LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

Pray for us; we are sure that we have a clear conscience, desiring to act honourably in all things
Letter to the Hebrews 13/18-25: "Pray for us; we are sure that we have a clear conscience, desiring to act honourably in all things.I urge you all the more to do this, so that I may be restored to you very soon. Now may the God of peace, who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, make you complete in everything good so that you may do his will, working among us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly. I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been set free; and if he comes in time, he will be with me when I see you. Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy send you greetings. Grace be with all of you."

Jesus Shows Himslef To The Desciples By The Sea Of Tiberias
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint John 21/01-14:"After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias; and he showed himself in this way. Gathered there together were Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. Simon Peter said to them, ‘I am going fishing.’ They said to him, ‘We will go with you.’ They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. Just after daybreak, Jesus stood on the beach; but the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to them, ‘Children, you have no fish, have you?’ They answered him, ‘No.’He said to them, ‘Cast the net to the right side of the boat, and you will find some.’ So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in because there were so many fish. That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’ When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on some clothes, for he was naked, and jumped into the lake.
But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from the land, only about a hundred yards off. When they had gone ashore, they saw a charcoal fire there, with fish on it, and bread. Jesus said to them, ‘Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.’ So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three of them; and though there were so many, the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, ‘Come and have breakfast.’ Now none of the disciples dared to ask him, ‘Who are you? ’ because they knew it was the Lord. Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. This was now the third time that Jesus appeared to the disciples after he was raised from the dead."

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on April 18/16

Something is rotten in the land of my ancestors/Hisham MelhemHassan Al Mustafa/Al Arabiya/April 17/16
‘A room too crowded for an elephant’/Salman Al-Ansari Hassan Al Mustafa/Al Arabiya/April 17/16
Saudi Arabia and Turkey: Is Egypt an obstacle/Turki Al-DakhilHassan Al Mustafa/Al Arabiya/April 17/16
On King Salman’s meetings with al-Azhar cleric and Tawadros II/Hassan Al Mustafa/Al Arabiya/April 17/16
Iranian boots on the ground/Alex Rowell/Now Lebanon/April 17/16
Obama in Riyadh: A New Page in NATO-Middle East Role/Middle East Briefing/April 17/16
Washington Prepares Offensive against Mosul and Raqqa/Middle East Briefing/April 17/16
Aleppo and the End of the Ceasefire: Who Fooled Who in Syria/Middle East Briefing/April 17/16
Iraq: A Failed State by Summer/Middle East Briefing/April 17/16
UK: What British Muslims Really Think/Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute/April 17/16
Israel, Turkey, Russia and Egypt/Shoshana Bryen/Gatestone Institute/April 17/16
Does the Middle East Still Matter? The Obama Doctrine and U.S. Policy/Derek Chollet, Ellen Laipson, Michael Doran, and Michael Mandelbaum/Washington Institute/April 17/16

Something is rotten in the land of my ancestors
Hollande Wraps Up Lebanon Trip with al-Rahi, Qahwaji Talks, Refugee Camp Visit
Report: Hollande Willing to Host Inter-Lebanese Dialogue to Address Presidency
Report: Berri Urges Hollande's Help to Demarcate Maritime Border to Avoid War with Israel
Report: Hollande-Hizbullah Meeting Canceled over Presidential Impasse
Aoun, Franjieh in 'Friendly Hug' at French Ambassador's Residence
Bassil, Kanaan Hold Talks with Geagea in Maarab
TV Series 'Car Bomb' Sparks Panic in Aley
Arab Parliament Reportedly Labels Hizbullah as 'Terrorist Group'
Egyptian Held at Beirut Airport for Trying to Travel Carrying Pistol
Undocumented Syrians in Lebanon Pushed into the Shadows

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on April 18/16

France's Hollande arrives in Egypt on two-day visit
Netanyahu Vows Golan Heights Will Remain Israel's 'Forever'
Syria Opposition Threatens to Quit Peace Talks amid Aleppo Bloodshed
Assad party wins expected majority in Syria parliamentary vote
11 civilians dead in attacks in Syria’s Aleppo: monitor
US air force plane intercepted by Russian jet
Russia denies jet flight was unsafe
Iran shows off Russian S-300 defense system on Army Day
Hundreds rally in Baghdad backing Sadr deadline on cabinet change
Iran shows off Russian S-300 defense system on Army Day
South Sudan gunmen kill 140 in raid in Ethiopia
Oil Producers Mull Output Freeze in Doha, Iran Stays Home
Powerful Ecuador Quake Kills at Least 233

Elias Bejjani
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2016/04/16/elias-bejjani-a-big-no-for-hypocrisy-and-hypocrites/
April 18/16
Jesus Condemns Hypocrisy and hypocrites: Matthew 23/13-15: “How terrible for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You lock the door to the Kingdom of heaven in people’s faces, but you yourselves don’t go in, nor do you allow in those who are trying to enter! How terrible for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You sail the seas and cross whole countries to win one convert; and when you succeed, you make him twice as deserving of going to hell as you yourselves are.
Hypocrisy, cowardice, selfishness, hatred and deceit are the main evil manifestations of our evil instincts. These instincts are constantly Endeavoring to distance us away from the spiritual Godly gifts, especially the great gift of love, in a bid to lead our steps into temptation and to make us easy indefensible and helpless preys for the devil and his venomous works. In fact the actual devil is inside us. He is deeply root in our instincts of hatred, malice, revenge, greed, sex, vice, jealousy, war, selfishness and the list goes on and. It is up to us to either be Godly and hail the Godly spiritual gifts, or to become blind heart and soul, fully surrender to lust and accept the slavery of our evil instincts.
The choice is ours, no body’s else. This big choice decides the path that we shall walk on the Day of Judgment. Either back to our Godly mansions in heaven, or to Hell where there will be no end for pain, and grinding of teeth.
Our hardest on going struggle and challenge is not with any body, but with ourselves. We are fully and solely accountable for all our deeds. Accordingly if we have faith and believe in God we are ought to be fully aware of the Day of Judgment no matter what.
If we keep in mind this inevitable accountability day and remember that we come from dust; and to dust we shall return, then we could tame our instincts, follow the ten Commandments and abide by them in all that we say, think and do.
When we fear God and succeed in taming and reining our instincts we become Godly and good people, love others and work for the welfare of our countries and people. The greatest wisdom lies in the constant remembering of the Judgment Day when we will face God to pay for our deeds. No one can carry with him from this mortal earthly world but his deeds. These deeds are the only and only assets that matter on the Judgment Day.
When we get confused, worship money and all the other perishable world riches, forget all about the Judgment Day and its inevitable accountability, fail to control the evil desires of our instincts and succumb to their lust and insatiable tendencies, we become mere tools for these instincts and abandon every thing that is Godly and human.
Our beloved countries, as well as our families and people depend on us to be righteous and to adhere to the values of love, forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance of others and to fear Almighty God in every word we utter and with each act that we do.
We need to fill ourselves with God’s spirit and act accordingly. The spirit of love, modesty, forgiveness and holiness.
Let us pray, that we and every body else shall wake up from the coma of selfishness and remember the true meaning of love as Jesus taught us.
“My commandment is this: love one another, just as I love you. The greatest love you can have for your friends is to give your life for them”. (John 15/12-13)

