English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For September 13/2022
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2021/english.september13.22.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
No one, when tempted, should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one
Letter of James 01/09-18/:”Let the believer who is lowly boast in being raised up, and the rich in being brought low, because the rich will disappear like a flower in the field. For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the field; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. It is the same with the rich; in the midst of a busy life, they will wither away. Blessed is anyone who endures temptation. Such a one has stood the test and will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. No one, when tempted, should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one. But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death. Do not be deceived, my beloved. Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. In fulfilment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on September 12-13/2022
New Edition of Selim Abou’s “Béchir Gemayel ou l’Esprit d’un peuple” out now
UNIFIL spokesperson’s office: Operational activities continue to be coordinated with Lebanese Army
Rahi asks Aoun not to stay in Baabda, dismisses Geagea call for 'confrontation president'
Bou Saab confirms Lebanon received coordinates of sea buoys
Bou Habib says Hochstein made new proposals which he can't reveal
Queen book of condolences opens for public at Beirut's National Library
Berri broaches developments with French Ambassador, discusses financial conditions with Al-Khalil, cables condolences to UK Speaker and Lord Speaker...
Bou Saab discusses maritime border demarcation dossier, presidential deadline with French ambassador
Migration and displacement crisis in MENA: Responding to the basic needs of people on the move
MoPH: 239 new Coronavirus infections, one death
Banque du Liban lifts last fuel subsidies
Toxin-spewing generators keep lights on in Lebanon, Mideast

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 12-13/2022
Germany’s Scholz Sees No Imminent Nuclear Deal with Iran
In Berlin, Lapid says 'time to move past failed negotiations with Iran'
Iran says 'ready to cooperate' with U.N. nuclear watchdog
Iran Rules Out ‘Bleak Scenario’ Regarding its Nuclear Weapons
Iran to Release Crew of Two Seized Greek Tankers
Iran Urges IAEA 'Not to Yield to Israel's Pressure’
Israel Sees No New Iran Nuclear Deal before US November Mid-terms
New Iran Deal Would be Shorter, Weaker Version of 2015 Deal
Treasury Sanctions Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Minister for Malign Cyber Activities
Iran urges Saudi Arabia to show goodwill in talks to revive ties
Ukraine recaptures 500 sq km of territory in south - military
Western Arms Production to Ramp Up as Ukraine Burns through Stockpiles
Ukraine's defenders are turning personal vehicles into 'technicals' to fight off Russian forces
King Charles III and His Siblings Escort Queen’s Coffin

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published
On 9/11 Anniversary, End the Self-Delusion About America’s Enemies/ H. R. McMaster and Bradley Bowman/Foreign Policy/September 12/2022
A New Iran Deal Won’t Prevent an Iranian Bomb/Dennis Ross/The Washington Institute/September 12/2022
National Security Threat: China's Eyes in America/Peter Schweizer/Gatestone Institute/September 12/2022
‘We Are Taking Over Your Country’: The Baby Jihad Revs Up/Raymond Ibrahim/September 12/2022
Biden Should Give Big Oil a Bailout/Matthew Yglesias/Bloomberg/September 12/2022

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on September 12-13/2022
New Edition of Selim Abou’s “Béchir Gemayel ou l’Esprit d’un peuple” out now
NNA/September 12/2022
September 12, 2022 will witness the release of a new edition of Professor Selim Abou’s book Béchir Gemayel ou l’Esprit d’un peuple - (Bachir Gemayel, the Spirit of the People). This initiative of Yves Choueifaty is printed and distributed by the Saër Al Machrek Publishing House, 40 years after the assassination of the President of the Republic of Lebanon. The first edition of this book was published in 1984 by the Anthropos Publishing House in Paris which has kindly authorized the publication of this second edition.
The book (hardcover) will be available in bookstores in Lebanon. Paper and electronic versions will be available on Amazon worldwide. The Arabic and English translations of the book are in the works.
In his foreword to the first edition, Professor Selim Abou s.j. (1928-2018), Rector of Saint Joseph University of Beirut (USJ) from 1995 to 2003, whose speeches set the pace for the resistance against the Syrian occupation, stated that Bachir Gemayel “had to die” because “he was becoming an inconvenience” as “the leader of the Resistance” who “for six years held in check the political maneuvers and military pressure of those who, as refugees on Lebanese soil, wanted to carve out an alternate homeland for themselves”, as “a political leader” who “has constantly spoken to his people the word of truth and tirelessly condemned, in a clear and straightforward manner, the cynicism of many regional leaders who believe that concealing the facts will salvage their honor and for whom lies are diplomacy, cunning is strategy, blackmail is negotiation and repression is persuasion”, and finally, as “President-elect”, who “displayed his democratic choices and immediately took a stand with the free, striking a significant blow not only to the ideologies propagated by the regional totalitarians and terrorists, but also to the ambitions of their powerful supporters and their repeated attempts to dominate Lebanon.”On the back cover of the new edition, Yves Choueifaty, a Lebanese entrepreneur living in France, an alumnus of Collège Notre-Dame de Jamhour, and a fierce defender of human rights, wrote: “Forty years after the assassination of 1982, it was necessary to reprint Selim Abou’s book Béchir Gemayel ou l’Esprit d’un peuple. It is about making it accessible to the generations of the present and the future. In these moments of trouble that Lebanon is going through, his story and his interpretation of the Bachir Gemayel legacy, his philosophy, and his national vision, remain as relevant as ever and as inspiring and foundational as they were. It reflects an authentic image of Bachir Gemayel, a politician, a fighter for his country, President of the Republic, a model citizen, rebel, and statesman. The Lebanese of today truly appreciate the man that is Bachir Gemayel, who serves as an inspiration to them amid the current tragedy of the disintegration of the Lebanese state and as a role model they can look up to in contrast with the current Lebanese leaders.”
In his foreword to this new edition, Professor Salim Daccache s.j., current Rector of USJ, recalls that “this six-chapter book retraces the birth of a myth that emerged after the assassination of the President to the birth of the spirit of the people and surveys the short twenty-two-day long presidential mandate, focusing on the history of the military resistance as well as the development of a socio-political and cultural project that constitutes the culmination of the resistance.”
He adds, “the meticulous attention of Selim Abou to combining a plethora of historical references and massive documentation to his text is striking, thus supporting the scientific quality of this biography which stands out from the biographical genre itself. Therefore, the book is an open window on a tragic era, but nevertheless very rich in events directed towards a story that has imposed itself on our collective memory under the title of Lebanese resistance.”The reason behind “the Spirit of a People” being the concluding chapter of the book, says Daccache in the foreword, is the fact that the title associates the name of the President and Resistance fighter Bachir Gemayel with a philosophical concept, that of the Spirit of the People, which reveals itself as a proclamation of faith, because from that moment forth, the idea of the president, his history, the cause he supported, his personality and his stature, are welded together and form one entity with the entire Lebanese people who wish to restore the legitimacy of the State through the figure of an extraordinary president.

UNIFIL spokesperson’s office: Operational activities continue to be coordinated with Lebanese Army
NNA/September 12/2022 
The following is a statement attributed to the UNIFIL spokesperson’s office:
“In recent days, a great deal of misinformation and disinformation about UNIFIL’s mandate has been circulating in the media. Our peacekeepers remain committed to security and stability in south Lebanon, and to continue to support the people who live here. UNIFIL has always had the mandate to undertake patrols in its area of operations, with or without the Lebanese Armed Forces. Nevertheless, our operational activities, including patrols, continue to be coordinated with the Lebanese Army, even when they don't accompany us. Our freedom of movement has been reiterated in Security Council resolutions renewing UNIFIL’s mandate, including Resolution 1701 in 2006, and UNIFIL’s Status of Forces Agreement, signed in 1995. We work closely with the LAF every day, and this has not changed. Facts are important, and we encourage media and others to check directly with us before passing along incorrect information that could needlessly increase tensions between peacekeepers and the communities we are here to help.”

Rahi asks Aoun not to stay in Baabda, dismisses Geagea call for 'confrontation president'
Naharnet/September 12/2022
Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi has called on President Michel Aoun to “exert efforts with all those concerned to elect a president prior to the end of his term and to ‘do the impossible’ to achieve this.”Speaking in an interview on al-Jadeed TV, al-Rahi added that he has never believed in the “the idea of a strong president.”“To me, every Maronite has the qualifications to become a president and I’m not against anyone,” he said. Asked whether the “presidential characteristics” apply to Marada Movement chief Suleiman Franjieh, al-Rahi said: “Why not. He knows whether he can gather the forces or not, and should there be consensus over him so be it.”As for Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea’s call for a so-called “confrontation president,” the patriarch said he had not heard of Geagea’s remarks. “I don’t know what he means with confrontation president,” he added. As for the nomination of Army Commander General Joseph Aoun for the presidency, al-Rahi said “there is no problem with nominating any figure on whom there can be consensus.” As for the controversy over President Aoun’s possible refusal to leave the Baabda Palace in the presence of a caretaker cabinet, the patriarch said: “The government’s type has nothing to do with the president’s decision. The president’s powers end upon the end of his term on October 31. His mandate expires and his powers cease to exist.” “I advise him not” to stay in the Baabda Palace, al-Rahi went on to say.

Bou Saab confirms Lebanon received coordinates of sea buoys
Naharnet/September 12/2022
Deputy Speaker Elias Bou Saab confirmed overnight that Lebanon has “received from U.S. mediator Amor Hochstein the coordinates of the sea buoys” that Israel wants to delineate as part of the maritime border demarcation agreement. “Any talk about land points or the B1 point has not happened and no one has asked Lebanon to give up any land point,” Bou Saab added in a TV interview. “There is an area between the blocks and the shore that contains points (buoys) and there are discussions about a certain arrangement for them, and today we received the coordinates,” the Deputy Speaker said. Voicing optimism, Bou Saab said “our reception of the coordinates confirms that we have received the first answer that we had requested within 48 hours from the departure of the U.S. mediator and this is something good.”“We will receive the answers to the other questions next week ahead of a written response that will be studied by the president,” Bou Saab added.

Bou Habib says Hochstein made new proposals which he can't reveal
Naharnet/September 12/2022
Caretaker Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib on Monday confirmed that U.S. mediator Amos Hochstein has made new proposals regarding the sea border demarcation file. “He certainly came with new proposals which I cannot disclose,” Bou Habib said, in response to a reporter’s question. U.S. “President (Joe) Biden has also spoken to Israeli PM Yair Lapid and asked him to finalize the agreement, as declared by the U.S. side, which is convinced of the need to reach an agreement this month or the next month,” Bou Habib added. “There is progress but we have not reached the end until now,” he went on to say.

Queen book of condolences opens for public at Beirut's National Library
Naharnet/September 12/2022
A book of condolences for Queen Elizabeth II will open for the public at the National Library in Beirut over the next four days, the British embassy said on Monday.
The book of condolences will be open during the following times:
Tuesday 13 September 9am - 1pm
Wednesday 14 September 12pm - 4pm
Thursday 15 September 9am - 1pm
Friday 16 September 9am - 1pm
Address: National Library (Formerly Lebanese University – Faculty of Law), Spears road, Hamra

Berri broaches developments with French Ambassador, discusses financial conditions with Al-Khalil, cables condolences to UK Speaker and Lord Speaker...
NNA/September 12/2022
House Speaker, Nabih Berri, on Monday received at the Second Presidency in Ain El-Tineh, French Ambassador to Lebanon, Anne Grillo, with whom he discussed the current general situation and the latest developments, in addition to the bilateral relations between the two countries. This afternoon, Speaker Berri met with Caretaker Finance Minister Dr. Youssef Al-Khalil, with whom he discussed the prevailing financial conditions. On the other hand, Berri cabled Speaker of the UK House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, and Lord Speaker of the UK House of Lords, John McFall,, offering condolences over the passing of Queen Elizabeth II.

