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

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2021/english.october28.22.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
The Mastard Seed Parable & the Depth Of Faith
Matthew 13/31-35: “Jesus put before them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.’He told them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.’Jesus told the crowds all these things in parables; without a parable he told them nothing. This was to fulfil what had been spoken through the prophet: ‘I will open my mouth to speak in parables; I will proclaim what has been hidden from the foundation of the world.’

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on October 27-28.2022
Biden Congratulates Israel, Lebanon on Maritime Demarcation Deal
Historic Foes Israel and Lebanon End Dispute Over Gas-Rich Waters
Lebanon Delivers Signed Sea Border Deal to US Mediator
Sea border deal opens access to offshore gas for Israel, Lebanon
Israel, Lebanon have concluded 'historic' maritime deal, Biden says
Israel PM Lapid claims Lebanon 'recognizes' Israel in sea border deal
Aoun says no 'political implications' to Israel deal after Lapid remarks
Blinken says Lebanon-Israel 'achievement' to have 'long-lasting ramifications for region'
Wronecka hails 'new chapter for Lebanon' after Israel deal signed
Hochstein meets Lebanese leaders before heading to Naqoura
Israel govt. approves Lebanon maritime border deal
Bou Habib: No complications regarding Syria demarcation talks
Mouawad slams Hezbollah's 'stranglehold' on Lebanon
Report: Mikati meets Christian leaders over caretaker govt. legitimacy
Jumblat says border deal confirms "truce"
Tel Aviv Begins Gas Production from Karish
Syrian Refugees in Lebanon Exceed 2 Million
Nasrallah says Lebanon's deal with Israel 'not normalization'
How to Make the Most of Israel-Lebanon Maritime Deal/Hanin Ghaddar/War on the Rocks/October, 26/2022

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on October 27-28.2022
Four killed in Israeli strikes near Damascus
Israeli election could yield familiar outcome
Israeli minister signals defense ties' restart with Turkey
U.S. Unveils Strategy for Nuclear Threats from China and Russia
Zelenskiy, standing in the dark, says 'shelling will not break us'
How Russia's Iranian arms deals in Ukraine are scrambling alliances in the Middle East
Putin jabs at West over Ukraine war, says operation going to plan
Ukraine war: what, if any, are the chances of toppling Putin and who might take over?
Iranian Authorities Crackdown on Protests Marking 40 Days of Mourning for Amini
Biden Emphasizes Pledge to Ensure Iran Will Never Acquire a Nuclear Weapon
Police chief in Iran's restive Zahedan city dismissed -state news agency
Egypt, IMF reach preliminary agreement for $3 billion loan

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on October 27-28.2022
Iran Calls the Shots and Assad is with a Treacherous Organizations/Saleh Al Qallab/Asharq Al-Awsat/October, 27/2022
The Three Blunders of Joe Biden/Ross Douthat/The New York Times/October, 27/2022
Rishi Sunak Won’t Save Britain/Kimi Chaddah/The New York Times/October, 27/2022
Can Sunak Save Britain?/Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al-Awsat/October, 27/2022
How Americans, Europeans Embolden Palestinian Terrorism/Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/October 27/2022
What to Expect (or Not) from the Arab League Summit/Sabina Henneberg, David Schenker/The Washington/Institute./October 27/2022
Minister Allocation in Iraq’s New Government/Nawras Jaff/The Washington Institute./October 27/2022

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on October 27-28.2022
Biden Congratulates Israel, Lebanon on Maritime Demarcation Deal
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 27 October, 2022
US President Joe Biden congratulated on Thursday Israel and Lebanon on officially concluding their agreement to resolve their long-standing maritime boundary dispute. “Today in Naqoura, Lebanon, both Parties took the final steps to bring the agreement into force and submitted the final paperwork to the United Nations in the presence of the United States,” Biden said in a statement released by the White House. “As I said when this historic agreement was announced, it will secure the interests of both Israel and Lebanon, and it sets the stage for a more stable and prosperous region.” He pledged that Washington will continue to serve as a facilitator as the parties work to uphold their commitments and implement the deal. “Energy—particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean—should not be a cause for conflict, but a tool for cooperation, stability, security, and prosperity. This agreement takes us one step closer to realizing a vision for a Middle East that is more secure, integrated, and prosperous, delivering benefits for all the people of the region,” Biden added.

Historic Foes Israel and Lebanon End Dispute Over Gas-Rich Waters
Dana Khraiche, Verity Ratcliffe and Daniel Avis/Bloomberg/October 27, 2022
Lebanon and Israel have signed a US-brokered deal that ends a dispute over gas-rich waters in the Mediterranean, paving the way for the development of energy resources. Lebanese President Michel Aoun signed the deal followed by Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid later on Thursday. The agreement will allow international companies to begin exploring for natural gas in previously-contested waters, potentially leading to more energy exports to Europe in the coming years. Lebanon and Israel have no diplomatic relations and are technically still at war. While the deal is unlikely to herald significantly closer political ties, it’s a boost for the US, which has lobbied for years for the two sides to settle on a maritime boundary. The dispute delayed exploration work in the eastern Mediterranean and escalated tensions. US President Joe Biden said this month that an agreement would “set the stage for a more stable and prosperous region, and harness vital new energy resources for the world.” Iran-backed Hezbollah, a militant group in Lebanon opposed to Israel’s existence, has said it would accept the deal. Lebanese officials have cautioned, however, that it won’t mean they recognize Israel.
Gas Plays
Now that the countries have agreed a maritime border, a TotalEnergies SE-led consortium will be able to start drilling in the Kana prospect, most of which lies in Lebanese territory. If gas is produced, both countries would be entitled to payments. Gas production from Kana is far from certain. Since no exploration wells have been drilled, the presence and quality of resources is unknown. According to an agreement signed with the Lebanese government in 2018, Total and Eni SpA are committed to drilling just one well in Block 9, where the Kana prospect is located. If results are unfavorable, they may abandon it. Gas production has started at the Karish field on the Israeli side of the border, field developer Energean said on Wednesday. Hezbollah and Israel fought a 34-day war in 2006. The two still, from time to time, exchange fire along the border.
--With assistance from Samuel Dodge and Alisa Odenheimer.

Lebanon Delivers Signed Sea Border Deal to US Mediator
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 27 October, 2022
Lebanon signed and delivered its copy of a US-mediated sea border deal with Israel on Thursday to a US mediator, hoping to soon start exploring gas in its southern maritime blocs to bring economic stability to the crisis-ridden country.
The agreement to demarcate the maritime border comes after months of indirect talks mediated by Amos Hochstein, the US envoy for energy affairs, and would mark a major breakthrough in relations between the two nations, which have formally been at war since Israel’s creation in 1948, AFP said.
Lebanon and Israel both claim around 860 square kilometers (330 square miles) of the Mediterranean Sea that are home to offshore gas fields. Lebanon hopes that demarcating maritime borders will pave the way for gas exploration to help lift it out of its crippling economic crisis, which has plunged three-quarters of its population into poverty. Israel hopes that the deal will reduce the risk of war with Lebanon’s Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah.
“This agreement was written with the idea in mind that it was between two countries that don’t have diplomatic relations,” Hochstein told reporters at the Baabda Presidential Palace. “I think the good will and good faith efforts by all parties is what’s going to make this move forward.”
Hochstein spoke after meeting with President Michel Aoun and senior officials and receiving Lebanon’s signed agreement. He is scheduled to meet with Speaker Nabih Berri before heading to the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon headquarters in Naqoura by the southern border, where an Israeli and Lebanese delegation will separately deliver signed agreements and their finalized coordinates to the UN, before Hochstein meets with Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid. Meanwhile, Lapid has signed the agreement. According to a statement from his office, a delegation led by the Energy Ministry's director general is on its way to the signing ceremony in Naqoura at the border. “There is a rare consensus in all security systems on the importance of the agreement," Lapid said. The Israeli Cabinet approved the deal in a special session. “This is also an economic achievement. Yesterday, gas production began from the Karish Platform.”Tensions briefly flared between Lebanon and Israel last summer, after Israel began drilling in the Karish gas field as negotiations took place. Prior to the agreement, Lebanon considered the area to be disputed, while Israel said it was part of its UN-recognized exclusive economic zone.
It was not immediately clear when drilling will begin, but cash-strapped Lebanon is hoping French oil giant Total will start soon after the agreement is signed and delivered by both parties.
Under the agreement, the disputed waters would be divided along a line straddling the “Qana” natural gas field. Gas production would be based on the Lebanese side, but Israel would be compensated for gas extracted from its side of the line.
President Aoun earlier this month in a televised address announced Lebanon's approval of the sea border deal. The Israeli Supreme Court rejected four legal challenges against the deal, after its government also approved the plan.
In 2017, Lebanon approved licenses for an international consortium including France’s Total, Italy’s ENI and Russia’s Novatek to move forward with offshore oil and gas development for two of 10 blocks in the Mediterranean Sea. Novatek recently withdrew and officials, including Energy Minister Walid Fayad, have said that Qatar is interested in filling that gap. “I truly believe and hope this can be an economic turning point in Lebanon for a new era of investment and continued support to lift up the economy,” Hochstein said.
Lebanon has since reached out to Syria and Cyprus to start direct negotiations over their northern and western maritime borders as well.

Sea border deal opens access to offshore gas for Israel, Lebanon
Michael Fitzpatrick/RFI/October 27, 2022
Israel and Lebanon on Thursday separately signed a US-brokered maritime border agreement that paves the way for lucrative offshore gas extraction by the neighbouring nations, who are technically at war. Lebanon insists the deal has no political implications.
The agreement will come into effect on Thursday afternoon, after two exchanges of letters -- one between Lebanon and the United States, the other between Israel and the US.
The deal, signed separately by Lebanon's President Michel Aoun in Beirut and Israel's Prime Minister Yair Lapid in Jerusalem, comes as Lebanon struggles to emerge from what the World Bank has described as one of the worst economic crises in modern world history. The border agreement comes as Lapid seeks the boost of a major achievement days ahead of a general election due in Israel on 1 November. The deal settles a decades-long dispute about the precise location of the eastern Mediterranean border between the two states, which in turn determines exploration and extraction rights.
The exchange of letters is due to take place in the southern Lebanese town of Naqura, in the presence of US mediator Amos Hochstein and the United Nations's special coordinator for Lebanon Joanna Wronecka. There will be no meeting of the two delegations.
Contradictory interpretations
The Israeli prime minister, Yair Lapid, sounds very upbeat. “This is a historic achievement that will strengthen Israel’s security," he says, "bring billions into Israel’s economy and ensure stability on the northern border.” Lapid has also claimed that Lebanon's acceptance of the deal amounts to a de-facto recognition of the Jewish state.

Israel, Lebanon have concluded 'historic' maritime deal, Biden says
Agence France Presse/October, 27/2022
Lebanon and Israel formally concluded a "historic" maritime border deal on Thursday in the presence of U.S. officials, U.S. President Joe Biden said. "Both parties took the final steps to bring the agreement into force and submitted the final paperwork to the United Nations in the presence of the United States," Biden said in a statement. The accord between Israel and energy-starved Lebanon, which have no diplomatic relations, was brokered through mediation of a U.S. envoy, Amos Hochstein, who was attending the exchange of letters in the southern Lebanese town of Naqoura.
Biden said the "historic agreement" benefitted both countries. "This agreement takes us one step closer to realizing a vision for a Middle East that is more secure, integrated and prosperous, delivering benefits for all the people of the region," Biden said.

Israel PM Lapid claims Lebanon 'recognizes' Israel in sea border deal
Agence France Presse/October, 27/2022
Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid on Thursday claimed Israel's foe Lebanon de-facto "recognizes" the state of Israel, due to a sea border deal the two states are set to sign imminently. "This is a political achievement -- it is not every day that an enemy state recognizes the State of Israel, in a written agreement, in front of the entire international community," Lapid said. The premier was speaking at the opening of a cabinet meeting convened to formally approve the deal, hours ahead of the expected signing by the two parties of separate copies of the agreement. "The State of Israel won today. In security, economically, diplomatically, and in energy," Lapid said. The final accord is due to be signed at the headquarters of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon in the border town of Naqoura, in the presence of U.S. mediator Amos Hochstein and the U.N.'s special coordinator for Lebanon Joanna Wronecka.
The deal was hailed by U.S. President Joe Biden as a "historic breakthrough" on Wednesday. "It took principled and persistent diplomacy to get it done," Biden said, during a meeting in Washington with his Israeli counterpart Isaac Herzog. Washington has played a key role in mediating the lengthy negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, who remain technically still at war after numerous conflicts between the two sides. Lebanon will not allow its delegation to be in the same room as the Israeli side, and the two parties will not even sign the same piece of paper. "The agreement... will take the form of two exchanges of letters, one between Lebanon and the United States, and one between Israel and the United States," said Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for the U.N. Secretary General. Rafic Chelala, a spokesman for the Lebanese presidency, confirmed that the Lebanese delegation "will not ... meet the Israeli delegation"

Aoun says no 'political implications' to Israel deal after Lapid remarks
Naharnet/October, 27/2022
President Michel Aoun denied Thursday that a maritime border deal due to be signed Thursday had "political implications," after Israel said the deal between the two enemy states amounted to Lebanon recognizing Israel. "Demarcating the southern maritime border is technical work that has no political implications or effects contradicting Lebanon's foreign policy," Aoun said of the deal. Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid had earlier claimed that Lebanon's intention to ink the deal amounted to a de-facto recognition of the “State of Israel”. "This is a political achievement -- it is not every day that an enemy state recognizes the State of Israel, in a written agreement, in front of the entire international community," Lapid said. "The State of Israel won today. In security, economically, diplomatically, and in energy," Lapid added. The final accord is due to be signed at the headquarters of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in the border town of Naqura, in the presence of U.S. mediator Amos Hochstein and the U.N.'s special coordinator for Lebanon Joanna Wronecka. The deal was hailed by U.S. President Joe Biden as a "historic breakthrough" on Wednesday.