Something is rotten in the land of my ancestors
Hisham MelhemHassan Al Mustafa/Al Arabiya/April 17/16
Forty one years ago, Lebanon began its slow descent into a long nightmare of civil wars, religious/sectarian cleansings, proxy communal bloodletting, Syrian and Israeli invasions, intra-communal strife and the deployment of a Multinational Force including American and French troops. Twenty six years ago, the war ended officially but without settling the bitter conflicts; the dead were buried, the missing were forgotten, the culprit leaders, and the perpetrators of massacres were cleared of political and legal responsibility by the same corrupt, rotten political system that caused the war in the first place. Immediately, almost the whole country; including the political class, the paramilitary forces, the religious establishments, the media and many intellectuals went into a self-induced collective amnesia. The Lebanese, if you did not notice yet, excel at denial. Many, depending on their political preference, and religious affiliation would blame the war invariably on the Palestinians, or the Syrians, or the Israelis. It was said repeatedly that the bloodletting which lasted for 15 years was essentially “other people’s war” in Lebanon.
The fact that those who pulled the trigger, committed mass murders, killed other Lebanese caught at the wrong check points that happened to belong to the “wrong” religion, took pride in displaying or dragging dead corpses of their enemies in the streets, were Lebanese too, was not that germane for the truth. Those Lebanese, we were told were manipulated by outside sinister forces with dark designs on Lebanon. Forty one years later, Lebanon is in much more dire straits than it was on the eve of April 13, 1975 when the first shots were fired. Today the Lebanese establishment is more venal and more capricious than it was four decades ago. It is as if when Talleyrand said, “they learned nothing and forgot nothing”, he was describing the current Lebanese political class and not the restored Bourbons of France in the early 19th century. Today, the foul smell of tons of uncollected garbage in Beirut, decomposing in the open, is emblematic of a country rotten to the core, and decomposing slowly with no one coming to the rescue, in a region going through more horrific nightmares.
Did you say Mea Culpa?
The Lebanese have yet to have an open, honest accounting of the war, its real socio-economic, political and regional causes, which explain why there is no nationally acceptable history of the initial civil war and its later metamorphosis into a wider regional and international conflict. There are no reliable or official figures about casualties, although it is estimated that 150,000 people were killed and close to a million Lebanese, a quarter of the population, were displaced.
Lebanon is in much more dire straits than it was on the eve of April 13, 1975 when the first shots were fired. What is especially distressing is the still open wound of the 17,000 people missing, the anguish of their families never seriously addressed. Lebanon never conducted serious investigations of the many massacres that occurred during the war years at the hands of local militias of different political/religious stripes, or the Syrians and their proxies, or the Israelis and their proxies.
There was no official inquiry regarding the war, and nothing approaching the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”, of post-Apartheid South Africa, which guaranteed that the daemons of the wars in Lebanon will not be exorcised. Not a single Lebanese leader involved in the bloody orgies could muster the moral courage to admit Mea Culpa. Not once, a Lebanese government conducted a serious inquiry to legally hold the perpetrators of massacres and assassinations accountable.
The Israeli government conducted an inquiry to establish the culpability of Israelis in the massacres of Sabra and Shatila Palestinian camps in Beirut following the Israeli invasion and occupation of the Lebanese capital in September 1982. The Kahan Commission, correctly established that the direct responsibility of killing hundreds of unarmed Palestinians rested with the Lebanese Phalange militia, but that Israel bears indirect responsibility for allowing the killers to enter the camps that were surrounded by Israeli troops, and blamed the Israeli military for not stopping the killings when they found out what was going on in the camps during the course of three days of wanton killings of women and children. The inquiry found that Defense minister Ariel Sharon bears personal responsibility because of his failure to protect the civilians. The inquiry forced Sharon to resign and almost ended his political career. In the last four decades, presidents, prime ministers, parliamentarians, senior military and security officers, intellectuals, journalists and ambassadors were assassinated, and almost no one was legally held accountable. And you can rest assured that the assassins walked solemnly in the official funeral processions. Certain traditions and rituals die hard in the land of the eternal Cedars.
With such friends…
All the regional and international powers that intervened militarily in Lebanon have done so on behalf or behest of a Lebanese community or group. Even invading armies from the East and the South found some Lebanese showering them with rice and flowers. (Also true, on occasions the same people would later on toss hand grenades at the same troops). Fighting with somebody else’s sword is an old Lebanese tradition. Lebanese right wing groups believed that they could use Israeli muscle against their common enemy; the armed Palestinian factions that trampled for years with impunity on Lebanese sovereignty, then bid them farewell across the borders. They were shocked to find out that there is a price to pay; a peace treaty in favor of Israel and an informal alliance against Syria.
Those who welcomed the Syrian army in 1976 and collaborated with it against their domestic enemies, lived to rue the day, when the same Syrian army turned against them with fury. Israel’s entanglement in domestic Lebanese politics was brief and its relations with its erstwhile allies were based on expediency and opportunism. There were no ideological, cultural or religious dimensions to the fleeting, sordid tryst; and after the collapse of the ill-fated May 17 peace agreement of 1983 at the hands of Syria and its allies, the Israelis (mostly Sharon and co.) dropped their political illusions and schemes about Lebanon, but maintained their costly occupation of parts of South Lebanon until the year 2000.
The Sunnite and leftist groups that collaborated with various Arab states, mainly Syria, but also Iraq, Libya and Saudi Arabia, or did the bidding for their governments, justified their actions by invoking Arab Nationalism and /or Muslim solidarity. Syria exploited its tremendous influence, born out of geography, history, culture and economic interdependence to unprecedented levels for almost three decades.
The Assad dynasty in its dealings with various Lebanese factions oscillated between manipulation, intimidation, blackmail, rewards and severe punishment. Syrian military officers and senior Baath Party officials enriched themselves off of Lebanese businessmen, warlords and politicians. Before Syrian intervention, Lebanon had a thriving culture of political and financial corruption. Under watchful Syrian eyes the culture of corruption and the debasement of every facet of life in the country became comprehensive and whole.
Syria’s alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Hezbollah proxy turned Lebanon into a Syrian protectorate, until this alliance overplayed its hand and assassinated former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in February 2005. Popular Lebanese pressure, coupled with international outcry forced the Assad regime to withdraw its forces in April of the same year.
Lebanon’s unfinished wars
Of all the foreign powers involved in Lebanon’s conflict Iran stands out as a unique actor. Iran’s symbiotic relations with the Shiite community and the groups that represent it, particularly Hezbollah, gives Tehran more leverage than even that enjoyed by Syria in the past. It is ironic that a group of Lebanese Shiite clerics moved to Iran in the 16th century and helped turn Persia into a majority Shiite power.
Hezbollah’s relations with Iran is grounded in Shiite sectarian affinity, traditional clerical contacts and learning, common political and strategic interests, complex financial and organizational links that manifest itself in the collaborations of the two sides on the international scene. Hezbollah commands a well-equipped army that fought against Israel in 2006 for a month and managed to create a significant hole in its strategic deterrence.
Hezbollah is probably the strongest non-state actor in the world, and was the dominant such actor in the Middle East until the rise of ISIS in 2014. Hezbollah allowed Iran to become an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict. And since the beginning of the season of Arab uprisings, Hezbollah has become Iran’s powerful modern version of the once famed and feared Ottoman Janissaries; a professional and capable killing machine.
Hezbollah’s jihadists are fighting in the name of Shiite solidarity and on behalf of Iran, Sunnite Arab enemies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. It is worth stressing here that Iran and Hezbollah, and not Russia that maintained Assad in power in Damascus. As a military force, Hezbollah dwarfs Lebanon’s national army. The Taif Accord signed by warring Lebanese groups in late 1989 was supposed to end the war, lead to a political solution with better representation that would diminish sectarianism and religious tension. Hezbollah maintained its large arsenal, even after Israel withdrew its occupation forces from Southern Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah pledged not to turn its weapons against fellow Lebanese, but to continue the “resistance” against Israel.
The political reform did not materialize, and peace turned out to be a prolonged truce punctuated by spasms of violence. In May, 2008 when the government decided to shut down Hezbollah’s private and illegal telecoms network, a move described by Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah as a “declaration of war”, Hezbollah and its allies occupied West Beirut, terrorized their political opponents and shot down the media outlets owned by their political rival Saad Hariri. Given its brittle sectarian make-up, the army remained “neutral”. The thugs of Hezbollah forced the government to rescind its decision. Hezbollah has proven to the Lebanese that it could occupy Beirut at will. They could start at breakfast and finish at lunch. After the Syrian uprising, particularly since Hezbollah began fighting the Syrian opposition groups to maintain Assad’s regime, violence spilled over to Lebanon, and Hezbollah found itself fighting Lebanese supporters of the uprising in Eastern and Southern Lebanon.
ISIS brought its terror to Hezbollah’s stronghold in Beirut’s southern suburbs, in the form of car bombs. Hezbollah’s Iranian influenced sectarianism has created an insular culture among the Shiites not known in Lebanon before the Iranian Revolution. Hezbollah is undermining what has been left of Beirut’s famed cosmopolitanism and is trying gradually to turn Beirut into a Tehran on the Mediterranean.
A perfect storm
There was very little by way of commemorating the 41st anniversary of the war. There were the usual scattered columns and tweets calling on the Lebanese to turn the page on internal strife, and lamenting the inability of the Lebanese to engage in self-criticism or to face their responsibilities in accounting for the war, its victims and particularly the fate of thousands of missing Lebanese. But this year the anniversary comes at a time when Lebanon is facing what amounts to a perfect storm of nasty developments and circumstances inside and outside the country that could lead to its unraveling.
The dysfunctional country has failed to elect a president for two years. The economy is stalled, and Lebanon’s banking system is feeling the heat emanating from American sanctions against Hezbollah. The tourism industry has been dealt a severe blow, when the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) called on their citizens to leave Lebanon. Remittances from Lebanese abroad are diminishing amid fears that the relatively large Lebanese expatriate communities in the GCC countries may no longer find the Gulf region hospitable.
Already, many Lebanese firms and companies, representing various sectors including, services and media have not paid regular salaries to their employees for months. Four decades after the war, Lebanon still does not have reliable electric power supplies, the environment is much polluted, and the water is unhealthy. For a country that prides itself on its delicious and healthy cuisine, it was devastating to the Lebanese to learn that in recent years they have been consuming spoiled and expired meat. Food safety has become a public health concern, with many incidents of food poisoning.
Recently Saudi Arabia withdrew a four billion dollar package to arm and train Lebanon’s armed forces and internal security agencies, when Lebanon’s foreign minister failed to side with all the Arab states in condemning the burning of Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran. The decision by Gibran Basil, a vulgar, obtuse and a small time politician was based on parochial and detrimental calculus, since the party he belongs to, the so-called Free Patriotic Movement is allied with Hezbollah. Add to this brew of negative ingredients, the fact that the wars in Syria and Iraq, and Hezbollah’s involvement in them, are not likely to end any time soon, one could see how they could heighten sectarian tensions, leading to an unintended destructive perfect storm. Garbage is decomposing in Beirut, and the indescribable stench has already formed a huge stationary cloud over the country. What is more dangerous is the slow decomposition of the dysfunctional and sick Lebanese body politics and society. Had it not been for those healthy organs that are still fighting the decay, and trying to heal the rotten cells; the unsung heroes of Lebanon, the courageous activists and students, the non-governmental organizations, and the few honorable people in public life who are determined to continue the struggle to save the patient, one would be tempted to write a requiem before the official death certificate is issued.

Hollande Wraps Up Lebanon Trip with al-Rahi, Qahwaji Talks, Refugee Camp Visit
Naharnet/April 17/16/French President Francois Hollande concluded on Sunday a two-day trip to Lebanon where he met with senior officials and visited a Syrian refugee camp in the eastern Bekaa region. In the morning, he held separate talks with Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi and later Army Commander General Jean Qahwahi. Al-Rahi reiterated during the meeting the need to elect a a president to fill the vacuum that has persisted since 2014. He revealed according to Voice of Lebanon radio (93.3) that he sensed a “seriousness” from Hollande to end Lebanon's crisis. “Officials should search for the real reasons why parliament has not been able to hold electoral sessions,” he remarked from the Snoubar residence, the headquarters of the French ambassador to Lebanon. He handed the French official a memorandum on the situation of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, the presidential vacuum, and terrorism in the region, said VDL (100.5). For his part, Hollande said: “France only has one candidate for the presidential elections, and it is Lebanon.” He then headed to the Bekaa to meet with Syrian refugees at the Dalhamieh camp. "I just visited a camp the likes of which are all over Lebanon," Hollande told reporters after spending nearly an hour at the camp. "They (Syrian children) don't want violence. They want to learn and go home, join their families, their country," he said. Two Syrian families in the Bekaa are expected to be sent to France where they will be naturalized, media reports said. About 15 Syrian schoolchildren greeted the French president as he entered the large communal tent used as their makeshift school. They recited a poem in Arabic and gave Hollande pictures they had drawn. "You will be the messengers of peace... France's children are thinking of you a lot," Hollande told them. He met with the U.N. refugee agency's Lebanon representative Mireille Girard, who said difficult living conditions were forcing young Syrian children into child labor. The French president later announced that France will grant Lebanon 50 million euros to support the displaced and underlined the need for a political solution to the crisis in Syria to ensure the safe return of refugees to their homeland. Hollande also noted that France will keep pushing for the implementation of the Saudi-French agreement on providing the Lebanese army with weapons, which was suspended earlier this year amid high tensions between the kingdom and Hizbullah. Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Ongoing disputes between the rival March 8 and 14 camps have thwarted the polls.