Bou Saab discusses maritime border demarcation dossier, presidential deadline with French ambassador
NNA/September 12/2022
Deputy House Speaker, Elias Bou Saab, on Monday received in his office at the Parliament, French Ambassador to Lebanon, Anne Grillo, with discussions touching on the issue of the maritime border demarcation, and the agreement with the International Monetary Fund and related laws. Discussions also focused on the upcoming presidential election and the importance of respecting the constitutional deadlines and accomplishing them on time.

Migration and displacement crisis in MENA: Responding to the basic needs of people on the move
NNA/September 12/2022
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, with more than 40 million migrants and 14 million internally displaced persons, has some of the world’s longest protracted conflicts, combined with frequent natural disasters, man-made crises, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The Ukraine conflict has added another layer of complexity. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) has joined forces with three Red Crescent societies in the region to address the basic needs of people on the move, including refugees, migrants, and internally displaced persons.
Fabrizio Anzolini, the IFRC’s regional migration advisor for the MENA, said: “The Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement approaches migration and displacement from a purely humanitarian perspective, without encouraging or discouraging it. However, we do respond to the needs of people on the move.”
As part of IFRC’s efforts to support more than 4,000 people on the move, the IFRC has signed three project agreements on migration and displacement in the region since July.The agreements with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, the Egyptian Red Crescent and the Algerian Red Crescent were established in the framework of the IFRC’s ‘Humanitarian assistance and protection for people on the move’. This three-year programme focuses on humanitarian assistance to migrants, displaced people, and host communities on the migration routes of greatest humanitarian concern spanning Africa, the Middle East and Europe and involves 34 Red Cross Red Crescent National Societies.The agreement with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent aims to improve the livelihoods of internally displaced persons, returnees, and host communities in Syria, while the agreement with the Algerian Red Crescent was developed to improve the living standards and reduce the vulnerability of migrants, refugees and displaced persons in Algeria. The agreement with the Egyptian Red Crescent focuses on providing comprehensive and structured support to children on the move and the community by establishing community schools and ensuring access to basic humanitarian services. “This example of collaboration and coordination with other Red Cross Red Crescent National Societies would not have been possible without the support of the Italian Red Cross, which played a crucial role in facilitating the establishment of these three agreements,” Anzolini added. Rania Ahmed, IFRC’s deputy regional director in the MENA, said: “The IFRC's attempts to make a difference in the migration and displacement crises in the Middle East and North Africa are at a critical juncture. Until long-term sustainable solutions are in place, we ensure that people on the move have access to health services and psychosocial support, and offer protection to children and victims of violence, as well as livelihood support and cash assistance.” Ahmed added that as the link between climate change and the displacement of the most vulnerable is becoming more obvious by the day, “IFRC is eager to bring this issue to the states’ attention during the upcoming COP 27 Conference in Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt”.

MoPH: 239 new Coronavirus infections, one death
NNA/September 12/2022
Lebanon has recorded 239 new coronavirus cases and one death within the last 24 hours, as reported by the Ministry of Public Health on Monday.

Banque du Liban lifts last fuel subsidies
Associated Press/September 12/2022
Lebanon's central bank lifted its remaining subsidies on fuel on Monday, gas station owners said, ending a year-long process of scaling back on the expensive program. The Central Bank over a year ago announced it would gradually lift fuel subsidies, to slow down the draining of its foreign exchange reserves. Fuel subsidies once cost the cash-strapped country some $3 billion annually. Last week, it subsidized just 20% of the cost of fuel imports. Lebanon is in the throes of a crippling economic crisis that has plunged three-quarters of its population into poverty and decimated the value of the Lebanese pound against the dollar by around 90 percent. The World Bank has described the collapse as one of the worst in the world in the last 150 years. Now, gas station owners will price fuel at the country's "parallel market rate" -- also known as the black market rate, Gas Station Owners' Syndicate spokesperson George Brax told The Associated Press. The local currency is still officially pegged at 1,500 Lebanese pounds to the U.S. dollar, but now trades at about 35,250 pounds at the black market rate. A liter of 95 octane gasoline currently cost just less than a dollar, but topping up the average car costs almost the monthly minimum wage. The black market rate heavily fluctuates with little transparency, possibly risking arbitrary price hikes regardless of global fuel prices. Under the subsidies program, the Central Bank would allow importers to exchange Lebanese pounds for U.S. dollars to fund imports and keep prices stable. However, with Lebanon's currency devaluation and skyrocketing inflation, gas station owners claimed the stable pricing was not sustainable, while security agencies struggled to crack down on fuel hoarding in warehouses and gas stations. Lebanese authorities for years have also been working to replace subsidies on fuel, medicine, and wheat with a targeted cash-assistance program which would cost a small fraction annually. However, it has scrambled to properly implement the program since receiving a World Bank loan to fund it a year ago, targeting hundreds of thousands of families in need and ultimately leaving them without any safety net to soften the blow of price hikes.Lebanon is scrambling to reform its wasteful and unproductive economy to reach a deal with the International Monetary Fund for a bailout program, and unlock billions of dollars in loans and aid from the international community. But a tug-of-war between the government, Central Bank, commercial banks, and private businesses has held the country down from making substantial progress with the IMF since negotiations began over two years ago. The tiny country's economic crisis over the past three years is the result of decades of corruption, wasteful spending, and nefarious financial planning at the hands of its ruling political parties and partners in the private sector.

Toxin-spewing generators keep lights on in Lebanon, Mideast
Associated Press/September 12/2022
They literally run the country. In parking lots, on flatbed trucks, hospital courtyards and rooftops, private generators are ubiquitous in parts of the Middle East, spewing hazardous fumes into homes and businesses 24 hours a day. As the world looks for renewable energy to tackle climate change, millions of people around the region depend almost completely on diesel-powered private generators to keep the lights on because war or mismanagement have gutted electricity infrastructure. Experts call it national suicide from an environmental and health perspective. "Air pollution from diesel generators contains more than 40 toxic air contaminants, including many known or suspected cancer-causing substances," said Samy Kayed, managing director and co-founder of the Environment Academy at the American University of Beirut in Lebanon.
Greater exposure to these pollutants likely increases respiratory illnesses and cardiovascular disease, he said. It also causes acid rain that harms plant growth and poisons bodies of water, killing aquatic plants. Since they usually use diesel, generators also produce far more climate change-inducing emissions than, for example, a natural gas power plant, he said. The pollutants caused by massive generators add to the many environmental woes of the Middle East, which is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world to the impact of climate change. The region already has high temperatures and limited water resources even without the impact of global warming. The reliance on generators results from state failure. In Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Afghanistan, governments can't maintain a functioning central power network, whether because of war, conflict or mismanagement and corruption. Lebanon, for example, has not built a new power plant in decades. Multiple plans for new ones have run aground on politicians' factionalism and conflicting patronage interests. The country's few aging, heavy-fuel oil plants long ago became unable to meet demand. Iraq, meanwhile, sits on some of the world's biggest oil reserves. Yet scorching summer-time heat is always accompanied by the roar of neighborhood generators, as residents blast ACs around the clock to keep cool.
Repeated wars over the decades have wrecked Iraq's electricity networks. Corruption has siphoned away billions of dollars meant to repair it. Some 17 billion cubic meters of gas from Iraq's wells are burned every year as waste, because governments haven't built the infrastructure to capture it and convert it to electricity. The need for generators has become deeply engrained in people's minds. At a recent concert in the capital Baghdad, famed singer Umm Ali al-Malla made sure to thank the venue's technical director "for keeping the generator going."The Gaza Strip's 2.3 million people rely on around 700 neighborhood generators across the territory for their homes. Thousands of private generators keep businesses, government institutions, universities and health centers running. Running on diesel, they churn black smoke in the air, tarring walls around them.
Since Israel bombed the only power plant in the Hamas-ruled territory in 2014, the station has never reached full capacity. Gaza only gets about half the power it needs from the plant and directly from Israel. Cutoffs can last up to 16 hours a day.Perhaps nowhere do generators rule people's lives as much as in Lebanon, where the system is so entrenched that private generator owners have their own business association. Lebanon's 5 million people have long depended on them. The word "moteur," French for generator, is one of the most often spoken words among Lebanese. Reliance has only increased since Lebanon's economy unraveled in late 2019 and central power cutoffs began lasting longer. At the same time, generator owners have had to ration use because of soaring diesel prices and high temperatures, turning them off several times a day for breaks.
So residents plan their lives around the gaps in electricity.
That means setting an alarm to make a cup of coffee before the generator turns off in the morning. The frail or elderly in apartment towers wait for the generator before leaving home so they don't have to climb stairs. Hospitals must keep generators humming so life-saving machines can operate without disruption."We understand people's frustration, but if it wasn't for us, people would be living in darkness," said Ihab, the Egyptian operator of a generator station north of Beirut. "They say we are more powerful than the state, but it is the absence of the state that led us to exist," he said, giving only his first name to avoid trouble with the authorities. Siham Hanna, a 58-year-old translator in Beirut, said generator fumes exacerbate her elderly father's lung condition. She wipes soot off her balcony and other surfaces several times a day. "It's the 21st century, but we live like in the stone ages. Who lives like this?" said Hanna, who does not recall her country ever having stable electricity in her life. Unlike most power plants, generators are in the heart of neighborhoods, pumping toxins directly to residents. There are almost no regulations and no filtering of particles, said Najat Saliba, a chemist at the American University of Beirut who recently won a seat in Parliament. "This is extremely taxing on the environment, especially the amount of black carbon and particles that they emit," she said. Researchers at AUB found that the level of toxic emissions may have quadrupled since Lebanon's financial crisis began because of increased reliance on generators. Similarly, a 2020 study in Iraq on the environmental impact of generators at the University of Technology in Baghdad found very high concentrations of pollutants, including carcinogens. It noted that Iraqi diesel fuel is "one of the worst in the world," with a high sulphur content. Generator emissions "exert a remarkable impact on the overall health of students and university staff," it said.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 12-13/2022
Germany’s Scholz Sees No Imminent Nuclear Deal with Iran
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 12 September, 2022
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz made clear Monday that he doesn't expect an agreement with Iran in the immediate future to restore Tehran's tattered nuclear deal with world powers, though he said there's no reason for Iran not to sign up and European countries would remain "patient." Scholz spoke after meeting in Berlin with Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, who insisted that restoring the 2015 agreement would be "a critical mistake." Germany, along with France, Britain, Russia and China, is still a party to the deal and involved in talks on its revival that have dragged on for over a year.
The European countries "have made proposals, and there is no reason now for Iran not to agree to these proposals, but we have to take note of the fact that this isn't the case, so it certainly won't happen soon, although it looked for a while like it would," Scholz said. "We remain patient, but we also remain clear: Iran must be prevented from being able to deploy nuclear weapons," he added. The German leader said that "a functioning international agreement to limit and monitor the Iranian nuclear program is the right way" to do that. But Lapid said that "it is time to move past the failed negotiations with Iran," which he said can't and won't achieve the goal of stopping Iran getting a nuclear weapon. His office said he also shared intelligence with the German government. "Removing sanctions and pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into Iran will bring waves of terrorism, not only to the Middle East, but also across Europe," Lapid said. Israel, which encouraged the US to withdraw from the nuclear deal in 2018, has opposed a renewed agreement between Iran and the world powers. It says lifting sanctions will allow Iran to funnel billions of dollars to hostile militant groups and says an improved deal must also address Iran’s regional military activities and support for hostile groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and other militias in Syria.
Speaking Monday at the Jerusalem Post Conference in New York, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz said Iran has built at least 10 facilities "for mid- and long-range, precise missiles and weapons" in neighboring Syria, including one reportedly targeted by Israel in a recent airstrike. Gantz said that Iran has produced "more and more advanced centrifuges – including at underground facilities where activities are prohibited" and called for Iran to be held accountable. His remarks couldn't be independently verified. The United States unilaterally pulled out of the nuclear accord in 2018 under then President Donald Trump and reimposed sanctions on Iran, prompting Tehran to start backing away from the deal’s terms. Iran earlier this month responded to a final draft of a roadmap for parties to return to the tattered nuclear deal and bring the US back on board. A probe by the International Atomic Energy Agency into man-made uranium particles found at three undeclared sites in the country has become a key sticking point in the talks for renewing the agreement. Iran’s hard-line president, Ebrahim Raisi, has said that the IAEA investigation into the issue must be halted in order for the 2015 deal to be renewed. The IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog agency, has for years sought answers from Iran to its questions about the particles. US intelligence agencies, Western nations and the IAEA have said Iran ran an organized nuclear weapons program until 2003. Iran long has denied ever seeking nuclear weapons. Germany, France and Britain said in a statement at the weekend that "Iran must fully and, without delay, cooperate in good faith with the IAEA." IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi said at the agency's Vienna headquarters that he hopes Iran will start cooperating "as soon as possible.""We are ready; we want this to happen," he said. "We are not in the business of aggravating or creating situations. We just want this issue to be clarified, so I really hope that they will start looking into this issue in a different way." Asked whether he expects to face political pressure from various sides on the issue, Grossi replied that "political pressure is always there; the thing is what I do with that pressure." He added that Iran appears to be "pushing their national interest in the way they see it."