Blinken says Lebanon-Israel 'achievement' to have 'long-lasting ramifications for region'
Naharnet/October, 27/2022  
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Thursday that the "historic achievement" of the sea border deal between Lebanon and Israel "will advance security, stability, and prosperity for the region," and that it demonstrates "the transformative power of American diplomacy.""This agreement meaningfully demonstrates the U.S. vision for a more secure, integrated, and prosperous Middle East. Equally beneficial to both Israel and Lebanon, it will strengthen the economic and security interests of Israel, while promoting critically needed foreign investment for the Lebanese people as they face a devastating economic crisis," Blinken said in a statement. "The region and beyond will soon reap the benefit of these energy resources that will advance security, stability, and prosperity," he added. "This historic agreement would not have been possible without the persistence and diplomacy of the leaders of Israel and Lebanon, and the hard work of Special Presidential Coordinator (Amos) Hochstein and the State Department team in bringing the parties to an agreement. Their achievement will have long-lasting ramifications for the region," Blinken went on to say.

Wronecka hails 'new chapter for Lebanon' after Israel deal signed
Naharnet/October, 27/2022  
United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon Joanna Wronecka on Thursday warmly welcomed “the handover of letters delineating the maritime boundary between Lebanon and Israel following successful U.S. mediation, under the leadership of Special Presidential Coordinator Amos Hochstein.”
“This is a historic achievement at many levels. I hope it will serve as a confidence-building measure that promotes more security and stability in the region and economic benefits for both countries,” said the Special Coordinator who received the signed maritime coordinates from both sides at the UNIFIL premises in Naqoura. The Special Coordinator will deposit the documents at the U.N. Headquarters in New York. The Special Coordinator commended both Lebanon and Israel for reaching a “mutually-agreed solution.” She also underlined “the particular significance for Lebanon where the political leaders demonstrated their unity towards a common goal.”“This is a new chapter for Lebanon that could also create a positive momentum to build consensus around issues of national interest,” the Special Coordinator added. Since the adoption of the Framework Agreement that launched the negotiation process in 2020, the United Nations has been working with both countries and the United States to put an end to their maritime boundary dispute, the statement from Wronecka’s office said. “Looking ahead and while all stakeholders should prioritize upholding the commitments outlined in the agreement, the United Nations remains committed to assist the parties to implement it, as requested and within its mandate,” the statement added. Highlighting the need for “sustainable peace and security,” the Special Coordinator reiterated “the importance of the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701 and other relevant resolutions.”

Hochstein meets Lebanese leaders before heading to Naqoura
Naharnet/October, 27/2022  
U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein met Thursday in Baabda with President Michel Aoun, in the presence of Deputy Speaker Elias Bou Saab and Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib. "I truly believe and hope this can be an economic turning point in Lebanon for a new era of investment and continued support to lift up the economy," Hochstein said, before leaving Baabda to the Grand Serail where he met with Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati. "This agreement was written with the idea in mind that it was between two countries that don’t have diplomatic relations," Hochstein told reporters at the Baabda Presidential Palace. "I think the good will and good faith efforts by all parties is what’s going to make this move forward."The U.S. mediator also meet with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, before travelling to Naqoura to take the final steps that will bring Israel and Lebanon's maritime boundary agreement into force. Hochstein will "extend his gratitude to each (of the three leaders) for the consultative and open spirit demonstrated throughout the negotiations, the foundations of which were created under Speaker Berri’s leadership by the 2020 Framework,” the U.S. State Department had earlier said in a statement. Aoun received from Hochstein the official text of the final deal. He signed it and handed it to the Lebanese delegation that will officially submit it to Hoschtein at the headquarters of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon in the border town of Naqoura. Also in Naqoura, the Lebanese Foreign ministry will submit the maritime coordinates to the United Nations special coordinator for Lebanon Joanna Wronecka. Hochstein will then travel to Israel where he will meet with Prime Minister Yair Lapi. "The agreement... will take the form of two exchanges of letters, one between Lebanon and the United States, and one between Israel and the United States," said Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for the U.N. Secretary General.

Israel govt. approves Lebanon maritime border deal
Agence France Presse/October, 27/2022
Israel's government on Thursday formally approved a maritime border deal with Lebanon, a U.S.-brokered agreement that paves the way for lucrative offshore gas extraction by the neighbors which remain technically at war. "The Government of Israel... approved the agreement on a maritime boundary between Israel and Lebanon," a statement from Prime Minister Yair Lapid's office said, hours ahead of the expected signing of separate copies of the document by the two parties. "It is not every day that an enemy state recognises the State of Israel, in a written agreement, in front of the entire international community," Lapid said, shortly before his government approved signing it. Lebanon's President Michel Aoun denied that assertion, countering that "demarcating the southern maritime border is technical work that has no political implications".

Bou Habib: No complications regarding Syria demarcation talks
Naharnet/October, 27/2022  
Caretaker Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib announced Wednesday that “there are no complications regarding the discussions for sea border demarcation with Syria. “We will agree with the Syrians on another date for the beginning of the border demarcation talks,” Bou Habib added, in remarks to Al-Jazeera TV. He also said that Lebanon’s caretaker government “will continue the maritime border demarcation talks with Syria.” “The Lebanese have major hope that Lebanon will become an oil producing country,” Bou Habib went on to say. He added that French oil giant TotalEnergies would begin gas exploration at Lebanon’s Qana field following the Thursday signing of the sea border agreement with Israel. “After the agreement is signed, we will officially publish the text of the sea border demarcation agreement,” Bou Habib said.

Mouawad slams Hezbollah's 'stranglehold' on Lebanon
Agence France Presse/October, 27/2022
MP Michel Mouawad on Wednesday urged lawmakers to back his bid for the presidency, denouncing Hezbollah's "stranglehold" on the crisis-hit country. MPs have been unable to pick a successor to President Michel Aoun whose term ends next week, stoking fears of a political crisis that would further compound three years of economic meltdown. "I am practically the only serious candidate running for the presidency," Mouawad told AFP in an interview, adding that he had "support from a large majority of the opposition". Mouawad, 50, is the presidential candidate who received the largest backing in Lebanon's divided parliament, mostly from lawmakers opposed to the powerful Iran-backed Hezbollah. But he is still far from securing the number of votes needed to snatch the position. "To change the balance of power, we must first unite the opposition, because we are divided," said Mouawad.
He said that "Hezbollah's stranglehold" on Lebanon has pushed the country further into "Iran's sphere of influence", and accused the group of trying to impose a candidate who abides by its rules. Hezbollah has slammed Mouawad's close ties to the United States and urged political parties to vote for a consensual candidate. "A consensual candidate is someone who submits to Hezbollah's regional and internal policies," said Mouawad. "Lebanon today faces an existential danger. The state is disappearing, people are becoming poorer and migrating" he said, referring to the country's financial meltdown.
Mouawad is the son of Lebanon's first post-civil war president Rene Mouawad who was assassinated 17 days after his election in 1989. His family accuses Syria, which dominated Lebanon at the time, of killing him. Mouawad said he is aware of the dangers of political life in Lebanon. "I know very well what the risks are... And I am ready to take them," he said, adding that he was facing "parties, and sometimes states who do not hesitate to assassinate people, when these people prove that they can make a change."

Report: Mikati meets Christian leaders over caretaker govt. legitimacy
Naharnet/October, 27/2022  
Prime Minister-designate Najib Nikati has met with Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi, away from the spotlight, media reports said. A ministerial source told Asharq al-Awsat newspaper, in remarks published Thursday, that Mikati might meet al-Rahi again, and is also communicating with other Christian spiritual and political leaders, including the leaders of the Lebanese Forces and al-Kataeb parties. The source added that Mikati has also met in the past days with legal experts, in the presence of Cabinet Secretary General Mahmoud Makieh. The experts -- including ex-ministers Khaled Kabbani and Rashid Derbas, Saeed Malek, Zuheir Shokr and Antoine Msarra -- agreed that the caretaker cabinet will have the powers of the President, once President Michel Aoun's term ends and until a new President is elected.

Jumblat says border deal confirms "truce"
Naharnet/October, 27/2022  
Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat asked Thursday why the army was absent from the demarcation deal, considering that the deal confirms the "truce.""Where is the sovereign wealth fund," Jumblat also asked, in a tweet. The PSP leader added that the officials' moves are "suspicious." "As if it is a new financial engineering operation that is destined to failure," he went on to say. Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid also claimed on Thursday that Lebanon has "recognized" the state of Israel, by agreeing to the sea border deal.

Tel Aviv Begins Gas Production from Karish
Washington: Ali Barda, Asharq Al-Awsat: Tel Aviv/Thursday, 27 October, 2022
US envoy Amos Hochstein traveled to Beirut on Wednesday to represent his country at the official signing of the historic agreement to delineate the maritime border between Lebanon and Israel and pave the way for offshore energy exploration in the Mediterranean Sea. “Hochstein traveled to Lebanon to finalize the historic agreement to establish a permanent maritime boundary between Lebanon and Israel,” the US State Department announced on Wednesday. In Beirut, the envoy will meet with President Michel Aoun, Speaker Nabih Berri, and Prime Minister Najib Mikati to extend his "gratitude" to each for the “consultative and open spirit” demonstrated throughout the negotiations, the foundations of which were created under Speaker Berri's leadership by the 2020 Framework, the Department said. Hochstein will then travel to Naqoura for the final steps to bring Israel and Lebanon agreement into force.
“The parties will then submit the maritime coordinates to the United Nations in the presence of the United States,” according to the State Department. Following his stay in Lebanon, Hochstein will then travel to Israel where he will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid and thank him and his team for their “persistent and principled diplomacy” to reach a resolution on this critical file. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken congratulated Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who is currently in Washington, on the forthcoming conclusion of the US-mediated agreement resolving the maritime boundary dispute between Israel and Lebanon, according to a statement released by the State Department Spokesperson Ned Price. Meanwhile, Israel on Wednesday granted permission for Energean to start gas production in the Karish field, one day prior to the signing of the deal with Lebanon.
“We are pleased to confirm that gas has been safely delivered at the Karish field, offshore Israel,” Energean said, adding that the flow of gas is being steadily ramped. The Israeli Ministry of Energy earlier announced it has granted approval to Energean to start production at the Karish gas field in the Mediterranean. Energean has said its floating production storage and offloading vessel is due to start production at Karish in the third quarter but has not given a precise date. Hezbollah group had threatened that work at the Karish field was linked to the signing of an agreement with Lebanon.
Israel’s decision to publicly notify Energean that it could start work before the signing ceremony is considered a provocation against the party. Meanwhile, the Israeli government will hold an extraordinary session on Thursday morning to officially and finally ratify the agreement to demarcate the maritime borders with Lebanon. Later, Lapid will sign the agreement in his office.

Syrian Refugees in Lebanon Exceed 2 Million
Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 26 October, 2022
Lebanon’s General Directorate of General Security said there are currently 2,080,000 Syrian refugees on the Lebanese soil, noting that those registered are only 900,000. General Security Director Major General Abbas Ibrahim said in a press conference on Tuesday that nearly 540,000 displaced Syrians have returned voluntarily to their country since 2017. He considered the repatriation plan a national duty that needs to be fulfilled, stressing that the Syrian side was very transparent and welcoming while addressing this matter. Ibrahim regretted the negative repercussions of this matter at all levels, affirming that it should be addressed as soon as possible. “Lebanon rejects the way humanitarian organizations and others who claim to be humanitarian organizations are tackling this issue with Lebanon and dictating their will,” Ibrahim told reporters. He said Beirut will not submit to pressure because it prioritizes its people’s interest, affirming that it will not force any refugee to return to Syria against their will. According sources, three groups will depart Lebanon to Syria on Wednesday. The first will leave from the Masnaa border crossing between Lebanon and Syria, while the second group will depart from the Lebanese border town of Arsal and will carry around 300 to 400 Syrian refugees bound for al-Zamarani crossing to eastern Qalamoun. The third group will pass through the border crossing at Aboudiya in northern Lebanon. Up to 6,000 refugees were expected to return home via the voluntary return convoys, but most of the families preferred to wait for their children to finish the school year in Lebanon. Caretaker Minister of Social Affairs Hector Hajjar announced Tuesday that the gradual repatriation of Syrian refugees living in Lebanon will begin Wednesday. He visited the General Security center in the Labweh town in northern Bekaa to review the preparations on the ground for the voluntary and safe return of Syrian refugees.

Nasrallah says Lebanon's deal with Israel 'not normalization'
Naharnet/October, 27/2022  
Hezbollah will end an "exceptional" mobilization against Israel after threatening to attack for months, its leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said Thursday after Lebanon and Israel struck a maritime border deal. "All the exceptional and special measures and mobilization carried out by the resistance for several months are now declared over," Nasrallah said in a televised speech, calling the agreement a "very big victory for Lebanon and its state, people and resistance.""Our mission is complete," Nasrallah said, adding that the deal "is not an international treaty and it is not a recognition of Israel." "Israel received no security guarantees," the Hezbollah leader stressed. Responding to domestic criticism of the deal in Lebanon, Nasrallah said: "It seems that some in the country have been shocked and surprised and they are voicing incomprehensible words." On July 2, Israel said it had downed three drones launched by Hezbollah that were headed towards the border offshore field of Karish which was partly claimed by Lebanon. Nasrallah had warned Israel against reaching for the reserves before a deal was finalized. The agreement between the countries, which are still technically at war, was applauded by world leaders including U.S. President Joe Biden. It was signed separately on Thursday by Lebanon's President Michel Aoun in Beirut and by Israel's Prime Minister Yair Lapid in Jerusalem, and went into effect after the papers were delivered to mediators. Earlier in the day Lapid had claimed that the deal meant Lebanon de facto "recognizes the State of Israel, in a written agreement." Aoun had retorted that the deal had no "political implications." The United States-mediated deal is set to unlock potential off-shore gas resources for Lebanon, at a time when the country is reeling from three years of grueling economic crisis.
It also streamlines gas production for Israel, as Hezbollah had threatened it with attacks should it begin work in the disputed area before a deal was signed.