Report: Hollande Willing to Host Inter-Lebanese Dialogue to Address Presidency
Naharnet/April 17/16/France is convinced that only a “consensual” president would be able to end the vacuum in the presidency, reported the Kuwaiti daily al-Seyassah on Sunday. Ministerial sources told the daily that French President Francois Hollande is willing to host inter-Lebanese dialogue that would be limited to resolving the vacuum in the presidency after is appeared that neither Change and Reform chief MP Michel Aoun nor Marada Movement head MP Suleiman Franjieh will be elected to the post. A consensual head of state will help revitalize state institutions and agencies, stressed the sources. Hollande kicked off on Saturday a two-day visit to Lebanon where he held talks with Speaker Nabih Berri, Prime Minister Tammam Salam, Defense Minister Samir Moqbel, Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil and a number of other officials. He demanded on Saturday the “swift” election of a president, saying however that this issue is in the hands of Lebanese MPs. Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Ongoing disputes between the rival March 8 and 14 camps have thwarted the polls.

Report: Berri Urges Hollande's Help to Demarcate Maritime Border to Avoid War with Israel
Naharnet/April 17/16/Speaker Nabih Berri requested during his meeting with French President Francois Hollande on Saturday France's assistance in demarcating Lebanon's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Mediterranean that borders with Israel, reported the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat on Sunday.
A parliamentary source revealed that “this is a problem that Israel is creating and it may spark a war.”Berri added to Hollande: “Israel's violations against Lebanon are not limited to the air and land, but include the the sea.”“Israel is claiming part of the EEZ as its own when in fact we have evidence of the contrary,” said the speaker. “This dispute is hindering our efforts to invest in our oil and gas wealth,” he lamented. Lebanon and Israel are at loggerheads over the 850 kilometers of territorial water that each claims as part of its EEZ. Beirut argues that a maritime map it submitted to the U.N. is in line with an armistice accord drawn up in 1949, an agreement which is not contested by Israel. In January, the leaders of Cyprus, Greece and Israel pledged to work together to seize opportunities emerging from newly found offshore gas reserves in order to bolster stability and security in a region wracked by conflict. Hollande kicked off on Saturday a two-day visit to Lebanon where he held talks with Speaker Nabih Berri, Prime Minister Tammam Salam, Defense Minister Samir Moqbel, Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil, and a number of other officials.

Report: Hollande-Hizbullah Meeting Canceled over Presidential Impasse
Naharnet/April 17/16/French President Francois Hollande was expected to hold talks during his visit to Beirut with a delegation from Hizbullah, reported the Kuwaiti daily al-Seyassah on Sunday. Hizbullah had requested that the meeting be held, but it was canceled due to the conflict between the party and the international community, said ministerial sources. The daily predicted that the cancellation of the talks will further complicate efforts to resolve the vacuum in the presidency in Lebanon. Al-Seyassah revealed that Hizbullah chose to cancel the meeting with the French President. Political sources interpreted the step as “an Iranian message to France that the issue of the presidency lies strictly in Tehran's hands.” Hizbullah's media relations office clarified that a meeting was not scheduled with Hollande during his trip, said the Kuwaiti daily al-Anba. Sources told the daily that two months ago, the French ambassador had requested a meeting between Hollande and Hizbullah MP Mohammed Raad. Discussions reached a point that a meeting was scheduled for Saturday, but the stances made by Hollande hours before the talks forced the party to cancel. Hollande kicked off on Saturday a two-day visit to Lebanon where he held talks with Speaker Nabih Berri, Prime Minister Tammam Salam, Defense Minister Samir Moqbel, Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil and a number of other officials. He demanded on Saturday the “swift” election of a president, saying however that this issue is in the hands of Lebanese MPs. Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Ongoing disputes between the rival March 8 and 14 camps have thwarted the polls.

Aoun, Franjieh in 'Friendly Hug' at French Ambassador's Residence
Naharnet/April 17/16/A brief meeting was held between Free Patriotic Movement founder MP Michel Aoun and Marada Movement chief MP Suleiman Franjieh on the sidelines of a dinner banquet that was held in honor of the visiting French president, a media report said on Sunday. The two men stood throughout their meeting Saturday at Pine Residence, or the official Beirut residence of the French ambassador to Lebanon, MTV said. Quoting a source who attended the dinner, the TV network said the encounter was “very cordial.”“They hugged each other amid the smiles of the attendees,” MTV said. Once allies and members of the same parliamentary bloc, Aoun and Franjieh have recently drifted apart, especially after the latter was endorsed as a presidential candidate by al-Mustaqbal movement leader ex-PM Saad Hariri. Aoun is also a presidential hopeful and his Change and Reform bloc along with Hizbullah's MPs have been boycotting the electoral sessions. Hariri's suggestion to nominate Franjieh has been rejected by the country's main Christian parties as well as Hizbullah. Hizbullah and the FPM, as well as March 14's Lebanese Forces, have argued that Aoun is more eligible than Franjieh to become president given the size of his parliamentary bloc and his bigger influence in the Christian community.

Bassil, Kanaan Hold Talks with Geagea in Maarab
Naharnet/April 17/16/Free Patriotic Movement chief Jebran Bassil held talks Sunday in Maarab with Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea. Bassil was accompanied by MP Ibrahim Kanaan, the secretary of FPM's Change and Reform parliamentary bloc. The talks tackled “several key issues, including the municipal polls, Christian rights, the stances on the legislative session that Speaker (Nabih) Berri will call for and its agenda, in addition to boosting FPM-LF coordination and cooperation over the main issues in the country,” FPM-affiliated OTV reported. After the three-hour meeting, Bassil told reporters that the lengthy talks were "fruitful." Lebanon has been without a president since the term of Michel Suleiman ended in May 2014 and the FPM, Hizbullah and some of their allies have been boycotting the electoral sessions. Al-Mustaqbal movement leader ex-PM Saad Hariri launched late in 2015 a proposal to nominate Marada Movement chief MP Suleiman Franjieh for the presidency but his suggestion was rejected by the country's main Christian parties as well as Hizbullah. In January, Geagea announced his support for FPM founder MP Michel Aoun's presidential bid after the LF and the FPM signed a landmark rapprochement agreement described as a “declaration of intent.”Hizbullah and the FPM, as well as March 14's Lebanese Forces, have argued that Aoun is more eligible than Franjieh to become president given the size of his parliamentary bloc and his bigger influence in the Christian community.

TV Series 'Car Bomb' Sparks Panic in Aley
Naharnet/April 17/16/A simulated car bombing during the shooting of a TV series in Aley sparked panic on Sunday in the Mount Lebanon region, media reports said. “The blast that was heard in Aley resulted from the detonation of a fake car bomb during the shooting of a TV series scene,” LBCI television reported. MTV for its part said the residents of Aley and the neighboring areas panicked after hearing the blast and seeing a plume of black smoke bellowing from the site. The most recent bomb attack in Lebanon occurred on Tuesday when a car bomb killed Fatah Movement official Fathi Zeidan in the southern city of Sidon. The country has witnessed dozens of deadly bombings in recent years, most of which were claimed by jihadist groups such as Islamic State and al-Nusra Front.

Arab Parliament Reportedly Labels Hizbullah as 'Terrorist Group'
Naharnet/April 17/16/The Arab League-affiliated Arab Parliament has decided to designate Hizbullah as a “terrorist group,” Arab media reports said on Sunday. Arab Parliament Speaker Ahmed al-Jarwan condemned “Hizbullah's practices, which are aimed at undermining the security of many countries in the region,” Kuwait's official news agency KUNA said. “We hope Hizbullah points its weapons at Israel,” KUNA quoted al-Jarwan as saying. “After discussing some legal aspects related to security issues during the parliament's fourth session at the Arab League headquarters today, especially by members from Kuwait and Bahrain, the Arab Parliament has decided to consider Hizbullah a terrorist group,” al-Jarwan added. “The Arab Parliament's foreign affairs committee has condemned Hizbullah's interferences and labeled it terrorist,” the Arab official went on to say. According to al-Jarwan, the parliament also condemned “the direct Iranian interference and the indirect Hizbullah interference in the affairs of the Arab countries,” stressing its rejection of “any foreign meddling in the affairs of the Arab states that would jeopardize Arab national security.” The Arab League itself declared Hizbullah a "terrorist" group in March after Gulf kingdoms did the same earlier in the month over alleged interference by the movement in the affairs of a number of Arab states. On Friday, the world's top Muslim body, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, condemned Hizbullah over alleged “terrorist activities in Syria, Bahrain, Kuwait and Yemen and for supporting terrorist movements and groups undermining the security and stability of OIC Member States." In February, Saudi Arabia halted a $3 billion program for military supplies to Lebanon in protest against Hizbullah. Announcing the funding cut, a Saudi official said at the time that the kingdom noticed "hostile Lebanese positions resulting from the stranglehold of Hizbullah on the state."After that announcement, Saudi Arabia urged its nationals to leave Lebanon and avoid traveling there, with Qatar and Kuwait later issuing similar advisories. The United Arab Emirates banned its citizens from traveling to Lebanon.
The United States, Canada and Australia have listed Hizbullah as a "terrorist" group while the European Union has only blacklisted its military wing.

Egyptian Held at Beirut Airport for Trying to Travel Carrying Pistol
Naharnet/April 17/16/An Egyptian man was arrested Sunday at Beirut's Rafik Hariri International Airport for attempting to board a plane while carrying a pistol and its ammunition, Lebanon's National News Agency reported. “Police screening officers detained Egyptian traveler B. A., 39, who intended to travel to Cairo while carrying a 9mm pistol and its ammunition,” NNA said. “The airport's relevant security authorities began questioning him straightaway,” the agency added. “The competent judicial authorities have been informed with the aim of taking the necessary legal measures against him,” NNA said. The incident comes amid heightened security measures at Beirut's airport and around three weeks after Egyptian national Seif al-Din Mohamed Mostafa hijacked an EgyptAir plane in Egyptian airspace and forced it to divert to Cyprus. Mostafa, who was wearing a fake suicide vest, demanded to see his Cypriot ex-wife and has since requested asylum on the Mediterranean island.