In Berlin, Lapid says 'time to move past failed negotiations with Iran'
Agence France Presse/September 12/2022
Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid visited Germany Monday in his latest diplomatic effort to persuade Western powers to ditch the agreement with Israel’s arch nemesis Tehran. Israel has long opposed a revival of the 2015 accord, which has been moribund since then U.S. president Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018 and reimposed biting sanctions on Tehran. Momentum that built towards a restored agreement last month has slowed, with the three European nations party to the agreement -- Germany, France and Britain -- expressing doubts about Iran's sincerity over the weekend. Lapid said it was "time to move past the failed negotiations with Iran. "They cannot and will not achieve the goal we all share to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."The 2015 agreement, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), gave Iran sanctions relief in return for restricting its nuclear program. Negotiations underway in Vienna since April 2021 have sought to restore the agreement, by lifting the sanctions on Tehran and pushing Iran to fully honor its prior nuclear commitments.
'Critical diplomatic opportunity'
In a joint statement at the weekend, Germany, France and Britain charged that Tehran "has chosen not to seize this critical diplomatic opportunity." "Instead, Iran continues to escalate its nuclear program way beyond any plausible civilian justification," it added. Iran's foreign ministry criticized those comments as "unconstructive."Further complicating efforts to revive the deal, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in a report last week that it "cannot assure" the peaceful nature of Tehran's nuclear program. Iran reaffirmed Monday its "readiness" to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Before flying to Berlin, Lapid told his cabinet that "Israel is conducting a successful diplomatic campaign to stop the nuclear agreement and prevent the lifting of sanctions on Iran. "It is not over yet," he added. "There is still a long way to go, but there are encouraging signs."A senior Israeli official told AFP that Israel's understanding was there would be no return to the deal until mid-November, and they were working with partners on a new strategy. Israel insists Iran would use revenue from sanctions relief to bolster allied groups capable of attacking Israelis, notably Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two key Palestinian militant organizations. Last month, the European Union, which acts as the mediator of the nuclear talks, put forward a "final" draft of the agreement. Iran and the U.S. then took turns to respond to the text, with Washington saying on Friday that Tehran's reply was a step "backwards."

Iran says 'ready to cooperate' with U.N. nuclear watchdog
Agence France Presse/September 12/2022
Iran reaffirmed Monday its "readiness" to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, after the agency said in a report it "cannot assure" the peaceful nature of Tehran's nuclear program. The finding last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) further complicated diplomatic efforts to revive a landmark 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and major powers, including the United States. Iran is "ready to cooperate with the agency to clear up the false and unrealistic perceptions regarding its peaceful nuclear activities," foreign ministry spokesman Nasser Kanani said in a press conference.
Tehran declares its "readiness to continue constructive cooperation with the IAEA," Kanani added, also pointing to the agency's "obligations."IAEA director general Rafael Grossi said he hoped that Iran would start cooperating "as soon as possible." "We are ready, we want this to happen, we are not in the business of aggravating or creating situations, we just want this issue to be clarified," Grossi told reporters after opening the IAEA's board of governors meeting. "This is very straightforward. We found traces of uranium in places that were never declared, that were never supposed to have any nuclear activity, and we are asking questions."In its report last Wednesday, the IAEA said it was "not in a position to provide assurance that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful."The IAEA has been pressing Iran for answers on the previous presence of traces of nuclear material at three undeclared sites. The issue led to a resolution criticizing Iran being passed at the June meeting of the IAEA's board of governors. Tehran, which has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons, responded to the resolution by disconnecting 27 cameras allowing the agency to monitor some of its nuclear activities. Kanani said no resolution was expected during this week's meeting, but warned that any further "unconstructive action" by the agency "will again have unconstructive results". Tehran has demanded that the IAEA's probe be concluded as part of any deal -- one of the sticking points in the talks to restore the 2015 agreement that gave Iran much-needed relief from sanctions in return for curbs on its nuclear program. The United States unilaterally withdrew from the deal in 2018 under then-president Donald Trump, reimposing biting economic sanctions that prompted Iran to begin rolling back on its own commitments. Last month, the European Union put forward a "final" draft of the agreement to lift sanctions on Tehran once again and push Iran to fully comply with its obligations.

Iran Rules Out ‘Bleak Scenario’ Regarding its Nuclear Weapons
London - Tehran - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 12 September, 2022
The Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) started its regular September meeting in Vienna on Monday, amid differences between the agency and Tehran over the investigation into the effects of uranium. Russian ambassador to International Organizations, Mikhail Ulyanov, said on Twitter that the monitoring and guarantees for Iran, and the safety of the transfer of nuclear materials within the framework of the AUKUS agreement, as well as “security and guarantees in Ukraine” would be the central axes of the agency’s current session. Iran News Daily ruled out the issuance of a decision by the IAEA to refer the Iranian nuclear file to the Security Council. The newspaper suggested that the international agency would issue a warning, calling for further cooperation from the Iranian side. It added: “We will not see a pessimistic scenario, in which Westerners waive the agreement.” The Iranian daily pointed to concerns about the activation of the “snapback” mechanism, to restore international sanctions, if the current investigation continued. The newspaper’s comment came after the Iranian Foreign Ministry criticized a statement by the European Troika, highlighting serious doubts about Iran’s intention to revive the nuclear agreement. The statement referred to consultations over the best way to deal with the continuous Iranian nuclear escalation, and Tehran’s failure to cooperate with the international agency, regarding the binding obligations that are essential to the global non-proliferation regime.
“Unfortunately, Iran chose not to use a critical diplomatic opportunity and instead chose to continue escalating its nuclear program,” the statement read. Noor News, which is a platform for the Supreme Council of Iranian National Security, decried the “opportunity”, saying that European Troika “talks about the sensitive opportunity, as if the energy and cold winter crisis was awaiting Iran, not Europe.”Thirty-five countries of the IAEA Council of Governors are meeting this Monday in Vienna, three months after a decision to criticize Iran’s failure to provide answers to the agency regarding unannounced nuclear sites.

Iran to Release Crew of Two Seized Greek Tankers
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 12 September, 2022
Iran has agreed to release the crews of two Greek tankers it seized in May in the Gulf in response to the confiscation of oil by the United States from an Iranian-flagged tanker in Greece, the Greek union of commercial ships' seafarers said. The case has strained relations between Athens and Tehran as tensions grow between Iran and the United States. The Iranian-flagged tanker Lana, formerly Pegas, was seized by Greece in April and had remained under arrest for months. The United States had confiscated part of its oil cargo due to sanctions. Lana, which had engine problems, was officially released in July. Anchored off Piraeus since then, it has retrieved the oil cargo that the United States had confiscated and is expected to sail back to Iran. Iran has agreed that the tankers' crew will be replaced, allowing their return to their countries of origin soon, the union said in a statement on its website on Sunday. It was not clear when the two Greek tankers, still in the Middle East Gulf, will be released, the union said.

Iran Urges IAEA 'Not to Yield to Israel's Pressure’
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 12 September, 2022
Iran is ready to continue its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani said on Monday, calling on the agency "not to yield to Israel's pressure" over Tehran's nuclear activities. The International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors meet on Monday, three months after adopting a resolution urging Iran to give credible answers to the agency's investigations into uranium traces at three sites in Iran. On Saturday, Britain, France and Germany said they had "serious doubts" about Iran's intentions after it tried to link a revival of the 2015 nuclear deal with a closure of the UN watchdog's probes into the uranium traces. Iran, which denies seeking nuclear arms, has since the US walkout itself breached the deal with ramped-up uranium enrichment, a process that can create bomb fuel down the line. Israel is not a party to the Vienna talks to revive the nuclear deal. But its worries about Iran and threats to take military action against its arch-foe if it deems diplomacy a dead end keep Western capitals attentive.

Israel Sees No New Iran Nuclear Deal before US November Mid-terms
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 12 September, 2022
Israel does not anticipate a renewal of Iran's nuclear deal with world powers before the US mid-term elections in November, an Israeli official said on Sunday, after European parties to the negotiations voiced frustration with Tehran. Having supported then-US President Donald Trump's withdrawal from a 2015 Iranian nuclear deal which it deemed too limited, Israel has similarly been advocating against the re-entry sought by the current US administration. On Saturday, Britain, France and Germany said they had "serious doubts" about Iran's intentions after it tried to link a revival of the deal with a closure of UN watchdog probes into uranium traces at three of its nuclear sites. Tehran called the European statement "unconstructive". "At this point in time, it appears that a nuclear agreement with Iran will not be signed at least until after the (US) mid-term elections," the Israeli official told reporters on condition of anonymity, according to Reuters. Some Israeli commentators saw the remark as anticipating reluctance by US President Joe Biden to enter a deal close enough to the vote for Republican rivals to use it in their domestic campaigns against his Democratic Party. Briefing the Israeli cabinet on Sunday, Prime Minister Yair Lapid thanked the European powers "for their forthright stand". "Israel is conducting a successful diplomatic drive to halt the nuclear deal and prevent the lifting of sanction on Iran," he said. "It's not over yet. The road is long. But there are encouraging signs." Iran, which denies seeking nuclear arms, has since the US walkout itself breached the 2015 deal with ramped-up uranium enrichment, a process that can create bomb fuel down the line. Israel is not a party to the Vienna talks. But its worries about Iran and threats to take military action against its arch-foe if it deems diplomacy a dead end keep Western capitals attentive.

