English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For May 28/2022
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2021/english.may28.22.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
In my Father’s house there are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint John 14/01-06/:”‘Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house there are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way to the place where I am going.’ Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?’Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on May 27-28/2022
US sanctions Iran’s Quds Force, Hezbollah
Aoun signs decree forming 'National Council for Pricing Policy'
Price of bundle of bread increases in Lebanon amid decline in lira's value
Steady gasoline prices while diesel and gas prices increase
Lebanon central bank move shocks black market traders
Lira recovers as Salameh says banks to provide dollars anew
Chances of Skaff, Atiyeh surge for deputy speaker post
Report: Bassil might not mind election of Franjieh as president
BDL statement to Lebanese currency holders
Families of Beirut Port blast case detainees stage sit in outside Justice Palace
Caretaker Economy Minister announces he will call for an emergency meeting of National Council for Pricing Policy
Corona - Health Ministry: 72 new Corona cases, one death

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on May 27-28/2022
Kremlin official rails against West, accuses it of 'canceling Russia'
Boris Johnson casts doubt on prospect of Ukraine peace talks, saying Vladimir Putin is like 'crocodile eating your left leg'
Kremlin insiders are quietly searching for Putin's successor in case he's forced out over the invasion of Ukraine, Russian report says
Pro-Russia separatists say have captured Ukraine's Lyman
Russia pounds Ukraine's Kharkiv, presses Donbas assault
Romania, Poland hopeful for Sweden, Finland NATO bids
Iran protesters seek justice as building collapse toll rises
Iraqi lawmakers pass bill criminalizing any ties with Israel
Turkey captures the new leader of Daesh in Istanbul raid

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on May 27-28/2022
Question: "Why is it sinful for a church to cover-up abuse?"GotQuestions.org
Why did US leak Jerusalem’s role in Iran officer death again? - analysis/Yonah Jeremy Bob/Jerusalem Post/May 27/2022
The Real Purpose of the Iran Nuclear Deal/Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute/May 27/2022
Black Sea grain battle could define Ukraine war/Peter Apps/The Arab Weekly/May 27/2022
NATO will grow, and the sooner the better/Luke Coffey/Arab News/May 27, 2022
Turkey, Israel and the Gulf in pragmatic balancing act/Sinem Cengiz/Arab News/May 27, 2022

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on May 27-28/2022
US sanctions Iran’s Quds Force, Hezbollah
Arab News/May 27, 2022
DUBAI: The US has designated a network run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force an “international oil smuggling and money laundering network.” A US Treasury Department report on Wednesday said that officials had facilitated the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Iranian oil for both the IRGC-QF and Hezbollah. It acted as a critical element of Iran’s oil revenue generation, and supported proxy militant groups that continued to “perpetuate conflict and suffering throughout the region.” The department’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Brian Nelson, said the US would continue to strictly enforce sanctions on Iran’s illicit oil trade. He added that similar sanctions could apply to anyone purchasing oil from Iran. Ruwan Al-Rejoleh, a MENA expert and consultant based in Washington, called the sanctions an “important step.”“Assisted by Hezbollah, this oil network has been allowed to operate freely for too long. This is an important step, but the administration must keep pushing Hezbollah and its allies to the margins,” she said. “Hezbollah, who control the Lebanese Energy Ministry, recently took advantage of Lebanon’s energy problems to secure preferential access to the Lebanese market for their masters in Tehran.” She said Sonatrach, a state-owned Algerian company, had been responsible for sending fuel oil to Lebanon and that its exit had “exacerbated the country’s already crippling” energy problems. Ghada Aoun, Mount Lebanon’s state prosecutor, launched politically motivated proceedings against Sonatrach, which caused the Algerians to leave, she added. “Hezbollah used this chaos to secure access for Iran to Beirut’s energy market.”

Aoun signs decree forming 'National Council for Pricing Policy'
Naharnet /May 27/2022
President Michel Aoun on Friday signed a decree forming the "National Council for Pricing Policy", which is being formed for the first time since a decision was taken to form it in 1974, the Presidency said. The Council is “a national par excellence council that comprises all the relevant parties from the official administrations and the associations of the General Confederation of Lebanese Workers that represent the various segments of the Lebanese society,” the Presidency added. “They will work together on devising a pricing policy, after the Economy Ministry had been tasked alone with this responsibility through its Consumer Protection Directorate,” the Presidency said. The Council comprises the economy minister as its president, the director general of the Central Administration of Statistics as its vice president and the following members: the directors general of the ministries of economy, finance, tourism, labor and agriculture; the heads of the Consumer Protection Directorate, the Association of Lebanese Industrialists, the Association of Banks in Lebanon, the Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture; a Central Bank representative; and three representatives from the General Confederation of Lebanese Workers.
Speaking at a press conference for the launch of the Council, Economy Minister Amin Salam said that he will call for “an emergency meeting for this council, because we are in an emergency situation.”“We can no longer continue this way,” Salam added.
The country has witnessed pricing chaos in recent days due to a dramatic surge in the dollar exchange rate on the black market. The country's unprecedented economic and financial crisis started in October 2019 and has seen the local currency lose more than 95% of its value to the dollar, wiping out salaries and savings. Meanwhile, the Lebanese pound continues to hit new lows against the dollar, which was selling at 37,000 pounds on the black market on Friday. The Lebanese currency was pegged at 1,500 pounds to the dollar for 22 years until the crisis erupted in late 2019.

Price of bundle of bread increases in Lebanon amid decline in lira's value
NNA/May 27/2022
The Lebanese Ministry of Economy and Trade set on Thursday the new price of a bundle of bread as follows:
- Small bread bundle weighing 365 grams for LBP 9000
- Medium-sized bundle weighing 825 grams for LBP 15,000
The new price hike is due to the significant increase in fuel prices, which directly affects the price of flour and the cost of producing a bundle of bread, in addition to the rise in the price of wheat in international markets due to the Ukrainian crisis, and the increase in the US dollar exchange rate in the black market.

Steady gasoline prices while diesel and gas prices increase
NNA/May 27/2022
Gasoline prices in Lebanon remained steady on Friday while the price of diesel has increased by LBP 30,000, and the price of a gas canister has increased by LBP 24000.
Consequently, the new prices are as follows:
95 octanes: LBP 597000
98 octanes: LBP 608000
Diesel: LBP 762000
Gas: LBP 471000

Lebanon central bank move shocks black market traders
Najia Houssari/Arab News/May 27, 2022
BEIRUT: The dollar exchange rate on Lebanon’s black market was expected to continue its fall in the wake of measures announced by central bank Gov. Riad Salameh on Friday, a senior banker told Arab News. The banker expects the exchange rate to drop further until it is almost equal to the exchange rate on the central bank’s Sayrafa platform, which on Friday recorded a price of 24,600 pounds against the dollar. The banker’s comment came as the governor issued a surprise statement late on Friday asking banks to keep their branches and funds open until 6 p.m. for three consecutive days from next Monday in order to meet citizens’ requests to buy dollars at the Sayrafa price. Central Bank Gov. Riad Salameh’s statement on Friday shook the black market, which brought the dollar exchange rate on Friday to 38,000 pounds. (AFP). He also issued instructions to pay the salaries of public sector employees in dollars at the Sayrafa rate. The depreciation of the local currency has created a ripple effect, creating even more economic difficulty for the country, and the central bank had previously asked banks to give part of their dues in dollars at the Sayrafa exchange rate. However, banks began to limit the amount of dollars given to people, leading to a black market revival in the past week. The governor’s statement on Friday shook the black market, which brought the dollar exchange rate on Friday to 38,000 pounds. Confusion mounted in the exchange shops immediately after the governor’s statement, as people rushed to exchange the US currency, with the dollar’s exchange rate dramatically slipping within a few minutes from 37,700 pounds to 29,000 pounds. Black-market money changers, who are spread out in the main streets of Beirut, especially in the gold markets and near money exchange shops, were stunned and started making calls. Banking expert Louis Hobeika told Arab News: “What is happening is the result of people’s fear. The problem in Lebanon is not monetary, but rather economic and political.”He added: “Within a week, the dollar exchange rate rose about 11,000 pounds, but the dramatic drop in the price in less than an hour is certainly for political reasons.”Hobeika said that the central bank appears to have been subjected to political pressure to force it to do something to reduce the rate, amid fears of social upheaval. The bank governor resorted to the latest statement, he said. “But it’s like treating a cancer patient with Panadol.”

Lira recovers as Salameh says banks to provide dollars anew
Naharnet /May 27/2022
The unofficial dollar exchange rate dropped from a record high of LBP 38,000 to at least LBP 34,300 on Friday, immediately after Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh issued a statement saying banks would resume exchange operations at the Sayrafa platform rate as of Monday.
In a statement addressed to “all the holders of Lebanese pounds, be them citizens or institutions, who want to exchange them for U.S. dollars,” Salameh said exchange requests can be submitted to Lebanese banks as of Monday. “These requests will be fulfilled in full within 24 hours,” Salameh added. “This offer is open and available every day,” the governor went on to say. In another statement addressed to banks, Salameh said: "As of Monday, and for three consecutive days, Lebanese banks must keep their branches and cash counters open until 6:00 pm daily, to fulfill citizens’ requests to purchase dollars at the Sayrafa rate in exchange for Lebanese pounds.”Banks must also “pay the salaries of public sector employees in dollars and according to the Sayrafa rate,” Salameh added. Banks had stopped selling dollars at the Sayrafa rate in recent days, with some accusing them of suspending the operations in response to the government's financial and economic recovery plan. The Lebanese pound had registered a new record low of LBP 38,000 to the greenback earlier on Friday. For decades, the Lebanese pound was pegged to the dollar at 1,500, meaning that it has lost around 95 percent of its value in two years. A financial crisis widely blamed on government corruption and mismanagement has caused the worst economic crisis in Lebanon's history. The cost of a full tank of petrol now far exceeds the minimum monthly wage, mains electricity comes on barely two hours a day and unaffordable school fees are driving increased student dropouts. Four out of five Lebanese are now considered poor by the World Bank. The country desperately needs an international rescue package but the required reforms have not been forthcoming. The exchange rate, which is unofficial but applies to most transactions, had recently stabilized at around 26,000 to the dollar but took a tumble after the latest legislative polls. The results brought in a handful of independents who support the spirit of a 2019 protest movement which called for the wholesale ouster of Lebanon's corrupt and hereditary ruling class. But they also yielded a more scattered assembly that observers predict could remain stuck in a political deadlock that will further delay any meaningful economic recovery program.