Undocumented Syrians in Lebanon Pushed into the Shadows
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/April 17/16/Many Syrian refugees in Lebanon say their lives have ground to a halt since new measures made it almost impossible for them to obtain or renew their residence permits. More than half of Syrian refugees in Lebanon do not have valid permits, according to the United Nations, leading to a rising number of newborns going unregistered. Men fearing arrest at checkpoints for living illegally in Lebanon cannot find work because they cannot leave their neighborhoods. Even successful businessmen are finding it harder to move around freely. Children like 14-year-old Hussein have dropped out of school to become the main breadwinners for families living in squalid camps like Beirut's notorious Shatila. "I live in fear. If I leave the camp, I'm not sure I will come back," said Walid al-Adl, Hussein's 49-year-old father, whose residency permit has expired. Every day, Adl sends his nearly illiterate son out to sell oven-baked sweets. "There are fewer chances Hussein will get detained. You tell me, what else can we do to earn our daily bread?" said Adl, the lines on his tired face a testament to a life of anxiety. Like other Palestinian camps across Lebanon, Shatila has grown over the years into a cramped district housing poor Lebanese families and thousands of Syrian refugees. It is run by Palestinian factions and is a no-go zone for Lebanese security forces, making it a magnet for Syrians hiding out in fear of arrest.
Prohibitive' costs
With more than 1.1 million Syrians and 450,000 Palestinians registered as refugees in Lebanon, the tiny Mediterranean country is home to the world's highest refugee-to-resident ratio. A similar number reached Europe's shores in 2015. But while the European Union is home to 500 million people, Lebanon's population is just four million. Because Lebanon has not, however, signed the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention, it treats Syrians as foreigners, not refugees. Rules adopted in January 2015 require Syrians to either register for residency through the U.N. -- on condition that they pledge not to work -- or through a Lebanese sponsor. To renew it every year, Syrians over the age of 15 must each pay $200. Unlike other nationalities, Syrians also have to provide proof of their address. "In light of dwindling personal resources, renewal fee costs are prohibitive for most refugees," U.N. refugee agency spokesman Matthew Saltmarsh told AFP. "According to household surveys ... by the end of March 2016, 56 percent had no valid residency permit," he said. Paying the renewal fee is nearly unimaginable for Syrians like Radiya Ahmad, a 23-year-old mother of two who lives in Shatila. Her husband works in an orphanage, washing dishes and doing other simple tasks. "He gets paid 500,000 Lebanese lira ($300) a month. That's barely enough to cover rent, and we have two children to feed," Ahmad said. "No one would sponsor us anyway." Some Lebanese are taking advantage of the Syrians' vulnerability, demanding hundreds of dollars in exchange for sponsorship, Ahmad said. Because neither parent has valid residency, their infant daughter Fatima is at risk of being stateless. "They want the family record book from Damascus, but I can't go to Damascus -- if I go, I won't be allowed back in," Ahmad said.
Invisible
According to Layal Abou Daher of the Norwegian Refugee Council, every aspect of Syrians' lives is affected. "It's like living in constant fear, and somehow they feel -- that's what they say -- that they are pushed into becoming invisible," Abou Daher told AFP. Lebanon's General Security, which regulates all foreigners' residency, rejects criticism of its regulations. "There are no obstacles. On the contrary, we have introduced several measures to make it easier for Syrians to obtain residence permits in Lebanon, considering their humanitarian situation," a spokesman told AFP. But even for Fahed, a 30-year-old Syrian businessman living in a villa in the mountain town of Aley outside Beirut, life in Lebanon is becoming difficult. "They aren't deporting anyone, but the prisons are filling up (with undocumented refugees). The authorities are making life very hard for everyone. What's the point?" said the construction materials trader, speaking to AFP at a trendy Beirut cafe. Fahed used to meet with clients in Turkey, but has been unable to travel this year because his residency has expired. Because he drives a Mercedes-Benz, he feels he is less likely to be stopped at a checkpoint than poorer Syrians on public transport. "Still, if I can avoid a checkpoint, I will," he said. Umm Mohammad, whose son-in-law was detained last week when he wandered out of Shatila, does not leave the camp at all. "It's a big prison and we're living in it," the 58-year-old said as she wept quietly.

France's Hollande arrives in Egypt on two-day visit
FP, CairoSunday, 17 April 2016 /French President Francois Hollande arrived in Cairo on Sunday for a two-day visit seen as a boost for President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, with security and economic cooperation on the table. Hollande arrived from Beirut, as part of a regional tour that will also take him to Jordan. A beaming Sisi greeted the French president at Cairo airport, live footage on state television showed. Hollande arrived with a delegation of business leaders in tow, and he and Sisi are expected to also discuss Middle East crises including the war against the ISIS group and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The question of human rights will be in the background. Hollande has been among Sisi's strongest supporters in Europe, since the former army chief overthrew his Islamist predecessor and launched a bloody crackdown on protesters in 2013.France has already signed major arms contracts with Egypt since, and Hollande and his delegation are expected to agree economic deals throughout the visit. These agreements will include deals on funding transportation and renewable energy, the French presidency has said. On the eve of Hollande's visit, human rights groups including Amnesty International had criticised what they called France's "deafening silence" on rights violations in Egypt. Since the overthrow of president Mohamed Mursi in 2013, police have waged a bloody crackdown on Islamists that has killed more than 1,000 protesters. The crackdown has spread to secular and leftwing dissidents who had supported Mursi's overthrow but then turned on Sisi. Meanwhile, militants have staged an insurgency based in the Sinai Peninsula that has killed hundreds of soldiers and policemen. The ISIS group's Egypt affiliate has also claimed responsibility for bombing a plane carrying Russian holidaymakers over Sinai last October, killing all 224 people on board.

Netanyahu Vows Golan Heights Will Remain Israel's 'Forever'
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/April 17/16/Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed Sunday that the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights would "forever" remain in his country's hands as his cabinet held its first meeting in the territory. "The Golan Heights will remain in the hands of Israel forever," Netanyahu said at the start of the cabinet meeting, in comments broadcast on public radio. "Israel will never withdraw from the Golan Heights."Israeli media have reported that Netanyahu planned the cabinet meeting as a statement amid fears Israel could come under pressure to return the Golan -- which it seized from Syria in 1967 -- as part of a future peace deal for its war-torn neighbor.
Haaretz newspaper quoted officials from Netanyahu's office as saying Syrian President Bashar Assad had demanded as part of peace talks that the Golan "be considered occupied territory that must be returned to Syria." Urging the international community to recognize Israel's claim on the territory, Netanyahu said he told U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday night that it was doubtful Syria can return to what it was. The premier also plans to meet President Vladimir Putin in Russia, a key backer of Assad, on Thursday.
"The time has come for the international community to recognize reality, especially two basic facts," Netanyahu said. "One, whatever is beyond the border, the boundary itself will not change. Two, after 50 years, the time has come for the international community to finally recognize that the Golan Heights will remain under Israel's sovereignty permanently." Israel fears Lebanon's Hizbullah could establish a front against it along the Syrian border and that militants linked to al-Qaida and the Islamic State group could also pose a threat.
It is also concerned about the presence of its arch-enemy Iran in Syria, with Tehran supporting the Assad regime.
Fragile ceasefire
Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan Heights from Syria in the Six-Day War of 1967 and later annexed it in a move never recognized by the international community. Netanyahu's comments come amid a fragile ceasefire in Syria and indirect negotiations in Switzerland between Assad's regime and the opposition. Brokered by Russia and the United States, the ceasefire deal does not include the fight against IS or al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.
The truce had largely held across parts of Syria since late February, despite frequent accusations both sides were committing breaches.
But recent violence around Aleppo has sparked concerns the ceasefire may not last, partly because rebels are involved in the battles there too.
Netanyahu said he told Kerry "we will not oppose a diplomatic settlement in Syria, on condition that it not come at the expense of the security of the state of Israel." This meant "that at the end of the day, the forces of Iran, Hizbullah and (IS) will be removed from Syrian soil," he said. More than 270,000 people have died since Syria's conflict broke out in 2011, and millions more have been forced to flee their homes. Israel has sought to avoid being dragged into the conflict, though Netanyahu publicly acknowledged for the first time last week that it had attacked dozens of convoys transporting weapons in Syria destined for Hizbullah. "We act when we have to act, including here, on the other side of the frontier, with dozens of strikes aimed at preventing Hizbullah from obtaining weapons that could alter the balance of power," Netanyahu said while visiting troops in the Golan. In the summer of 2006, Israel and Hizbullah fought a devastating war in Lebanon that killed nearly 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and about 160 Israelis, mostly troops.