New Iran Deal Would be Shorter, Weaker Version of 2015 Deal
FDD/Flash Brief/September 12/2022
The new nuclear deal currently under negotiation with Iran would not revive the original 2015 agreement. Instead, this shorter, weaker version would reduce the time Iran needs to produce enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon. Iran would also receive approximately $275 billion of sanctions relief in the first year of the accord and $1 trillion by 2030.
Expert Analysis
“While President Biden promised a longer and stronger nuclear deal, the deal on the table is shorter and weaker. Iran would get more sanctions relief than it did last time, including terrorism sanctions relief, in exchange for fewer concessions, keeping Tehran on the nuclear threshold with more nuclear restrictions expiring soon.” – Richard Goldberg, FDD Senior Advisor
“The new deal is not worth the enormous cost both in terms of sanctions relief to Iran that would enable its aggression and the damage it would do to the nonproliferation regime. Instead, a sound policy would employ America’s most potent sanctions capabilities to holistically address all threats posed by Tehran, while pressuring the regime to fully cooperate with the IAEA.”
– Andrea Stricker, FDD Research Fellow and Deputy Director of FDD’s Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program
A Shorter Deal That Brings Iran Closer to a Nuclear Weapon
According to Presidents Obama and Biden, the original 2015 deal — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — kept Iran one year away from possessing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. The new deal would keep Iran only four to six months away from that target, since it now has many more advanced centrifuges for enriching uranium.
New Deal Would Lift Sanctions Tied to Terrorism and Missiles
As President Obama himself stated, the original JCPOA in no way constrained the United States from imposing sanctions on Iran for its terrorism and ballistic missile development, both of which are advanced by its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Yet the new deal would reportedly lift terrorism sanctions on major entities that finance the IRGC, including the Central Bank of Iran. It would also provide sanctions relief to IRGC-connected sectors of Iran’s economy and sectors that finance Tehran’s missile program.
New Deal Would Lift Sanctions on the Office of Iran’s Supreme Leader
The new agreement would reportedly terminate sanctions imposed pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 13876, which authorizes sanctions against Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and any Iranian whom he appoints to office. Khamenei and his appointees are ultimately responsible for decades of Iranian human rights abuses and support for terrorism. For example, under EO 13876, Washington sanctioned IRGC Brigadier General Hossein Dehghan, who led Iranian forces in Syria and Lebanon in 1983 when Hezbollah, Iran’s leading proxy, bombed the U.S. Marines compound in Beirut, killing 241 U.S. service members.
New Deal Would Lift Key Sanctions Before Congressional Review
The new accord would reportedly lift more than 170 sanctions imposed by three executive orders before Congress has an opportunity to vote on the deal. Rescinding these executive orders may provide Iran with sanctions-free access to at least $30 billion in annual export revenue. In addition, Washington may release $7 billion of frozen funds tied to IRGC financing.
New Deal Would Lift U.S. Arms Embargo on Iran
While a United Nations arms embargo on Iran expired in 2020, the new deal would reportedly include concessions related to a separate U.S. arms embargo still in effect. A 2017 law established this ban with overwhelming bipartisan support.

Treasury Sanctions Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Minister for Malign Cyber Activities
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0941
WASHINGTON /The USA Department Of The Treasury/September 09/2022
— Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is designating Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) and its Minister of Intelligence for engaging in cyber-enabled activities against the United States and its allies. Since at least 2007, the MOIS and its cyber actor proxies have conducted malicious cyber operations targeting a range of government and private-sector organizations around the world and across various critical infrastructure sectors. In July 2022, cyber threat actors assessed to be sponsored by the Government of Iran and MOIS disrupted Albanian government computer systems, forcing the government to suspend online public services for its citizens.
“Iran’s cyber attack against Albania disregards norms of responsible peacetime State behavior in cyberspace, which includes a norm on refraining from damaging critical infrastructure that provides services to the public,” said Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Brian E. Nelson. “We will not tolerate Iran’s increasingly aggressive cyber activities targeting the United States or our allies and partners.”
Today’s action is being taken pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13694, as amended, which targets those who engage in malicious cyber activities. MOIS was previously designated pursuant to Executive Orders 13224, 13472, and 13553 for its support to multiple terrorist groups and for being responsible for, or complicit in, the commission of serious human rights abuses against the Iranian people.
MOIS AND ITS CYBER THREAT ACTOR NETWORKS
The MOIS, under the leadership of Esmail Khatib, directs several networks of cyber threat actors involved in cyber espionage and ransomware attacks in support of Iran’s political goals. In addition to conducting malicious cyber activity that affected Albanian government websites, MOIS cyber actors were also responsible for the leaking of documents purported to be from the Albanian government and personal information associated with Albanian residents.
Earlier this year, the United States identified a group of advanced persistent threat (APT) actors, known as MuddyWater, as a subordinate element within MOIS that has been conducting broad cyber campaigns in support of the organization’s objectives since approximately 2018. MuddyWater actors are known to exploit publicly reported vulnerabilities to gain access to sensitive data on victims’ systems, deploy ransomware, and disrupt the operations of private organizations. As recently as November 2021, MuddyWater was assessed to be involved in a cyber campaign targeting Turkish government entities and delivering documents containing malware likely through spear-phishing emails to gain access to victims’ systems.
APT39, which OFAC designated pursuant to E.O. 13553 on September 17, 2020, for being owned or controlled by MOIS, is another cyber espionage group that Iran has used to advance its malign objectives. APT39 has engaged in widespread theft of personal identifying information, probably to support surveillance operations that enable Iran’s human rights abuses. Concurrent with the U.S. designation of APT39 and Government of Iran-front company Rana Intelligence Computing Company, the Federal Bureau of Investigation exposed MOIS’ years-long malware campaign that targeted and monitored Iranian citizens, dissidents, and journalists, as well as a host of foreign organizations that included at least 15 U.S. companies.
The MOIS is being designated today pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended, for being responsible for, or complicit in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activity that is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security of the United States, and that have the purpose or effect of causing a significant disruption to the availability of a computer or network of computers.
Esmail Khatib is being designated today pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the MOIS.
SANCTIONS IMPLICATIONS
As a result of today’s designation, all property and interests in property of the designated targets that are subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. Additionally, any entities that are owned 50 percent or more by one or more designated persons are also blocked. All transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons are prohibited unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC, or exempt. These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
In addition, non-U.S. persons that engage in certain transactions with the persons designated today may themselves be exposed to designation. Furthermore, any foreign financial institution that knowingly conducts or facilitates a significant transaction for or on behalf of the persons designated today could be subject to U.S. correspondent or payable-through account sanctions.
The power and integrity of OFAC sanctions derive not only from OFAC’s ability to designate and add persons to the SDN List, but also from its willingness to remove persons from the SDN List consistent with the law. The ultimate goal of sanctions is not to punish, but to bring about a positive change in behavior. For information concerning the process for seeking removal from an OFAC list, including the SDN List, please refer to OFAC’s Frequently Asked Question 897 here. For detailed information on the process to submit a request for removal from an OFAC sanctions list.
View identifying information on the individual and entity designated today.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON RANSOMWARE
Please visit StopRansomare.gov, a one-stop resource for individuals and organizations of all sizes to reduce their risk of ransomware attacks and improve their cybersecurity resilience. This webpage brings together tools and resources from multiple federal government agencies under one online platform. Learn more about how ransomware works, how to protect yourself, how to report an incident, and how to request technical assistance.

Iran urges Saudi Arabia to show goodwill in talks to revive ties
Reuters/Monday, 12 September, 2022
Iran has no preconditions in its talks with Saudi Arabia, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani said on Monday, calling on Riyadh to adopt a "constructive approach" to improve ties. "Iran will respond proportionately to any constructive action by Saudi Arabia," Kanaani told a televised news conference. Tehran and Riyadh, the leading Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim powers in the Middle East, severed ties in 2016 with both parties backing opposite sides in proxy wars across the region, from Yemen to Syria and elsewhere. Last month, Tehran said a delayed sixth round of talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Baghdad would take place when the conditions are right in Iraq. In May, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister said there had been some progress in the Iraq-mediated talks with Iran but "not enough". ----Reuters

Ukraine recaptures 500 sq km of territory in south - military
Reuters/Monday, 12 September, 2022
Ukrainian forces have retaken about 500 square km of territory in the south of the country in the past two weeks as part of a counter-offensive against Russian troops, a spokesperson for Ukraine's southern military command said on Monday.
"On various sections we have advanced by (between) four and several tens of kilometres. We have liberated areas totalling around 500 square km," Natalia Humeniuk told a news briefing via video link, naming five settlements in the Kherson region which she said had been recaptured by Ukraine. Reuters could not independently verify her comments.-

Western Arms Production to Ramp Up as Ukraine Burns through Stockpiles
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 12 September, 2022
Western governments are mobilizing their arms manufacturers to ramp up production and replenish stockpiles heavily diminished by supplying Ukraine's six-month-old battle against Russia's invasion. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced this week a meeting of senior national armaments directors from allied countries to make long-term plans for supplying Ukraine and rebuilding their own arms reserves, AFP said. "They will discuss how our defense industrial bases can best equip Ukraine's future forces with the capabilities that they need," he said at a meeting at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany of the Ukraine Contact Group, 50 countries currently supporting the war effort. On Friday, the Pentagon's arms acquisition chief Bill LaPlante said the meeting would take place in Brussels on September 28. The goal is to determine "how we can continue to work together to ramp up production of key capabilities and resolve supply chain issues and increase interoperability and interchangeability of our systems," LaPlante told reporters at the Pentagon.
Billions more for arms
NATO countries do not all have the same weapons, but their arms are compatible. So ammunition manufactured in one country in the Atlantic alliance can be used by another. At the start of the war, Ukraine's military mostly used weapons and munitions that matched Russian standards. But within a few months those were exhausted -- especially in crucial artillery and missile systems -- and it has grown to depend on Western allies with NATO-standard arms. But that in turn has drawn down large amounts of munitions the allies had kept for their own defense. Rebuilding those supplies is now crucial.
In July, the European Union announced 500 million euros for joint purchases over the next two years to replenish arms provided to Kyiv. The priority is more anti-armor and anti-aircraft missile systems, and 155mm artillery pieces and ammunition. EU countries "have drawn on their stocks of ammunition, light and heavy artillery, anti-aircraft and anti-tank defense systems, and even armored vehicles and tanks," European Commissioner Thierry Breton said at the time. "This has created a de facto vulnerability that now needs to be addressed urgently," he warned. The United States, the primary defense supplier of Ukraine since the war began, has pledged $15.2 billion worth of weaponry, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, artillery and ammunition compatible with NATO weaponry.
Boosting production
The Pentagon has furnished some 800,000 155mm artillery rounds to Ukraine, while United States has just one factory making them, the General Dynamics plant in Scranton, Pennsylvania that produces only 14,000 rounds a month. "We have plans... to get that in increments ultimately up to 36,000 a month in about three years," said LaPlante. But that would take annual production to just over half of what Washington has given the Ukrainians in less than six months. The Pentagon wants allies to ramp up their own production lines to help replenish stockpiles. The US military has recently announced a slew of new contracts with arms manufacturers inside and outside the United States to do this. It includes $364 million for 250,000 rounds of 155mm artillery ammunition from multiple makers, $624 million for Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, $324 million for Javelin anti-tank missiles, and millions more for other weapons systems, ammunition and defense supplies. Dave Butler, spokesman for the Pentagon's joint chiefs of staff, said the decision is guided by but not determined specifically by US manufacturing capacities. "Ukraine's needs for a given weapon are the ultimate driving factor," he said.