Chances of Skaff, Atiyeh surge for deputy speaker post
Naharnet/May 27/2022
The chances of each of the independent MPs Ghassan Skaff and Sajih Atiyeh for being elected as parliament’s deputy speaker have surged in recent hours, media reports said on Friday. As MTV said that the race is now limited to Skaff and Atiyeh, political sources told al-Liwaa newspaper that the main blocs have reached consensus over Atiyeh’s nomination “after all the attempts to nominate MP Elias Bou Saab by the Free Partriotic Movement bloc failed due to FPM chief Jebran Bassil’s rejection of this nomination.” The sources said Bassil has sought to link Bou Saab’s nomination to “agreements over the new government, the FPM’s share in it and the main axes of its mission,” which “has failed to win the needed response from (Speaker Nabih) Berri.”Bassil has also rejected Bou Saab’s nomination due to “tensions and disputes between them that surfaced before, during and after the parliamentary elections,” the sources added. Other reports meanwhile said that some members of the FPM bloc support the nomination of MP Georges Atallah, an FPM lawmaker elected for one of Koura’s three Greek Orthodox seats. “Should Bassil fail to secure Atallah’s win, he might take the choice of backing MP Sajih Atiyeh, who is the candidate of ex-MP Issam Fares, especially that Bassil is in constant contact with Fares and visits him every now and then in the French south,” the reports added. FPM sources meanwhile told OTV that “contrary to everything that has been circulated, the FPM’s MPs are still clinging to their stance that there is no justification for voting for Speaker Nabih Berri” for the speaker post. The sources also ruled out that the FPM would leave the choice to its MPs as happened in 2018. Informed sources meanwhile told the TV network that Ghassan Skaff’s chances have surged in recent hours, “especially that he enjoys the support of the Progressive Socialist Party and the Shiite Duo.”Also according to OTV, MP Ghassan Hasbani of the Lebanese Forces and MP Melhem Khalaf of the October 17 forces are now out of the race for the deputy speaker post.

Report: Bassil might not mind election of Franjieh as president
Naharnet /May 27/2022
Free Patriotic Movement chief Jebran Bassil might not mind the election of Marada Movement leader Suleiman Franjieh as the country’s new president, because he is tacitly convinced that “his own road to the palace” is “neither passable nor safe,” Christian sources from the March 8 camp said. It is also “in his long-term interest to keep the presidency within the strategic camp that he belongs to, because that would keep his presidential ambitions alive in the future,” the sources told al-Joumhouria newspaper in remarks published Friday.
“Should Bassil fail to reach the presidential post, as seems likely until now, it will be logical for him to prefer the Marada chief over any other candidate, especially that Hizbullah might represent a guarantee for him, specifically as to Franjieh taking his interests into account during his presidential tenure,” the sources added. The sources also noted that the once-tense ties between Bassil and Franjieh have been gradually improving since the “reconciliation” meeting between them that was hosted by Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. “They have also exchange positive signals during and after the parliamentary elections, which gives an impression that an understanding between them over the presidential file is not impossible,” the sources went on to say. Should this “understanding” be reached, Hizbullah, the FPM and their allies “might secure a firm bloc of around 60 MPs for voting for Franjieh” in the first round of the presidential election, the sources pointed out.

BDL statement to Lebanese currency holders
NNA/May 27/2022
Central Bank Governor, Riad Salameh, on Friday issued a circular, addressing “all holders of the Lebanese pounds, whether citizens or institutions, who want to exchange Lebanese pounds to US dollars, based on Circular 161 and its effects and on clauses No. 75 and 83 of the Monetary and Credit Law, to submit requests to the Lebanese banks, as of next Monday, at The SAYRAFA platform rate, to be fully processed within 24 hours. This offer is open and available daily.”

Families of Beirut Port blast case detainees stage sit in outside Justice Palace
NNA /May 27/2022
Families of those arrested in the Beirut port explosion case staged a sit-in in front of the Justice Palace in Beirut, NNA Correspondent reported on Friday. The families demanded in a statement an immediate fair trial for those arrested and to allow them to prove their innocence.

Caretaker Economy Minister announces he will call for an emergency meeting of National Council for Pricing Policy
NNA /May 27/2022
Caretaker Economy and Trade Minister, Amin Salam, on Friday announced at the launch of the National Council for Pricing Policy that "the unions confirmed that the prices of commodities are rising in parallel with the exchange rate of the US dollar, and they [commodities] were not priced at the exchange rate of LBP 40,000 per dollar in any of the stores."
Caretaker Minister Salam also cautioned, “We are heading towards collapse and everyone should bear his responsibilities.” Salam also announced that he will call for an emergency meeting by the National Council for Pricing Policy, because we are in an emergency situation and things can’t continue in this manner.

Corona - Health Ministry: 72 new Corona cases, one death
NNA /May 27/2022
In its daily report on the COVID-19 developments, the Ministry of Public Health announced on Friday the registration of 72 new infections with the Coronavirus, which raised the cumulative number of confirmed cases to-date to 1098971. The report added that one death was recorded during the past 24 hours.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on May 27-28/2022
Kremlin official rails against West, accuses it of 'canceling Russia'
Alexander Nazaryan/Yahoo News/May 27/2022
The Kremlin’s top diplomat on Friday accused the West of waging “total war” and promoting “the culture of canceling Russia,” in blistering remarks that underscore how Moscow continues to see the war in Ukraine as an existential struggle to remake the geopolitical order as opposed to a mere territorial conflict.
“The West has declared a total war on us, on the Russian world. Nobody makes any secret of this," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said during a meeting with regional officials. His remarks were reported by Tass, the Russian news agency. Earlier this month, Lavrov — a longtime ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin — dragged Russia into a dispute with Israel over the Holocaust. Russia believes Ukraine is rife with neo-Nazis, a claim that is not supported by evidence and is further weakened by the fact that its elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is Jewish. Lavrov bizarrely compared Zelensky to European Jews who he claimed aided their own Nazi tormentors during the Holocaust. Sergey Lavrov attends the meeting of foreign ministers of the Commonwealth of Independent States in Tajikistan's capital of Dushanbe on May 13.
After days of intense criticism, Putin apologized to his Israeli counterpart, Naftali Bennett. Speaking on Friday, Lavrov reprised Putin’s argument that Europe and the United States were engaging in “cancel culture” against Russia, in what appeared to be an effort to appeal to Western conservatives who have made similar complaints in the United States, the United Kingdom and France, among other nations. “The culture of canceling Russia and everything related with our country has reached a point of absurdity,” Lavrov complained. “Bans have been imposed on such classics as Tchaikovsky, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy and Pushkin. Persecution is underway against Russian culture and art workers.”Some pro-Putin figures, like the classical music conductor Valery Gergiev, have indeed lost commissions because of their political stances, but there has been no effort to expurgate classic works of literature and art, many of which saw Russian artists take brave stances against earlier iterations of Kremlin authoritarianism and cruelty. The Munich Philharmonic Orchestra, under the baton of conductor Valery Gergiev in Munich in 2021.
In his remarks on Friday, Lavrov seemed to blame the West for the collapse of the geopolitical order that had been in place since the end of the Cold War, ignoring the fact that it was Russian invasions of Georgia (in 2008) and Ukraine (in 2014 and 2022), along with an increasingly authoritarian domestic policy, that turned the Kremlin into a pariah. “We must realize that it has exposed the West’s real attitude to the beautiful slogans that were put forward 30 years ago after the end of the Cold War,” the foreign minister said, “the calls for universal humanitarian values, for building a common European home from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Now we can see the real worth of these fine words." Lavrov’s comments puzzled Ian Garner, an expert in Russian media and propaganda. “It’s an interesting return to some pretty hyped up rhetoric,” Garner told Yahoo News in a text message. “The last week or two has been very quiet while things have been going comparatively well for Russia (i.e., no great disasters).”He speculated that Lavrov’s ire may have been triggered by a forthcoming shipment of U.S. rocket launchers to Ukraine. Shipments of Western weaponry to the front in Eastern Europe have been critical in repelling the invasion by Russia, which has a much bigger military than Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is now entering its fourth month. Russia has failed to land any decisive blows. Its gains in eastern Ukraine, the main theater of conflict, were described on Thursday as “incremental” by the Institute for the Study of War.

Boris Johnson casts doubt on prospect of Ukraine peace talks, saying Vladimir Putin is like 'crocodile eating your left leg'
Henry Dyer/Business Insider/May 27, 2022
Vladimir Putin is "completely not to be trusted", Boris Johnson has told Bloomberg. Johnson compared Russia's President to "a crocodile [that's] in the middle of eating your left leg". The UK's prime minister urged fellow western nations to send Ukraine more offensive weapons. Vladimir Putin is "completely not to be trusted", Boris Johnson has said, casting further doubts on the possibility of peace talks with Russia over the war in Ukraine. In an interview with Bloomberg Friday morning, the UK's prime minister pushed back on calls to try and begin negotiations with Russia. "How can you deal with a crocodile when it's in the middle of eating your left leg?" Johnson said, when asked about the prospect of dialogue with Putin. In late April, Johnson made similar remarks on the difficulties the Ukrainian government would have in entering talks with Russia. "[Putin] will try to freeze the conflict, he will try to call for a ceasefire," Johnson said at the time. He said the "one way" that the conflict in Ukraine can end is for Putin to claim the "denazification of Ukraine has taken place and that he's able to withdraw with dignity and honour". During the Bloomberg interview, Johnson also urged Western states to continue arming Ukrainian forces, and to provide more offensive weaponry such as multiple launch rocket systems [MLRS] with a greater range to defend against Russian artillery. The MLRS "would enable them to defend themselves against this very brutal Russian artillery, and that's where the world needs to go down," Johnson said.