Syria Opposition Threatens to Quit Peace Talks amid Aleppo Bloodshed
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/April 17/16/Fighting in Aleppo killed at least 22 civilians as the opposition delegation threatened Sunday to quit Syria peace talks in Geneva if there is no progress on a political transition. The opposition High Negotiations Committee said the indirect negotiations could collapse if Syria's regime refuses to compromise on political and humanitarian issues. "We might suspend (our participation in) the talks if things carry on this way, and then there will be no prospect for any political solution," HNC member Abdulhakim Bashar told AFP. The opposition's chief negotiator also said there could be "no compromise" on Bashar Assad's ouster, and called for renewed attacks on regime forces despite a fragile ceasefire. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the number of civilians killed in flashpoint Aleppo city was one of the highest single tolls since the truce began on February 27. The truce has seen violence drop across parts of Syria, including the northern city, but renewed clashes there in the past 24 hours have seriously strained the truce, the Observatory said. At least six civilians were killed and eight wounded in regime air strikes on rebel-held eastern parts of the city on Saturday.And a barrage of rockets and sniper fire by opposition groups onto government-controlled western districts killed 16 civilians, including 10 children and two women. Rebel groups fired more rockets at western areas of Aleppo city late Sunday, but there was no immediate information on new casualties.
Direct threat to truce
"There's a clear escalation. This was the bloodiest incident in Aleppo and its province" since the ceasefire began, Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman said. "This escalation directly threatens the truce." The HNC has questioned the regime's commitment to a political solution to Syria's five-year war, particularly in the wake of the renewed violence in Aleppo. "The humanitarian situation is continually deteriorating, the issue of the detainees has not seen any progress, the ceasefire has almost collapsed, and now there is an attack on Aleppo from three sides," Bashar said in Switzerland. "Given these factors, we are reviewing everything, and we will continue our meetings today (Sunday) so that tomorrow we can decide what to do."A second member of the HNC delegation, speaking anonymously, said the talks were nearly at "an impasse.""The negotiations have nearly reached an impasse with the intransigent regime's refusal to negotiate the fate of Assad in the Geneva talks," the member said. This has remained the main sticking point in peace talks, with Syria's opposition clinging onto its call for Assad's ouster since the conflict began in 2011. But the regime has ruled out his departure, calling his fate "a red line.""There can be no compromise on the issue of Bashar Assad... For us, it's a closed book -- you cannot trade an entire people for one man," opposition chief negotiator Mohammed Alloush told AFP in Geneva.Earlier, Alloush called for renewed attacks on regime forces, despite the shaky truce.
Strike them everywhere
"Don't trust the regime and don't wait for their pity," tweeted Alloush, a leading political figure in the Jaish al-Islam (Army of Islam) rebel group. "Strike them at their necks (kill them). Strike them everywhere."A fellow opposition figure said Alloush's hawkish statement did not represent the HNC's position. Alloush himself later told AFP that he had been calling on rebel groups to defend themselves against regime truce violations. The peace plan outlined by U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura and backed by world powers envisions a political transition, a new constitution, and presidential and parliamentary elections by September 2017. But Syria's government hosted its own regularly-scheduled parliamentary elections last week only in government-held areas, which Assad's ruling Baath party easily won. The opposition denounced the election as a "farce."Brokered by Russia and the United States, the ceasefire deal to cease hostilities excludes the fight against the Islamic State group or al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria. The truce had largely held across parts of Syria, despite frequent mutual accusations of violations. IS has seized fresh territory from rebel groups in the north, threatening the key opposition town of Azaz, just eight kilometers (five miles) south of the Turkish border. The jihadist onslaught has forced 30,000 Syrians to flee, and tens of thousands more are at risk of displacement. Since the conflict erupted in 2011, half of Syria's population has been displaced -- including five million who have fled to neighboring states. More than 270,000 people have been killed.

Assad party wins expected majority in Syria parliamentary vote
AFP, DamascusSunday, 17 April 2016 /Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections last week across government-held parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced late Saturday. In a widely expected victory in polls labelled a "farce" by Syria's opposition, President Bashar al-Assad's Baath movement and its allies ran under the "National Unity" coalition and won 200 of the parliament's 250 seats. Syria's national electoral commission published the names of all candidates who had won seats in the April 13 vote, according to Syria's state news agency SANA. Every candidate on the 200-strong "National Unity" list had won. "Out of 8,834,994 eligible voters, more than five million cast their votes," commission head Hisham al-Shaar was quote as saying. A record 11,341 candidates initially sought to run in the elections. But about 3,500 candidates remained after the rest withdrew "saying they had no chance of winning," al-Shaar said. The ruling Baath party has governed Syria with an iron first for the past half-century. The vote is the second parliamentary ballot since the beginning of the war in 2011 -- but the UN says it will not recognise the election.
More than 270,000 people have died since Syria's conflict broke out, and millions more have been forced to flee their homes. The country's economy has all but collapsed and swathes of territory remain out of government control. Syria's government and opposition are in Geneva this week for UN-backed peace talks to put an end to the violence. The talks are aiming to lead to a political transition, a new constitution, and fresh presidential and parliamentary elections by September 2017.

11 civilians dead in attacks in Syria’s Aleppo: monitor
AFP, BeirutSunday, 17 April 2016 /At least 11 civilians were killed in Syria's second city Aleppo, a monitor said Sunday, in one of the highest single tolls since a fragile truce came into force. Nearly all warring parties in Syria -- the regime, rebels, jihadists, and Kurds -- have carved out zones of control in the war-torn northern province. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, six civilians were killed and eight wounded in regime air strikes on rebel-held eastern parts of Aleppo city on Saturday. Opposition groups fired rockets into the government-controlled western districts, leaving five people dead and 20 wounded, the Observatory added. "There's a clear escalation. This was the bloodiest incident in Aleppo and its province" since a truce deal between the government and non-jihadist rebels came into effect on February 27, said Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman. "This escalation directly threatens the truce." Brokered by Russia and the United States, the cessation of hostilities deal does not include the fight against the ISIS group or Al-Qaeda's local Syrian affiliate. The truce had largely held across parts of Syria since late February, despite frequent accusations that both sides were committing breaches. But violence around Aleppo has sparked concerns that the ceasefire may not last, partly because rebels are involved in the battles there too. ISIS militants have seized fresh territory from rebel groups in recent days, threatening the key opposition bastion town of Azaz, just eight kilometers (five miles) south of the Turkish border. The militant onslaught has forced 30,000 Syrians to flee, and tens of thousands more are at risk of displacement. Since the Syrian conflict erupted in 2011, half of the country's population has been displaced -- including five million who have fled to neighboring states. More than 270,000 people have been killed.

US air force plane intercepted by Russian jet
AFP, WashingtonSunday, 17 April 2016/A US Air Force reconnaissance plane was intercepted by a Russian SU-27 jet in an “unsafe and unprofessional” manner while in international airspace over the Baltic Sea, the Pentagon said. “The US aircraft was operating in international airspace and at no time crossed into Russian territory,” Laura Seal, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said of Thursday’s incident. It came shortly after Russian aircraft repeatedly buzzed the USS Donald Cook this past week, including an incident Tuesday in which a Russian Su-24 flew 30 feet (nine meters) above the war ship in a “simulated attack profile,” according to the US military’s European Command. Russia has denied the actions were reckless or provocative but they have been seen as exacerbating tensions between the rival powers. “This unsafe and unprofessional air intercept has the potential to cause serious harm and injury to all aircrews involved,” Seal said of the latest incident in a statement. “More importantly, the unsafe and unprofessional actions of a single pilot have the potential to unnecessarily escalate tensions between countries.”The US aircraft in question was an RC-135 and the Pentagon said it had been flying a routine route.
“There have been repeated incidents over the last year where Russian military aircraft have come close enough to other air and sea traffic to raise serious safety concerns, and we are very concerned with any such behavior,” the Pentagon said. On Thursday, US Secretary of State John Kerry had strong words about the recent warship flyby. “We condemn this kind of behavior. It is reckless. It is provocative. It is dangerous. And under the rules of engagement that could have been a shoot-down,” Kerry told CNN Espanol in Miami. Kerry added: “People need to understand that this is serious business and the United States is not going to be intimidated on the high seas.”“We are communicating to the Russians how dangerous this is and our hope is that this will never be repeated,” he said. The Russian maneuvers began Monday while the destroyer was located about 70 nautical miles from the Russian base in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave on the Baltic Sea. One US defense official called the actions of the Russian planes “more aggressive than anything we’ve seen in some time.”The destroyer’s commanding officer Charles Hampton told journalists in Lithuania that “very low, very fast” flybys were “inconsistent with the professional norms of militaries in international waters or international airspace.”But Russia countered the criticism, insisting it had observed all safety regulations. The US military’s European Command (EUCOM) released video showing warplanes zooming so close past the Cook that one sailor can be heard saying: “He is below the bridge wing,” meaning the plane was flying lower than the highest point of the ship. Ties between Russia and the West have plunged to their lowest point since the Cold War over Moscow’s 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula from Kiev and its support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine.

Russia denies jet flight was unsafe
By AFP MoscowSunday, 17 April 2016/Russia’s defense ministry denied Sunday that a Russian jet that intercepted a US Air Force plane earlier this week had acted unsafely, dismissing the Pentagon’s criticism. The Pentagon said Saturday that a Russian SU-27 had flown in an “unsafe and unprofessional” manner while intercepting a US Air Force reconnaissance plane above the Baltic Sea on April 14. “The entire flight of the Russian plane was conducted in strict compliance with international rules on the use of air space,” defense ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said in a statement. “There were no emergency situations.” Moscow said the SU-27 had been dispatched to identify an “aerial target travelling toward the Russian border at high speed.”The aircraft detected by Russia was an American RC-135 plane, which the Pentagon said was conducting a routine flight. When the RC-135 established visual contact with the Russian jet, the American plane “changed its flight route away from the Russian border,” Konashenkov said. Pentagon spokeswoman Laura Seal said Saturday that the US aircraft had “at no time crossed into Russian territory.” The incident came shortly after Russian aircraft repeatedly buzzed the USS Donald Cook this past week, including an incident Tuesday in which a Russian Su-24 flew 30 feet (nine meters) above the war ship in a “simulated attack profile,” according to the US military’s European Command. US Secretary of State John Kerry condemned the warship flyby earlier this week, saying it was "dangerous" and could have lead to a shoot-down. Russia said that it had observed all safety regulations in its flights. Ties between Russia and the West have plunged to their post-Cold War nadir over Moscow’s 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula from Kiev and its support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine.

Iran shows off Russian S-300 defense system on Army Day
Reuters, DubaiSunday, 17 April 2016 /Iran showed off parts of its new Russian S-300 missile defense system during National Army Day on Sunday, where President Hassan Rowhani said the country’s armed forces were no threat to neighboring countries. Every year, Iran’s armed forces hold parades across the country to mark Army Day. In a ceremony in Tehran, broadcast live on state television, trucks carrying the missiles drove past a podium where Rowhani and military commanders were standing. Soldiers also marched passed the podium and fighter jets and bombers took part in an air display. “The power of our armed forces is not aimed at any of our neighbors ... Its purpose is to defend Islamic Iran and act as an active deterrent,” Rowhani was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA, in a speech at the Army Day ceremony. Russia delivered the first part of the S-300 missile defense system to Iran last week, one of the most advanced systems of its kind that can engage multiple aircraft and ballistic missiles around 150 km (90 miles) away. Russia has said it cancelled a contract to deliver S-300s to Iran in 2010 under pressure from the West. President Vladimir Putin lifted the ban in April 2015, after an interim agreement that paved the way for July’s full nuclear deal with Iran that ended international sanctions. Since then, Iran has upset the United States by carrying out four ballistic missile tests, which the United States and its European allies said were in defiance of the United Nations resolution adopted in July. Rowhani said on Sunday that during the nuclear talks Iranian negotiators also aimed to maintain and boost the country’s military capabilities. Iran has two armies, a regular one which operates as a national defensive force, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that was created after the Revolution to protect the Islamic Republic against both internal and external adversaries. The army has the biggest ground force in Iran and IRGC is in control of growing arsenal of ballistic missiles. In its first overseas operation since the Revolution, the regular army said earlier this month that it had deployed some of its Special Forces and commandos to Syria to help President Bashar al-Assad in the civil war there.