How to Make the Most of Israel-Lebanon Maritime Deal
Hanin Ghaddar/War on the Rocks/October, 26/2022 
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/113037/hanin-ghaddar-war-on-the-rocks-how-to-make-the-most-of-israel-lebanon-maritime-deal-%d8%ad%d9%86%d9%8a%d9%86-%d8%ba%d8%af%d8%a7%d8%b1-%d9%83%d9%8a%d9%81-%d9%8a%d9%85%d9%83%d9%86-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d9%84/
After years of stalling and hedging, a major economic collapse in Lebanon, multiple unstable governments in Israel, and threats of violence, the United States has successfully brokered a maritime border agreement between Beirut and Jerusalem. War has been averted, and everyone is happy. At least for now.
Israel will receive the most immediate benefits from this deal, as it can now quickly begin to exploit existing energy reserves in the Karish gas field. Lebanon may benefit as well, but it has more challenges to work through. Without reforms to the energy sector, profits from any future gas finds may end up in the hands of the political elite, lining their pockets and doing little for ordinary citizens. Hizballah, for its part, has seen its resistance rhetoric take a major blow with its public recognition of Israel. Yet there are fears that it may now turn its weapons against the internal Lebanese opposition.
U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein deserves enormous credit for getting this agreement over the finish line. Now, Washington should work to maximize the benefits for the Lebanese people and regional stability. This means increasing pressure on Lebanese officials to implement necessary reforms, particularly in the energy sector.
The Benefits of the Deal
Actors on both sides had strong reasons to make this agreement work. With elections coming in November, Israel wanted to start digging the Karish gas field as soon as possible and position itself as a natural gas producer. Lebanon had its own set of considerations. President Michel Aoun’s term will also end on November 1, and he wanted to make sure his legacy was not limited to failure and economic collapse. Hizballah, in turn, wanted to give the president they chose this goodbye gift. More importantly, the group wanted to avoid a war with Israel they knew they could not afford. After numerous threats failed to prevent Israel from moving ahead on Karish exploration, Hizballah knew that only diplomacy would help them save face.
BECOME A MEMBER
Despite accusations that Israel accepted all of Lebanon’s conditions and conceded too quickly, the truth is that Lebanon started this round of negotiations with a low bar. First, knowing it was a nonstarter for Israel and the United States, President Aoun completely dropped any discussion of Line 29 as the maritime border. This proposed boundary, the southernmost of the lines under discussion, would have cut through the Karish field, giving Lebanon a stake in it. Instead, Aoun decided to negotiate over line 23 which gave Israel complete control over Karish. Second, while Beirut secured the Qana field, its ability to exploit it is contingent on Israeli approval. Total, the French company that will explore Qana, is required to reach a financial arrangement with Israel, in which Lebanon will have no say. In other words, Israel controls the Karish field, which has already been shown to contain gas, while Lebanon has to share the Qana field, in which gas deposits have not been located yet. And if there is any gas in Qana, Lebanon has agreed that Israel will receive a payment of at least seventeen percent of the revenues from Total. At best, the money will take five years to start flowing.
The End of the Resistance Narrative
In seeking to avoid a conflict while demonstrating that it could use force to advance Lebanese interests, Hizballah has now given Israel security guarantees that it will not target Karish. It has sought to spin the deal as a victory but has failed to translate this into domestic political gains. Although this is officially an agreement between Lebanon and Israel, in reality, many in Lebanon see it as a deal between Hizballah and Israel. Indeed, according to Reuters, the group reviewed and approved the agreement line by line.
This in itself is a breakthrough. For forty years, Hizballah’s resistance narrative rejected any kind of border negotiations with its sworn enemy or any acknowledgment of the state of Israel. Now, not only have Lebanon and Hizballah acknowledged the existence of Israel, but they also share an economic interest and are forced to maintain stability across the border as they await the profits from the deal to materialize. Hizballah’s narrative has already suffered from the group’s involvement in the Syrian civil war, where it has ignored Israeli strikes against its military personnel, arms depots, and weapons factories. By opting for a pact with Israel rather than another military confrontation, Hizballah has rendered itself even more irrelevant.
I grew up in a Shia town in South Lebanon. I was eight years old during the 1982 Israeli invasion and the establishment of Hizballah as a resistance movement. The word “Israel” was taboo — not to be uttered under any circumstances. Although we all knew that the country existed and prospered beyond our southern border, Hizballah made sure we understood that denial was the best way to deal with this reality. And if anyone dared to say the word “Israel” the immediate reaction was a forceful reminder that “it is called Palestine!” or “the occupying entity.”
In response to the maritime border deal, Hizballah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah said, “We do not have any problem with the agreement with Israel.” He didn’t say “occupied Palestine” or the “enemy state” — he said “Israel.” For many Lebanese people, this indicates a major shift in narrative and strategy. None of Hizballah’s officials have ever uttered the word “Israel” before. None of them tolerated ‎others who dared to say it. ‎
This new narrative may allow the group to buy time until it is more ready for conflict. Yet it still creates a new reality where the state next door actually exists, is Lebanon’s partner in gas, and has a say in Lebanon’s economy and stability. What’s more, Hizballah accepted U.S. mediation in the negotiations and acknowledged American diplomacy in a matter of utmost significance to its security and military strategy.
For Hizballah, the main challenge now is to keep the resistance narrative alive. The group cannot afford to take risks against Israel at this moment, inside or outside Lebanon, and seeks to refocus internally. This doesn’t mean that the rhetoric against Israel will stop, but it will probably change, with threats becoming less imminent and more rote. The group’s leadership will go back to turning a blind eye to Israeli strikes in Syria and resort to narrating past tales of victories instead of seeking out new ones.
But with Hizballah striving to maintain its role in Lebanese politics, the risk is that its weapons and resistance rhetoric will turn against internal opposition and protest. Since its last confrontation with Israel in 2006, Hizballah has been confronting its Lebanese opponents instead. This includes imposing a national unity government on May 7, 2008, provoking street clashes to hinder investigations into the Beirut port blast, assassinating rivals like former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and Shia critic Lokman Slim, and targeting protestors in 2019, mainly in Shia areas.
Upcoming Phases and Challenges
For Israel, the main challenge is to preserve the maritime deal after the legislative elections and the formation of a new government. Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu has already criticized the deal and threatened to overturn it if he becomes prime minister. Many analysts, however, think this is mere election posturing that would quickly be shelved if he won.
For Lebanon, the next steps are much more challenging. If Total discovers gas in Qana, the revenues will not be enough to cover the country’s financial deficits, the banking sector losses, and the Central Bank’s depleted reserves. The only way out of this crisis is through substantial financial, economic, and legislative reforms that would protect energy revenues, instead of letting them be squandered through corruption. Setting up a sovereign wealth fund to manage gas revenue is particularly vital in light of this sector’s poor record for fiscal responsibility. For example, since 1992, corruption and mismanagement in the electricity sector alone have created $40 billion in debt, or 43 percent of the total government debt.
Without reforms, Lebanon’s corrupt political class will use energy revenue to maintain their interests and positions. This also means maintaining the sectarian narratives and clientelism that have already contributed to the collapse of Lebanon’s state institutions. Indeed, politicians very much hope to use the deal as an excuse to avoid reforms. By presenting Qana as a quick solution to the current crisis, they have already helped push calls for reform off the political agenda.
The U.S. Role
This deal demonstrated that the United States is still the strongest player in Lebanon. No other country — except perhaps France — was able to compel the Lebanese political class to make compromises for the sake of stability, and no one else could get Hizballah to accept a deal with Israel and acknowledge its partnership. Through this deal, Washington also enhanced its credibility and developed new channels of communication with important actors in Beirut. Biden should leverage this success to push the Lebanese government to implement long-overdue reforms.
The United States can work with its European and Gulf partners to sanction state officials who are hindering reforms in the energy sector. Actors such as the International Monetary Fund and the 2018 French-sponsored CEDRE donor conference have already spelled out what needs to be done. This includes creating an independent electricity regulatory authority, modernizing the transmission grid, and raising prices for the first time since the 1990s. A transparent sovereign wealth fund should also be established without delay.
In response to the threat posed by Hizballah, Washington can also play a positive role in the formation of a new government, the implementation of legal reforms, the investigation into the Beirut port blast, and the appointment of military officials. Over the years, the United States has become the biggest donor to Lebanon, mainly in the form of military assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces and humanitarian assistance in the recent economic crisis. Combined with terrorism and corruption sanctions, this created a degree of influence that the Lebanese authorities understand very well. Washington can use this influence to push Lebanon to elect a new president, protect the judge investigating the port blast, and secure the elevation of responsible security officials.
These are not only internal Lebanese issues. They can make or break a very fragile country, whose instability will spill over to its neighbors and affect American interests in the region. The maritime deal shows what U.S. diplomacy can do. Now is the time to do more.
*Bio: Hanin Ghaddar is the Friedmann Fellow in The Washington Institute’s Program on Arab Politics, where she focuses on Shia politics throughout the Levant. She is the author of HezbollahLand and tweets @haningdr
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/how-to-make-the-most-of-israel-lebanon-maritime-deal/

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on October 27-28.2022
Four killed in Israeli strikes near Damascus
Associated Press/October, 27/2022
Four pro-Iranian fighters were killed early Thursday during Israeli strikes on several positions near Damascus, a war monitor said, in the third such attack in less than a week. Israel has carried out hundreds of air strikes on Syrian territory since civil war broke out there in 2011, targeting government positions as well as allied Iran-backed forces and Hezbollah fighters. Explosions were heard in the Syrian capital in the night of Wednesday to Thursday, an AFP correspondent reported. "At around 00:30 am, the Israeli enemy carried out an aerial aggression from the direction of the occupied Palestinian territories targeting several positions in the vicinity of Damascus," the Syrian defense ministry had said in a statement. Syria's air defense intercepted several missiles, the ministry added. It did not provide any details on the targets and said that the strikes caused material damage. The Israeli strikes targeted "weapons and ammunition depots and bases housing Iranian-backed groups a few kilometres from Damascus International Airport," the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitor said. The UK-based war monitor, which relies on a wide network of sources in Syria, later said that four pro-Iran fighters, including one Syrian, were killed during the strikes. On Monday, Israel struck the vicinity of Damascus, wounding one soldier, after a strike three days earlier targeted Syrian military sites near the airport. While Israel rarely comments on the strikes it carries out on Syria, it has repeatedly said it will not allow its archfoe Iran to gain a foothold there.

Israeli election could yield familiar outcome
Associated Press/October, 27/2022
Israel is holding its fifth national election in under four years, and once again the race is shaping up as a referendum on former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's fitness to rule. Netanyahu has been campaigning while standing trial on corruption charges. As Israel's opposition leader, he has portrayed himself as the victim of a political witch hunt and promised to reform a legal system he sees as profoundly biased against him. His main opponent, caretaker Prime Minister Yair Lapid, is marketing himself as a voice of decency and national unity.In Israel's fragmented political system, neither Netanyahu nor Lapid are expected to win outright majorities in the 120-seat Knesset, or parliament. That means each will have to turn to smaller allies in hopes of securing the 61 seats required to form a new government. Opinion polls say the race is too close to predict.
Here is a look at the potential outcomes of Tuesday's election:
NETANYAHU WINS. Netanyahu's Likud party and its allies, an extremist ultra-nationalist party and a pair of ultra-Orthodox religious parties, are projected in polls to come close to winning a parliamentary majority. If they can pull it off, Israel's next government will be a narrow, but cohesive and well-disciplined coalition poised to take a hard line against the Palestinians, including Israel's own Arab minority, cement Orthodox control over many aspects of daily life and attack the country's legal system. The leader of one of Netanyahu's main partners, Religious Zionism, is Itamar Ben-Gvir, a lawmaker who has called for deporting Arab politicians and brandished a pistol during public run-ins with Palestinians. Another senior figure in the party once compared gays to wild animals. He later apologized, but has repeatedly made anti-gay comments and said he opposes "LGBT culture."Netanyahu's allies have indicated they will try to take over the process of appointing judges and give parliament power to overturn Supreme Court rulings. That could pave the way to dismissing Netanyahu's corruption charges. Justice Minister Gideon Saar, a former Netanyahu ally turned bitter rival, says a Likud victory will mean "regime change" for Israel. "They don't want evolution. They want a revolution that will destroy the independence of the courts and prosecution," he says.
LAPID WINS. Lapid, the founder and leader of the centrist Yesh Atid party, faces a harder task than Netanyahu. His party is projected to finish a distant second to Likud and with his current allies appears poised to fall short of a parliamentary majority. That would require some creative thinking.Lapid was the mastermind of putting together the outgoing coalition -- a patchwork of small and midsize parties that banded together last year to oust the long-serving Likud leader. But members of that alliance, which included the first Arab party ever to sit in an Israeli government, had little in common. The coalition was torn apart by infighting after just a year in power. Even if Lapid pulls off a miracle, he will once again have a difficult time finding common ground among members that include Arabs, secular and dovish Jewish parties that support peace negotiations with the Palestinians and hawkish hard-liners who oppose Palestinian independence.
GANTZ HAS A CHANCE. Since entering politics in 2018, former military chief Benny Gantz has seen his fortunes rise and fall. Initially seen as the great hope for ousting Netanyahu, Gantz later disappointed his followers by entering into a disastrous and short-lived power-sharing agreement with him. Gantz, currently defense minister, has now carved out a niche as the head of a midsized, middle-of-the-road party. With one small Arab party unlikely to endorse either Netanyahu or Lapid, it is possible neither side secures a majority. That is where Gantz could emerge as a power broker — and even an unlikely winner. Gantz appears to be the lone candidate in the anti-Netanyahu bloc with some crossover appeal. He could potentially steal votes from Likud to prevent Netanyahu from securing a majority. And if that happens, he also could seek to lure ultra-Orthodox parties away from Netanyahu and into a coalition with Lapid.
BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. The parties have nearly three months to cobble together a new coalition. If they fail, Israel will return to the polls early next year and do it all over again. Beyond costing millions of shekels, the elections have exhausted Israelis and eroded their confidence in the country's democratic institutions.