Kremlin insiders are quietly searching for Putin's successor in case he's forced out over the invasion of Ukraine, Russian report says
Bill Bostock/Business Insider/May 27/2022
Kremlin insiders are mulling Putin's successor, according to the independent Russian outlet Meduza.
Political elites are dissatisfied with the war in Ukraine and crumbling economy, Meduza reported.
Among those discussed are Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin and former President Dmitry Medvedev, Meduza reported. Kremlin insiders are privately discussing a list of possible successors to Russian President Vladimir Putin in case he is forced out over the invasion of Ukraine or falls ill, the independent Russian outlet Meduza reported. The impact of Western sanctions and the cost of waging the monthslong war in Ukraine have crippled Russia's economy, with discontent rising among the Kremlin and the government, Meduza reported. Meduza reported, citing sources with ties to the Russian government, that political elites are now talking about "the future after Putin" more than before. "It's not that they want to overthrow Putin right now, or that they're plotting a conspiracy, but there's an understanding (or a wish) that he won't be governing the state maybe in the foreseeable future," a source told Meduza of those inside the Kremlin. The outlet also cited another source as saying: "The president screwed up, but he might still fix everything later, coming to some agreement [with Ukraine]."Kremlin officials are discussing a list of potential successors to Putin in secret, Meduza reported, with officials floating Mayor Sergey Sobyanin of Moscow, National Security Council Deputy Chairman and former President Dmitry Medvedev, and First Deputy Chief of Staff Sergey Kiriyenko as possible candidates. However, Russia's elites understand that the only realistic way to get Putin out of office is to wait for a major health issue, Meduza reported, citing sources. "People are disgusted, but they're still at their jobs, helping to put the country on a war footing," a source told the outlet. Rumours have swirled for weeks that Putin is seriously ill. A Russian oligarch was secretly recorded saying Putin is "very ill with blood cancer," New Lines magazine reported, and the film director Oliver Stone, who has interviewed Putin several times, said Putin previously had cancer but recovered. The former British spy Christopher Steele said this month that Russian sources have also told him that Putin is terminally ill.
Western officials have largely poured cold water on those rumors, however, with one saying earlier this week: "My observation is that at the moment President Putin is firmly in control of his inner circle, the country, and the decisions which are being made, irrespective of any speculation about his health. President Putin is still the decision-maker." A source close to the Kremlin told Meduza: "There's probably almost nobody who's happy with Putin. Businesspeople and many cabinet members are unhappy that the president started this war without thinking through the scale of the sanctions. Normal life under these sanctions is impossible."Two sources with ties to the Kremlin told Meduza that Putin is reticent to acknowledge the clear economic difficulties resulting from the war in Ukraine. That said, Meduza reported that there are several hawkish voices inside the Kremlin that believe Russia has gone past the point of no return with Ukraine, and must go all in. "They figure, since we're entangled there already, there's no going soft now. We need to go even harder," a source told the outlet. In recent days, Russian troops have made advances in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, with Ukraine's defense ministry spokesperson, Oleksandr Motuzyanyk, saying Tuesday that Russia's military had entered its "most active phase" of the war to date.

Pro-Russia separatists say have captured Ukraine's Lyman
Agence France Presse/May 27/2022
Moscow-backed separatist forces in Ukraine said Friday they had captured Lyman, a strategic town that sits on a road leading to key eastern cities still under Kyiv's control. Together with Russian troops, separatist forces have "liberated and taken full control of 220 settlements, including Krasny Liman," the breakaway region of Donetsk said on its Telegram channel, using an old name for the town. There was no immediate confirmation from Russia or Ukraine. Located in the north of the eastern Donetsk region, Lyman lies on the road to Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, the capital of the Ukrainian-controlled part of Donetsk. Moscow is focused in Ukraine on securing and expanding its gains in the Donbas region, near the border with Russia and home to pro-Kremlin separatists, as well as the southern coast. Russian and Moscow-appointed officials in the southern region of Kherson, which is under the full control of Russian troops, and in the southeastern region of Zaporizhzhia have said both regions could become part of Russia.

Russia pounds Ukraine's Kharkiv, presses Donbas assault
Agence France Presse/May 27/2022
Ukraine's second city Kharkiv on Friday reeled from a deadly onslaught of Russian shelling as Moscow pressed its offensive to capture key points in the eastern Donbas region with more bombing of residential areas. The pounding of Kharkiv, which according to local officials left at least nine people dead, raised fears that Russia had not lost interest in the city even after Ukraine took back control after fierce battles. Over three months after Russia launched its invasion on February 24 -- and which has left thousands dead on both sides and displaced millions of Ukrainian civilians -- Moscow is focusing on the east of Ukraine after failing in its initial ambition to capture Kyiv. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated accusations that Moscow is carrying out a "genocide" in Donbas, saying its bombardment could leave the entire region "uninhabited".
Oleg Sinegubov, the regional governor of Kharkiv which lies to the north of the Donbas region, said that nine civilians had been killed in the Russian shelling on Thursday. A five-month-old child and her father were among the dead, while her mother was gravely wounded, he said on social media channels. An AFP reporter in the city said the northern residential district of Pavlove Pole was hit and saw plumes of smoke rising from the area. The journalist saw several people wounded near a shuttered shopping center, while an elderly man with injuries to his arm and leg was carried away by medics. Kharkiv mayor Igor Terekhov said the northeastern city's metro, which resumed work this week after being used mainly as a shelter since the Russian invasion, would continue operating, but also offer a safe space for residents.
'Not scared'
In Donbas, Russian forces were closing in on several cities, including strategically located Severodonetsk and Lysychansk which stand on the crucial route to Ukraine's eastern administrative center in Kramatorsk. Pro-Russian separatists said they had captured the town of Lyman that lies between Severodonetsk and Kramatorsk and is on the road leading to the key cities that are still under Kyiv's control. Lugansk regional governor Sergiy Gaiday said in a video on Telegram that at least five civilians had been killed in the Lugansk region -- part of Donbas -- in the last 24 hours alone. Four had been killed in Severodonetsk and another person in Komyshovakha 50 kilometers (30 miles) outside Severodonetsk, he said, accusing Russia of "ceaselessly shelling residential areas". In Kramatorsk, children roamed the rubble left by Russian attacks as the sound of artillery fire boomed. "I am not scared," said Yevgen, a somber-looking 13-year-old who moved to Kramatorsk with his mother from the ruins of his village Galyna. "I got used to the shelling," he declared as he sat alone on a slab of a destroyed apartment block. Commentators believe that Russia's gains in over three months of war have been far more paltry than President Vladimir Putin hoped, although Moscow has gained control over a handful of cities in southern Ukraine such as Kherson and Mariupol. The Kremlin is now seeking to tighten its grip over the parts of Ukraine it occupies, including fast-tracking citizenship for residents of areas under Russian control.
Occupying authorities in Mariupol -- which was taken over by invading forces this month after a devastating siege that left thousands dead and reduced the city to rubble -- cancelled school holidays to prepare students to switch to a Russian curriculum, according to Kyiv.
'Trust lost' -
The intensified fighting across the country prompted Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba to air Kyiv's increasing frustration with the West, accusing allies of dragging their feet on arms deliveries and telling his German counterpart that Ukraine needs heavy weapons "as soon as possible."
Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin, whose country is bidding for NATO membership in response to its giant neighbor's invasion of Ukraine, said on a visit to Kyiv it would take Russia decades to repair its standing in the world. "Trust is lost for generations," Marin told a press conference.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who has faced criticism over Berlin's slow response, also weighed in Thursday, saying Putin will not negotiate seriously until he realizes he might not win in Ukraine.
"Our goal is crystal-clear -- Putin must not win this war. And I am convinced that he will not win it," Scholz told the World Economic Forum in Davos. The flow of grain exports from Ukraine, known as Europe's breadbasket, has been disrupted since Russia's invasion, threatening food security around the world and sending prices soaring. The Kremlin on Thursday pointed the finger at Western countries for stopping grain-carrying vessels from leaving ports in Ukraine -- rejecting accusations that Russia was to blame. President Putin said in a telephone call with Italy's Prime Minister Mario Draghi that Moscow was ready to make a "significant contribution" to averting a looming food crisis if the West lifts sanctions imposed on his country over Ukraine. But the United States scoffed at the offer, with Pentagon spokesman John Kirby accusing Moscow of "weaponizing economic assistance."

Romania, Poland hopeful for Sweden, Finland NATO bids
Agence France Presse/May 27/2022
Romania and Poland hope Sweden and Finland will be able to join NATO despite Turkey's reluctance, the country's foreign ministers said Friday during a visit to Ankara. Stockholm and Helsinki submitted their bids to join NATO last week, reversing decades of military non-alignment, after political and public support for membership soared following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.But Turkey, a NATO member, is throwing a spanner in the works as any membership must be unanimously approved by all members of the military alliance.  "Unlike many, I am optimistic... I am convinced that this disagreement will be resolved in the best way, in the spirit of NATO solidarity," Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau said at a joint press conference with his Romanian and Turkish counterparts. "Sweden and Finland becoming members of NATO is vital to making us stronger," he said, though adding that their joining "should however benefit all NATO allies, including Turkey."Romania's Foreign Minister Bogdan Aurescu said he supported "constructive dialogue." "We hope to soon have good news concerning Sweden and Finland," he said. Ankara accuses Stockholm in particular of providing a haven for the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), listed as a "terrorist" group by Turkey and its Western allies. It also accuses Sweden of harboring supporters of Fethullah Gulen, the U.S.-based preacher wanted over a failed 2016 coup in Turkey. Turkey's Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said his country had made "legitimate" demands of Sweden and Finland. "These countries back terrorism. They must end this support and lift restrictions on defense industry sales to our country" imposed after the Turkish army's Syria operation in 2019, he said.

Iran protesters seek justice as building collapse toll rises
Agence France Presse/May 27/2022
Hundreds of people took to the streets in southwestern Iran demanding justice after a tower block collapse killed 24 people, news outlets in the Islamic republic said on Friday. A large section of the 10-story Metropol building that was under construction in the city of Abadan, in Khuzestan province, crumbled on Monday, causing one of Iran's deadliest such disasters in years. Images published by Fars news agency showed hundreds of residents marching along Abadan's streets on Thursday night, mourning those who lost their lives by banging on traditional drums and hitting cymbals. Some shouted "Death to incompetent officials" and hailed the "Martyrs of Metropol", Fars said. People also took to the streets of Khorramshahr city, in the same province, expressing their sympathy with the families of those who died and calling for "a decisive and serious" trial of those responsible, it added. Similar protests were held on Wednesday night in Abadan, state TV had reported. More than four days after the tower block's collapse, rescue teams were still recovering bodies from under slabs of cement. A video posted on Tasnim news agency's website on Friday showed rescuers carrying a gurney with a body wrapped in a black bag. Abadan governor Ehsan Abbaspour, cited by ISNA news agency, said the number of people killed in the disaster stood at 24, up from 19 previously. Officials said 37 people were also injured, although most have since been discharged from hospital. It remains unknown how many people may still be trapped under the rubble. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had called for perpetrators to be prosecuted and punished, in a statement posted on his official website on Thursday.The provincial judiciary said at least 10 people were arrested following the incident, including the mayor and two former mayors, accused of being "responsible" for the collapse, the Judiciary’s Mizan Online website reported. An investigation has been opened into the cause of the disaster in Abadan, a city of 230,000 people, 660 kilometers (410 miles) southwest of Tehran. First Vice President Mohammad Mokhber visited Abadan on Friday to "investigate the dimensions of the building collapse incident", according to ISNA. In a previous major disaster in Iran, 22 people, including 16 firefighters, died in a blaze that engulfed the capital's 15-storey Plasco shopping center in January 2017.