Hundreds rally in Baghdad backing Sadr deadline on cabinet change
Reuters, BaghdadSunday, 17 April 2016/Hundreds rallied in central Baghdad in support of powerful Shi’ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr who has threatened to call mass protests if the prime minister fails to name a new cabinet to fight corruption by Tuesday. People in Tahrir Square on Sunday said many more would join them if Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi did not select a government mainly made up of techhnical experts to tackle what they see as widespread graft and mismanagement. “Yes, yes to Iraq; no, no to corruption,” they chanted, carrying Iraqi flags. “We are demonstrating on our own initiative in support of Sayyid Moqtada,” said a man sitting in one of a number of tents set up to shield protesters from the blazing sun. Delays in naming a new government, and political and sectarian wrangling over who should be in it, have paralysed politics in Iraq. Abadi has said the turmoil could threaten the campaign against ISIS militants who still control swathes of territory in the north and west, including the city of Mosul. Iraq, a major OPEC exporter which sits on one of the world’s largest oil reserves, ranks 161th out of 168 countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Corruption became a major issue after oil prices collapsed in 2014, shrinking the state budget at a time when it needed additional income to pay for war on the ultra-hardline Sunni group. Abadi’s initial cabinet line-up, presented on March 31, was made up of independent professionals who he hoped could free their ministries from the grip of dominant political groups that have built their influence and wealth on a system of patronage put in place since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Parliament has already postponed the vote on Abadi’s government overhaul three times.

Iran shows off Russian S-300 defense system on Army Day
Reuters, DubaiSunday, 17 April 2016/Iran showed off parts of its new Russian S-300 missile defense system during National Army Day on Sunday, where President Hassan Rowhani said the country’s armed forces were no threat to neighboring countries. Every year, Iran’s armed forces hold parades across the country to mark Army Day. In a ceremony in Tehran, broadcast live on state television, trucks carrying the missiles drove past a podium where Rowhani and military commanders were standing. Soldiers also marched passed the podium and fighter jets and bombers took part in an air display. “The power of our armed forces is not aimed at any of our neighbors ... Its purpose is to defend Islamic Iran and act as an active deterrent,” Rowhani was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA, in a speech at the Army Day ceremony. Russia delivered the first part of the S-300 missile defense system to Iran last week, one of the most advanced systems of its kind that can engage multiple aircraft and ballistic missiles around 150 km (90 miles) away. Russia has said it cancelled a contract to deliver S-300s to Iran in 2010 under pressure from the West. President Vladimir Putin lifted the ban in April 2015, after an interim agreement that paved the way for July’s full nuclear deal with Iran that ended international sanctions. Since then, Iran has upset the United States by carrying out four ballistic missile tests, which the United States and its European allies said were in defiance of the United Nations resolution adopted in July. Rowhani said on Sunday that during the nuclear talks Iranian negotiators also aimed to maintain and boost the country’s military capabilities. Iran has two armies, a regular one which operates as a national defensive force, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that was created after the Revolution to protect the Islamic Republic against both internal and external adversaries. The army has the biggest ground force in Iran and IRGC is in control of growing arsenal of ballistic missiles. In its first overseas operation since the Revolution, the regular army said earlier this month that it had deployed some of its Special Forces and commandos to Syria to help President Bashar al-Assad in the civil war there.

South Sudan gunmen kill 140 in raid in Ethiopia
AFP, Addis Ababa Sunday, 17 April 2016/Armed men from South Sudan have killed around 140 people and kidnapped a number of others in a cross-border raid into Ethiopia, the Ethiopian government said Sunday. Ethnic Murle gunmen on Friday "attacked near Gambella and killed close to 140 people. They also abducted some of them," Ethiopian foreign ministry spokesman Tewolde Muluteg told AFP. The Murle, a tribe from South Sudan based in the eastern Jonglei region, often stage raids to steal cattle. They attacked the Nuer tribe, one of the two main ethnic groups in South Sudan, but who also live across the border in Ethiopia. The western Ethiopian region of Gambella, which borders South Sudan, is also home to some 272,000 South Sudanese refugees who have fled the civil war that erupted in their country in December 2013. "Our forces have been in pursuit of the attackers and they decimated scores of them," Muluteg said, without indicating whether the Ethiopian forces entered South Sudan territory. "In border areas cattle feuds and raids are not uncommon. Of course, something of this magnitude is different," he added. "We don't think (the armed men) have any links to the South Sudan government or the rebels."Ethiopia has been heavily involved in the South Sudan peace process, partly because of the risk that the conflict could destabilise Gambella. South Sudan rebel leader Riek Machar is due to return to South Sudan's capital Juba on Monday from his rebel base at Pagak in the far east of the country, close to the Ethiopian border, rebel spokesman Colonel Nyarji Roman said. Machar, who has not set foot in Juba for two years, is to form a transitional government with his rival, President Salva Kiir, as part of a peace deal signed in August. Machar, who was Kiir's deputy before the war, has been living in exile in Kenya and Ethiopia, but was re-appointed vice president in February. He is expected to be swiftly sworn into office as vice president at the presidential palace alongside Kiir on Monday but a welcome rally by his supporters may be cancelled amid government security fears. After winning independence from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan descended into war two years later, setting off a cycle of retaliatory killings that have split the poverty-stricken country along ethnic lines.Tens of thousands have been killed and over two million people forced to flee their homes during the war. Both the government and rebel sides have been accused of perpetrating ethnic massacres, recruiting and killing children and carrying out widespread rape, torture and forced displacement of populations to "cleanse" areas of their opponents.

Oil Producers Mull Output Freeze in Doha, Iran Stays Home
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/April 17/16/Major oil producers began talks in Qatar on Sunday to try to reach a deal on capping production to boost prices, despite Iran's absence. Talks were delayed by several hours after some countries demanded changes to a draft agreement that calls for freezing production until October, a delegate told AFP. The delegate said a "small team of experts" was assigned to make the changes before the ministers went into the official meeting in the afternoon. Top energy officials from some 15 countries, including the world's top crude producers Saudi Arabia and Russia, were at the Doha talks. Nations inside and outside the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries are anxious to stem a market nosedive that has cost exporters billions in lost revenue. From above $100 in mid-2014, oil prices dropped to 13-year lows of around $27 in February due to a supply glut, though they have since rebounded to about $40.Ecuadoran Hydrocarbons Minister Carlos Pareja told reporters that his country would support a plan to freeze output until at least October. He said proposals under discussion also call for "setting up a committee to monitor the freeze," but provided no further details. Pareja warned that if no action were taken "there will be huge damage to the oil industry."Russia's RIA Novosti news agency quoted Azerbaijani Energy Minister Natiq Aliyev as saying the draft included the output freeze at January levels until October. The meeting in Doha is a follow-up to talks in February between OPEC members Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela plus Russia in which they first mooted the output freeze.
Iran won't 'give up' production
Saudi Arabia has insisted that all major producers must be on board for the freeze to work, including fellow OPEC member and regional rival Iran. But Tehran, which has boosted production following the lifting of sanctions under its nuclear deal with world powers, has rejected any talk of a freeze. Iran had initially said its OPEC representative would participate in the talks but on Sunday Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh announced Tehran would send no delegation at all. "The Doha meeting is for people who want to participate in the production freeze plan... but since Iran isn't expected to sign up to the plan the presence of an Iranian representative isn't necessary," Zanganeh was quoted as saying by the Shana news agency. "Iran will in no way give up its historic production quota," Zanganeh said. Influential Saudi deputy crown prince Mohamed bin Salman reiterated in an interview with Bloomberg published on Saturday that the kingdom would not accept a freeze without Tehran's cooperation. But Kuwaiti oil expert Kamel al-Harami said a freeze agreement was still possible even without Iran. "Iran is unable to add more than 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) to its production by the end of the year," Harami told AFP in Doha."I believe this will not greatly impact the meeting," he said.
Atmosphere of optimism
OPEC said on Wednesday that Iranian oil production in March was 3.3 million bpd, up from 2.9 million in January, but still short of its pre-embargo level of around 4.0 million. OPEC said its members pumped 32.25 million bpd in March -- with Saudi Arabia accounting for nearly a third -- up from an average of 31.85 million bpd in 2015. Saudi Arabia has refused to cut production despite the price fall, as it seeks to drive less-competitive players, especially U.S. shale producers, out of the market. But pressure has been building as falling oil revenues hit state coffers, with Riyadh posting a record budget deficit last year.
Host country Qatar said "an atmosphere of optimism" spread on the eve of the meeting. Kuwait's acting oil minister Anas al-Saleh told reporters on arrival in Doha that "he was optimistic" about the success of the conference, which took place as thousands of oil workers in his country began an open-ended strike Sunday to protest against a government proposal to cut their wages. Oil prices had tumbled on Friday as traders bet that the meeting in Doha will yield no effective measures to curb the global oversupply. On Thursday the International Energy Agency had warned against expecting too much from the Doha talks, saying that the meeting would have only a "limited" impact on supplies.

