipartisan consensus in Australia about the threat posed by China and that the new prime minister will not fundamentally alter the hardline position held by the previous government.
May 24. In his first appearance on the world stage as prime minister, Albanese met with leaders from the United States, Japan and India at a meeting of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) in Tokyo. He reaffirmed Australia's commitment to the Quad: "We have had a change of government in Australia, but Australia's commitment to the Quad has not changed and will not change." He also pledged to work more closely with Indo-Pacific nations to counter China's growing influence in the region. Moreover, Albanese reaffirmed his commitment to AUKUS, a trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States to develop a nuclear-powered submarine capability for Australia.
May 26. In her first bilateral visit as foreign minister, Wong traveled to Fiji, where, in a speech to the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, she promised that Australia would pay more attention to the views and needs of the Pacific Island countries, whose leaders have long complained of being ignored by Canberra. Wong's diplomacy was instrumental in the May 30 decision by ten Pacific Island countries to reject a sweeping security and trade deal with China. Fiji, an archipelago of more than 300 islands, instead signed on to the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), an alternative pact led by the United States.
June 24. Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States established Partners in the Blue Pacific (PBP), a new initiative aimed at boosting economic and diplomatic ties with Pacific island nations. The move is part of an effort to counter China's growing influence in the region.
June 28. In an interview with Australian Financial Review, conducted en route to Spain for the NATO Summit in Madrid, Albanese said that the Chinese government, when thinking about Taiwan, should learn the lessons of Russia's "strategic failure" in Ukraine. He added that the so-called special relationship between Russia and China had "reinforced the implications for the world beyond just what is happening in Russia and Ukraine." He elaborated:
"This is about whether, in an international rules-based order, you will see a sovereign nation such as Ukraine invaded in such a brutal, illegal way by a country that is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council."
Albanese added:
"The resistance of Ukraine has brought democratic nations closer together which have a shared commitment to rules-based, international order, whether they be members of NATO, or non-members such as Australia."
July 6. Wong, in her first major foreign policy speech, delivered in Singapore, called on China to exert its influence on Russia to end the war in Ukraine. "Exerting such influence would do a great deal to build confidence in our own region," she said. "The region and the world is now looking at Beijing's actions in relation to Ukraine." Wong also called on China to exercise restraint in its dealings with its own neighbors.
July 12. Australia's new defense minister, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, in a speech to the Washington, DC-based Center for Strategic and International Affairs, reaffirmed that "there is no more important partner" to Australia than the United States, and that the U.S.-Australian alliance has become a "cornerstone" of Australia's foreign and security policy. He then listed some of the challenges posed by China:
"A military buildup occurring at a rate unseen since World War II; the development and deployment of new weapons that challenge our military capability edge; expanding cyber and gray-zone capabilities which blur the line between peace and conflict; and the intensification of major-power competition in ways that both concentrate and transcend geographic confines. These trends compel an even greater Australian focus on the Indo-Pacific.
"For the first time in decades, we are thinking hard about the security of our own strategic geography; the viability of our trade and supply routes; and above all the preservation of an inclusive regional order founded on rules agreed by all, not the coercive capabilities of a few. In particular, we worry about the use of force or coercion to advance territorial claims, as is occurring in the South China Sea, and its implications for any number of places in the Indo-Pacific where borders or sovereignty are disputed."
Marles added that his "first priority" will be the trilateral partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom under AUKUS:
"For a three-ocean nation, the heart of deterrence is undersea capability. AUKUS will not only make Australia safer; it will make Australia a more potent and capable partner. That the United States and the United Kingdom have agreed to work with Australia to meet our needs is not only a game-changer; it illustrates why alliances help reinforce, not undermine, our country's national sovereignty."
Australia has long been a vocal critic of China's human rights abuses, especially the repression of ethnic Uyghurs, as well as the crackdown on democracy in Hong Kong, its threats against Taiwan, its aggressive actions in the disputed South China Sea. China is also accused of meddling in Australia's political process. In June 2018, the Australian Parliament passed a package of laws aimed at preventing foreign interference in the country.
Bilateral relations reached a new low in September 2020, when then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison called for an independent international inquiry into the COVID-19 outbreak. China retaliated by imposing sanctions on the imports of Australian goods.
In April 2022, China signed a security pact with the Solomon Islands. A leaked draft of the agreement indicates that China intends to establish a military presence in the South Pacific.
In June 2022, a Chinese fighter jet intercepted an Australian surveillance plane in international airspace over the South China Sea. The Chinese jet then released small pieces of aluminum which were sucked into the engine of the Australian plane. Australia's defense ministry said it had "for decades undertaken maritime surveillance activities in the region" and "does so in accordance with international law, exercising the right to freedom of navigation and overflight in international waters and airspace." Defense Minister Marles added that Australia will continue its legal operations in the South China Sea:
"This incident will not deter Australia from continuing to engage in these activities which are within our rights at international law, to ensure that there is freedom of navigation in the South China Sea because that is fundamentally in our nation's interests. This is a body of water which is deeply connected to Australia."
The Editorial Board of the Australian Financial Review, in an essay — "Albanese Government No Soft Touch Under China's One-Way Pressure" — wrote that the tone of Beijing's rhetoric remains aggressive:
"The tone of Beijing's message — along with the presumed right to issue one-sided diktats demanding Australia take 'concrete action' to correct its attitude and behavior — remains much the same. All the blame for the problems in the relationship are placed at Australia's feet. This, of course, ignores the reality that assertive China has changed.
"All this is underlined by the attempt to pin the 'root cause' of the deteriorating relationship on the former Coalition government's 'irresponsible words and deeds' — such as Malcolm Turnbull's legitimate decision to protect Australia's sovereignty by banning China-owned Huawei from participating in the 5G network build.
"A closed one-party state — that would never allow a foreign company near China's critical technologies — expects one-sided reciprocity and openness from Australia. China would also reject out of hand any similar attempt by another country to meddle in its domestic politics and foreign policy as a precondition for better relations.
"If China genuinely seeks a reset of the relationship, it should take the first concrete action itself and withdraw the unwarranted trade punishment against Australia's grain, beef, and wine exports — not make this conditional on improved political relations on its terms first."
In an article — "Plus ça Change: The New Australian Labor Government's Foreign Policy Agenda" — Thomas Wilkens, Senior Fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, concluded:
"The new government's continued emphasis on the Quad and AUKUS will likely disappoint Chinese observers who hoped that Labor may downplay these groupings, given their perceived role as instruments designed to respond to China's growing power and assertiveness, out of deference to Beijing. While many commentators have viewed the change of government as an opportunity to 'reset,' or at least improve, dire bilateral relations with Beijing, the new Labor government indicated that 'fixing' the relationship is a high priority, but it will not occur at the expense of close cooperation with fellow democratic allies and partners, whom Albanese praised as 'like-minded friends.' Indeed, given the parlous state of bilateral relations over the past few years, such a task appears 'a difficult one,' as Mr. Albanese himself indicated....
"PM Albanese comes to the premiership at a fraught time both in terms of the deteriorating regional security environment and the economic challenges that Australia will face in the coming period. When considering Labor approaches to foreign policy, it must be remembered that the core aspects of Australian external relations, famously characterized by Allan Gyngell as (i) support for the rules-based international order, coupled with (ii) the US-alliance, and (iii) Asian engagement, have enjoyed bipartisan consensus. Only in select policy spheres such as climate change and nuclear weapons are significant partisan divergences apparent.
"Thus far, all has been quite predictable — plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (the more things change, the more they stay the same.)"
*Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.
© 2022 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.