Iraqi lawmakers pass bill criminalizing any ties with Israel
Associated Press/May 27/2022
Iraqi lawmakers on Thursday passed a bill criminalizing normalization of ties and any relations, including business ties, with Israel. The legislation says that violation of the law is punishable with the death sentence or life imprisonment. The law was approved with 275 lawmakers voting in favor of it in the 329-seat assembly. A parliament statement said the legislation is "a true reflection of the will of the people." Influential Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose party won the largest number of seats in Iraq's parliamentary elections last year, called for Iraqis to take to the streets to celebrate this ""great achievement." Hundreds later gathered in central Baghdad, chanting anti-Israel slogans. It was unclear how the law will be implemented as Iraq has not recognized Israel since the country's formation in 1948; the two nations have no diplomatic relations. The legislation also entails risks for companies working in Iraq and found to be in violation of the bill. The United States said it was deeply disturbed by the Iraqi legislation. "In addition to jeopardizing freedom of expression and promoting an environment of antisemitism, this legislation stands in stark contrast to progress Iraq's neighbors have made by building bridges and normalizing relations with Israel, creating new opportunities for people throughout the region," State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in a statement. Earlier this year, Iran fired a dozen ballistic missiles towards the northern city of Irbil in the Kurdish-run north, saying it was targeting an Israeli intelligence base. The home of Baz Karim, the CEO of the oil company KAR GROUP, was heavily damaged in the attack. KAR has been accused in the past of quietly selling oil to Israel. A report by the Iraqi parliament's fact-finding committee said it found no evidence to support Iranian accusations of an Israeli spy base in Irbil.

Turkey captures the new leader of Daesh in Istanbul raid
May 28, 2022
ANKARA: Turkey captured the new leader of the militant group Daesh in a raid in Istanbul, local media claimed on Thursday. Turkish dissident news website Oda TV claimed Abu Al-Hasan Al-Hashimi Al-Qurayshi was caught in an operation directed by Istanbul’s police chief, Zafer Aktas, after days of surveillance and preparation, though no official statement has yet been made. According to Turkish press reports, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is expected to unveil details of the operation in the coming days. The previous leader of Daesh, Abu Ibrahim Al-Hashimi Al-Qurayshi, was killed in northwestern Syria on Feb. 3 by US forces. In recent months, Turkish police have systematically carried out raids against Daesh cells across the country. Earlier in May, a prospective suicide bomber allegedly linked to the group was arrested in Urfa on the Syrian border, while three more people were detained the same week in Bursa. On Thursday, another Daesh member was shot dead by police while allegedly trying to blow himself up in front of the police department in the southeastern province of Gaziantep. Experts note that this most recent operation could be used as leverage by Ankara to up the ante against its NATO allies in order to show its commitment to counterterrorism efforts. It is not a coincidence that Ankara allegedly captured the top figure of Daesh amid ongoing debates about NATO enlargement and Turkey’s accusations against some Nordic countries about their alleged support of terror groups.
Soner Cagaptay, Analyst
Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute, thinks that the timing of the operation in Istanbul is telling. “It is not a coincidence that Ankara allegedly captured the top figure of Daesh amid ongoing debates about NATO enlargement and Turkey’s accusations against some Nordic countries about their alleged support of terror groups,” he told Arab News. According to Cagaptay, Turkey is aligning with Western security priorities and trying to remind its NATO allies that it helps them against common terror threats.
Turkey is also part of the large international coalition of nations that has spent years fighting Daesh. During the latest ministerial meeting of the coalition in the Moroccan city of Marrakesh, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu also brought up Turkey’s own concerns, saying the fight against Daesh cannot be won with the help of other terror groups. This was widely interpreted as a reference to Kurdish groups such as the People’s Protection Forces, or YPG, which has received some support from Sweden, which is applying to join NATO — a move Turkey is, as a result, opposing.
“This latest operation in Istanbul is instrumental for Ankara to urge the Western alliance that it is now their turn to understand Turkey’s domestic terrorism concerns that cover not only Daesh but also other terror groups including the Kurdistan Workers’ Party — PKK — and its Syrian offshoot YPG,” Cagaptay said. The reported capture of Al-Qurayshi also coincided with the gathering of the National Security Council, chaired by Erdogan, on Thursday, where details of Turkey’s impending operation against YPG militants in northern Syria was discussed.
“The operations currently carried out, or to be carried out, in order to clear our southern borders from the threat of terrorism, do not in any way target the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our neighbors and they pose a necessity for our national security needs,” the meeting’s final communique said. Ankara believes it faces security threats from Manbij, Ain Al-Arab and the Tal Rifat district of Aleppo, which it considers bases for hostile groups. Erdogan announced on Monday that he would launch the offensive into northern Syria to push back the YPG, and secure a 30 kilometer safe zone to settle Syrian refugees currently living in Turkey. However, a potential military operation — after three previous offensives — does not seem to have received approval from the US for the time being. “We recognize Turkey’s legitimate security concerns on Turkey’s southern border, but any new offensive would further undermine regional stability and put at risk US forces and the coalition’s campaign against ISIS (Daesh),” US State Department spokesperson Ned Price said on May 24 in a press briefing. Colin P. Clarke, director of research at The Soufan Group, thinks that anti-Daesh operations in Turkey can have a significant impact on the group’s presence in the region. “Even when Daesh still held its territorial ‘caliphate,’ it was dispatching operatives to Turkey to lay the groundwork for financial and logistical support networks. Those networks have paid off for Daesh, as it’s allowed the leadership consistent access to money,” he told Arab News. According to Clarke, the Turkish government should be incentivized to crack down even harder on Daesh, but there is some concern about a backlash, including terror attacks inside Turkey. Daesh members have carried out a number of attacks across the country, including at least 10 suicide bombings, seven bombings, and four armed attacks, which have killed 315 people and injured hundreds of others to date.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on May 27-28/2022
Question: "Why is it sinful for a church to cover-up abuse?"
GotQuestions.org/May 27/2022
Answer: Actively hiding, disguising, or keeping a mistake or sin hidden, rather than correcting it, is referred to as a “cover-up.” Regarding abuse, anyone with knowledge of abuse or suspected abuse is morally and legally obligated to act on such information. When abuse is suspected, the organization should carefully and thoroughly investigate with the goal of discovering truth—not prioritizing reputation. Cover-ups seek to evade consequences while ignoring the harm caused by an incident. Covering up abuse is sinful because it perpetuates wrongs, exalts what God hates, and has far worse consequences in the long run than dealing with the truth immediately.
Many organizations have been guilty of cover-ups regarding abuse or wrongdoing. Sadly, some of these are associated with people of faith. Recent examples involve members from both the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. Investigations resulting from these scandals revealed active downplaying of sexual abuse in their churches and ignoring of accusations from victims. Victims were slandered, and abusers were sometimes relocated or re-assigned. Many who should have been prosecuted were never reported. Incidents were treated with spin and whitewashing, diminishing the serious nature of the charges. Worst of all, some abusers continued to harm additional victims when they could have been stopped.
Any self-proclaiming Christian—individual or organization—who participates in a cover-up of abuse is guilty of shameful sin. To identify oneself with the Lord, while enabling something He deeply loathes (Proverbs 6:16–19), violates the command not to take His name in vain. Denying victims justice through crafty deflections is an offensive rejection of the Lord’s will (Isaiah 10:1–2). Such actions lead to people blaspheming the Lord (Romans 2:23-24). God hates—with open disgust—any attempt to use good things as a cover-up for sin and evil (Proverbs 21:27; 1 Peter 2:16).
Those who participate in a cover-up often claim good intentions. A common excuse for creating these smokescreens is guarding the faith-based group’s reputation. They reason that by covering up one person’s sin, the rest of the organization can continue proclaiming the gospel. This thinking is deeply misguided. While it is better to settle disputes quietly rather than to engage in gossip or division (Proverbs 17:9; 25:9), that principle applies to disagreements and errors, not to sexual or spiritual abuse. Christians are called to protect the weak and hurting, not to dismiss them (Proverbs 22:22; 31:8–9).
Another mistaken rationalization for cover-ups is pushing for grace and forgiveness rather than correction. Truthful repentance is never at the expense of justice. Biblical commands to rebuke, correct, or excommunicate flagrant abusers are the very means by which heinous sin is to be resolved (1 Corinthians 5:9–13; 1 Timothy 5:20). They are not embarrassing admissions to be avoided. Nor are they consequences to dodge at the cost of those who have been harmed (Proverbs 19:5). Even if the world sneers at a church for confession, repentance, and change, that’s much better than persisting in sin (1 Peter 3:17). One must fear the Lord rather than man and do what is right rather than protect their image (1 Corinthians 1:11–13; Ephesians 4:15).
Confronting truth can be painful. But few things interfere with evangelism more than self-professed Christians using deceptive, cynical schemes to protect their reputation (2 Corinthians 4:2; 1 Peter 3:17). Most attempted cover-ups will be found out in this life (1 Corinthians 3:13). Those who think God will look the other way are sorely mistaken (Psalm 10:11–15). At the very least, God is aware and cannot be fooled (Matthew 12:36; Hebrews 4:13). Jesus pointedly warned hypocritical religious leaders that their secret actions would be uncovered (Luke 12:2–3). Secret sins will eventually be exposed (Numbers 32:23; Proverbs 26:26; Ecclesiastes 12:14). Once discovered, cover-ups will always make the church or group look worse. It is better to be hated and criticized while repenting of sin than lying to protect one’s reputation (Proverbs 16:8; 28:6) and allowing sin to continue and victims to suffer.
Cover-ups erode trust in everything an organization says. In contrast, honestly confronting sin in a timely manner demonstrates integrity along with repentance. Some embarrassment is inevitable; a cover-up only magnifies the violation of trust (Psalm 7:11–16). Being caught in a cover-up invites skeptics to doubt an organization’s entire message—including aspects that have nothing to do directly with their flaws and failures. Whatever moral statements a person, church, or organization makes are rightly seen as hypocritical, even if they are biblically correct. It would be foolish to assume leaders who enabled or hid abuse in churches should be trusted to suddenly “do the right thing” after they have been caught.
The best way to prevent cover-ups is to establish a clear sense of accountability. This applies to individuals and to organizations. Transparency and integrity are important standards to uphold to prevent abuse from happening in the first place (2 Corinthians 8:20–22). Nothing enables abuse within the church more than leaders who sense they are not truly accountable. Leaders are held to high standards (James 3:1) and are called to account if they fail (Proverbs 27:5). It is unbiblical to blindly accept all things one is told by teachers and leaders especially since not all spiritual leaders are godly and even godly leaders are not perfect (2 Corinthians 11:13–15). Instead, believers are to carefully compare all things—including the words and actions of leaders—to God’s truth, regardless of the messenger (Proverbs 18:17; Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1; Ephesians 5:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:4; 5:21).
If abuse does happen, despite sincere measures to avoid it, the only acceptable remedy is truthful humility. Care for the victim is paramount, far more important than preserving the reputation of a guilty abuser. Ideally, victims of abuse should feel empowered to speak up. This needs to be part of a church’s fundamental culture. Those guilty of abuse should be confronted; they should undergo proper church discipline (Matthew 18:15–20). They should also be referred to the proper legal authorities (Romans 13:1–5), since that is one of the legitimate purposes of government. Care and restitution for victims must be important parts of the process. These principles hold true even if only one individual, not the church itself, is guilty of an explicit sin.
Abuse is a clear violation of God’s will for mankind. Both abuse and cover-ups are twisted opposites of God’s command for Christians to be known for their love toward others (John 13:35). There is nothing loving about disguising sin or failing to address it with integrity.