Israeli minister signals defense ties' restart with Turkey
Associated Press/October, 27/2022
Israel's defense minister on Thursday signaled a possible resumption of defense ties with Turkey as the two nations take steps to normalize their strained relationship. Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz said after a meeting with his Turkish counterpart Hulusi Akar in the Turkish capital Ankara, that he instructed his staff "to begin the procedures required in order to resume working relations.""It is no secret that our ties have faced challenges," said Gantz, who became the first top defense official from his country to visit Turkey in more than a decade. "Moving forward, we must adopt a steady, positive approach in our relations – maintaining open dialogue," he said. Turkey and Israel were once close regional allies with broad defense ties, but the relationship became more and more strained under Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's rule. The Turkish leader has been an outspoken critic of Israel's policies toward Palestinians, while Israel objected to Turkey's ties to the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip. Relations broke down in 2010 after Israeli forces stormed a Gaza-bound flotilla carrying humanitarian aid for Palestinians that broke an Israeli blockade. The incident resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish activists, and the countries withdrew their respective ambassadors. Following an attempt at mending ties, Turkey again recalled its ambassador in 2018 after the United States moved its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Relations began to thaw after the departure of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israeli President Isaac Herzog paid a state visit to Turkey in March, followed by Prime Minister Yair Lapid — who was foreign minister at the time — in June. Last month, Erdogan and Lapid met on the sidelines of the annual U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York.
Turkey and Israeli recently agreed to reappoint their respective ambassadors. Akar said after meeting Gantz that increased cooperation and dialogue with Israel would also help the resolution of disagreements, including the issue of the Palestinians. "The development of our relationship and cooperation with Israel, especially in areas such as defense, security and energy, will lead to important developments in regional peace and stability," he said. Turkey and Israel were once close defense partners. Defense pacts signed in the mid-1990s allowed Israeli air force pilots to train over Turkey's airspace. Israel upgraded Turkish military tanks and jets, and supplied drones and other high-tech equipment. The countries still share various strategic interests, including containing Iran. Israel recently thanked Turkey for intelligence cooperation against Iranian attempts to carry out attacks in Turkey. "This year, as a result of close, covert contact, we succeeded in removing an alarming number of threats against Israeli citizens and Jewish people in Turkey," Gantz said. "We are thankful to President Erdogan, Minister Akar and the security agencies involved in this crucial, life-saving cooperation."The minister continued: "I believe a lot more can be done together in order to reduce the influence of those who destabilize our regions, by supporting or conducting terrorism against innocent civilians."

U.S. Unveils Strategy for Nuclear Threats from China and Russia
W.J. Hennigan/Time/October 27, 2022
The Biden Administration unveiled a new defense strategy Thursday that puts the U.S. military on a Cold War-footing with China and Russia, detailing a plan to confront two nuclear peer adversaries for the first time in history with a multi-year build-up of modernized weaponry, enhanced foreign alliances and a top-to bottom overhaul of the American nuclear arsenal. The 80-page document serves as the Administration’s roadmap for global security for the decades to come, and makes clear the U.S. faces two powerful but very different competitors. It characterizes China as a long-term “pacing challenge” with its growing power projection in the Pacific region, while deeming Russia to be an immediate “acute threat” amid its ongoing war with Ukraine and continual threats to launch a nuclear strike.
“We chose the word ‘acute,’ carefully,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters at the Pentagon. “Unlike China, Russia can’t systemically challenge the United States over the long-term, but Russian aggression does pose an immediate and sharp threat to our interests and values.” In recent weeks, Russian missile strikes on civilian targets in Ukraine and unfounded claims of a pending “dirty bomb” detonation have sparked fears the world is inching ever closer to the brink of nuclear war. The Administration has deep concerns about the conflict escalating, Austin said, but remains committed to continuing to support Ukraine with weapons and the means to defend itself.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly discussed the possible use of nuclear weapons in the eight-month-old war and this week observed nuclear drills, called Grom or “Lighting” exercises, involving Russian submarines, bombers and ballistic missile launches inside Russia. Austin shot-down speculation that the war games were subterfuge for a real nuclear attack, saying U.S. intelligence had not observed any indication that such preparations were taking place. He added that senior Russian officials had privately said there are no plans to use a nuclear device in Ukraine, but the U.S. remained cautious.
“It would be the first time that a nuclear weapon has been used in over 70 years, so that certainly has a potential of changing things in the international community,” Austin said. “We’re going to continue to communicate that any type of use of a weapon of that sort, or even the talk of the use of a weapon of that sort, is dangerous and irresponsible.”
China, meanwhile, is depicted in the strategy document as the “most consequential strategic competitor for the coming decades.” The U.S. says Beijing is actively seeking to weaken U.S. alliances with Asian partners, building up its military and nuclear forces and threatening invasion of the U.S.-allied island of Taiwan. China “is the only competitor out there with both the intent to reshape the international order, and increasingly the power to do so,” Austin said.
The Administration has determined that Beijing is planning a threefold increase in nuclear warheads to 1,000 by 2030, while simultaneously constructing hundreds of new silos capable of launching long-range ballistic missiles, potentially targeting the U.S. and its far-flung nuclear forces. While the U.S. has more than 10 to 1 advantage over China in the number of nuclear warheads and the weapons to deliver them, the Pentagon sees a need to prepare for the decades ahead. The Chinese nuclear build-up is an unprecedented challenge for the military, which since the end of World War II has only had to focus on deterring one near-peer adversary—formerly the Soviet Union, now Russia—from launching a nuclear attack.
“I do not want to suggest that this is a solved or closed problem and that we now have the answers,” a senior defense official, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter, told reporters. “This is new territory for us… How do you successfully fight one adversary, while having enough reserve to hold the other bay? And just the second part of that cannot be a solution where if China has 1,000 (nuclear warheads) and Russia has 1,000, that we need 2,000, because that is an arms race that nobody should want to be in.”
The strategy laid out by Austin largely breaks from President Joe Biden’s campaign pledge to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy. There are a few nods in the direction of disarmament, including directives to stop developing a nuclear-armed sea launched cruise missiles, retire the largest gravity bomb, the B83, in the U.S. arsenal, and eliminate large stockpiles of nuclear weapons that have traditionally been kept as a “hedge against an uncertain future.” But there is no drastic change that non-proliferation experts were hoping for.
“It largely continues the nuclear deterrence strategy and posture, including capability added in the Trump Administration. It is unclear how it reduces the role of nuclear weapons as the President directed,” says Leonor Tomero, who served as Biden’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for nuclear and missile defense before leaving in October 2021. “There is an urgent need to reduce the risk of nuclear war, especially at a time when nuclear tensions are higher than they have been for years.”
The risks of miscalculation and of unintended rapid escalation could lead to nuclear weapons use, Tomero says. “These new threats require clear solutions and practical steps to adapt and strengthen deterrence to reduce these risks,” she says.
Right now, the U.S. and Russia are limited on the number of strategic warheads and delivery systems until February 2026 under a bilateral treaty known as New START. China, however, is not part of that agreement and has shown no signs of wanting to rein in their nuclear weapons programs, which raises questions about whether continued nuclear arms reductions by other countries will be possible.
“There are repeated references to adjusting U.S. posture in the future, which tees-up a future Administration to increase the size of the arsenal or resume nuclear testing,” says Jeffrey Lewis, an analyst with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of Strategic Studies.
The advancement of non-nuclear weapons systems, such as hypersonic missiles, as well as space-based and cyber capabilities are also concerning to the administration. The strategy calls for “building enduring advantages,” involving investments in the Defense Department’s workforce, improvements in weapons-buying processes and preparing for climate change. Other challenges discussed in the document emanate from Iran and North Korea, and “violent extremist organizations,” which is military jargon for terrorist groups.
The Biden team’s focus on Moscow and Beijing is consonant with the U.S. national security complex’s desire to pivot from the morass of violence and counter-terrorism operations in the Middle East and engage in Great Power competition. Each Administration is mandated by Congress to issue a new national defense strategy every four years, and two versions are drawn up: one secret, one public. The document released Oct. 27 marked the first time the strategy also included the so-called Nuclear Posture Review and Missile Defense Review, which shape funding allocations for the coming years. “By weaving these documents together,” Austin said, “we help ensure that the entire department is moving forward together and matching our resources to our goals.”

Zelenskiy, standing in the dark, says 'shelling will not break us'
Reuters/October 27, 2022
- President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Thursday stood outside in the dark beside the wreckage of a downed drone and vowed that widespread Russian attacks on power plants would not break Ukrainian spirits. Abandoning his usual indoor setting, Zelenskiy said in his daily video address that Kyiv had shot down 23 drones in the last two days. Russia has aimed dozens of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles at Ukraine's electricity generating network in the last two weeks, causing major damage and triggering blackouts."Shelling will not break us - to hear the enemy's anthem on our land is scarier than the enemy's rockets in our sky. We are not afraid of the dark," he said. Kyiv and four regions may have to cut electricity supplies for longer than planned after Russian strikes, a senior official said earlier on Thursday. Zelenskiy said that Russia had so far launched more than 8,000 air strikes and fired 4,500 missiles.

How Russia's Iranian arms deals in Ukraine are scrambling alliances in the Middle East
Peter Weber/The Week/October 27, 2022
Russia, running low on munitions, has started buying "kamikaze" drones and, according to the U.S. and Britain, various forms of missiles from Iran. Tehran is even sending military advisers to help Russia's military utilize the drones against Ukraine's cities and power and water infrastructure, the U.S. claims. Iran officially denies that it is arming Russia, but Russian, Iranian, Ukrainian, and Western officials say the sales are very real — and the drones being used in Ukraine match Iranian Shahed-136sUAVs.
Russia may get what it needs from Iran, which has created its own sanctions-resistant weapons industry amid years of international embargoes, to prolong its Ukraine war as Ukrainian forces claw back seized land. But Russia's invasion, and the introduction of Iranian arms into the conflict, has resultingly scrambled the tangled web of relationships in the Middle East. Already "Russia's dominium over its old Soviet empire shows signs of unraveling," especially in Central Asia, as Moscow gets mired down in Ukraine, The New York Times reports. Here's a look at some of the fallout from the Ukraine war in various Middle Eastern countries.
Syria: Proof of Russia's eroding regional influence
Russia has maintained a military presence in Syria since the 1970s, but Russian President Vladimir Putin poured his troops and military equipment into the country to prop up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government in 2015, turning the tide in Syria's civil war. Russia "still keeps a sizable presence" in Syria, but it "recently redeployed critical military hardware and troops from Syria," the Times reports, "underscoring how its faltering invasion of Ukraine has eroded Moscow's influence elsewhere and removing one of several obstacles to Israeli support for Ukraine."
Western diplomats and a senior Israeli defense official say Russia has pulled at least 1,200 soldiers, several Russian commanders, and an S-300 air defense system out of Syria for transfer to Ukraine, the Times reports, "while Russia's military leadership in Moscow has become less involved in day-to-day management of operations in Syria." The removal of the S-300 allows Israel, which considers Iran and Syria enemies, greater freedom to conduct airstrikes on Iran-backed, pro-Bashar militias inside Syria.
Israel: Protecting a strategic relationship with Moscow
"The ripple effects of the presumptive Iranian drone attacks have also hit Israel, a top U.S. ally with strong links to Russia," the Los Angeles Times reports. Russia and Israel communicate to avoid conflict between their militaries in Syria, and Israel wants to avoid Russia cutting off the emigration of Russian Jews to Israel, as it has effectively threatened to do. To protect its strategic relationship with Moscow, Israel has stayed mostly on the sidelines of Russia's Ukraine war, giving Ukraine some humanitarian aid but refusing its pleas for sophisticated air defense systems and other military equipment. Israel has also "refrained from enforcing strict economic sanctions on Russia and the many Russian-Jewish oligarchs who have second homes in Israel," The Associated Press adds. "But with news of Moscow's deepening ties with Tehran, Israel's sworn foe, pressure is growing on Israel to back Ukraine in the grinding war."
Russia's purchase of Iranian missiles and suicide drones touches a special nerve in Israel. "We're looking at it closely and thinking about how these can be used by the Iranians toward Israeli population centers," Israeli military spokesman Lt. Col. Richard Hecht tells AP. Some lawmakers in Tel Aviv are now advocating for arming Ukraine, but Israel's government has so far declined to take that step."An enemy of both Iran and Syria, Israel regularly strikes targets in Syria to prevent Tehran from cementing a foothold close to Israel's northeastern border," and the Russian S-300 guarding Syria "was a major reason Israel has rebuffed Ukrainian requests for military hardware since the Russian invasion began in February," the Times reports. That calculus appears to be changing.
Saudi Arabia: Teaming up with Putin?
Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf neighbors also consider Iran a primal threat, and Iranian missiles and drones have hit Saudi and UAE targets from Iranian-backed militias in Yemen. But Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the effective ruler of the kingdom, seems to be sidling closer to Russia, at least from the perspective of the Biden administration, which is furious that the Saudis teamed up with Russia to cut oil production and raise fuel prices ahead of winter cold and Western elections. "Saudi Arabia and Iran don't agree on much, but both are siding with Russia in its war on Ukraine," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) tweeted, pointing to Saudi Arabia's "short-sighted" OPEC+ production cut. "Saudi Arabia is helping Russia fund the development and purchase of Iranian weaponized drones that will eventually be turned on Saudi Arabia and require American military aid to defend against. Russia/Saudi Arabia/Iran v. America/Saudi Arabia. Insane."The eight-decade-long Saudi-U.S. relationship is also strained, partly because President Biden and bin Salman clearly do not like each other, The Wall Street Journal reports. But the traditional oil-for-military aid formula has also changed since the 1940s. "The Saudis once sold the U.S. over 2 million barrels of oil every day, but that's fallen to less than 500,000 barrels a day," the Journal notes. "The U.S. grew to become the world's biggest oil producer, and China is now the biggest buyer of Saudi oil, followed by India."
The Saudis protest that they are providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine and merely following their own economic interests by raising oil prices. "These decisions are protecting Saudi Arabia's own commercial interests and make tremendous sense from Saudi Arabia's own economic perspective," Sadad Ibrahim Al Husseini, a former Saudi Aramco executive, tells The New York Times. Bruce Riedel, a former CIA Middle East analyst, agrees. "The Russians and Saudis have a similar interest in driving up the price of oil, and the Ukraine war has only reinforced that," he said.
Turkey: In the middle of a 'balancing act'
Turkey is "another Middle East power facing a balancing act" with Iran's sales of attack drones to Russia, the Los Angeles Times reports. Ukraine has purchased Turkish missile-capable Bayraktar TB2 drones and is using them to "hunt Russian troops" to great effect. "At the same time, Russia is a vital economic trading partner: It provides almost half of Turkey's natural gas and almost three-quarters of its wheat," and "some 4.7 million Russian travelers visit Turkey every year," the Times notes. "Turkey is the one traditional American ally in the region that has helped Ukraine, both through selling highly effective drones and by working with the U.N. to mediate an agreement allowing Ukrainian grain to reach Middle Eastern and African customers," the Atlantic Council's Mark Katz writes at the New Atlanticist. "But Ankara is also not abiding by Western economic sanctions" and "has been able to take advantage of each side in the war.""The Biden administration would much prefer that its traditional allies in the Middle East were more supportive of Ukraine and critical toward Russia rather than stay neutral or balance between the two sides," Katz concludes. "But this is better than those allies coming out in support of Russia the way that Iran has — and this may be the best that Washington can expect."
Iran: Sending a warning to its foes
"Drone sales have also prompted geopolitical recalculations" for Iran, which until September "had a relatively amicable relationship with Ukraine," the Los Angels Times reports. After Ukraine started shooting down Shahed-136s aimed at its cities and infrastructure, "officials in Kyiv downgraded relations with Tehran, stripping the Iranian ambassador of his accreditation and reducing diplomatic personnel at the embassy," and a full severing of diplomatic ties is on the table. And it's not clear what kind of math Iran is using to burn that bridge, and the possibility of eliminating sanctions with a renewed nuclear deal, the Times reports. "Before the drone sales, trade between the two countries was $4 billion, hardly worth the financial hit from more sanctions." Recent polling also indicates a majority of Iranians view Russia's invasion of Ukraine as illegitimate and don't see the point of being so close to Russia, Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute, tells AI-Monitor.Iran is likely signaling "to both the West and Russia that it's a power to be reckoned with," said Ellie Geranmayeh, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. By letting Russia battle-test its advanced weaponry in Ukraine, Tehran is showing Israel, the Saudis, and other foes that if they move forward with their burgeoning security partnership "aimed at countering and weakening Iran, we've got some news for you. We are capable of causing great damage."