Powerful Ecuador Quake Kills at Least 233
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/April 17/16/At least 233 people were killed when a powerful 7.8-magnitude earthquake struck Ecuador, destroying buildings and a bridge and sending terrified residents scrambling from their homes, authorities in the Latin American country said Sunday. "The official figure of the number killed has risen to 233," President Rafael Correa said Sunday on his Twitter account. Officials had previously put the toll of Saturday's quake at 77 dead and nearly 600 injured. The quake, which struck at 2358 GMT Saturday about 170 kilometers northwest of Quito, lasted about a minute and was felt across Ecuador, northern Peru and southern Colombia. Correa said Vice President Jorge Glas was on his way to Portoviejo, a city on the Pacific in an area heavily affected by the quake. Glas called the quake the "worst seismic movement we have faced in decades.""Oh, my God, it was the biggest and strongest earthquake I have felt in my whole life. It lasted a long time, and I was feeling dizzy," said Maria Torres, 60, in the capital Quito, which was rocked by the late Saturday quake. "I couldn't walk... I wanted to run out into the street, but I couldn't." "We know that there are citizens trapped under rubble that need to be rescued," the vice president said in a special TV and radio broadcast earlier in the day. Officials declared a state of emergency in the six worst-hit provinces. Police, the military and the emergency services "are in a state of maximum alert to protect the lives of citizens," Glas said. In the Pacific port city of Guayaquil, home to more than two million people, a bridge collapsed, crushing a car beneath it, and residents were picking through the wreckage of houses reduced to heaps of rubble and timber, an AFP photographer reported.
Ecuador's Geophysical Office reported "considerable" structural damage "in the area near the epicenter as well as points as far away as Guayaquil."The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said the 7.8-magnitude shallow quake struck off the northwest shore of Ecuador, just 27 kilometers from the town of Muisne. The vice president gave a slightly lower measurement of magnitude 7.6. Ecuador lies near a shifting boundary between tectonic plates and has suffered seven earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or higher in the region of Tuesday's quake since 1900, the USGS said. One in March 1987 killed about 1,000 people, it said.
At least 55 smaller aftershocks rattled the country after the main quake, Glas said. The Hawaii-based Pacific Tsunami Warning Center initially issued a warning for the nearby Pacific coastline but later said that the threat had largely passed. Miriam Santana, a 40-year-old resident of the western city of Manta, described scenes of devastation. "It was as if the world was about to end," she told AFP by phone. "Homes were coming down -- around my house three homes collapsed, and street lights fell." "There are people trapped under the rubble," she said, adding that locals were in a state of "total desperation."
Authorities closed the city's airport, saying the control tower suffered "severe damage."In northern Quito, people ran out of their homes in terror as power lines swayed back and forth, knocking out power to some areas. Media images showed pictures of damaged shops. Cristina Duran, 45, grabbed her three pets and stood under a large doorway to avoid shards of glass falling from shattered windows. "I was frightened. And I just kept asking for it to be over," she told AFP. President Correa, interviewed by phone on Radio Publica, called for "calm and unity." Correa said that rescue teams were flying in from Mexico and Colombia to help search for quake victims, and he expressed solidarity with the families of the deceased. At Guayaquil airport, passengers awaiting flights ran out of the terminals when they felt the ground shake. "Lights fell down from the ceiling. People were running around in shock," said Luis Quimis, 30, who was waiting to catch a flight to Quito. Guayaquil resident Carlota Lopez said that she was in a car when the earthquake struck. "The power lines were swaying wildly, and I was afraid that the lines or the street lights would fall on the car," she told AFP by phone. Lopez said it felt "as if the car was being shaken with great strength" by people outside the vehicle and that there was a power outage immediately afterwards. The quake was also felt in northern Peru and a large section of southern Colombia, according to authorities in those countries, although no casualties were reported. Peruvian officials however urged coastal residents to stay away from the beach.

‘A room too crowded for an elephant’
Salman Al-Ansari Hassan Al Mustafa/Al Arabiya/April 17/16
“There is an elephant in the room” is the expression often used to call out an obvious truth that no one wants to openly acknowledge. However, when put in the context of today’s American political room, we do not see an elephant but instead, three different inhabitants- a dragon, a bear and an intrusion of cockroaches. The dragon represents the US debt that currently amounts to over $19 trillion. More specifically, it symbolizes the Chinese lenders who spent the last few months selling their American debt and calling in loans from the biggest financial institutions in the US. Since China is a major US creditor, continuously decreasing its debt (now standing at about $1.2 trillion dollars or 6.5% of the national debt) leaves the US government in a vulnerable position, with much of their accounts dedicated to Medicare and Social Security. The bear represents a mighty Russia. Indeed, the superpower turned inwards following the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union, but it has emerged once again with a new expansionist agenda. It has successfully established its presence in the Ukraine and wasted no time establishing a military presence in Syria. While most remain quiet on these actions, it continues to advance, with its latest announcement to establish an airbase in Belarus. This is another strategic move taken by Russia that demands careful consideration. Lastly, the cockroaches, which represent terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iranian backed militias, and the terrorist organization that has thrived and continues to spread its influence around the world: ISIS. Through its media campaigns, global network, effective recruiting tactics, and financial independence, ISIS has proven to have no borders. It is no longer only a threat to the Middle Eastern region but also threatens the national security of the United States and the world. Entering a new election term poses both challenges and opportunities for the incoming US administration
Trusted and tested allies
What do these three challenges share in common? No matter the party or side of the next administration, they all pose a heavy and growing burden on the United States that calls for effective leadership and collective action. In fact, in recent years, America’s long-term role in the world has been put into question by their lack of willingness to show more support towards their allies. I even asked Senator John McCain at an event hosted by the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings discussing the National Defense Authorization Act on October 20, 2015 about his views on the United States' role in regional security, who himself acknowledged the importance of our time and the lack of American leadership. “The world has not seen more crises than we are in today since the end of World War II…I see an absence in American leadership. I see some of the countries in the region hedging their bets and accommodating”.Entering a new election term poses both challenges and opportunities for the incoming US administration. The challenges are exemplified by the need to strengthen their relationships with the newly-formed, anti-extremist Muslim coalition of 34 countries, while the opportunities are presented by the chance to build resilient economic and financial ties with these nations that will drive the global economy towards growth, stability and even prosperity. It also needs to maintain and strengthen its relations with Japan, giving the US government a better chance at improving their debt situation with China.
In very simple terms, what the US needs is to take a strong stance and set a clear strategy that restores commitment to working with its most trusted and tested allies, such as the GCC and Japan. By doing so, it will realize that restoring trust with these allies is the only viable solution to containing the three inhabitants of the American political room, because failing to do so will not only drive them further from the US, but closer to a dragon, a bear, and even closer to a threat of cockroaches.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey: Is Egypt an obstacle?
Turki Al-DakhilHassan Al Mustafa/Al Arabiya/April 17/16
The hospitality bestowed on Saudi King Salman by the Turkish government and parliamentarians during his visit to that country was exceptional. There is indeed a strong desire to turn the page of the Arab Spring. Turkey’s enthusiasm toward developments in Egypt was excessive. The country could have dissociated itself from this embarrassing situation. The royal visit brought optimism to the Turks - optimism that they will be closer to the Gulf and thus to the entire Arabs. Turkey has economic needs and some people have warned about serious economic conditions. Establishment of the Saudi-Turkish Coordination Council marks a new beginning. Turkish political elite’s defense of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is no secret. Altering of this position was expected to be more difficult.
Rapprochement?
Some considered that a Saudi-Turkish rapprochement in the wake of this intransigence regarding Egypt’s June 30 revolution was impossible. However, another school of thought suggests that the two governments can work together on the basis of their mutual needs and thus forget about the reason of dispute and keep it contained within discussions and dialogue as there might come a day when relations between Turkey and Egypt improve. Turkey needs rapprochement with the Gulf countries which, in the mid 1990s, contributed significantly toward its plans to lay down the foundations for cooperation serving both sides Turkey needs rapprochement with the Gulf countries which, in the mid 1990s, contributed significantly toward its plans to lay down the foundations for cooperation serving both sides. If it wants, Turkey can be more involved in the axis of Gulf moderation which is fighting the forces of darkness that are supported by the renegade Iranian regime.

On King Salman’s meetings with al-Azhar cleric and Tawadros II
Hassan Al Mustafa/Al Arabiya/April 17/16
Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz’s meetings with Egyptian Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II, and with Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed Al-Tayeb, during his recent visit to Egypt, highlighted the principles of communication among people belonging to different faith and sects. Such initiatives enhance the values of pluralism, dialogue and tolerance and help us fight against extremism spread by terrorists and people following takfiri ideologies. The meetings weren’t just about protocol but were meant to send a message that we must stand hand-in-hand in the face of incitement against each other. They also delivered the message that relations are built among people who are equal in terms of duties and rights and who have the same characteristics. This is because we are respectable human beings who have the right to choose their faith without any fear or favor or the “guards of dogmatic enclosure”, as Algerian philosopher Mohammad Arkoun describes it.
If people remain loyal to one rigid concept and strictly and mechanically comply with it, life will be completely meaningless! Arkoun refers to fundamentalists who seek to generalize religion based on their limited understanding of it and without cooperating with others or taking them into consideration. According to him, these fundamentalists are first and foremost zealous politicians with a dogmatic ideology. He adds that they are not thinkers and they only venerate power and that their dogmatism can go as far as eliminating you if you don’t agree with them or follow them. Arkoun’s accurate and frank description of people with extremist ideologies is not an invective but the product of what the philosopher studied for decades. He observed the nature of these extremist groups’ work and how they resorted to violence and assassinations to achieve their objectives.
Manifestations of terror
One doesn’t have to go far to find evidence of this. Recent acts of terror in Europe and operations conducted by ISIS, al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda and other extremist groups in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and the Gulf countries expose the extent of violence that unfolds before us every day. Such mindless violence not only leads to financial losses but also has social and religious repercussions and widens the sectarian and cultural rift in the society. This is why King Salman’s meetings with Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II and Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed Al-Tayeb are significant. The former is a Christian figure while the latter is a Sufi Ash’ari cleric. They represent two ideologies different from what is practiced in Saudi Arabia. The king celebrated this difference and sent a message of religious pluralism. The meetings proved that exchange among people belonging to different sects is a legitimate practice and enriches society. The faith of each individual is “a personal experience” exclusive to the believer. Iranian thinker Abdolkarim Soroush says that each one of us follows our own faith and dies alone. Soroush maintains that individual religious practices are for salvation of the hereafter. “The religious community is based on free faith. Faith does not accept compulsion and does not accept uniting (with other faiths.) However religious communities become diverse thanks to people’s religious diversity,” Soroush says.This explains the large number of ideologies witnessed for centuries. This diversity has produced a source of enrichment and led to the development of humanity. If people remain loyal to one rigid concept and strictly and mechanically comply with it, life will be completely meaningless!