Why did US leak Jerusalem’s role in Iran officer death again? - analysis
Yonah Jeremy Bob/Jerusalem Post/May 27/2022
Iran and the IRGC are hurting.
First came the disclosure earlier this month that the Mossad had arrested multiple Iranian agents both in Europe and then in Iran itself, which led to cracking and thwarting a plot to assassinate three individuals.
Earlier this week, it was revealed that IRGC Unit 840 commander Colonel Hassan Sayad Khodyari had been assassinated to set back his secretive unit that is responsible for terrorist operations against Israeli and Western targets outside of the Islamic Republic. Then on Wednesday night Israel disclosed new Iranian nuclear secrets and cover-up operations.
Although the disclosures relate back to the agency’s raid of Tehran’s secret nuclear archives in 2018, the explosive findings have emerged now, a time that could not be more embarrassing for the ayatollahs. These new documents show that Iran hacked the IAEA, and held internal discussions on how to continue to fool the world’s nuclear inspectors. Combined, these three operations and disclosures have put the Islamic Republic on the defensive more than at any time since 2018. If Iran wanted to try to take the “diplomatic moral high ground,” the disclosure that it was trying to assassinate a US general and that it was hacking the IAEA have essentially eliminated that possibility.
Alternatively, if the ayatollahs wanted to strong-arm and intimidate the West with violence and terrorism, they have faced multiple setbacks in the very unit that would undertake the operations.
At a time when Iran has announced multiple times that it has arrested large numbers of Mossad agents and rid the country of infiltrations, it seems that the spy agency can still operate anytime and anywhere within Iran’s borders.
Ayatollah shaken
Not since 2018, when Iran’s archives were raided, or the summer of 2020, when a dozen Iranian installations exploded day after day, have the ayatollahs been so shaken by the alleged power of Israel’s clandestine forces.
But with Iran on the defensive, why would the US publicly leak Israel’s role in these operations at this time? This is especially troubling when Israel has gone to great lengths to avoid taking public responsibility, and to avoid unnecessarily angering the Iranians on a personal level.
If the Jewish state wanted to avoid a serious Iranian response, Washington’s public revelations would appear extremely counterproductive.
This is not the first time the Biden administration has blown Israeli cover for an operation, or leaked something about Israeli intelligence operations.
When the Biden administration previously did so, it seemed to be part of a good cop-bad cop scenario, so that Washington could continue to negotiate with the ayatollahs over nuclear issues.
Does this mean that America is still aggressively seeking a nuclear deal with Iran, despite what would seem to be irreconcilable disagreements over Biden’s refusal to delete the IRGC from the US terrorist list? Regardless of why the US leaked Israel’s alleged role, and regardless of the extent to which Iran may respond directly against Israeli or Jewish interests, Iran will remain on the defensive.
Any time in recent months that Iran upped the ante by using drones or cyber warfare, Israel has allegedly counter-attacked with much greater force and consequences.
The message is clear: whether there is a new nuclear deal or not, the consequences of Iran trying to cross the nuclear threshold or escalate its violence against Israel will be dire.