Ukraine's defenders are turning personal vehicles into 'technicals' to fight off Russian forces
Stavros Atlamazoglou/Business Insider/September 12/2022
Aid from foreign governments and civilians has flowed to Ukraine since Russia attacked in February.
Much of it has been military aid, but Ukrainians are also repurposing donations for battlefield use.
Among those repurposed assets are technicals, which give troops much-needed mobility and firepower. In the six months since Russia launched its renewed attack on Ukraine, the US and its NATO allies have sent billions of dollars' worth of modern weaponry that has helped Kyiv hold the line and, in recent weeks, turn the tide against Moscow. Although Ukraine's forces have benefited greatly from that security aid, they have also put their creativity to work, devising ingenious ways to turn what they have on hand into deadly weapons. There is probably no better example of this than their conversion of pickup trucks and SUVs into militarized vehicles known as "technicals." The Ukrainians have shown remarkable ingenuity in their fight against Russian forces. They have developed an anti-ship missile, the Neptune, that Kyiv said was used to sink the flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva.
They have also developed a large arsenal of unmanned aerial systems by taking commercial drones and turning them into grenade-lobbing machines that are killing, maiming, and intimidating Russian troops. Within a few weeks of the start of Russia's attack on February 24, shops and small factories had popped up inside and outside of Ukraine to convert pickup trucks and SUVs — many of them donated from abroad — into battlefield vehicles, adding armor, weapons mounts, and decorations before handing them over to Ukrainians. Technicals are relatively easy to make and don't require specialized training to operate, and footage from the ground shows that Ukrainians have been quite creative in using them. The standard configuration of Ukrainian technicals has a heavy machine gun — usually a Soviet-origin 12.7mm or a Western-designed .50-caliber weapon — on the back of the vehicle, but other inventive modifications have been seen in action. In one instance, a Ukrainian unit used technicals to create mobile hunter-killer mobile anti-aircraft teams that could move around and engage Russian aircraft and drones. A video from the unit shows a small team of Ukrainians dismounting after spotting an enemy target and engaging it with FIM-92 Stinger missiles.
In another example, a Ukrainian unit turned a technical into a makeshift multiple launch rocket system, lobbing rockets at Russian positions before moving to a new firing position. In yet another case, Ukrainian troops used technicals as hunter-killer anti-tank units, firing FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles from Peugeot pickup trucks. Ukrainian forces are also using technicals to move around the battlefield quickly, allowing them to counter Russia's counter-battery fire. "The platform offers so much flexibility it's stupid not to use," a retired US Army Delta Force operator told Insider. "Granted, we used them because they allowed us to blend into the environment and get closer to the target without getting shot at, but the Ukrainians are using them because that is one of the things that is available to them," the retired operator added, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of ongoing work with the government.
In April, Boris Johnson, the British prime minister at the time, said the UK was looking at the possibility of sending technicals armed with Brimstone missiles to provide Ukraine's military a mobile anti-ship capability. "From what I've seen, the technical has stood up to the challenges of a modern-day, conventional battlefield," the retired operator said. "Although the air space is still contested and neither side enjoys the crucial air superiority, the Ukrainian technical is faring well against a proper military."Vehicles carrying heavy weapons and heavily armed fighters have been a staple of modern battlefields, but "technicals" gained notoriety in the early days of the US-led war on terror. CIA paramilitary officers and US and UK special operators started using them in earnest in Afghanistan in 2001. Gradually, the technical became an essential part of a special-operations team's kit. (The threat of improvised explosive devices eventually forced US troops into more heavily armored vehicles.) "We used them every chance we got because they were easy to drive and could go almost everywhere," the retired Delta operator said of technicals, calling them "one of the trademarks" of the war on terror. "As far as the best vehicle to turn into a technical, hands down the Toyota Hilux," the retired operator added. "That thing can take some serious beating and keep running."Delta Force — a tier-one special missions unit specializing in hostage-rescue and counterterrorism operations — developed its own technicals that looked like ordinary Toyotas but were outfitted with smoke grenades, radios, and bulletproof windows. The practice spread. US Army Green Berets, Navy SEALs, and operators from other coalition militaries started using technicals to blend in and move effectively. "We made them look like they were just another vehicle" that would been seen in a Middle Eastern country, the retired operator said. "That offered us an extra layer of security, as the enemy, or anyone else for the matter of fact, couldn't tell we were Americans from afar." Stavros Atlamazoglou is a defense journalist specializing in special operations, a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ), and a Johns Hopkins University graduate. He is currently working toward a master's degree in strategy and cybersecurity at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

King Charles III and His Siblings Escort Queen’s Coffin
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 12 September, 2022
As Queen Elizabeth II's four children walked silently behind, a hearse carried her flag-draped coffin along a crowd-lined street in the Scottish capital Monday to a cathedral, where a service of thanksgiving hailed the late monarch as a “constant in all of our lives for over 70 years.”Four days after the 96-year-old queen died at her beloved Balmoral Castle in the Scottish Highlands, a military bagpiper played as her oak coffin, draped in the royal standard, was borne from the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh under late-summer sunshine. King Charles III, dressed in army uniform, and Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward walked behind as the hearse traveled to St. Giles’ Cathedral, flanked by a bearer party of the Royal Regiment of Scotland and a detachment of The King’s Body Guard in Scotland, the Royal Company of Archers. Once inside St. Giles, the coffin was placed on a wooden stand and topped with the golden Crown of Scotland, encrusted with 22 gems and 20 precious stones along with freshwater pearls from Scotland’s rivers. “And so we gather to bid Scotland’s farewell to our late monarch, whose life of service to the nation and the world we celebrate. And whose love for Scotland was legendary,” said the Rev. Calum MacLeod.
Because the queen died at Balmoral, Scotland has been the focus of the world’s attention for the first part of Britain’s 10 days of national mourning. Scenes of large crowds lining the route that her coffin journeyed south have underscored the deep bond between the queen and Scotland, which persisted even as relations between the Conservative UK government in London and the pro-independence administration in Edinburgh have soured. In a homily, Church of Scotland Moderator Iain Greenshields said that “most of us cannot recall a time when she was not our monarch.”
“Committed to the role she assumed in 1952 upon the death of her beloved father, she has been a constant in all of our lives for over 70 years,” he said. “She was determined to see her work as a form of service to others, and she maintained that steady course until the end of her life.”
The coffin will remain at the cathedral until Tuesday so members of the public can pay their respects. Thousands lined the 0.7-mile (1 kilometer) route between palace and cathedral, some arriving hours ahead of the service to catch a glimpse of the coffin.
“I just wanted to be here, just to show … last respects. I cannot believe she is dead,” said Marilyn Mclear, a 70-year-old retired teacher. “I know she was 96, but I just cannot believe the queen’s dead.”One man appeared to shout angrily at the passing hearse, while others called out: “God save the king!” But the procession was greeted mostly with a respectful silence under a blue sky flecked with white clouds.
Charles, Anne and Edward all wore military uniforms during the procession, but Andrew did not. The Royal Navy veteran was stripped of his honorary military titles and was removed as a working royal over his friendship with the notorious US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Earlier, in London, Charles received condolences at Parliament and told lawmakers he would follow his late mother’s example of “selfless duty.”The queen's grandson, Prince Harry, hailed her as a “guiding compass” and praised her “unwavering grace and dignity."
The government, meanwhile, announced the nation will observe a minute of silence on Sunday, the evening before the queen's funeral. The “moment of reflection” will take place at 8 p.m. (1900 GMT, 3 p.m. EDT). People were encouraged to mark the silence at home or at community events. Hundreds of lawmakers crowded into the 1,000-year-old Westminster Hall at the Houses of Parliament for the service, rich in pageantry, in which Parliament offered its condolences to the king. A trumpet fanfare greeted him and Camilla as they entered.
Charles told members of the House of Commons and House of Lords that he would follow his late mother in upholding “the precious principles of constitutional governance” that underpin the UK’s political system. The hall, with its magnificent hammer-beam roof, is the oldest part of the parliamentary complex — a remnant of the medieval Palace of Westminster that once stood on the site. “As I stand before you today, I cannot help but feel the weight of history which surrounds us and which reminds us of the vital parliamentary traditions to which members of both Houses dedicate yourselves, with such personal commitment for the betterment of us all,” Charles said. The ceremony was held in Westminster Hall because monarchs are not allowed inside the House of Commons. That rule dates from the 17th century, when King Charles I tried to enter and arrest lawmakers. That confrontation between the crown and Parliament led to a civil war which ended with the king being beheaded in 1649.
Earlier Monday, a personal statement posted on Harry and his wife Meghan’s Archwell website said he cherished their times together “from my earliest childhood memories with you, to meeting you for the first time as my Commander-in-Chief, to the first moment you met my darling wife and hugged your beloved greatgrandchildren.” Amid acrimony in the House of Windsor, Harry quit as a senior royal and moved to the U.S. two years ago. On Saturday, there was a possible sign of a reconciliation as Harry and Meghan joined his brother Prince William and sister-in-law Catherine in meeting mourners outside Windsor Castle. The queen's coffin will be flown Tuesday to London, where it will lie in state at the Houses of Parliament Palace from Wednesday afternoon until the morning of the funeral on Sept. 19.
Authorities already have issued rules and guidelines for people wanting to pay their respects in London, with a long queue expected. After visiting Scotland, Charles embarks on a tour of the other nations that make up the United Kingdom — he visits the Northern Ireland capital, Belfast, on Tuesday and Wales on Friday. Harry's statement ended on a poignant note alluding to the death last year of his grandfather, Prince Philip, saying that “We, too, smile knowing that you and grandpa are reunited now, and both together in peace.”