Putin jabs at West over Ukraine war, says operation going to plan
Reuters/October 27, 2022
Russian President Vladimir Putin is showing no regrets for the war against neighbour Ukraine, insisting it is going to plan and playing down any nuclear standoff with the West. Putin, in remarks at a conference in Moscow on Thursday, had a familiar litany of grievances against "our Western opponents" and said the West's dominance over world affairs was coming to an end. Putin accused the West of inciting the war in Ukraine and of playing a "dangerous, bloody and dirty" game that was sowing chaos across the world. Ultimately, Putin said, the West would have to talk to Russia and other major powers about the future of the world. "We are standing at a historical frontier: Ahead is probably the most dangerous, unpredictable and, at the same time, important decade since the end of World War Two," the 70-year-old former KGB spy said at an annual foreign policy conference.
The conflict, which began eight months ago with an invasion by Russian forces of neighbouring Ukraine, has killed thousands, displaced millions, shaken the global economy and reopened Cold War-era divisions. Meanwhile, Russian attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure were forcing electricity cuts in the capital Kyiv and other places, officials said. The missile and drone attacks would not break Ukrainian spirits, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said in a Thursday night video address as he stood outside in the dark next to the wreckage of a downed drone. "Shelling will not break us - to hear the enemy's anthem on our land is scarier than the enemy's rockets in our sky. We are not afraid of the dark," he said.
NO MENTION OF SETBACKS
Asked at the conference whether there had been any disappointments in the past year, Putin answered simply: "No", though he also said he always thinks about the Russian lives lost in Ukraine. In response to a question, Putin made no mention of Russia's battlefield setbacks of recent months. Asked whether the operation was going according to plan, Putin replied that Russian aims had not changed. Russia was fighting to protect the people of the Donbas, he said, referring to an eastern industrial region that comprises two of the four Ukrainian provinces he proclaimed annexed last month. Economic sanctions had already had their worst impact and would ultimately make Russia stronger by making its industry more independent, he said. Fighting has been going on in eastern Ukraine since 2014 between the Ukrainian military and Russian-backed separatists. Liberal Western leaders had undermined "traditional values" around the world, foisting a culture with "dozens of genders, gay parades" on other countries, Putin said. Putin's remarks were not very new and did not indicate a change in his strategic goals, including in Ukraine, the White House said. "At various levels we maintain open channels of communication with the Russians, and we will continue to use them," White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said of Putin calling for strategic dialogue.
A Ukrainian presidential adviser dismissed Putin's speech as "for Freud".
NUCLEAR 'BLACKMAIL'
In his speech, Putin played down a nuclear standoff with the West, insisting Russia had not threatened to use nuclear weapons and had only responded to nuclear "blackmail" from Western leaders. He and other Russian officials have repeatedly said in recent weeks that Russia could use nuclear weapons to protect its territorial integrity, remarks interpreted in the West as implicit threats to use them to defend parts of Ukraine that Russia claims to have annexed. Scores of countries have condemned the annexations as illegal. He also repeated Russia's latest allegation - that Ukraine was planning to use a so-called "dirty bomb" to spread nuclear material, which the United States, Britain and France have called "transparently false". Putin said the Ukrainians would carry out such an attack to blame Russia. A suggestion by Kyiv that the Russian charge might mean Moscow plans to detonate a "dirty bomb" itself was false, he said. "We don't need to do that. There would be no sense whatsoever in doing that," Putin said.
KHERSON SHELLING
Fighting on the ground appears to have slowed in recent days, with Ukrainian officials saying tough terrain and bad weather had held up their main advance in southern Kherson province. On Thursday a close ally of Putin, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, said 23 of his soldiers had been killed and 58 others wounded in a Ukrainian artillery attack this week in Kherson region. After the attack, Chechen forces carried out a revenge attack and killed about 70 Ukrainians, he said. Reuters was not immediately able to verify his account. Russian forces shelled Ukrainian positions along the entire length of the line of contact and built fortifications, particularly on the east bank of the Dnipro River, the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces said in a Facebook post on Thursday evening. Russian forces targeted more than 15 localities along the front line, the post said. Russian forces were enduring shortages of material and equipment, including warm winter clothing, and this had prompted a rise in theft and looting in Russian-occupied areas, it said. Russian forces persisted in attempts to advance on the two theatres of heaviest fighting in eastern Donetsk region - Bakhmut and Avdiivka, the Ukrainian military said.
Reuters was not able to verify battlefield reports.

Ukraine war: what, if any, are the chances of toppling Putin and who might take over?
Nicholas James/The Conversation/October 27, 2022
Speculation regarding how secure Vladimir Putin’s position is surfaces every few years, but has intensified since the invasion of Ukraine, particularly in light of Russia’s military failures in recent months. Many of these speculative debates discuss either who will take the leadership position or what sort of regime – and led by who – will replace Putin at the top.
There’s a great deal of uncertainty about what a post-Putin Russia might look like. Projections range from violent destruction of the Russian state to the reestablishment of democratic norms and a system of substantive checks and balances – presumably under the “liberal” elite and technocracy.
There is a consensus among most of the Russian elite, including liberals (although it seems to be waning in recent times): there is no such thing as a truly post-Putin Russia. Putinism is so embedded in the country’s political, social and economic institutions and relationships that it’s almost impossible to imagine.
A realistic prognosis of a post-Putin Russia and succession plan must take this into account. Putin most likely does not have a clear succession plan in place, other than the prescribed procedure which hands the presidency to the prime minister, Mikhail Mishustin, and calls for elections in the event of a premature departure of the current president. In other words, a voluntary change of leadership is unlikely to take place. Even if there were plans in place before the war, these are now likely to have changed with circumstance.
If there is a succession plan at all, it would be enacted after the war and post-conflict settlement. This implies that the regime will try to prolong the conflict for as long as politically and economically possible given the uncertainties and widespread problems that Russian military failures have introduced into the system. So any speculation on leadership or regime change must take this into account. Several scenarios are possible regarding the outcome of the war.
Scenario 1: military stalemate
In the fairly likely event of a stalemate and a return to frozen conflict in the east of Ukraine, the Kremlin would probably spin this as a Russian victory – even if there was a return to the pre-February lines, something which would be seen elsewhere as a failure. The state apparatus would blame the influx of western support as the major contributing factor, leaving room for regime elites to squabble among themselves. Regime loyalists would likely blame Russian losses on silent liberals and more vocal hawks. The former didn’t readily support Russian military actions, and the latter’s incompetence led to massive failures during the Ukrainian counteroffensive. This would be likely to result in increased pressure on the regime from both liberals and technocrats as well as the military and security elite (the siloviki). The state would have to mollify the disaffected elites or silence them. This system would result in increased elite autonomy and factionalism leading to prolonged infighting – and the siloviki would reap most of the benefits. We’re seeing this beginning to play out. For instance, two of Putin’s biggest supporters of the war – Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov and the leader of the mercenary Wagner Group, Yevgeniy Prigozhin – have come out in open attacks against the defence minister, Sergei Shoigu. It’s less clear if Putin can maintain his status as an arbiter between elites in both the military and business spheres. But a stalemate in Ukraine would also result in the continuation of the status quo of the type of electoral authoritarianism that has developed since 2012 when the regime tightened its grip on the electoral process and further rigged the playing field in its favour.Putin would not seek a successor in the medium term and would continue to exert control over politics via his tried and tested electoral authoritarianism. But Putin’s power would be likely to decrease in the long term, leading to an unregulated succession with no obvious candidate to replace him. The siloviki would probably use the state apparatus to install an agreeable leader.
Scenario 2: A Russian victory
In this unlikely instance, which I envisage as decisive battlefield advances and control over annexed territory, competent managers in the technocracy and siloviki are given preferential treatment while liberals are largely excluded. As in the previous scenario, no immediate succession plan is on the cards for the foreseeable future. The regime fully consolidates into a hegemonic authoritarian regime under Putin.A transition of power in this scenario would take place in the future and with similar conditions to the recent transitions in Central Asia such as the replacement of Nursultan Nazarbayev with his favoured candidate, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev in Kazakhstan. But Tokayev’s recent unrest and subsequent purges of Nazarbayev-era officials are still fresh in the memory of Putin’s regime. They have probably learned from the Nazarbayev’s missteps in those regards.
Both technocrats and siloviki have a strong footing in this potential regime. But a moderate, noncontroversial and controllable candidacy from the technocracy is preferable if Putin simply steps back but not out of power (for example, maintaining control over the budget, security and intelligence). Succession will be well regulated.
The power in this state would continue to flow through Putin rather than the executive. But a powerful siloviki faction would almost certainly try to “tighten the screws” and solidify the hegemonic regime after a transition.
Scenario 3: A Ukrainian victory. This plausible scenario comes with the most uncertainty out of the three. The growing autonomy of the elite during the war will create the conditions for extreme factionalism: Siloviki v liberals and technocrats. Putin’s decisions will largely be irrelevant and an unregulated and sudden succession seems plausible for the short to medium term. This may take shape if Putin is forcibly removed or voluntarily removes himself from office.
Factional elites will compete for power, but it remains unclear how the process of selecting a new executive will unfold. The siloviki will have the impetus and capacity to seize higher positions but would come into conflict with the technocracy and liberals. In the case of a weakened pro-war bloc, the siloviki will face staunch opposition.In the event of a leadership election – considering social discontent, and economic and political disruption – the silent liberals and technocrats would secure the necessary votes. Still, they would face opposition from the factional forces mentioned above. Russia would probably fall into a mishmash of Yeltsin-era instability and technocratic authoritarianism, where non-democratic technical interventions are required to maintain the new status quo.
*Nicholas James does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Iranian Authorities Crackdown on Protests Marking 40 Days of Mourning for Amini
London, Tehran - Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 27 October, 2022
Marking 40 days since the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish woman who died in Tehran on Sept. 16 after being detained by Iran’s morality police, Iranians took to the streets nationwide in defiance of strict security measures by authorities. Fierce rallies returned with force to major Iranian cities such as Isfahan, Shiraz, Mashhad, and Tabriz. Demonstrations were also organized in Qazvin, Zanjan, Babylon, Rasht, Kerman, Arak, Urmia, and Karaj. Security forces used tear gas, live ammunition, and batons to disperse protesters in several areas in central Tehran. Protesters raised slogans mostly targeting Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. On Wednesday, thousands of people participated in a memorial for Amini in Saqez, her hometown in Kurdistan Province. “Security forces have shot tear gas and opened fire on people in Zindan square, Saqez city,” reported Hengaw, a Norway-based group that monitors rights violations in Kurdistan. Many chanted “woman, life, freedom” and “freedom, freedom”, slogans that have been widely used in the demonstrations across Iran. Protesters also chanted “Kurdistan will be the graveyard of fascists” in the cemetery where Amini is buried. “A limited number of those present at Amini’s memorial clashed with police forces on the outskirts of Saqez and were dispersed,” semi-official Iranian state news agency ISNA said. ISNA also said the internet had been cut in Saqez for “security reasons,” and that nearly 10,000 people had gathered in the city. A witness in Saqez told Reuters that the cemetery where Amini is buried was crowded with Basij forces and police. Crowds of people have made a pilgrimage to Amini's grave despite pressure from the authorities. The state news agency IRNA issued a statement saying that the family had not planned to hold a ceremony to commemorate the 40th day of Amini’s death “to avoid any unfortunate problems.” Activists told AFP that Iranian security services warned Amini’s family not to hold any events on the day, otherwise “they should worry about their son's life

Biden Emphasizes Pledge to Ensure Iran Will Never Acquire a Nuclear Weapon
Washington - Heba El Koudsy/ Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 27 October, 2022
US President Joe Biden and Israeli President Isaac Herzog held talks on Wednesday focused on the threats posed by Iran’s proxies and the US-Israel partnership. The White House said in a statement that they celebrated the forthcoming conclusion of an agreement resolving the maritime boundary dispute between Israel and Lebanon, mediated by the United States. The US president noted that the agreement will set the stage for a more stable and prosperous region. During the one-hour meeting at the Oval Office, Biden emphasized his Administration’s pledge to ensure Iran will never acquire a nuclear weapon. He underscored his commitment to advance peace and stability in the Middle East, and highlighted US support for Israel’s further regional integration into the Arab world. Biden emphasized the importance of taking steps to deescalate the security situation in the West Bank and underscored that a negotiated two-state solution remains the best avenue to achieve a lasting peace. As for Herzog, he said that Israel has elections “and you’re having midterm elections in the United States. But one thing is clear — and I think this visit epitomizes it best — is that our friendship and strong bond transcends all political differences and opinions and parties.”