سورين كيرن/معهد كايتستون: الغرض الحقيقي من صفقة إيران النووية
The Real Purpose of the Iran Nuclear Deal
Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute/May 27/2022
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/108961/soeren-kern-gatestone-institutethe-real-purpose-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal-%d8%b3%d9%88%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%86-%d9%83%d9%8a%d8%b1%d9%86-%d9%85%d8%b9%d9%87%d8%af-%d9%83%d8%a7%d9%8a%d8%aa%d8%b3%d8%aa%d9%88
Many analysts argue that the nuclear deal — original and revised — is primarily about legitimizing Iran’s nuclear program. The deal, they say, is designed to strengthen, not weaken, the Islamic Republic.
Statements by Obama and his senior foreign policy advisors, the same people who are now advising President Biden, reflect a belief — a naïve one, many say — that if Iran were stronger, and traditional American allies — Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — were weaker, the Middle East could achieve a new balance of power that would result in more peaceful region.
“The catch to Obama’s newly inclusive ‘balancing’ framework was that upgrading relations with Iran would necessarily come at the expense of traditional partners targeted by Iran — like Saudi Arabia and, most importantly, Israel. Obama never said that part out loud, but the logic isn’t hard to follow: Elevating your enemy to the same level as your ally means that your enemy is no longer your enemy, and your ally is no longer your ally.” — Lee Smith, Middle East analyst, Tablet magazine.
“The Realignment rests on, to put it mildly, a hollow theory. It misstates the nature of the Islamic Republic and the scope of its ambitions. A regime that has led ‘Death to America’ chants for the last 40 years is an inveterately revisionist regime. The Islamic Republic sees itself as a global power, the leader of the Muslim world, and it covets hegemony over the Persian Gulf — indeed, the entire Middle East.” — Tony Badran and Michael Doran, Middle East analysts, Tablet magazine.
“After oil, the Islamic Republic’s major export item is the IRGC-commanded terrorist militia — the only export that Iran consistently produces at a peerless level. Malley and Sullivan got it exactly wrong when they argued, in effect, that allies are suckering the United States into conflict with Iran. It is not the allies but the Islamic Republic that is blanketing the Arab world with terrorist militias, arming them with precision-guided weapons, and styling the alliance it leads as ‘the Resistance Axis.’ It does so for one simple reason: It is out to destroy the American order in the Middle East.” — Tony Badran and Michael Doran.
U.S. Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley confirmed this week that the Biden administration is seeking a new nuclear deal with Iran that is “shorter” and “weaker” than the original deal. Malley also admitted that the Biden administration does not have a back-up plan to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Pictured: Malley, testifies at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations on May 25, 2022, in Washington, DC.
U.S. Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley has confirmed that diplomatic efforts to revive the Iran nuclear deal originally signed by U.S. President Barack Obama are at an impasse. “We do not have a deal with Iran, and prospects for reaching one are, at best, tenuous,” Malley told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during a hearing on May 25.
Malley also admitted that the Biden administration is seeking a new deal that is “shorter” and “weaker” than the original deal. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, during his confirmation hearing in January 2021, promised that the administration would pursue a new deal that is “longer” and “stronger.”
When asked if he knew about efforts by Iran to hide its prior nuclear work from the International Atomic Energy Agency, Malley responded: “Senator, did Iran lie? Of course. Did Iran have a covert nuclear program? Absolutely. That’s the reason why prior administrations imposed such crushing sanctions on Iran.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-NJ) asked: “Why is it that we are still keeping the door open? What is your Plan B?” Malley admitted that the Biden administration does not have a back-up plan to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The negotiations to revive the 2015 agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), have been stalled since March 2022. The main stumbling block to a final deal is Iran’s demand that the Biden administration delist the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an elite branch of the Iranian military, as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO).
U.S. President Donald J. Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in May 2018 and reimposed sanctions because the deal gave Iran a pathway to nuclear weapons. In April 2019, the Trump administration designated the IRGC and its elite Quds attack force as an FTO because of Tehran’s support for terrorist activities. In March 2020, Joe Biden, as a presidential candidate, pledged to rejoin the 2015 deal if he were elected president.
Although the Biden administration says it has no intention of delisting the IRGC, it has repeatedly lifted sanctions to coax Iran back to the negotiating table. Political observers say there is no reason to believe Biden would not make more concessions if it meant saving the deal — and President Barack Obama’s foreign policy legacy.
On April 26, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “the only way I could see the FTO being lifted is if Iran takes steps necessary to justify the lifting of that designation. So it knows what it would have to do in order to see that happen.” He also argued, however, that the FTO designation “does not really gain you much” and may do more harm than good.
On May 25, Malley appeared to say that delisting the IRGC was still a possibility: “We’ve made clear to Iran that if they wanted any concession on something that was unrelated to the JCPOA like the FTO designation, we need something reciprocal from them that would address our concerns. I think Iran has made the decision that it’s not prepared to take the reciprocal steps.”
On May 4, the United States Senate passed a non-binding motion prohibiting the Biden administration from revoking the IRGC’s designation as an FTO. The resolution, which passed by a vote of 62-33, with 16 Democrats voting in favor, also called for any potential return to the JCPOA to address the “full range of Iran’s destabilizing activities, including development of the means of delivery for such weapons (and ballistic missiles), support for terrorism and evasion of sanctions by individuals, entities and vessels in the trade of petroleum products with the People’s Republic of China.”
The Biden administration has not fixed many of the original deal’s main flaws, especially so-called sunset provisions that would have lifted restrictions on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program by 2031 or sooner.
Like the original, the revised deal is weak on verification, does not require Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, and fails to address Iran’s ballistic missile program. It also turns a blind eye to the Islamic Republic’s human rights abuses and its destabilizing activities in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Why would the Biden administration agree to a revised deal that does not prevent or contain Iran’s nuclear program, and actually reduces the so-called breakout time required for Iran to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon?
Why would the Biden administration, or the Obama administration before it, agree to a deal that provides Iran with a clear pathway to nuclear weapons as restrictions on uranium enrichment and plutonium processing end between 2026 and 2031?
Many analysts argue that the nuclear deal — original and revised — is primarily about legitimizing Iran’s nuclear program. The deal, they say, is designed to strengthen, not weaken, the Islamic Republic.
Picking Up Where Obama Left Off
Statements by Obama and his senior foreign policy advisors, the same people who are now advising President Biden, reflect a belief — a naïve one, many say — that if Iran were stronger, and traditional American allies — Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — were weaker, the Middle East could achieve a new balance of power that would result in more peaceful region.
One of the first previews of Obama’s Iran policy was in an October 2013 opinion article — “Obama’s Diplomatic Opportunity” — published by The Washington Post. Columnist David Ignatius (once described as someone Obama used as a “public messaging instrument”) wrote that Obama wanted to “create a new framework for security in the Middle East that involves Iran and defuses the Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict threatening the region.”
Ignatius compared Obama’s Iran policy to “the way President Richard Nixon (with Henry Kissinger) shaped the opening to China in the early 1970s and Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (with Brent Scowcroft and James Baker) managed the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s.” He added:
“In the world that’s ahead, Iran must temper its revolutionary dreams of 1979, just as Saudi Arabia must stop hyperventilating about the ‘Shiite crescent.’ What’s around the corner is a new regional framework that accommodates the security needs of Iranians, Saudis, Israelis, Russians and Americans.”
In a January 2014 interview with The New Yorker, Obama said that his ultimate goal was “a new equilibrium” in the Middle East between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam:
“If we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion — not funding terrorist organizations, not trying to stir up sectarian discontent in other countries, and not developing a nuclear weapon — you could see an equilibrium developing between Sunni, or predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran in which there’s competition, perhaps suspicion, but not an active or proxy warfare.”
In an April 2015 Politico article — “Why I Like the Iran Deal (Sort Of)” — Admiral Mike Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote:
“A nuclear deal would also more fairly rebalance American influence. We need to re-examine all of the relationships we enjoy in the region, relationships primarily with Sunni-dominated nations. Détente with Iran might better balance our efforts across the sectarian divide.”
In an April 2016 interview with The Atlantic, Obama called for Saudi Arabia to “share the neighborhood” with Iran:
“The competition between the Saudis and the Iranians — which has helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen — requires us to say to our friends as well as to the Iranians that they need to find an effective way to share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace. An approach that said to our friends, ‘You are right, Iran is the source of all problems, and we will support you in dealing with Iran’ would essentially mean that as these sectarian conflicts continue to rage and our Gulf partners, our traditional friends, do not have the ability to put out the flames on their own or decisively win on their own, and would mean that we have to start coming in and using our military power to settle scores. And that would be in the interest neither of the United States nor of the Middle East.”
A short time later, Obama’s former Middle East Advisor Philip Gordon wrote that “greater engagement between Iran and its current adversaries could ultimately contribute to some sort of positive domestic change and a regional modus vivendi.”
Modus vivendi is a Latin phrase — modus means “way,” vivendi means “of living” — meaning an agreement between those who differ in opinions (“agreeing to disagree”). The term is “sometimes used to refer to a preliminary, provisional, or interim agreement between contending parties pending the final settlement,” according to Oxford University Press.
In other words, Gordon was saying, apparently, that Israel and the Sunni Muslim world would have to learn to live with a more aggressive and powerful Iran.
U.S. Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley was appointed to the position on January 28, 2021, after having served in the same capacity under President Barack Obama. He was closely involved with negotiating the original Iran nuclear deal.
In a December 2019 Foreign Affairs essay, Malley wrote that Obama’s “ultimate goal” was to achieve a “more stable balance of power” in the Middle East. He also lashed out at Trump’s support for traditional American allies:
“In a sense, his [Obama’s] administration was an experiment that got suspended halfway through. At least when it came to his approach to the Middle East, Obama’s presidency was premised on the belief that someone else would pick up where he left off. It was premised on his being succeeded by someone like him, maybe a Hillary Clinton, but certainly not a Donald Trump.
“Instead of striving for some kind of balance, Trump has tilted entirely to one side: doubling down on support for Israel…. withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and zealously joining up with the region’s anti-Iranian axis. Indeed, seeking to weaken Iran, Washington has chosen to confront it on all fronts across much of the region: in the nuclear and economic realms….”
In a May 2020 Foreign Affairs essay — “America’s Opportunity in the Middle East” — Jake Sullivan, who is now National Security Advisor to President Joe Biden, argued that the United States should use its leverage to achieve “a new modus vivendi” among the key regional actors in the Middle East. Sullivan, whose secret meetings with Iranian officials during the Obama administration led to the 2015 nuclear agreement, also criticized “maximalist regional demands” by Israel and Saudi Arabia to constrain Iran’s nuclear program.
In a June 2020 interview — “U.S. Grand Strategy in the Middle East” — with the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, Sullivan again called for “a rebalance or recalibration” away from traditional American allies in the Middle East. He also said that he believes that Israel and Iran are morally equivalent:
“I think Israelis across the board genuinely believe that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel. I think Iranians across the board, at least in the government, believe that Israel really is trying to overthrow the Islamic Republic.”
Sullivan placed strict conditions on the America’s future relationship with Saudi Arabia, but he did not hold Iran to the same standard:
“Our strategic dialogue with Saudi Arabia, having at the highest levels a consistent message that says that the strength of our relationship will depend on progress, on questions related to human rights and political and economic reform….
“Now, can we move Saudi Arabia from where it is now to where we want it to be on a political and human rights basis overnight? No. But should we basically say, ‘In part, our long-term support for your country is going to be bound up in the directionality of progress and reform?’ I think we should….
“We are going to need more shows of some progress on the political front in order for the current leadership in Saudi Arabia to establish credibility….”
The Iran nuclear deal has variously been described as a “cornerstone” of Obama’s legacy, Obama’s “signature foreign policy initiative” and Obama’s “prize foreign policy win.”
Anglo-American author Toby Harden, in a Sunday Times article — “Obama All Out for Iran Deal” — wrote that Obama wanted the Iran nuclear deal to secure his legacy as one of the giants in global diplomatic history:
“Both present and former American officials describe Obama as being obsessed with carving his mark on history by restoring diplomatic relations with Iran after decades of animosity and possibly even visiting Tehran next year.”
Expert Commentary
Writing for the Washington, D.C.-based Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Yigal Carmon and Alberto Miguel Fernandez, in an essay — “Obama’s Strategy of Equilibrium” — noted:
“Examining the strategy of equilibrium requires the recollection of some basic information. Within Islam’s approximately 1.6 billion believers, the absolute majority — about 90% — is Sunni, while Shiites constitute only about 10%. Even in the Middle East, Sunnis are a large majority.
“What does the word ‘equilibrium’ mean in political terms? In view of the above stated data, the word ‘equilibrium’ in actual political terms means empowering the minority and thereby weakening the majority in order to progress toward the stated goal. However, the overwhelming discrepancy in numbers makes it impossible to reach an equilibrium between the two camps. Therefore, it would be unrealistic to believe that the majority would accept a policy that empowers its adversary and weakens its own historically superior status.
“Considering the above, the implications of the equilibrium strategy for the region might not be enhancing peace as the President well intends; rather, it might intensify strife and violence in the region….
“Moreover, this strategy might have adverse implications for the United States and its interests in the Sunni Muslim world: those countries that feel betrayed by the strategy might, as a result, take action against the United States….
“It is worth noting that the first Islamic State created in the Middle East in the last 50 years was not the one created in the Sunni world in 2014 and headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Rather, it was the Islamic Republic of Iran created in 1979 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and currently ruled by his successor, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who maintains — even following the Iran deal — the mantra ‘Death to America,’ continues to sponsor terrorism worldwide, and commits horrific human rights violations.”
Middle East analyst Lee Smith, in an October 2015 essay — “Reading Obama’s Mind” — noted:
“To reach a deal, Obama decided he needed to show Iran that he was in earnest about a new beginning. That meant granting the mullahs their nuclear weapons program a few years down the road and hobbling Iran’s enemies. Obama sought to weaken Israel and Saudi Arabia, America’s traditional allies, not to punish them, but as part of his grand strategy for the Middle East, a ‘new geopolitical equilibrium’ that would bring more stability to a volatile part of the world….
“A new geopolitical equilibrium in the Middle East would rein in America’s troublesome partners and bring Iran in from the cold. It was precisely because none of them liked each other that the idea was so attractive. Obama would ensure a region where there was no victor and no vanquished. This wouldn’t eliminate war from the Middle East, but it would calm things down considerably and let America go home.”
Middle East expert Tony Badran, in a November 2019 article — “Malley in Wonderland” — parsed Obama’s realignment strategy:
“America’s allies are a problem, Malley, Biden, and other Obama administration policy kingpins — starting with Obama himself — have publicly stated, because of their capacity to involve the U.S. in a costly regional entanglement with Iran. In other words, America’s allies are actually our enemies. In particular, Saudi Arabia, with its reckless war in Yemen, and Israel, with its aggression against Iranian assets in Syria, Iraq, and throughout the region, represent the ‘war’ side of the equation — while Iran, the enemy of our allies, represents ‘peace.’ The U.S. has a set of choices for how to engage the region: ‘diplomatically or militarily, by exacerbating divides or mitigating them, and by aligning itself fully with one side or seeking to achieve a sort of balance.’
“In other words, if our allies are strong, then America should seek to weaken them until ‘balance’ is achieved, which will help bring about more ‘peace.’ If Iran were stronger, and Israel and Saudi Arabia were weaker, then peace would therefore be more likely. American policy, in the present moment at least, should therefore be to strengthen Iran at the expense of Israel and the Saudis.
“The goal of achieving ‘balance’ in America’s posture in the Middle East is how Obama presented his strategy of realigning American interests with Iran. For Obama, it was not in America’s interest to lead a regional alliance system which stands in opposition to Iran, and which therefore threatens to move the U.S. closer to war. Rebalancing away from traditional allies means moving closer to Iran, and away from the security architecture in which America had formerly been invested.”
In May 2020 essay — “How Russiagate Began with Obama’s Iran Deal Domestic Spying Campaign” — Lee Smith detailed Obama’s obsession with threat that retired general Michael Flynn posed to his foreign policy legacy:
“Barack Obama warned his successor against hiring Michael Flynn. It was Nov. 10, 2016, just two days after Donald Trump upset Hillary Clinton to become the 45th president of the United States. Trump told aide Hope Hicks that he was bewildered by the president’s warning. Of all the important things Obama could have discussed with him, the outgoing commander in chief wanted to talk about Michael Flynn.
“The question of why Obama was so focused on Flynn is especially revealing now….
“The answer is that Obama saw Flynn as a signal threat to his legacy, which was rooted in his July 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Flynn had said long before he signed on with the Trump campaign that it was a catastrophe to realign American interests with those of a terror state. And now that the candidate he’d advised was the new president-elect, Flynn was in a position to help undo the deal. To stop Flynn, the outgoing White House ran the same offense it used to sell the Iran deal — they smeared Flynn through the press as an agent of a foreign power, spied on him, and leaked classified intercepts of his conversations to reliable echo chamber allies….
“For Obama the purpose of Russiagate was simple and direct: to protect the Iran deal, and secure his legacy….
“The nature of the agreement was made plain in its ‘sunset clauses.’ The fact that parts of the deal restricting Iran’s activities were due to expire beginning in 2020 until all restrictions were gone and the regime’s nuclear program was legal, showed that it was a phony deal. Obama was simply bribing the Iranians with hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief and hundreds of billions more in investment to refrain from building a bomb until he was safely gone from the White House, when the Iranian bomb would become someone else’s problem. The Obama team thought that even the Israelis wouldn’t dream of touching Iran’s nuclear program so long as Washington vouchsafed the deal. They called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ‘chickenshit.’
“If Obama was just kicking the can down the road, why did he expend so much effort to get the deal? How was it central to his legacy if it was never actually intended to stop Iran from getting the bomb? Because it was his instrument to secure an even more ambitious objective — to reorder the strategic architecture of the Middle East….
“The catch to Obama’s newly inclusive ‘balancing’ framework was that upgrading relations with Iran would necessarily come at the expense of traditional partners targeted by Iran — like Saudi Arabia and, most importantly, Israel. Obama never said that part out loud, but the logic isn’t hard to follow: Elevating your enemy to the same level as your ally means that your enemy is no longer your enemy, and your ally is no longer your ally.”
In a May 2021 essay — “The Realignment” — Middle East analysts Tony Badran and Michael Doran, concluded:
“A consensus reigns inside the [Biden] administration, not just on the JCPOA but on every big question of Middle East strategy: Everyone from the president on down agrees about the need to complete what Obama started — which means that the worst is yet to come.
“Obama dreamed of a new Middle Eastern order — one that relies more on partnership with Iran.. ul. Instead, we hereby dub it ‘the Realignment.’ That it should fall to us, and at this late date, to name a project on which many talented people have been working for the better part of a decade is more than a little odd. Typically, presidents launch initiatives as grand as this one with a major address, and they further embroider their vision with dozens of smaller speeches and interviews. One searches in vain for Obama’s speech, ‘A New Order in the Middle East.’
“Obama, it seems clear, felt his project would advance best with stealth and misdirection, not aggressive salesmanship. Biden, while keeping Obama’s second-term foreign policy team nearly intact, is using the same playbook. He and his aides recognize that confusion about the ‘ultimate goal’ makes achieving it easier. Indeed, confusion is the Realignment’s best friend….
“Let’s start with what the JCPOA does not do. Contrary to what its architects have claimed since 2015, the JCPOA does not block all the pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon. How could it? The deal’s so-called ‘sunset provisions’ — the clauses that eliminate all meaningful restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program — will all have taken effect in less than a decade; some of the most significant restrictions will disappear by 2025. By 2031, the Islamic Republic will have, with international protection and assistance, an unfettered nuclear weapons program resting on an industrial-scale enrichment capability. On the basis of this fact alone, the best one can possibly say about the deal is that it buys a decade of freedom from Iranian nuclear extortion….
“The deceptions surrounding the JCPOA have a clear purpose: to make the administration appear supportive of containment when, in fact, it is ending it. But why are officials like Blinken and Sullivan so comfortable with such duplicity? Answering this question requires entering the Realignment mentality. The Foreign Affairs articles certainly offer one way in, but the most direct route is through the mind of Barack Obama, the author of the policy that Blinken and Sullivan are glossing.
“By disguising the JCPOA as a nonproliferation agreement … the deal was a sneak attack on a traditional American foreign policy. It was and remains a Trojan horse designed to recast America’s position and role in the Middle East. Sullivan and Blinken’s task is to wheel the Trojan horse into the central square of American foreign policy and, by brandishing their ‘centrist’ political credentials, sell it as an imperfect but valuable vehicle of containment.
“The doctrine of Realignment builds on the erroneous assumption that Iran is a status quo power, one that shares a number of major interests with the United States. According to this doctrine, conservative Americans and supporters of Israel fixate on Iran’s ideology — which is steeped in bigotry toward non-Muslims in general, and which advertises its annihilationist aspirations toward the Jewish state in particular — but it is not useful as a practical guide to Tehran’s behavior. That’s what professor Obama taught us in a 2014 interview, when he claimed that Iran’s leaders “are strategic,” rational people who “respond to costs and benefits” and “to incentives.”
“According to the Realignment doctrine, America will help its allies protect their sovereign territory from Iranian or Iranian-backed attacks, but not compete with Iran beyond their borders. In the contested spaces of Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, the United States will force others to respect Iran’s “equities,” a term Obama once used to describe Iran’s positions of power. Thus, in practical terms, America will use its influence to elevate the interests of Iran over those of U.S. allies in key areas of the Middle East.
“Now that we can see past the cute tricks that hide the Realignment’s true goals, we can state its four strategic imperatives in plain English: First, allow Tehran an unfettered nuclear weapons program by 2031; second, end the sanctions on the Iranian economic and financial system; third, implement a policy of accommodation of Iran and its tentacles in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon; and fourth, force that policy on America’s closest allies. If the United States follows those commandments, then a kind of natural regional balance will fall into place. The United States, so the thinking goes, will then finally remove itself from the war footing that traditional allies, with their anti-Iran agenda, have forced on it. Thereafter, diplomatic engagement with Iran will be the primary tool needed to maintain regional stability. “The Realignment rests on, to put it mildly, a hollow theory. It misstates the nature of the Islamic Republic and the scope of its ambitions. A regime that has led ‘Death to America’ chants for the last 40 years is an inveterately revisionist regime. The Islamic Republic sees itself as a global power, the leader of the Muslim world, and it covets hegemony over the Persian Gulf — indeed, the entire Middle East. But the only instrument it has ever had to achieve its objectives is regional subversion.
“Ayatollah Khamenei, the head of this colossal project, is a lord of chaos. After oil, the Islamic Republic’s major export item is the IRGC-commanded terrorist militia — the only export that Iran consistently produces at a peerless level. Malley and Sullivan got it exactly wrong when they argued, in effect, that allies are suckering the United States into conflict with Iran. It is not the allies but the Islamic Republic that is blanketing the Arab world with terrorist militias, arming them with precision-guided weapons, and styling the alliance it leads as ‘the Resistance Axis.’ It does so for one simple reason: It is out to destroy the American order in the Middle East.”
*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.
*Picture Enclosed is for the U.S. Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18564/iran-nu clear-deal-purpose