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 12-13/2022
On 9/11 Anniversary, End the Self-Delusion About America’s Enemies
 H. R. McMaster and Bradley Bowman/Foreign Policy/September 12/2022
Al Qaeda once again has a safe haven in Afghanistan, endangering Americans.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/09/9-11-anniversary-terrorism-attacks-afghanistan-al-qaeda-taliban-biden-withdrawal-military/
Sunday marks the 21st anniversary of the terrorist attacks against the United States—planned and launched by al Qaeda from Afghanistan—that killed 2,977 innocent people. Much has changed since then, but following the disastrous U.S. military withdrawal last year, the Taliban once again rule Afghanistan, and al Qaeda enjoys a safe haven there—just as it did on Sept. 11, 2001.
Some may dismiss the tragic outcome in Afghanistan as a sad episode the United States can safely relegate to the history books as Washington focuses on important challenges elsewhere. But nothing could be further from the truth. Threats remain in Afghanistan, and the failure to address the self-delusion in Washington that led to the disastrous withdrawal in the first place will invite future disasters in U.S. policy toward other adversaries.
To understand the persistent malady of self-delusion in Washington, consider U.S. President Joe Biden’s comments in August 2021. “What interest do we have in Afghanistan at this point with al Qaeda gone?” he asked in an effort to justify his decision to withdraw every U.S. service member from Afghanistan. “We went to Afghanistan for the express purpose of getting rid of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. … And we did.”
The problem with such statements is that they were clearly not accurate, as many warned early last year and as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Long War Journal has documented for many years. The Taliban gave al Qaeda a safe haven to plan 9/11, and the two groups have remained attached at the hip ever since. Indeed, no less than a United Nations monitoring team reiterated in an April 2021 assessment that “the Taliban and Al-Qaida remain closely aligned and show no indication of breaking ties.” You know there is a problem when a U.N. entity has a clearer view of the United States’ enemies than the White House.
As an attempted vindication for the results of its Afghanistan policy, the Biden administration points to the successful U.S. drone strike that killed the head of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in July in Kabul. But Americans would be wise to ask a few questions: Why did Zawahiri move to the Afghan capital after the United States’ troop withdrawal when he could have stayed where he was or moved elsewhere? What does his eagerness to make Taliban leaders his new landlords and neighbors say about the continued relationship between the two terror groups? What other members of al Qaeda moved into Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal? And what have they been doing there?
If the United States fails to keep pressure on terrorist groups like al Qaeda, it should expect more attacks on its homeland.
The White House should not be so foolish as to believe that one strike in a year is sufficient to deprive al Qaeda of the breathing space it needs to plan and launch attacks against the United States and its allies.
Biden’s justification for the withdrawal was just the latest example of a bipartisan habit of self-delusion. In Afghanistan, Washington’s policies and strategies over two decades were based on fictions U.S. leaders told themselves and the American people rather than objective assessments of enemies and adversaries, the situation on the ground, and the necessary actions to secure U.S. interests. This self-delusion has led to self-defeat.
The United States saw that self-delusion in then-U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2009 speech at the U.S. Military Academy, in which he announced his decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. In the very next sentence, Obama declared: “After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.” U.S. troops should not stay in harm’s way a day longer than the country’s interests require, but such declarations signal a lack of resolve and send a counterproductive message to the United States’ adversaries.
The world saw the same Washington self-delusion again in the Trump administration’s 2020 deal with the Taliban and subsequent concessions to the group. These concessions delivered psychological blows to the United States’ Afghan allies that fell more heavily than any physical blows the Taliban could deliver, including negotiating with the Taliban without the Afghan government, not insisting on a cease-fire, forcing the Afghan government to release thousands of imprisoned terrorists, curtailing intelligence support, ending active pursuit of the Taliban, withdrawing close air support from Afghan forces, and terminating contractor support for Afghan forces.
SHADOW GOVERNMENT | JIM INHOFE
Indeed, declarations of withdrawal by three consecutive administrations emboldened enemies, sowed doubts among allies, encouraged hedging behavior, perpetuated corruption, and weakened state institutions.
The Biden administration failed to learn from the last complete withdrawal: from Iraq in 2011 and the subsequent reemergence of al Qaeda there, soon to morph into the Islamic State. By the summer of 2014, the Islamic State had gained control of territory in Iraq and adjoining Syria roughly the size of Britain and became one of the most destructive and powerful terrorist organizations in history. It turns out that threats don’t subside when one simply ignores realities on the ground, decides to stop fighting, and returns home. In fact, they usually get worse.
The United States and its partners in the region have now deprived the Islamic State of its so-called caliphate in Iraq and Syria because a small number of U.S. troops were kept there to support others bearing the brunt of the fighting. The Taliban-al Qaeda terror syndicate now has an emirate because the United States failed to do the same in Afghanistan.
So why does this all matter today? If the United States fails to keep pressure on terrorist groups like al Qaeda, it should expect more attacks on its homeland. But more than that, if Americans don’t demand an end to self-delusion in Washington regarding the nature and objectives of the country’s adversaries and what is necessary to secure its national interests, they should expect more self-defeat when confronting other adversaries—such as Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang, and Tehran.
Indeed, Americans are witnessing a paragon of self-delusion in the Biden administration’s efforts to reach a new nuclear agreement with Iran. In Tehran, a radical regime is pretending to negotiate in good faith even as it remains as determined as ever to wage a campaign of terrorism against the United States and its partners through proxies while progressing toward a nuclear weapons capability and seeking the destruction of Israel.
On this 9/11 anniversary, Americans should demand better from their leaders and officials in Washington, who might begin with telling the truth about the adversaries the United States confronts. A failure to do so will only invite more disasters in the future.
**H. R. McMaster is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, a former U.S. national security advisor during the Trump administration, and the author of Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World. Twitter: @LTGHRMcMaster
**Bradley Bowman is the senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former advisor to members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees. Twitter: @Brad_L_Bowman

A New Iran Deal Won’t Prevent an Iranian Bomb
Dennis Ross/The Washington Institute/September 12/2022
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/111890/%d8%af%d9%8a%d9%86%d8%b3-%d8%b1%d9%88%d8%b3-%d9%85%d9%86-%d9%81%d9%88%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%86-%d8%a8%d9%88%d9%84%d9%8a%d8%b3%d9%8a-%d8%a3%d9%8a-%d8%a7%d8%aa%d9%81%d8%a7%d9%82-%d9%86%d9%88%d9%88%d9%8a/
Tehran’s program is far more advanced than in 2015, so only a credible threat of force will stop the regime from crossing the nuclear weapons threshold.
Adecade ago, then-Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak would regularly come to Washington and hold high-level meetings with senior officials in the Obama administration. Iran’s nuclear program was the central focus of those meetings, and I recall his frequent admonition: “You say there is time to deal with it, but I fear we will be told this until we are told, ‘it is too late and there is nothing to be done but live with it.’” I was one of those in the U.S. government reassuring him that we would not let this happen. However, with Rafael Grossi, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), now saying the Iranian nuclear program “is galloping ahead,” I fear that Barak’s words may have been prophetic.
Iran now has two bombs worth of uranium enriched to 60 percent levels—close to weapons grade—and continues to install and operate advanced centrifuges that can enrich it far more quickly than the first generation IR-1 centrifuges. The baseline of the Iranian nuclear program has advanced dramatically beyond where it would have been if Tehran was still observing the limits of the Iran nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). From that standpoint, former U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA created the justification for Iran to press ahead, and clearly, the “maximum pressure” campaign of the Trump years failed from that perspective.
Trump’s failing approach on Iran’s nuclear program left U.S. President Joe Biden with a difficult inheritance. But the Biden policy to this point has not succeeded either. For the last 18 months, the Iranian nuclear program has been accelerating, and it includes large amounts of stockpiled enriched material and two items (60 percent enriched uranium and production of uranium metal) that, again in the words of Grossi, have “no justifiable civilian purpose.” That reality means even if the JCPOA is reconstituted, Iran after 2030 would be in a position to move quickly to a bomb unless Iranian leaders come to believe that the cost of doing so is too high.
I understand the Biden administration’s desire to return to the JCPOA. It would stop the advance of Iran’s nuclear program, require it to ship out the excess enriched uranium Tehran has stockpiled (19 times above the JCPOA limits), maintain less than one bomb’s worth of uranium enriched only to 3.67 percent, end the production of uranium metal, and unplug their advanced centrifuges.
But Iran has now developed nuclear know-how, so it is already a threshold nuclear weapons state. And Iran will have zero breakout time when the JCPOA’s qualitative and quantitative limits on its nuclear program lapse at the end of 2030. A resurrected JCPOA essentially buys time until then. It would defer the Iranian nuclear threat, not end it, and as a result, much would depend on how the United States and others use the time bought.
At a minimum, Washington must use the time to take steps that will credibly raise the costs in Iranian eyes of moving toward a nuclear weapon after 2030 and increasing threats in the region. That won’t be a simple task because Iran will also be using that time—and the potentially hundreds of billions of dollars it could gain over the remaining life of the JCPOA—to bolster their regional proxies, build their ballistic missile arsenal further, and harden its nuclear infrastructure to make it less vulnerable to attack.
At this point, the latest Iranian positions appear to have made the EU mediators less hopeful about reaching an agreement to resurrect the JCPOA soon. Josep Borrell, the European Union’s foreign-policy chief, said on Sept. 5: “I am sorry to say that I am less confident today than 28 hours before...about the prospects of closing the deal right now.”
One thing is for sure: Iranian leaders did not treat the “final proposal” the European Union presented to the Iranians and the Americans as final. They treated it as negotiable, accepting it but with several conditions. The first was a carve-out from sanctions for Iranian businesses that do business with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The second was a right to resume all aspects of its nuclear program should the U.S. government withdraw from the JCPOA again—meaning that enrichment to 60 percent and production of uranium metal, which have no justifiable civilian purpose, would gain legal acceptance. Finally, the process of coming back into compliance with the JCPOA limits could begin but not be completed, unless the IAEA ended its investigation into three undeclared Iranian sites where it found traces of uranium. (Those traces indicated prohibited action and a clandestine program.)
The Europeans appear willing to accept the resumption of the JCPOA with the IAEA issue unresolved. Aside from permitting Iran to gain access to some frozen bank accounts on day one of the implementation process, it would also mean putting the ball in the IAEA’s court, knowing there is likely to be real hesitancy to act in a way that derails the agreement to implement the deal.
If this happens and Iran once again escapes any accountability for prohibited action, it may be very difficult to ensure that Iran does not have a clandestine nuclear program. Not only does the outside world collectively not know what Iran has been doing at these three undeclared sites, but because the IAEA has had no access to its monitoring cameras at declared sites for months, there could have been a diversion of enriched materials to secret sites and the agency would not know it.
Of course, the United States could reject Iran’s conditions, and there may be no deal. But if so, what is the Biden administration prepared to do to stop the advance of the Iranian nuclear program? The current approach would have Washington increase economic pressure through stricter enforcement of sanctions—making it harder, for example, for Iran to sell its oil by cracking down on countries violating sanctions and buying Iranian oil. But it’s unclear how responsive the Chinese will be, especially now, and the White House may not be keen to keep oil off the market given the price. Moreover, the economic price alone may not be enough to persuade Iranian leaders to give up what they seem to want: either a nuclear weapons capability or being a simple step away from having one.
The bottom line is without a deal, Iran will draw closer to having a bomb sooner rather than later. With a resurrected JCPOA, it becomes later rather than sooner—unless the Biden administration and its successors act to convince Iranian officials of the risks they are running, including by very explicitly conveying that Washington will use force to prevent it.
Regrettably, there are already voices in the foreign-policy community suggesting—much as Barak predicted—that Iran can’t be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon and the world ought to simply learn to live with it. At the August meeting of the Aspen Strategy Group—a bipartisan group of leading foreign-policy professionals—one member of the group told me that a surprising number of participants were making this argument.
Although those making this case are willing to live with an Iranian nuclear bomb capability, they fail to see how others in the region are going to respond even as they draw false lessons from the Cold War about the prospect of stability in a nuclear-armed Middle East. For example, Israel—which believes a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to the Jewish state—will become far more likely to launch major military strikes against the Iranian nuclear infrastructure if it sees the United States and others are ready to live with an Iran with nukes. Similarly, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia has declared that if Iran has a nuclear weapons capability, the kingdom will get one as well. Will Egypt and Turkey be far behind?
Those who take comfort in the experience of the Cold War and the balance of terror that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union appear to think that the same logic or principles will apply in the Middle East as well. But they overlook at least two factors: First, both the United States and the Soviet Union had secure second-strike capabilities, meaning they could not be prevented from retaliating with their nuclear forces even if struck first. In the Middle East, apart from Israel—which reportedly has the capability to launch nuclear-armed missiles from submarines—it would take years to develop second-strike capabilities, leaving their nuclear forces highly vulnerable to a preemptive strike.
In a crisis, all actors would be on a hair trigger, making a nuclear strike and war all too possible. Second, even with the so-called reality of mutually assured destruction, the world came much too close to a nuclear cataclysm during the Cold War. Aside from the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought humanity much closer to a nuclear war than anyone knew at the time, it’s also now well-known that the Soviets misread a large-scale 1983 NATO exercise, believing it was the prelude to an attack, and they were preparing a nuclear strike. Luck averted a nuclear exchange.
It’s not even necessary to look to the past. Consider Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats today; he raised the alert status of his nuclear forces, and that has raised fears that too much support for Ukraine could trigger the Russian use of nuclear weapons. That should show the world that the use of nuclear weapons is no longer unthinkable. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, the odds are high it will produce a nuclear-armed Middle East—and the risk of a nuclear war in a conflict-ridden region will grow.
There, of course, will be one other consequence of an Iranian nuclear weapon: Those feeling that they, too, must have a bomb will grow in number and very likely extend beyond the Middle East—and that will spell the end of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT has been one of history’s most successful arms control treaties, keeping the number of nuclear-armed states far below what its authors originally expected.
Biden is right to say the United States will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Regrettably, the path he is pursuing risks making that posture more rhetorical than real. Although late, it is still not too late to prevent Iran from translating its threshold capability into a weapon. But it requires first and foremost that Iranian leaders believe they really are risking their entire nuclear infrastructure if they keep moving toward a bomb. Today, they do not believe Washington will ever use force against them. But U.S. officials can still change that perception by taking a number of steps.
First, Washington’s public posture needs to change. It should emphasize that while Biden strongly prefers a diplomatic outcome, Iranian officials are acting as if they want a nuclear weapon and are using talks to create cover for pursuing it. They should understand that the United States will act at a certain point and take out their entire nuclear infrastructure—one they have invested in at great cost for several decades.
The U.S. secretary of state should make a speech on Iran. He should explain U.S. policy, including the pursuit of a diplomatic solution that would permit Iran civil nuclear power but not nuclear weapons. He should also explain why it is imperative that Iran not acquire nuclear arms.
Apart from threatening the future of the NPT and greatly increasing the risk of a nuclear war in the Middle East, the secretary should explain that Iran is a country that respects no rules or limits: It continues to try to assassinate former U.S. officials and dissidents in the United States and elsewhere; it provides weapons, funds, and training to terrorist groups like the Houthis, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad; it uses proxy forces (Shiite militias) to undermine state authorities (in Lebanon and Iraq); it threatens its neighbors and international waterways; and it openly calls for the eradication of Israel, a member state of the United Nations.
To reinforce the secretary’s remarks, Biden should use his speech at the United Nations General Assembly this month to reemphasize that while Washington prefers a diplomatic outcome, Iran’s approach suggests it wants nuclear arms, not civil nuclear power, and as a result, it is risking its entire nuclear infrastructure. A public posture of this sort will also signal that Washington is conditioning the environment internationally for possible U.S. military action. Even before going public, the United States should inform its allies and use private channels to convey this message to Iranian officials.
Second, U.S. forces should be conducting exercises with U.S. Central Command that rehearse air-to-ground operations against hardened targets that necessarily must involve striking the air defenses that protect them. Iran pays attention to U.S. exercises and will understand the kind of attacks the Defense Department is preparing and simulating.
Third, Washington needs to continue to upgrade the defenses of its regional partners against missile and drone attacks. The aim is both to reassure regional partners and show Tehran that U.S. and allied forces can blunt its military responses or threats. (Much is being done on collective early warning of attacks in Centcom, and this needs to continue and expand into subgroupings within the region to do more to bolster active, integrated defenses. The whole will always be greater than the sum of the individual parts.)
Fourth, the Pentagon should accelerate the delivery of KC-46 refueling tankers to Israel. Israel’s ability to credibly strike Iran’s nuclear infrastructure requires more loiter time to ensure it can also take out hardened targets. It needs these aircraft to be able to carry out the kind of strikes necessary. Presently, the Israelis, who are slated to buy four KC-46 tankers, are not likely to get them before 2025. If the aim is to convince Iranian leaders that the military option is real and they are playing with fire if they continue to advance toward a weapon, Israel should get them much sooner. Indeed, providing them on an accelerated basis will signal to Iran that Biden is prepared to support Israeli action and will not restrain it.
So long as Iran doubts that the United States will use force against them or their nuclear infrastructure, there is little prospect of a diplomatic outcome that truly affects where its nuclear program is ultimately headed. Instead, sooner or later, Iran will draw closer to a weapons capability, and either the Israelis will act militarily with uncertain results or the Barak prophecy will materialize.
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, so will Saudis and others in the region, and the NPT will unravel. That there are many serious people already beginning to argue for the outcome Barak feared should be a wake-up call. It’s time to change it.
*Dennis Ross, the William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute, formerly served in senior national security positions with the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations. This article was originally published on the Foreign Policy website.