Police chief in Iran's restive Zahedan city dismissed -state news agency
DUBAI (Reuters)/October 27, 2022
Authorities in the Iranian city of Zahedan have sacked the police chief and the head of a police station near where dozens of people were killed four weeks ago during protests which have swept the country, state news agency IRNA said on Thursday.
The deaths in Zahedan were widely criticised, including by a top Sunni cleric who said senior officials including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were responsible "before God". Amnesty International said security forces killed at least 66 people in the violent crackdown on Sept. 30.
It was the deadliest incident in the unrest which erupted after the death in custody six weeks ago of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian Kurd detained by the Islamic Republic's morality police for flouting restrictions on women's dress.
Zahedan, close to Iran's southeastern border with Pakistan and Afghanistan, is home to a Baluch minority estimated to number up to 2 million people which has faced discrimination and repression for decades, according to human rights groups. The Sistan-Baluchistan region around Zahedan is one of the country's poorest and for years has been a hotbed of militancy, where Iranian security forces have been attacked by Baluch militants. The provincial security council said in a statement carried by state media that armed dissidents had provoked last month's clashes, leading to the deaths of innocent people, but admitted "shortcomings" by police which it said led to the dismissals. The statement said the families of the victims would be compensated and a legal investigation had been opened that may lead to further measures against those who provoked the violence, rioters and any officials suspected of wrongdoing.

Egypt, IMF reach preliminary agreement for $3 billion loan
Associated Press/October, 27/2022
The International Monetary Fund reached a preliminary agreement with the Egyptian government on Thursday, paving the way for the economically troubled Arab nation to access a $3 billion loan, officials said Thursday. IMF officials said a "staff agreement" between the Egyptian government and IMF leaders had been reached following months of talks, as Egypt struggles to combat surging inflation caused, in part, by the war in Ukraine. In a statement issued Thursday, Egypt's IMF Mission chief, Ivanna Vladkova Hollar, said the 46-month deal - known as an Extended Fund Facility Arrangement - allows Egypt access to the $ 3 billion loan on the condition it implements a series of economic reforms. In the hours before the announcement, Egypt's central bank announced a series of economic measures including the hike of key interest rates by 2% and switch to a more flexible exchange rate system. "The Central Bank of Egypt's move to a flexible exchange rate regime is a significant and welcome step to unwind external imbalances, boost Egypt's competitiveness, and attract foreign direct investment,'' said Holler. The Egyptian economy has been hard-hit by the coronavirus pandemic and the war in Ukraine, events that have disrupted global markets and hiked oil and food prices worldwide. Egypt is the world's largest wheat importer, most of which came from Russia and Ukraine. The country's supply is subject to price changes on the international market. According to Holler, some of the agreement's main goals are to reduce Egypt's overall debt and bring about broad reforms to its fiscal policy. In a statement issued Thursday morning, Egypt's central bank said it had raised the new lending rate to 14.25% and the deposit rate to 13.25%. The discount rate was also raised to 13.75%, it said. By changing to a more "durably flexible exchange rate," the bank said it would allow the international markets to "determine the value of the Egyptian pound against other foreign currencies."Egypt's monetary reforms and the IMF loan are designed to help offset rising inflation, which passed 15% in September, and lighten the financial pressure on lower- and middle-income households. Following the bank's announcement, the Egyptian pound dropped in value against the U.S. dollar from around 19.75 pounds to a dollar to at least 22.50 pounds to a dollar, according to data provided by the National Bank of Egypt. In it's statement, Egypt's central bank said it was "intent on intensifying its reform agenda to secure macroeconomic stability and achieve strong, sustainable and inclusive growth." As part of its reforms, the bank also said it would begin removing a system for importers, a red tape process introduced in February to control the demand on the currency for imports. Late Wednesday, Egyptian Prime Minister Mustafa Madbouly also announced a 15% increase in the minimum monthly wage, from 2,700 pounds ($137) to 3,000 pounds ($152). Prime Minister Mustafa Madbouly's announcement marks the fourth hike in the minimum wage since President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi took office in 2014. About a third of Egypt's 104 million people live in poverty, according to government figures.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on October 27-28.2022
Iran Calls the Shots and Assad is with a Treacherous Organizations
Saleh Al Qallab/Asharq Al-Awsat/October, 27/2022
With the exception of Fatah, all of the Palestinian factions and organizations are manifestations of interference on the part of Arab regimes, some would say non-Arab as well, in Palestinian affairs. Despite pretenses to the contrary, Hamas, in its entirety, is unfortunately actually a card in regional players’ hands. Some have gone as far as adding international players as well, and the fact is that this is true.
As is well known, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, like his father Hafez, does not see the Palestinian factions, perhaps with the exception of Fatah, as Palestinian resistance groups. Instead, they are seen as entities and factions with nothing to do, this resistance had been established to allow some Arab regimes to intervene in the affairs of the Palestinian people… in every nook and cranny of their lives!! Here, as the reader should also know, Bashar al-Assad, like his father Hafez, sees the Palestinian factions, perhaps with the exception of Fatah, as little more than pawns that could be used to intervene in Palestinian affairs. This is in fact obviously true and well-known. It is also clear that Arab regimes, especially those that insist that they are Marxist-Leninist, exert influence on the Palestinian Liberation Organizations mostly through factions that represent their interests.
Thus, the Syrian president, to give one of many examples, saw and continues to see Hamas as an organization that had let Syria down, indeed betrayed Syria. Nevertheless, he was obliged to engage with Hamas and accept it because of Iranian pressure from the Velayat-e Faqih. In fact, it is known that Tehran has come to see itself as responsible for most, if not all, Arab organizations, first and foremost the Palestinian ones.
The Syrian president certainly needs to “use” Hamas despite his conviction that it had let him down. He has to do so because of pressure from Iran… as it has become everything in these matters, which are extremely important. It has attained this status because the Arab world is not in the same state that it had been in. Everything has changed. To give one example, the decision of Hamas, which the Assad regime had considered “treacherous,” “hostile” and regressive, to return to Syria, was an Iranian decision. The Velayat-e Faqih took the decision against the Syrian president’s wishes, and it continues to do so. This will continue to be the case so long as Iran sees itself as the strongest country in the entire Middle East.
Iran’s interests now come before all else, and Iran is the go-to for everything… We thus saw Hamas return to Syria despite the wishes and desires of Bashar al-Assad. The matter was out of his hands; it was an Iranian decision… Iran calls all the shots. The high-nosed Syrian president merely listens and obeys… History is not linear, and the world is constantly changing…Like his father, Bashar wanted to stay out of trouble… However, the matter is out of his hands. Velayat-e Faqih makes the decisions, and Iran is now mending ties among some countries in the region. Damascus, the former Umayyad capital, must therefore welcome and support whatever course Velayat-e Faqih decides to take. For this reason, Bashar al-Assad had to accept Hamas, which Damascus still calls a terrorist group because the regime sees Hamas as an armed wing of the Muslim Brotherhood… because the decision at this stage is made by Iran. It is the Supreme Leader who in fact calls the shots in Tehran, and his decisions cannot be challenged in any way. Of course, Türkiye has come to play a principal role in several issues in the region. Hamas was thus banned from conducting any military operations on Turkish territory and other places. Hamas would be better off going back to being a Muslim Brotherhood faction that has nothing to do with the Palestinian resistance. The fact is that this region is not what it had been, and its forces are not the same forces that had been around before. The political and economic situation has changed, the parties are not what they had been, and these generations are totally different from those that preceded them. Even in Europe, today’s societies have no links to previous societies. The story of The Ghoul, The Pegasus, and The Faithful Friend is now irrelevant. It no longer exists, and there is thus no longer a ghoul, a pegasus or a faithful friend… The coming generations know nothing of such matters, and they do not identify with this language and all these issues. Meanwhile, their elders find themselves estranged from the new realities… from these societies and their values.
For this reason, youths returning to their ancestors’ villages now find themselves estranged from their villages and societies. They don’t understand what their grandparents are talking about. Some of them think monsters and wolves are out to get them when they hear goats bleating- better run from these caves and the lines of poetry that their forefathers had stood on… When they hear that “Rushouf” is for dinner, they “burst out” laughing… falling on their chairs!!

The Three Blunders of Joe Biden
Ross Douthat/The New York Times/October, 27/2022
If the Democrats end up losing both the House and the Senate, an outcome that looks more likely than it did a month ago, there will be nothing particularly shocking about the result. The incumbent president’s party almost always suffers losses in the midterms, the Democrats entered 2022 with thin majorities and a not-that-favorable Senate map, and the Western world is dealing with a war-driven energy crunch that’s generally rough on incumbent parties, both liberal and conservative. (Just ask poor Liz Truss.)
But as an exculpating narrative for the Biden administration, this goes only so far. Some races will inevitably be settled on the margins, control of the Senate may be as well, and on the margins there’s always something a president could have done differently to yield a better political result.
President Biden’s case is no exception: The burdens of the midterms have been heavier for Democrats than they needed to be because of three notable failures, three specific courses that his White House set.
The first fateful course began, as Matthew Continetti noted recently in The Washington Free Beacon, in the initial days of the administration, when Biden made critical decisions on energy and immigration that his party’s activists demanded: for environmentalists, a moratorium on new oil-and-gas leases on public lands and, for immigration advocates, a partial rollback of key Trump administration border policies.
What followed, in both arenas, was a crisis: first a surge of migration to the southern border, then the surge in gas prices driven by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. There is endless debate about how much the initial Biden policy shifts contributed to the twin crises; a reasonable bet is that his immigration moves did help inspire the migration surge, while his oil-lease policy will affect the price of gas in 2024 but didn’t change much in the current crunch. But crucially, both policy shifts framed these crises, however unintentionally, as things the Biden administration sought — more illegal immigration and higher gas prices, just what liberals always want! And then instead of a dramatic attempt at reframing, prioritizing domestic energy and border enforcement, the Biden White House fiddled with optics and looked for temporary fixes: handing Kamala Harris the border portfolio, turning the dials on the strategic petroleum reserve and generally confirming the public’s existing bias that if you want a party to take immigration enforcement and oil production seriously, you should vote Republican. The second key failure also belongs to the administration’s early days. In February 2021, when congressional Democrats were preparing a $1.9 trillion stimulus, a group of Republican senators counteroffered with a roughly $600 billion proposal. Flush with overconfidence, the White House spurned the offer and pushed three times as much money into the economy on a party-line vote.
What followed was what a few dissenting center-left economists, led by Larry Summers, had predicted: the worst acceleration of inflation in decades, almost certainly exacerbated by the sheer scale of the relief bill. Whereas had Biden taken the Republicans up on their proposal or even simply counteroffered and begun negotiations, he could have started his administration off on the bipartisan footing his campaign had promised while‌ hedging against the inflationary dangers that ultimately arrived. The third failure is likewise a failure to hedge and triangulate, but this time on culture rather than economic policy. Part of Biden’s appeal as a candidate was his longstanding record as a social moderate — an old-school, center-left Catholic rather than a zealous progressive.
His presidency has offered multiple opportunities to actually inhabit the moderate persona. On transgender issues, for instance, the increasing qualms of European countries about puberty blockers offered potential cover for Biden to call for greater caution around the use of medical interventions for gender-dysphoric teenagers. Instead, his White House has chosen to effectively deny that any real debate exists, positioning the administration to the left of Sweden.
Then there is the Dobbs decision, whose unpopularity turned abortion into a likely political winner for Democrats — provided, that is, that they could cast themselves as moderates and Republicans as zealots.
Biden could have led that effort, presenting positions he himself held in the past — support for Roe v. Wade but also for late-term restrictions and the Hyde Amendment — as the natural national consensus, against the pro-life absolutism of first-trimester bans. Instead, he’s receded and left Democratic candidates carrying the activist line that absolutely no restrictions are permissible, an unpopular position perfectly designed to squander the party’s post-Roe advantage. The question in the last case, and to some extent with all these issues, is whether a more moderate or triangulating Biden could have held his coalition together. But this question too often becomes an excuse for taking polarization and 50-50 politics for granted. A strong president, by definition, should be able to pull his party toward the center when politics demands it. So if Biden feels he can’t do that, it suggests that he’s internalized his own weakness and accepted in advance what probably awaits the Democrats next month: defeat. In addition to my two weekly columns, I’m starting a newsletter, which will go out most Fridays and cover some of my usual obsessions — political ideas, religion, pop culture, decadence — in even more detail. You can subscribe here.