Black Sea grain battle could define Ukraine war
Peter Apps/The Arab Weekly/May 27/2022
Who finally retains access and control to key Black Sea ports is of increasing importance and will be vital to any final peace negotiations.
In late April, trucks with number plates from Russian-occupied Crimea descended on the occupied southern Ukrainian city of Melitopol, emblazoned with the letter “Z”‌. According to local mayor Ivan Fedorov, the convoy filmed and shown on social media platform Telegram carried grain seized by Russian forces from silos around the town.
Exactly where it was then taken is unclear. Images from satellite firm Maxar of the Crimean port of Sevastopol, however, have shown two Russian bulk carriers, the Matros Pozynich and the Matros Koshska, loading alongside grain silos on May 18-19 before sailing, most likely to Russia’s ally Syria. Ukrainian officials say both sets of images are proof of mass looting of grain reserves from areas seized by Russia since its February 24 invasion, alongside what Ukrainian and Western officials say has also been deliberate targeting of Ukrainian agricultural infrastructure and a blockade of its ports that has produced a global food crisis. Three months in, the war is not just brutal tank and artillery contests in the disputed Donbas regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. It has become a much larger economic and strategic confrontation, upending long-established worldwide supply lines and industries that have become battlegrounds in a way a globalised economy is struggling to deal with. Last year, Ukraine fed around 400 million people worldwide, according to the World Food Programme, with Ukraine and Russia between them the main source of sustenance for much of the Middle East and Africa. Both shipped the majority of that food through Black Sea ports and aside from the handful of Russian shipments to Syria, this has largely ceased.With Ukraine’s main harvesting season now just around the corner, what happens in the coming months will have profound implications for households and the global economy. In Ukrainian and Russian-controlled areas alike, there is a frantic race to clear silos of at least 21 million tonnes of last season’s grain so the new crop can take its place.
Crisis hardens rhetoric
That may be a challenge. Ukraine normally exports six million tonnes of grain a month by sea and is managing barely one to one and a half million by rail. Harvesting of spring crops has already been sharply limited in the country’s war-torn east, while attacks, fuel shortages and the exodus of millions of Ukrainians will also hit production. Rhetoric is hardening on all sides. At Davos on Tuesday, European Commission President Ursula von den Leyon called on Russia to unblock the Black Sea, echoing comments by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken last week in which he accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of holding world food supplies “hostage‌.”This week saw the Netherlands agree to provide US-made Harpoon anti-ship missiles to Ukraine, with Western concerns over the growing food crisis an explicit justification for upgrading Kyiv’s ability to hit Russian vessels.
One suggested plan, being pushed by the Baltic states of Estonia and Lithuania, as well as by some former Ukrainian officials in the West, would see NATO warships enter the Black Sea to escort food cargoes from the Ukrainian port of Odesa, potentially putting them in direct confrontation with Russian forces enforcing a de facto blockade. That prompted a furious reaction from Russian state media on Tuesday, warning that such action risked nuclear war. Who finally retains access and control to those key Black Sea ports is of increasing importance and will be vital to any final peace negotiations.
Black Sea supply lines
Last month, Russia’s military said Moscow aimed to take control of Ukraine’s entire Black Sea coast from Donbas through to neighbouring Moldova’s separatist Transnistria region. That would devastate Ukraine’s economy, although Russia currently lacks the military ability to do so quickly.
But Moscow’s forces are inching forward in the Donbas, while the Kremlin fast tracks Russian citizenship for areas it controls, including the key grain-producing regions around Melitopol and Kherson, the latter a major rail hub for the still government-controlled Odesa.
Ukraine and some of its allies, meanwhile say they want Russia swept from all the territory it has seized since 2014, which would include Crimea and Sevastopol, home of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. That might safeguard Ukraine’s exports in perpetuity, but it would also be viewed a strategic catastrophe by the Kremlin, likely producing new atomic threats. For now, getting Ukrainian food supplies out through Poland and mainland European states requires transferring them from wider Soviet rail gauge wagons to those of the narrower width used by the rest of Europe. There is talk of shipping goods to Baltic ports in Latvia and Lithuania. However, while that would avoid the need to leave the former Soviet rail system and the transfer goods to new trucks, it requires support from Kremlin ally Belarus.
Russia, meanwhile, is successfully getting much of its grain onto the international export market, particularly to Africa, the Middle East and Asia, although as with its fuel exports, it is having to sell at a discount because of Western sanctions. That is not enough, however, to stop global fuel and food prices rocketing, with a potential further crunch later in the year. Nor is that the only challenge. The massive Azovstal plant in Mariupol, now largely destroyed and captured by Russian forces, was one of the largest producers of noble gases such as xenon, argon and neon, the latter vital for the production of microprocessors chips. If Russia can restart production, that would put almost all of production of these gases in the hands of Moscow and Beijing, giving them yet another stranglehold. Little surprise, therefore, that this week at Davos NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg was arguing that Western freedom and democracy were more important than globalised free-trade, urging Western nations to build new infrastructure and resiliency. The coming winter will challenge that, particularly if much of Ukraine’s harvest has been lost, planting restricted, the Black Sea still blocked and Russian energy supplies to Europe curtailed before new renewable and nuclear sources come online. That may hit the world’s poorest hardest and divide the West. However that plays out, it will shape the post-war world.