National Security Threat: China's Eyes in America
Peter Schweizer/Gatestone Institute/September 12/2022
The Chinese company DJI controls nearly 90% of the world market for consumer and commercial grade drones.
The excellent reporting on DJI by Kitchen tracks efforts by the company to lobby against passage of a bill called the American Security Drone Act (ASDA), now before Congress, to outlaw federal government use of DJI products entirely. What is the risk? Not only the data gathered by the drones themselves, but everything collected by the mobile app with which users control their drones and manage their DJI accounts. Like many other mobile applications, this includes a user's contacts, photos, GPS location, and online activities.
Every DJI drone in the skies above America is as good as a hovering Chinese spy.
DJI is engaged in a fierce lobbying effort to prevent passage of the ASDA bill. So fierce that they have enlisted police officers from local jurisdictions to come to Washington and lobby congressional staffers about how great DJI drones are for their cash-strapped local forces.... DJI lobbyists from firms like Squire Patton Boggs, Cassidy & Associates, and CLS Strategies are taking no chances. The company spent $2.2 million in lobbying efforts in 2020 and $1.4 million last year on lobbying activities, according to OpenSecrets.org.
Much as they are doing with products such as solar panels, the Chinese realize that cornering the market in an area where reach equals access is critical to their long-term plans to dominate. Their pattern includes stealing technology they cannot create themselves and using any means available to aid in that theft. Therefore, every bit of access to information they can scour is of more value to them than the product used to get it.
Understanding these patterns is central to recognizing that the Chinese do this to their own people as well.... [through] many different forms of what we may baldly call blackmail.
The Wilson Center, a bipartisan think tank in Washington, reported in 2017 that a small community of PRC students and diplomats have engaged in intimidation tactics ranging from intelligence gathering to financial retaliation... It was just those sorts of concerns that led the Trump administration to create the "China Initiative" within the Justice Department in 2018. This effort generated plenty of convictions of Chinese nationals in the US for technology theft and other forms of industrial espionage. The Biden administration ended the program this year....
China's strategy has for years hinged on infiltration by some Chinese scientists and researchers working abroad in the US and other western nations, with threats against their Chinese relatives as leverage for them to do so.
The consumer and commercial grade drones made by the Chinese company DJI account for nearly 90% of the market. These popular products are cost-effective, easy to fly and operate, and send every byte of data they gather to servers in China. Every DJI drone in the sky is as good as a hovering Chinese spy. Pictured: A police sergeant in Exeter, England pilots a DJI drone on May 25, 2021, as part of security preparations for the G7 Summit that was attended by US President Joe Biden and leaders of the other G7 countries. (Photo by Geoff Caddick/AFP via Getty Images)
Chinese intelligence gathering in the US takes many forms and has different purposes. Most Americans are familiar with some of their means and tactics, but not with how widespread and persistent they are.
Americans may know about the malware contained in that infernal TikTok app that their children use. They may know the Chinese military's cyber-intelligence service was likely behind many of the largest hacks of Americans' personal data that have ever occurred. They may know from the news how US defense and intelligence policy have sanctioned Chinese telecom giant Huawei, and counseled America's allies to reject Chinese-architected implementations of 5G networking, due to evidence that China has planted backdoors in commercial networking equipment designed to allow the Communist regime in Beijing to conduct surveillance and cyber-espionage anywhere in the world.
Do they know it extends to consumer-level drones?
Cybersecurity expert Klon Kitchen, writing for The Dispatch, recently detailed the problem with DJI, the Chinese company whose consumer and commercial grade drones control nearly 90% of the market. These popular products are cost-effective, easy to fly and operate, and send every byte of data they gather to servers in China. For this reason, they are banned by the US military and Department of Homeland Security, though still used by the FBI and increasingly by local police as "eyes in the sky" during crime events. FBI use of DJI drones is especially ironic considering bureau director Christopher Wray has warned often of the dangers to western commerce posed by the Chinese, most recently in London.
The excellent reporting on DJI by Kitchen tracks efforts by the company to lobby against passage of a bill called the American Security Drone Act (ASDA), now before Congress, to outlaw federal government use of DJI products entirely. What is the risk? Not only the data gathered by the drones themselves, but everything collected by the mobile app with which users control their drones and manage their DJI accounts. Like many other mobile applications, this includes a user's contacts, photos, GPS location, and online activities.
To repeat: Every DJI drone in the skies above America is as good as a hovering Chinese spy.
Like other Chinese government-controlled companies such as Huawei and Hikvision, makers of the artificial intelligence systems used in facial recognition and in the repression of China's Uyghur minority, DJI is adept at playing the Washington game. The company is engaged in a fierce lobbying effort to prevent passage of the ASDA bill. So fierce that they have enlisted police officers from local jurisdictions to come to Washington and lobby congressional staffers about how great DJI drones are for their cash-strapped local forces. As Kitchen points out, the ASDA bill is directed only towards a federal ban on these drones, but DJI lobbyists from firms like Squire Patton Boggs, Cassidy & Associates, and CLS Strategies are taking no chances. The company spent $2.2 million in lobbying efforts in 2020 and $1.4 million last year on lobbying activities, according to OpenSecrets.org.
These lobbyists are using the classic argument that it would be wrong to ban the federal government's use of our product because so many other people are using it. This is doubtless the dilemma currently facing the app stores of Apple and Google regarding the TikTok app, another Chinese product. The TikTok app has been identified by cybersecurity professionals as containing a keystroke logger, and both Apple and Google have been pressured by the Federal Communications Commission to remove it from their app stores. "Can we really ban something that so many people are happily using?" they must be asking themselves.
Therein lies the heart of the Chinese approach. TikTok was a mobile device application that no one was asking for, yet it became an overnight sensation in most western countries. We really must acknowledge, and grudgingly admire, the brilliant insight shown by the app's creator company, Chinese-government-controlled ByteDance, into the psyche of large numbers of young, western people. The TikTok app, pitched initially as a way to share and watch silly dance video clips, has been adopted by younger "woke" schoolteachers to "out" themselves as scheming, haranguing social justice warriors intent on smuggling sexual ideology into their classrooms and bragging about it.
This adds some context to Republican Sen. Rob Portman's (R-OH) exasperation at a Senate hearing about the ASDA legislation, where he said:
"Again, given what the FBI has told us, what the Commerce Department has told us, what we know from reports, I can't believe we have to write legislation to force US agencies to ban the use of Chinese-made drones, particularly where the servers are in China, where the Chinese government is a part owner and a supporter of this particular company."
The Chinese approach is to "capture" elite institutions and individuals in the US: politicians, leading universities, large pension funds, social media, and Hollywood among them. My latest book, Red Handed, documents this capture in the areas of politics, diplomatic and business consulting, Big Tech, academia, and on Wall Street. There is insight in the Soviet-era statement, attributed to Lenin, about capitalists "selling us the rope with which to hang them." Yet, it is the Chinese that understood how to sell the rope at a good price.
Much as they are doing with products such as solar panels, the Chinese realize that cornering the market in an area where reach equals access is critical to their long-term plans to dominate. Their pattern includes stealing technology they cannot create themselves and using any means available to aid in that theft. Therefore, every bit of access to information they can scour is of more value to them than the product used to get it.
Understanding these patterns is crucial to recognizing that the Chinese do this to their own people as well. As Gordon Chang's recent piece for the Gatestone Institute discusses, the Chinese Communist Party maintains tight control of Chinese people overseas through many different forms of what we may baldly call blackmail. The many stories of intimidation of Chinese students and academics in the US who speak up about human rights abuses by China, or in support for democracy in Hong Kong and Taiwanese independence, all demonstrate this.
Universities have put up with this in exchange for foreign funds for decades. They are only recently being confronted by the costs of this indulgence. For example, the former chairman of Harvard University's Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department was convicted by a federal jury for lying to federal authorities about his affiliation with the People's Republic of China's Thousand Talents Program and the Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) in Wuhan, China, as well as failing to report income he received from WUT.
The Wilson Center, a bipartisan think tank in Washington, reported in 2017 that a small community of PRC students and diplomats have engaged in intimidation tactics ranging from intelligence gathering to financial retaliation. "A Preliminary Study of PRC Political Influence and Interference Activities in American Higher Education" examines PRC influence in American universities.
It was just those sorts of concerns that led the Trump administration to create the "China Initiative" within the Justice Department in 2018. This effort generated plenty of convictions of Chinese nationals in the US for technology theft and other forms of industrial espionage. The Biden administration ended the program this year, citing concerns that a broader approach was needed and in response to lobbying by Asian American groups that it unfairly targeted scientists with connections to China. Further, Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen also said he heard concerns from the academic community that prosecutions of researchers for grant fraud and other charges was having a "chilling effect."
Be that as it may, China's strategy has for years hinged on infiltration by some Chinese scientists and researchers working abroad in the US and other western nations, with threats against their Chinese relatives as leverage for them to do so. This will remain a counter-intelligence problem regardless of what the effort to expose it is called.
It is all part of the pattern. Call it sabotage by remote control.
Peter Schweizer, President of the Governmental Accountability Institute, is a Gatestone Institute Distinguished Senior Fellow and author of the new book, Red Handed: How American Elites are Helping China Win.
© 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.