Rishi Sunak Won’t Save Britain
Kimi Chaddah/The New York Times/October, 27/2022
In March, Rishi Sunak was photographed filling up a car at a supermarket gas station. The purpose, of course, was self-promotion: Mr. Sunak was keen to advertise his role, as finance minister, in cutting the price of fuel. But the puff misfired.
The car, a modest red Kia Rio, wasn’t his (it belonged to a supermarket employee). Inside the garage, Mr. Sunak further embarrassed himself by showing he had no idea how to make a contactless payment. As a dramatization of Mr. Sunak’s detachment from ordinary life, it couldn’t be bettered.
That detachment will now be put to the test. After securing the backing of his party, Mr. Sunak is set to be Britain’s prime minister. On the surface, he has a lot going for him: Liz Truss’s disastrous 44-day premiership proved his warnings about economic “fairy tales” to be remarkably prescient; he commands the support of a majority of the faction-ridden Conservative parliamentary party; and his ascent — on the back of his grasp of economics — has calmed the financial markets.
Yet for all Mr. Sunak’s appearance of calm and competence, he remains deeply out of touch with the country he will soon run. That country, economically stagnant, regionally unbalanced, socially strafed, is in dire need of compassionate leadership. In Mr. Sunak, by conviction a devotee of small-state Thatcherism and with no visible concern for the lives of the majority, Britain is unlikely to get it.
Supporters of Mr. Sunak point to the success of the furlough policy in March 2020, in which the government covered up to 80 percent of employees’ wages during the pandemic. Yet his eagerness to end the policy — and its glaring holes, such as the exclusion of three million self-employed workers — undercut the apparent generosity.
Within two months, Mr. Sunak outlined plans for its gradual withdrawal and, later in the year, delayed extending the policy to the point that many workers had already lost their jobs. He was keen to ax a small pandemic-cushioning increase in the country’s welfare payment, amounting to the largest overnight cut to the welfare state in British history, and chafed throughout at the scale of state support. In private, he complained that there was no “magic money tree.”
He approached the cost-of-living crisis with the same miserly air. In March, Mr. Sunak promised to provide billions of pounds of financial support to families throughout the crisis and bring benefits in line with inflation. But these measures, seemingly substantial, were in practice piecemeal.
Mr. Sunak was widely criticized — including within his own party — for not doing enough to protect the country’s poorest; it was estimated that in the absence of greater support, 1.3 million people would fall into absolute poverty. His scant plans for the worse off were deemed in The Times of London to be “insufficient, inefficient and unconservative.” The criticism was a fitting capstone for his tenure, defined by a selective and shallow concern for others.
It’s a bad time for the country to be in dispassionate hands. Inflation stands at over 10 percent. Living standards have eroded, with Britons set to see the biggest drop in disposable income since records began. For the first time, demand for food banks is said to be outstripping supply. Energy blackouts could be coming in January. In April, after a further increase in bills, the number of people in fuel poverty could reach 10.7 million. Ambulance delays are now a palpable “threat to life.” The economy is anemic, set to have the highest inflation and lowest growth rates of the Group of 7 nations next year.
These ills are results of deep, systemic problems, to be sure. But Mr. Sunak is complicit in them all. At no point did he show any meaningful interest in addressing, challenging or rectifying these issues. His attitude toward regional inequality, among the worst of any comparable developed country’s, is instructive: In office, he boasted about rigging Treasury formulas to shift resources from “deprived urban areas” into wealthier constituencies, regardless of need. His pledge to fix the economy, burdened by a 40 billion pound black hole in the public finances and facing parlous global economic conditions, rings hollow.
After 12 years in power, the Conservative Party is almost out of ideas. One that endures — to balance the books by cutting social spending, shifting the burden onto the backs of ordinary people rather than the wealthy — is something that Mr. Sunak is likely to willingly advocate. After all, he is wedded to Thatcherite notions of a small state, individualism and constrained public spending. This propensity is no secret. During the leadership election in the summer won by Ms. Truss, Mr. Sunak wrote in The Telegraph, “I am a Thatcherite, I am running as a Thatcherite, and I will govern as a Thatcherite.”
It’s impossible, of course, to know exactly what Mr. Sunak plans. (It doesn’t help that he didn’t appear in front of the media during this month’s contest until after he had won it.) But from his history as a minister and the summer’s leadership election, it’s fair to assume that in the name of fiscal rectitude, he will rein in public spending and cut social protections. Who knows whether such an approach, delivered competently and with an air of seriousness, will resurrect the Conservative Party’s electoral fortunes. But at the outset of his tenure, one thing seems guaranteed: Mr. Sunak, conservative savior, won’t save the country.

Can Sunak Save Britain?
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al-Awsat/October, 27/2022
The winds that toppled British Prime Minister Liz Truss are omens of a bigger storm that could drag the next government into a whirlwind of turmoil. With Rishi Sunak as Premier, the political landscape in Britain is bound to change.
Born to Indian immigrants who came to the United Kingdom in the sixties, Sunak will set a historic first in the country, which has rarely, if ever, seen a non-English government leader in its history. In the last century, 10 Downing Street was the seat of two Scottish premiers only, with none from Northern Ireland or Wales. For the Conservative Party to agree to appoint Sunak is a historic development, particularly in the homogeneous country that is the United Kingdom, as opposed to modern, mixed-race states such as the United States, Canada, and Australia. Despite positive signals, Sunak’s appointment will stir up havoc and division within British society. Overall, Britain is changing on all levels. The economy is in dire need of painful adjustments like the ones introduced in the late 1970s. Had then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher not fought fierce wars with political forces and labor unions, Britain would not have stood on its feet as one of the seven global economic powers. One of the main challenges are fuel costs. The Treasury and the economy are bearing the brunt of the price hike, as countries race to score their share.
In the recent past, Britain was an oil exporting country, its exports standing at the same level as Kuwait’s. Today, as its reserves near depletion, it imports all its oil. Its reserves can only suffice for five years, which is why it stopped oil production. As for gas, it fulfills half its needs from the North Sea and imports the other half.Politically, Britain was one of the first countries to halt imports from Russia, as a castigation for Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. It was also one of the first to adapt and arrange alternatives, beating Germany and other European countries in efforts to do away with Russian imports.
Another tough challenge is that despite post-Brexit Britain’s independence in managing its affairs away from the shackles of Europe’s complex legislation, Britain has lost the EU market and therefore its membership of the largest economic market.
Brexit was a popular demand and became a political decision that is costing the country losses in income, employment, and financial and investment services. Its future effects are not yet clear; the country still sells about half of its exports on the European market, but it pays high tariffs.
If it were able to compensate with alternative agreements with other major markets, Brexit might have been the best decision, but so far, all the promises to open access to international markets have not been fulfilled.
The country ranks eighth in the world in industrial exports, preceded by India and South Korea but still ahead of France and Italy.
Without colonies, without the European Union’s open market, with depleting oil, and in the face of competing countries such as South Korea and India, Britain needs a miracle to overcome the crisis and compete with other powers that enjoy the advantages of natural resources and cheap labor.
Politically, Britain is still a global heavyweight and a central component of the coalition leading the war against Russia in Ukraine. But Prime Minister Sunak’s war is an economic one, which is why Liz Truss was ousted as prime minister and Sunak received the votes of the majority of the Conservative Party in the significant and challenging social and political landscape of today.

How Americans, Europeans Embolden Palestinian Terrorism
Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/October 27/2022
Instead of assuming its responsibility for halting terrorist attacks from areas under its control, the Palestinians continue to violate the agreements they signed with Israel.
In the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Authority did not take real measures to stop Hamas from building a massive terrorism infrastructure. Hamas later used its weapons arsenal not only to attack Israel, but also to overthrow the PA regime and seize full control of the Gaza Strip.
The same scenario is now being repeated in the West Bank, specifically in areas controlled by Mahmoud Abbas's security forces.
This is the twisted logic of the Palestinian leadership: Instead of denouncing the terrorists for targeting Israelis, as they have officially and repeatedly committed to doing, they lash out at Israel for defending itself against the current wave of terrorism.
When a senior Palestinian official such as Habbash says that the terrorists are entitled to carry out "resistance" attacks, he is actually telling them to continue targeting Israelis. Such statements are not only a violation of the agreements the Palestinians signed with Israel, but also incitement to launch more terrorist attacks against Israelis.
The Palestinian leadership, in a policy is known as "pay-for-slay," already provides monthly stipends to Palestinian terrorists..... The families of the Nablus terrorists will also presumably benefit from these payments.
The Palestinian leadership's endorsement and glorification of terrorism comes as no surprise. What is surprising – and intensely disturbing – is that those foreign governments that are providing financial and political aid to the Palestinian Authority, especially the Americans and the Europeans, are not calling out Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian leadership for their public support of terrorism and their ongoing breach of the agreements they voluntarily signed with Israel.
"We will not resort to weapons, we will not resort to violence," Abbas declared in his last speech before the United Nations General Assembly, "we will not resort to terrorism, we will fight terrorism." His words were directed to the international community, not to his own people.
The silence of the Americans and Europeans toward the actions and rhetoric of the Palestinian leaders is tantamount to a green light to the Lions' Den and other terrorists to continue their terrorist attacks.
If the Biden administration and the Europeans believe that Abbas or any other Palestinian leader is going to stop a terrorist from murdering Jews, they are engaging in staggering self-deception.
The silence of the Americans and Europeans toward the actions and rhetoric of the Palestinian leaders is tantamount to a green light to the Lions' Den and other terrorists to continue their terrorist attacks. If the Biden administration and the Europeans believe that Abbas or any other Palestinian leader is going to stop a terrorist from murdering Jews, they are engaging in staggering self-deception. Pictured: Members of the Palestinian Lions' Den terrorist group at a funeral in the city of Nablus on October 23, 2022. (Photo by Jaafar Ashtiyeh/AFP via Getty Images)
The Lions' Den is a new terrorist group based in the West Bank city of Nablus, which is controlled by the Palestinian Authority (PA). The group consists of dozens of gunmen affiliated with a number of Palestinian factions, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the ruling Fatah party headed by PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
The PA, which has hundreds of security officers in Nablus, has failed to take any measures to rein in the Lions' Den terrorists, who have claimed responsibility for a series of shooting attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians in the Nablus area over the past few weeks.
Instead of assuming its responsibility for halting terrorist attacks from areas under its control, the Palestinians continue to violate the agreements they signed with Israel.
Article XV of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip states:
"Both sides shall take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime and hostilities directed against each other, against individuals falling under the other's authority and against their property, and shall take legal measures against offenders."
Article XIV states:
"Except for the Palestinian Police and the Israeli military forces, no other armed forces shall be established or operate in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Except for the arms, ammunition and equipment of the Palestinian Police, and those of the Israeli military forces, no organization, group or individual in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall manufacture, sell, acquire, possess, import or otherwise introduce into the West Bank or the Gaza Strip any firearms, ammunition, weapons, explosives, gunpowder or any related equipment."The reality on the ground, however, shows that the Palestinian Authority has failed to honor its agreements with Israel.
In the Gaza Strip, the PA did not take real measures to stop Hamas from building a massive terrorism infrastructure. Hamas later used its weapons arsenal not only to attack Israel, but also to overthrow the PA regime and seize full control of the Gaza Strip.
The same scenario is now being repeated in the West Bank, specifically in areas controlled by Mahmoud Abbas's security forces. Since the beginning of the year, a number of terrorist groups, including the Lions' Den, have emerged in these areas, under the nose of Abbas, who appears either unwilling or unable to make his security forces to go after the terrorists. This, of course, is a clear violation of the Palestinians' obligations under the terms of the agreements signed with Israel.
Instead of trying to contain the terrorists, Abbas and the PA are condemning Israel for arresting or killing them. Instead of urging the armed groups to halt their daily attempts to murder Israelis, the Palestinian leaders are continuing to glorify the gunmen as "heroes" and "martyrs."
When Israeli security forces finally caught up with and killed some members of the Lions' Den group in Nablus, Abbas's spokesperson, Nabil Abu Rudaineh, accused Israel of committing a "war crime" against the Palestinians. This is the twisted logic of the Palestinian leadership: Instead of denouncing the terrorists for targeting Israelis, as they have officially and repeatedly committed to doing, they lash out at Israel for defending itself against the current wave of terrorism.
Mahmoud Habbash, Abbas's religious affairs adviser, described killing the terrorists in Nablus as a "heinous massacre." Habbash went a step further by actively endorsing the terrorist attacks against Israel by stating that the terrorists have the right to "resist" Israel. It is worth noting that the terrorists also describe their attacks against Israelis as a form of "resistance."
When a senior Palestinian official such as Habbash says that the terrorists are entitled to carry out "resistance" attacks, he is actually telling them to continue targeting Israelis. Such statements are not only a violation of the agreements the Palestinians signed with Israel, but also an order to launch more terrorist attacks against Israelis.
One day before Israeli security forces raided a base belonging to the Lions' Den group in Nablus and killed one of its commanders, the PA Minister of Health, Mai al-Kaila, openly praised the terrorists. During a visit to Nablus, al-Kaila said: "We salute and respect the Lions' Den and the families of the martyrs."
The "martyrs" refers to the terrorists who were killed by Israeli security forces after they carried out terror attacks against Israelis. The minister's remarks make it sadly clear that the Palestinian leadership supports and glorifies any Palestinian who carried arms and chose to kill Israelis.
The Palestinian leadership, in a policy is known as "pay-for-slay," already provides monthly stipends to Palestinian terrorists imprisoned by Israel and to families of terrorists who were killed while carrying out attacks. The families of the Nablus terrorists will also presumably benefit from these payments.
Abbas's Fatah faction is also continuing to heap praise on the terrorists. Monir al-Jaghoub, a senior Fatah official in the West Bank, praised Uday Tamimi, a terrorist who shot dead a female Israeli soldier in Jerusalem in early October.
Another senior Fatah official, Abbas Zaki, also heaped praise on the Lions' Den group:
"Each one of us is a [member of] Lions' Den. Each one of us is a [member of] Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades [the armed wing of Fatah]."
The Palestinian leadership evidently has no problem with its loyalists in Fatah carrying out terrorist attacks against Israel. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which has endorsed some of the Lions' Den terrorists as its own "fighters," belongs to the faction headed by Mahmoud Abbas.
The Palestinian leadership's endorsement and glorification of terrorism comes as no surprise. What is surprising – and intensely disturbing – is that those foreign governments that are providing financial and political aid to the Palestinian Authority, especially the Americans and the Europeans, are not calling out Abbas and the Palestinian leadership for their public support of terrorism and their ongoing breach of the agreements they voluntarily signed with Israel.
"We will not resort to weapons, we will not resort to violence," Abbas declared in his last speech before the United Nations General Assembly, "we will not resort to terrorism, we will fight terrorism." His words were directed to the international community, not to his own people. Since his speech, Palestinians living in areas controlled by Abbas's security forces have carried out dozens of terrorist attacks against Israelis.
The silence of the Americans and Europeans toward the actions and rhetoric of the Palestinian leaders is tantamount to a green light to the Lions' Den and other terrorists to continue their terrorist attacks.
If the Biden administration and the Europeans believe that Abbas or any other Palestinian leader is going to stop a terrorist from murdering Jews, they are engaging in staggering self-deception.
*Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East.
© 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.