NATO will grow, and the sooner the better
Luke Coffey/Arab News/May 27, 2022
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has transformed the geopolitical landscape of the transatlantic region, perhaps the greatest example being Finland and Sweden’s newfound enthusiasm for joining NATO. After a couple of centuries of military neutrality, or at least military nonalignment, both countries have submitted their applications to join the Western military alliance.
Few expected any problems with the admission of Sweden and Finland. However, NATO is an intergovernmental organization that requires unanimity on major decisions; in the case of adding new members, all 30 countries in NATO must agree.
In recent weeks Turkey has suggested that it is not quite ready to support Sweden and Finland’s application to join NATO. At first glance, this may seem to be an odd position for Ankara to take. Traditionally, Turkey has been one of the strongest advocates of NATO enlargement inside the alliance. It has long supported NATO membership for aspirant countries such as Ukraine, Georgia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina at a time when many other European members will not. In the years leading up to Montenegro and North Macedonia joining NATO, Turkey was once again one of the most vocal supporters.
However, in the case of Sweden and Finland there are two main issues that Turkey wishes to be addressed.
The first is Turkey’s claims that Sweden and Finland have unhealthy links to the Kurdistan Workers Party. The PKK is considered a terrorist organization in Turkey, the EU and the US. It was formed in the late 1970s and has conducted an armed insurgency against the Turkish state since 1984, during which tens of thousands of people have been killed or injured. Sweden is home to a sizable Kurdish diaspora and Ankara accuses Stockholm of welcoming PKK terrorists. Sweden denies this. Turkey has also complained that Finland and Sweden have ignored several extradition requests for suspected terrorists. Both countries argue that this is a matter for independent courts and not for the government.
Sweden and Finland have a lot to offer NATO and it would be in their interest to find an accommodation. The second area of contention deals with a ban on weapons sales to Turkey by some European countries, including Sweden and Finland. This arms embargo dates from 2019, when Turkey launched a crossborder operation inside Syria to create a buffer zone and target the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, the YPG, which Turkey argues is simply the Syrian branch of the outlawed PKK. However, the YPG also filled out the ranks and supplied the leadership of the Syrian Democratic Forces, the main force that the international community mobilized to fight Daesh.
Turkey is an important member of NATO, and when it comes to the terrorist threat from the PKK it has every right to raise concerns.
Since joining NATO in 1952 Turkey has played a critical role in European security. Central to almost everything that NATO does is the role of Turkey. Thousands of Turkish troops fought in the Korean war in the 1950s. Ankara’s control over the two Turkish Straits, the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, which connect the Black Sea with the Mediterranean Sea, was crucial for regional security during the Cold War. During the Balkans crisis in the 1990s, Turkish troops played an important role in peacekeeping operations. And during NATO’s operations in Afghanistan, Turkey remained one of the largest troop-contributing nations and stayed until the very end to help with the evacuation of Kabul.
Swedish and Finnish diplomats were in Ankara last week to discuss Turkey’s concerns. While no concrete decisions were made, both sides described the talks as productive and cordial. Sweden and Finland have a lot to offer NATO and it would be in their interest to find an accommodation to ensure their membership of the alliance.
Both countries possess robust militaries that will bring significant capabilities to the alliance. If Sweden and Finland joined NATO, it would mean having seven out of the eight Arctic countries in the organization. Their entry would better focus the alliance on the emerging challenges in the region and play a role in helping to deter malign Russian and Chinese activities there. The two countries have also demonstrated the political will to deploy forces abroad. They are both clear minded about the threat posed by China, and have banned Chinese telecommunications companies Huawei and ZTE from their 5G networks.
As the 20th-century psychoanalyst Theodor Reik famously observed, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. In the early 1950s Sweden and Finland’s neighbors Denmark and Norway were some of the most vocal NATO members against Turkey joining the alliance. But in the context of the Cold War, both realized that Turkish membership would bring benefits to the alliance.
With Russia on the march in Ukraine, and with the rise of China, Turkey knows the same to be true today of Sweden and Finland. Their entry into NATO would enhance the security of the transatlantic community.
It is likely that they will come to some sort of arrangement that makes everyone happy. The sooner they do this, the better for NATO.
• Luke Coffey is the director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @LukeDCoffey

Turkey, Israel and the Gulf in pragmatic balancing act
Sinem Cengiz/Arab News/May 27, 2022
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu made a two-day trip to Israel this week, becoming the first senior Turkish diplomat to visit the country in some 15 years. The recent rapprochement process between the two countries has been characterized as a “fresh start” in relations, with Ankara and Tel Aviv making efforts to mend their broken ties after years of hostility.
The landmark visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog, whose position is largely a ceremonial one, to Turkey in March — the first such visit since Shimon Peres’ trip in 2007 — was instrumental in the advancement of the rapprochement process. After this symbolic visit, the task was handed to the foreign ministries of the two countries, which are now closely working on the appointment of ambassadors to their respective capitals. When relations broke down once again in 2018, Ankara — angered by the US moving its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem — recalled its ambassador, prompting Tel Aviv to respond in kind. The two countries have not reappointed their ambassadors since.
The normalization process is spearheaded mainly through dialogue and technical contacts, particularly in the areas of energy and trade, while some political aspects of the relationship are kept aside until mutual trust has been built. Analysts following Turkish-Israeli relations or Turkish-Gulf relations mainly refer to the fact that mutual suspicion regarding the long-term ambitions and motivations of each side still prevails. For its part, Israel, which is approaching the detente more cautiously and gradually than Ankara, is trying to understand whether the shift in Turkey’s foreign policy approach is a long-term, structural change or a short-term, pragmatic one.
Both the structural factors at the systemic level and the domestic factors at the state level are relevant here. Domestic and international stakes are intertwined and become more visible as election seasons approach. Henry Kissinger famously observed that Israel had no foreign policy, only domestic policy; however, the same could also be said for Turkey, which is heading toward critical elections scheduled for next year.
For Turkey, reconciliation with Israel has three dimensions: Relations with the US; relations with the Gulf countries within the context of the Abraham Accords; and the dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean, where Egypt, Cyprus and Greece are influential actors that are pressuring Ankara.
Any crises or opportunities that may emerge during the process of rapprochement will shape and limit the policies of these countries
Turkey was among those that condemned the Abraham Accords, which were signed between Israel and two Gulf countries, Bahrain and the UAE, in 2020 and which normalized their diplomatic relations. Ankara even threatened to recall its ambassador from Abu Dhabi after the accords were signed. Subsequent developments, such as the signing of the AlUla Declaration and Joe Biden’s presidency, seem to have pushed Ankara to recognize the accords and join this new trend in the region. Ankara’s updated foreign policy rhetoric toward both Israel and the Gulf countries seems to be consistent with the new regional dynamics fostered by the Abraham Accords.
In regard to the Eastern Mediterranean, there is an important part of the Turkish and Israeli elites that favor good relations on energy and trade issues. Energy sector cooperation is expected to top the agenda, with Ankara expressing a willingness to partner with Tel Aviv on a project that could carry Israeli natural gas to Turkey and then potentially on to Europe. However, there are analysts on the Israeli side who see the prospect of cooperation on such a pipeline as a weak possibility for now because Israel has other regional natural gas partners, such as Greece, Cyprus and Egypt.
Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, who met his Greek and Cypriot counterparts in Athens last month, said the three countries will continue working together on natural gas pipeline projects, with European energy dependency a new focus because of the war in Ukraine. This conflict has evidently made the issue of energy more pressing. It is also sensitive for Israel because of the trilateral security alliance it has formed with Greece and Cyprus.
Gulf countries have also developed relations with Greece and Cyprus in the past few years on several fronts. Both Israel and the Gulf states have maintained that normalizing relations with Turkey will not come at expense of their relations with Athens and Nicosia.
The issue of Iran should not be missed here. Despite Tehran’s involvement in rapprochement efforts, Iran remains a key motivator for these countries to mend fences among themselves. Israel and the Gulf countries have been concerned over a potential restoration of the Iran nuclear deal and, most importantly, the American neglect of Iranian influence in the region. From Turkey’s perspective, Tehran remains a threat as pro-Iran militias have attacked Turkish positions in Iraq.
Given all these mutual interests, both regional and domestic, the ability of Israel, Turkey and the Gulf countries to calculate the stakes and display pragmatism in their relations will become clearer over time. Thus, any series of developments, whether crises or opportunities, that may emerge during the process of rapprochement will shape and limit the policies of these countries.
• Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes in Turkey’s relations with the Middle East. Twitter: @SinemCngz