‘We Are Taking Over Your Country’: The Baby Jihad Revs Up
Raymond Ibrahim/September 12/2022
The Stream
A recent video of Muslims and Danes quarreling in Denmark is revealing in more ways than one — especially for those who are considering the merits of the Great Replacement theory. In the video, one Muslim man can be heard yelling the following words to a Dane:
We have five children, you only have one or two. In 10 to 15 years there will be more Pakistanis than Danes in this country!… The Danes are five million, soon you’ll be exterminated [or extinct?]. Look at the Swedes, look at the Norwegians, look at the Finns, man! We are multiples [of] millions, man!
The clamorous Muslim goes on to accuse Europeans of preferring bestiality to marriage, hence their lack of procreation. Soon other Muslims chime in. One says, “I just got married and will also have five children.” Others start yelling about how the Danes’ “mothers will be pregnant again,” because their mothers and sisters are “whores” (who presumably sleep around with the Muslims). Others chant, “This isn’t Denmark anymore, this is Paki-land” repeated several times, “We are taking over your country.”
What’s In a Name?
Several indicators support this last assertion — beginning with what the main Muslim man in the recent video was hollering about: Muslims are certainly outbreeding Europeans. This is evident in the simple fact that, all throughout Western Europe, the name Muhammad is either one of the most popular names given to newborn baby boys, or, in some countries and major cities — the Netherlands, England, Berlin — the most popular name.
This is to say nothing of other Arabic/Muslim names, which are also topping the charts of newborn baby names. Even in the U.S., Muhammad recently made the list of top 10 baby names. “Arabic names are on the rise this year,” the Baby Center explained, “with Muhammad and Aaliyah entering the top 10 and nudging Mason and Layla off.”
All this may seem innocuous enough; after all, what’s in a name? In reality, however, because more numbers equate more influence and power, many Muslims see their progeny as their contribution to the jihad — the “struggle” to make Islam supreme.
The Muslim Dream Come True
“We have 50 million Muslims in Europe,” Muammar Gaddafi exaggerated back in 2006, before more realistically adding, “There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe — without swords, without guns, without conquest — will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”
Ongoing reports and polls suggest this long cherished Muslim dream may not be so farfetched.
Thus, in the U.K., “Muslim hate fanatics plan to take over Britain by having more babies and forcing a population explosion,” a report revealed back in 2008: “The swollen Muslim population would be enough to conquer Britain from inside.”
One Pew report found that one out of every three people on earth is set to be a Muslim by 2070. Another Pew report says that the Muslim population of Europe could triple by 2050 — just when all those baby Muhammads are coming of age.
In Germany alone, nearly 20 percent of the population could be Muslim by 2050; considering that the average Muslim man is more zealous over his way of and purpose in (Islamic) life than the average German male, 20 percent may well be enough for an Islamic takeover of — or at least mass havoc in — Germany. Yet the report also finds that even “if all migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop” and due to significantly higher Muslim birthrates, Europe’s Muslim population will still grow significantly, to about 36 million, almost double the current population.
The Baby Jihad
Incidentally, the baby jihad can be achieved with either Muslim or infidel women. As an example of the latter, a Muslim imam was videotaped saying that, because European men lack virility, their women seek fertility among Muslim men:
We will give them fertility! We will breed children with them, because we will conquer their countries! Whether you like it or not, you Germans, Americans, French, and Italians and all those akin to you [Western people]—take in the refugees. For soon we will call them [and their European born sons] in the name of the coming caliphate! And we will say to you, ‘These are our sons.’
Similarly, the diary of Patrick Kabele, an African Muslim man who was living and arrested in Britain for trying to join the Islamic State — his primary motive being to purchase a nine-year-old sex slave — had references that only likeminded Muslims would understand: in an effort, as the aforementioned imam said, to use European women as incubators and “breed children with them,” Kabele noted that he had been “seeding some women over here, UK white,” adding, “I dont [sic] kiss anymore.” (Unlike straightforward mating, kissing is deemed an intimate act, and Muslims, in keeping with the doctrine of al-wala’ w’al-bara, must never be intimate with, certainly not love, non-Muslims — even when married to them — though they can have carnal relations with them.)
As discussed here, the same strategy is being used in the Muslim world against Christian minorities. Unlike in the West, however, where women freely give themselves to Muslims, Christian minorities are seized and seeded by Muslim men.
A More Zealous Faith
Even so, Muslim women remain the primary incubators for the jihad — and many of them see it as their obligation. A Christian Eritrean volunteer and translator who worked in migrant centers in Germany and was often assumed to be Muslim by the migrants, confessed last year that “Muslim migrants often confide in her and tell her about their dislike towards Christians,” and that “a number of the Muslim migrants she has spoken to have revealed a hatred for Christians and are determined to destroy the religion.” How they plan on doing this is telling: “Some women told me, ‘We will multiply our numbers. We must have more children than the Christians because it’s the only way we can destroy them here.’”
Not that many Western Europeans seem to care; some are even glad to see their own kind die off and be replaced by Muslims — such as Dr. Stefanie von Berg, who exulted before the German parliament: “Mrs. President, ladies and gentlemen. Our society will change. Our city will change radically. I hold that in 20, 30 years there will no longer be a [German] majority in our city. …. And I want to make it very clear, especially towards those right wingers: This is a good thing!”
From here one understands the true root of the immediate problem — and, as usual, it is not so much Muslims as it is perverse elements dispersed throughout the West. Having turned its back on its founding faith, a moribund culture — typified by nihilism, hedonism, cynicism, and, as such, dropping birth rates — simply has little worth living for and gives way to a more zealous one.
Surely those many historic Defenders of the West who bled rivers over the course of many centuries to keep invading Islam out are turning in their grave.

Biden Should Give Big Oil a Bailout
Matthew Yglesias/Bloomberg/September 12/2022
White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain has taken to tweeting the price of a gallon of gasoline on a daily basis, a habit that’s convenient for him as long as it continues its steady decline. The idea that President Joe Biden’s administration is somehow responsible for this decrease is wrong, of course, but the White House certainly took the blame when prices rose, so fair is fair if it wants to take the credit as they fall.
At the same time, the administration should keep in mind that, paradoxically, one of the biggest risks to the continued supply of oil is fear that prices may crash. To insure the economy against future price spikes, the administration needs to encourage investment in oil production — and so it should try to offer the industry insurance against the risk of a price crash.
In other words: Biden should promise to bail out the oil industry.
Consider the main tool the Biden administration has used to alleviate pain at the pump — the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Treasury Department estimates that the administration’s historically large releases have reduced the price of gasoline by between 17 and 42 cents per gallon.
In March 2020, when oil was cheap, Donald Trump’s administration proposed purchasing enough oil to completely fill up the SPR. Democrats rejected the idea, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer congratulating negotiators for having “eliminated a $3 billion bailout for big oil.”
Had Trump gotten his way, Biden’s SPR releases would have been slightly larger and more potent, and gasoline prices would now be a bit cheaper. But beyond that, a partial bailout of the oil industry would have made investing in new production when prices rose last year less risky, and companies might have done it faster.
Fast forward to 2022, and the Democratic Party realizes that surging gasoline prices are political poison. And now that Democrats have passed the largest investment in zero-carbon energy in the world, they can’t afford to be complacent about falling gasoline prices. Democrats need to remember how bad things got when prices spiked, and recognize that the opposition to bailouts was a tactical and strategic error.
Some history: Oil industry figures remain scarred by the oil price war of 2014-2015, when OPEC got tired of facing competition from US shale and deliberately drove down the price of oil to the point where North American shale would be uneconomical. Investors lost tons of money. Production rebounded over subsequent years, only to crash again during the pandemic — when investors, again, lost tons of money. That’s why, by February 2022, major shale players were saying that they wouldn’t make major investments even if oil reached $200 a barrel.
Thankfully for the US economy, that was an overstatement. According to the Energy Information Administration, US oil output for 2022 is tracking to be higher than in any year except 2019. Especially given the war between Russia and Ukraine, production needs to continue to rise to help the world economy recover from the pandemic. And OPEC’s most recent move, cutting production slightly to discourage prices from falling further, was ideal from an American point of view: The cut wasn’t big enough to spike prices, but the communicated intent of preventing oil from getting much cheaper encourages US producers to keep investing.
The problem is that OPEC decision-making can be fickle. US shale players are aware they’re currently hostage to international events.
Biden could improve the situation by clearly communicating an intent to refill the SPR if oil prices start to fall substantially — buying oil at a price that’s still profitable for US producers. Not only would that commitment make a difference to the industry’s bottom line, it would also show that the Democratic Party is no longer trying to bankrupt the domestic oil and gas industry.
That would be helpful above and beyond any financial impact of the promise. Biden could further strengthen his commitment by engaging congressional Republicans in talks about expanding SPR capacity or finding other legislative solutions to help the industry deal with the fallout of a hypothetical future price war.
Democrats don’t customarily see themselves as the party that runs interference for the oil industry. But they ought to see that symmetrical price stabilization is not only consistent with their climate goals but also complementary to them.
Soaring prices are politically painful. But plummeting prices would discourage electric vehicle adoption and other eco-friendly measures. Favoring domestic production over foreign production aligns with Biden’s foreign policy goals, supports his interest in encouraging domestic manufacturing, serves his short-term political needs and helps the Federal Reserve fight inflation.
Granted, an oil bailout is a little bit out of the Democratic Party’s comfort zone. But it would be the connective tissue that cements the Biden legacy on multiple fronts. If he doesn’t do it, things might still work out — recent events have broken in his favor — but they also might not. Hope is not a plan. The White House should demonstrate more wisdom than Schumer did two years ago and act now to head off oil price spikes before they happen.