What to Expect (or Not) from the Arab League Summit
Sabina Henneberg, David Schenker/The Washington Institute./October 27/2022
Participants will probably issue potent-sounding statements on Iran, oil production, and other key issues, but their rhetoric is unlikely to result in any substantive policy shifts or internal dispute resolution.
On November 1-2, officials will converge on Algiers for the first Arab League summit since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The organization’s meetings seldom produce headlines, much less consequential results, and the next gathering is unlikely to diverge from this trend. Indeed, a headline earlier this month from Egypt’s flagship government daily al-Ahram read “Few expectations for Arab Summit.” Absent tangible deliverables, the event will likely mirror previous ones by highlighting policy divisions among Arab governments, especially if not all heads of state attend. For instance, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince (and new prime minister) Muhammad bin Salman will not be participating, reportedly on doctor’s advice.
September Ministerial Meeting
The Arab League’s most recent gathering was a ministerial conference convened in September at the organization’s headquarters in Cairo. Participating foreign ministers covered a lot of ground during the three-day gathering, including modified perennial resolutions on Palestinian issues and the ongoing conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Yemen; critical statements on Iran and Turkey’s interventions in Arab states; and discussions of developments in Comoros, the Djibouti-Eritrea border dispute, and Somalia.
The most public controversy arose when Egyptian foreign minister Sameh Shoukry and his delegation walked out of a session chaired by Libya’s representative because she had been sent by the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU), a faction that Cairo does not recognize. This issue may resurface during the upcoming summit.
Algeria’s Role
Algiers has apparently been using its designation as this year’s host to further its recent foreign policy assertiveness. When the previous summit was held in March 2019, the government was preoccupied with the Hirak mass protest movement against longtime president Abdelaziz Bouteflika and the broader system of power. Today, the leadership is feeling significantly less vulnerable. The Hirak has lost momentum since Bouteflika’s ouster and subsequent developments, while the country’s hydrocarbon resources are in high demand, particularly amid the Ukraine war—a shift that became more conspicuous when the leaders of France and Italy visited the country this summer. Algiers seems to believe that the time has come to demonstrate its importance on the regional and global stage, as evidenced by its proposal to join the BRICS grouping alongside Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.
Accordingly, Algerian officials have devoted significant efforts over the past year in preparation for hosting this Arab Summit. Most notably, they have convened multiple reconciliation talks between rival Palestinian leadership camps in order to present a more united front against Israel, even reaching an agreement earlier this month among fourteen factions. Although this accord has been widely dismissed as yet another empty promise that will not be implemented, Algiers sees the deal as a way to promote the notion that it is furthering Arab unity.
Divisive Issues
Despite Algeria’s bid for unity, this summit is more likely to reflect the Arab League’s fragmentation and dysfunction, especially on the following issues:
Embracing Assad. Algiers has been a vocal supporter of reintegrating Syria into the league, which suspended Damascus in November 2011 due to Bashar al-Assad’s brutal suppression of a popular uprising. With the assistance of Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah, the Assad regime has killed more than half a million Syrians over the past decade and forced nearly seven million refugees into exile. Yet despite the conflict remaining unresolved, several member states—including Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates—have been agitating for Syria’s rehabilitation into the Arab polity since 2021, with some of them reopening embassies in Damascus, meeting with senior Syrian leaders, hosting Assad himself for official visits, and/or contemplating energy deals that benefit his regime. There is no league consensus on this issue, however, and the United States has encouraged Arab partners not to embrace Assad diplomatically. Algiers initially indicated that it would press for ending Syria’s suspension at the summit, but continued Arab disagreement has led it to shelve the topic.
Ethiopia diplomacy. Algeria’s recent foreign policy assertiveness has also included efforts to strengthen ties with fellow African Union member Ethiopia. In July, President Sahle-Work Zewde was invited to Algiers for a three-day state visit, followed by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed in August; the latter visit included an agreement to “intensify commercial and educational cooperation.” These meetings rankled Egypt, which is mired in a dispute with Addis Ababa about the fill rate of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). Cairo’s Nile water concerns are of an existential nature, so Algeria’s flirtation with the Ethiopians threatens to further erode its bilateral ties with Egypt.
Libya disagreements. Egypt and Algeria have also clashed over the nature of Libya’s participation in the Arab League. Algiers invited the GNU to the summit as part of a bid to play mediator among Libya’s competing governments. Cairo’s aforementioned refusal to deal with the GNU, combined with its anger over Algeria’s burgeoning relations with Ethiopia, will likely make for some awkward interactions next week—if President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi even attends.
Algeria-Morocco rift. This longstanding rivalry will likely be on full display at the summit. Algiers and Rabat have been intensively courting other African and Arab countries over the past year as their bilateral relations have soured. Their primary area of contention is Western Sahara. In 2020, the Trump administration recognized Moroccan sovereignty over this disputed territory, much to Algeria’s chagrin. Less than a year later, Algiers cut diplomatic ties with Rabat and stopped exporting natural gas via Morocco to Europe. This summer, King Mohammed VI indicated that Morocco was amenable to reestablishing “normal relations,” but it is unclear if he will attend the summit given the generally poor state of their current relationship. His participation could presage a resumption of diplomatic ties.
Topics of Consensus?
While the summit will be characterized more by divergence than convergence, member states may be able to reach full consensus on a few matters:
Turkey criticism. At its September ministerial conference, the Arab League issued a communique criticizing Ankara for its “interference in the Arab states’ internal affairs,” specifically its military presence in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. The published resolutions from that meeting echoed these points—though Algeria, Djibouti, Libya, Qatar, and Somalia all registered reservations, with Doha arguing that the league was guilty of a “double standard” by singling out Turkey’s actions in Libya while not mentioning interventions by certain Arab states. Notwithstanding hopes that Ankara will eventually reconcile with Egypt and various Persian Gulf states, summit participants will no doubt use the forum as an opportunity to criticize both Turkey’s military interventionism and its signing of an energy and investment memorandum with Libya’s GNU—perhaps culminating in a tough statement from the league itself.
Opposition to Iran. Attendees at the summit may also be inclined to rhetorically flog Iran, another country with an extensive track record of interfering in their internal affairs. The Iran resolution issued after the league’s September ministerial focused in part on condemning the broad range of the Islamic Republic’s destabilizing behavior in the Middle East, including its terrorist proxy militias in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Yet even this relatively straightforward position will likely prove controversial at the summit. Host Algeria’s relations with Tehran are friendlier than perhaps any other league member’s, while Iraq and Lebanon are dominated by Iran-backed militias and generally refuse to criticize the regime’s foreign aggression in any way.
As for the ongoing mass protest movement in Iran, many Arab officials are no doubt pleased with the emergence of significant domestic opposition to the regime. Yet they may still be reticent to publicly embrace the movement due to concerns about Iranian retaliation and/or the potential for similar demonstrations in their own countries.
Oil production. Summit participants may rally around Saudi Arabia in support of the recent OPEC+ decision to cut production by 2 million barrels per day. On October 14, Arab League secretary-general Ahmed Abul Gheit issued a statement supporting the reduction and indirectly accusing Washington of “politicizing” an economic issue. Two days later, Algeria, Bahrain, and Oman issued similar statements.
Palestinian issues. Although participants will not be able to reach consensus on these matters, odds are high that the summit will result in multiple non-binding, non-actionable Arab League statements in support of the Palestinian cause. Even states that have signed onto the Abraham Accords or other normalization efforts with Israel will presumably provide rhetorical support to the Palestinian cause in the context of a league gathering.
Conclusion
In the end, Algeria will be able to claim that it is playing a central role in fostering Arab unity simply by hosting the summit. Yet the event’s true success will be measured by how many heads of state actually show. Given the rampant divisions among league members and the abysmal prospects that their differences will be overcome in the immediate future, this year’s Arab Summit is likely to pass with little notice and few accomplishments.
*Sabina Henneberg is a Soref Fellow at The Washington Institute. David Schenker is the Institute’s Taube Senior Fellow and former assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs at the State Department.

Minister Allocation in Iraq’s New Government
Nawras Jaff/The Washington Institute./October 27/2022
Although ministry positions in Iraq have long been used as bartering tools, the new government could make a huge difference by supporting key ministries with real solutions and competent appointees.
After extensive disagreements between rival factions and the Sadrist Movement's withdrawal from politics following the general elections in Iraq last October, all parties have finally come to an agreement on the formation of the new government. After more than a year of political deadlock, the Iraqi parliament voted in Abdul Latif Rashid as the country’s new president on October 13, following a lengthy race between Rashid and the outgoing president, Barham Salih. Soon after, the Coordination Framework proposed and Rashid immediately tasked Mohammed Shia al-Sudani to form the new government as Prime Minister. In accordance with previous political agreements, these appointments follow a set pattern: a Shia candidate has received the position of prime minister, a Sunni politician will receive the position of speaker of parliament, and a Kurd has been named to the position of president of the Iraqi republic.
But the complexities in forming a new government go much deeper than naming a president and prime minister, especially with regard to Iraq’s 22 ministries. Five of these ministries—the Ministries of Defense, Interior, Oil and Natural Resources, Finance, and Foreign Affairs—are considered ‘sovereign’ ministries, and since 2003, their respective ministers have been decided based on the number of parliamentary seats held by the Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds.
Historically, Iraqi parties have focused on securing ministers in these positions who will solidify the rule of those in power, helping them to preserve their places in the government. However, these efforts usually come at the expense of serving the Iraqi people and solving problems in key sectors. As this stage of government formation proceeds, Iraqi parties are showing few signs of taking the consequences of this process more seriously, despite Iraq’s serious economic and social challenges that it will continue to face in the coming year.
Securing Influence through Ministries
In states with democratic institutions, political parties typically gain power by acting as the opposition or rival parties to those at the top. Once in power themselves, these parties use their influence to serve as ministers in a variety of departments, usually with the desire to improve conditions for their citizens and elevate the stability and standing of their government, with the understanding that their performance will impact their viability in future elections. This is completely the opposite of what happens in Iraq.
Since the fall of the regime in 2003, the formation of the Iraqi government has adhered to a power-sharing system along religious and ethnic lines, called the al-Muhasasa system. The system awards one point—one ministerial position—for every two seats held in the parliament.
For years, this power sharing has followed a pattern of sorts, with the Shia bloc typically receiving the Ministry of Interior, Sunnis the Ministry of Defense, and Kurds one of the Ministries of Finance or Foreign Affairs. Often, if the Kurds received the Minister of Finance, the Shia would in turn receive the Minister of Foreign Affairs. And as a general rule, the minister positions considered to have less political clout or influence were given to minorities and women.
For example, in Mustafa al-Kadhimi's cabinet, a minority party received the ministry of human rights—a position considered rather irrelevant by the political elite. Naturally, this has created an enormous gap between the power and representation of elites and that of minorities in Iraq.
Shia elites, for their part, have maintained a significant share of the power, holding many sovereign ministry positions in addition to the position of prime minister. These have included ministries of interior, oil and natural resources, finance, or foreign affairs. In general, these ministry positions have helped the Shia elites become a powerful entity in the Iraqi political scene.
For the Kurds, sovereign ministerial positions have provided an opportunity to establish an identity in Iraq, similar to the Shia parties’ solidification of power. Through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, especially, the Kurds have attempted to wield influence on the topic of the Kurdistan Region, halting any decisions that would have sanctioned the Kurdistan Region such as the Iraqi government's budget cutoff in 2014.
Iraq's New Ministers
Based on preliminary information available from the most recent round of government formation negotiations, Shia parties are expected to receive twelve ministry positions, the Sunni parties will receive six, and the Kurds will have four. More specifically, recent news suggests that Shia parties will likely put up ministers in charge of the Ministries of Interior, Finance, Electricity, Health, Agriculture, Transport, Communications, and others. Sunni parties will likely be represented in the Ministries of Military, Planning, Education, Industry and Trade, Culture, and others, while the Kurdish parties will have such portfolios as the Ministries of Law, Ecology, Housing and Reconstruction, Labor and Social affairs, Sport and Youth, Water Resources, Higher Education, and Scientific Research.
One additional ministry has not yet been confirmed. As with previous governments, less influential positions such as the Minister of Immigration Affairs are allocated to minority groups, such as the Christians.
Critical Ministries Ignored
During the discussions to form a new government, however, this system prioritizes maintaining power over efficacy, especially when it comes to ministries critical to governance issues but considered less prestigious. These minister positions are barely even brought to the negotiating table, despite the fact that the people in these offices will directly field the major challenges that face the Iraqi public regarding health, education, housing, and water and food shortages. Instead, in the scope of government formation negotiations, Iraq’s other ministries are typically used as last-second bargaining chips, giving a certain party more power in exchange for something else.
Although sovereign ministry positions are at the very core of the power held by Iraqi political parties, the actual efficacy of the other ministers is rarely ever questioned. This reality ignores the tremendous need for competent, creative ministers in less noticeable ministries who can fix Iraq’s damaged sectors and rebuild Iraqi society economically, socially, and politically.
A prime example of need in Iraq is on the issue of unemployment. In October, the Iraqi General Trade Union noted in a statement that "the rate of unemployment in Iraq reached six million people," the highest rate of unemployment in Iraq's history. Given these concerning statistics, the Ministry of Social Affairs should theoretically be a key position, as it is the ministry principally responsible for aiding young Iraqi citizens and reducing unemployment, especially as university graduates make up the majority of the unemployed.
Another area of need in Iraq is the health sector, which is suffering immensely from a lack of staff and essential medications in hospitals. Due to unrest and unsanitary conditions, war, sanctions, and terrorist threats in the last three decades, Iraq has seen and continues to suffer from a major brain drain of its doctors. Nevertheless, according to Alla Alwan, a former minister of health in Iraq, "the government [still] doesn't prioritize the health sector."
If any party or coalition desired to put strong emphasis on the proper selection of ministers in non-sovereign ministries, so much could change for Iraq, and tangible successes in these crucial areas could be achieved. Beyond just health and social affairs, ministries like education, municipality, electricity, reconstruction, and others could have a serious impact on the improvement of life in Iraq. Instead, none of these ministries are discussed or prioritized during the negotiations between political parties and the sworn candidate for government formation. Their leadership is instead decided as a byproduct of attempts to vie for more ‘prestigious’ ministries.
Although most of the assignments have already been made, Iraq’s new government still has time to make a difference in critical areas of need around the country. Rather than ignoring “minor” ministries such as Health and Education, the government must support these ministers, providing them with the full capabilities to face the issues currently threatening Iraq’s stability.
These ministries will be the key to success for Iraq as severe unemployment, food and water scarcity, infrastructure failure, and lack of healthcare continue to undermine Iraq’s wellbeing. Given their importance to Iraq’s future, they should be taken more seriously when considering the future of Iraq’s government.