Iranian boots on the ground

Alex Rowell/Now Lebanon/April 17/16
Why has Iran begun deploying its official armed forces to the battlefield in Syria?
The first deployment of foreign regular army ground troops to the front lines of the five-year-long battle between supporters and opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad came with rather less fanfare and controversy than might have been expected. On April 4, less than two months after US Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress Iran was winding down its direct presence in Syria, Iranian Brigadier General Ali Arasteh declared the Islamic Republic was in fact sending its official armed forces, known as the Artesh, onto the Syrian battlefield for the first time, naming the 65th Airborne Special Forces Brigade in particular as one among “other units” joining the fray. The occasion marked the army’s first deployment outside Iranian territory since the 1980-88 war with Iraq. While there have been Iranian ‘boots on the ground’ in Syria since as early as 2012, these had hitherto all belonged to the irregular Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), the parallel military organization established after the 1979 Revolution in part as an ultra-Islamist counterweight to the Artesh, viewed suspiciously at the time for its roots in the secular ancien régime. A contingent of several hundred IRGC militants fighting in Syria surged to an estimated 3,000 last October, coinciding with the Russian air campaign masterminded in the summer of 2015 by the IRGC’s external operations commander Qassem Soleimani. In strictly literal terms, what Secretary Kerry said in February was true: the IRGC itself had by then withdrawn most if not all of the reinforcements added in October. However, those withdrawals have now been offset by the dispatch of the Artesh.
“Despite reports that Iran is drawing back its deployment in Syria […] this week’s announcement is merely a reflection of Tehran reconfiguring its forces in the country,” wrote Amir Toumaj, an Iran analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Thus far, the military impact of the Artesh’s entry into the Syrian warzone appears to have been limited. Indeed, the 65th Airborne Brigade has lost at least five troops in the twelve days it’s been fighting, according to Iranian state media. This is broadly consistent with the fortunes of the IRGC themselves. A report cited by Associated Press counted “at least 187” IRGC casualties during the October-February surge, constituting 6% of the 3,000-strong force on the ground. In total, more than 340 IRGC militants have reportedly been killed in Syria since 2012, including figures as senior as Major General Hossein Hamadani, a 64-year-old commander seen as a potential next leader of the Guard overall.
Unfavorable as this may sound at face value for Iran, analysts told NOW the attrition rate was quite comfortably sustainable for the IRGC and Artesh, comprising 150,000 and 350,000 troops, respectively. Relative to its size, Iran’s direct military presence in Syria remains minimal, and Tehran will continue to prefer relying first and foremost on non-Iranian Shiite proxy forces, such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah and allied Iraqi and Afghan units, according to Paul Bucala, Iran analyst at the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project. “All of the casualties taken so far have been officers and from several different brigades,” Bucala told NOW. “This suggests that the cadre of various units are being deployed rather than an entire Artesh unit […] The deployment of officer corps actually appears to be a continuation of the same type of model that the IRGC ground forces used during the fall and winter offensives around Aleppo city.”“There does not seem to be a great departure so far from the type of Iranian footprint that we observed since the beginning of the Russian air campaign.”
For that reason, it would be mistaken to read the Artesh’s deployment as a first step toward any kind of all-out Iranian ground invasion of Syria, according to both Bucala and Toumaj. “Iran is extremely averse to launch[ing] a full-scale ground invasion of Syria,” Toumaj told NOW. Instead, it will likely continue to carry out short-term “major offensives” such as the surge of October 2015, quickly unwinding them once the immediate objectives have been secured and non-Iranian proxies can take over. If not in preparation for a wider war, then, why is Iran sending troops to Syria at all? In part, the move reflects fears about the performance of the other pro-Assad forces, said analysts. As NOW has previously reported, Hezbollah’s losses have compelled it to resort to recruiting minors for battle, while President Assad made a rare admission last June that the Syrian army faced a manpower shortage. “Sending Artesh special forces to Syria was likely a response to concerns about mounting IRGC casualties and the desire to distribute the costs among other military units,” Bucala told NOW. However, there are also domestic Iranian factors, said Bucala and Toumaj, pertaining to a decades-old rivalry between the IRGC and the Artesh.
“Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the clerics have elevated the Guard,” Toumaj told NOW. “The Army has been second to the IRGC, getting fewer resources and funding, for example. Since the Iran-Iraq War, the IRGC has almost always been chosen when Iran has deployed military forces to fight security threats, such as the Kurdish insurgency in northwestern Iran and Baluchi separatists in the southeast. Army special forces want to fight in Syria for a chance to prove their worth” to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. And just as domestic factors provide motivation for the Artesh’s deployment, so too they could potentially rein it in should military progress not go as planned. Whereas Iran’s intervention in Syria was initially a hushed-up affair, unmentioned in media and unsafe to debate in public, since October it has come out into the open, earning broad newspaper coverage and discussion on social media. Seemingly mindful that a climbing death toll could stir public discontent, Khamenei has taken the initiative of giving speeches defending the “martyrs” as national and religious heroes, and posing for photographs with children of slain troops. So far, support for the war in Syria remains high both within the regime and the public, Bucala told NOW (a January 2016 University of Maryland poll, for instance, found an 80% approval rate for Iran’s “role” in Syria).
However, “this does have the potential to change,” he added. “Especially if Tehran decides to send conscripts to fight on the frontlines in Syria. Iran can probably sustain casualties among officer cadres at the current rate for quite some time, but having conscripts from Artesh units dying in large numbers might be enough to trigger a domestic backlash.”Yet, be that as it may, any hypothetical domestic backlash would likely have little practical effect on the regime’s calculus, said Toumaj. “Even if there is a serious domestic backlash, it will not change Tehran’s policies in Syria. After all, this is a dictatorship that does not care much what its people think.”

Obama in Riyadh: A New Page in NATO-Middle East Role
Middle East Briefing/April 17/16
President Obama arrives in Riyadh April 21 to participate in the GCC-US summit which revolves around regional security. One thing seems in the offing: a new institutional relation between NATO and the GCC which is able to address the evolving nature of security threats in the region.
While in Bahrain in April 7, Secretary Kerry said that the issue is being discussed. “Today we discussed the summit that President Obama will engage in with all the heads of states of the GCC countries and we agreed to begin the process of evaluating whether or not the concept of a GCC-NATO partnership in specific terms is something that would contribute significantly to the security and stability of the region”, Secretary Kerry said. One day later, NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow said at the Netherland Atlantic association in Hague that a new framework for the relations between the two sides is indeed needed. ”following the failure of the Arab spring, parts of the Middle East and North Africa have been engulfed by violence and chaos. Once secure states have become fragile and once fragile states have failed. In Syria the world has witnessed the deepening of civil war caused by President Assad decision to wage wat against his own people”.
While President Obama is expected to explain the US position on the idea, NATO is scheduled to discuss its framework in the alliance’s conference in Warsaw next July. There are predictions that decisions related to launching the new relation between the GCC and NATO would be announced then, including the establishment of “Forward NATO Centers” in some of the Arab countries as well as training assets in many others from Tunisia to Iraq. That means that while the first institutional step would be taken with the GCC, it is not exclusive to the Arab Gulf states, but would rather represent a shift in the Alliance’s posture in the Near East and North Africa and potentially a milestone in the evolution of NATO post-cold role. The concept has been debated for quite some time now, may be even longer than what is necessary in view of the pressing nature of the emerging threats. Almost five years ago, a remarkable US strategist, General James Johns, recommended with others a new kind of relations between NATO and the GCC. General Johns’ concept was based on the nature of the evolving threats facing the West and its allies as it was based on a broader view of burden sharing and partnerships.
In 2010, the Strategic Concept Seminar on Transformation and Capabilities, was held at the National Defense University in Washington and ended with important recommendations particularly in the area of ballistic missile defense. General Johns put forward a view which emphasized the importance of a creative interpretation of Article 5 of the alliance’s treaty, which says that an attack against one is an attack against all.
“NATO must be more lean, agile, and flexible to effectively address the security challenges before it. NATO must move beyond its doctrine of static defense of the 20th Century to become a more proactive Alliance for the modern era. NATO must be prepared to address, deny, and deter the full spectrum of threats, whether emanating from within Europe, at NATO’s boundaries, or far beyond NATO’s borders”, the General said.
Time passed without giving the Seminar’s recommendations the deserved attention which Johns recommended. The concept of expanding NATO is based on forward defensive capabilities and “a custom-tailored” approach to different regions needed an additional push from actual events on the ground around the world to reach a practical phase.
This additional urgency came primarily from the Middle East. The rise of terrorism and the increasing number of failed states in the region were knocking on the doors on daily bases as a reminder that the need for creative concepts should not be delayed any further. Iran’s ballistic missiles also brought what Johns and others said in the National Defense University. Furthermore, Ukraine raised the need to revisit the foundational concept of an evolving NATO as was discussed back in 2010.
Moving forward to Syria, the limited coordination between Russia and the US there might have added a new dimension to the concept of a global NATO. The Kerry-Lavrov deal related to Syria should have proved that a global role for NATO does not necessarily mean confrontations in each and every crisis where interests are not identical. Russia and NATO have common interests in fighting terrorism, regaining stability in the Middle East and introducing new mechanisms to de-escalate regional tension and prevent a military conflict between its powers. This should have played a role in refocusing the search for any new concept and must have helped in filtering rhetorical twists out.
A fresh view of NATO’s position on Russia may explain the recent decision to revive the NATO-Russia Council which will reconvene in Brussels shortly. Filtering out the spirit of the cold war suggests replacing it with a different mentality. This new mentality should focus on the content of each crisis separately and its independent premises instead of the wholesale label which was justified during the cold war. Deterrence is a powerful tool in shaping behaviors. No one wishes to see a conflict with Russia and the presence of a Middle East security arrangement would certainly limit any ambitions to use the regional general crisis to achieve strategic gains through additional bold and surprising moves like what happened in Syria. A success of such regional arrangement would certainly lead to a transformation in the way NATO deals with other regions in the world.
In the case of the Middle East crisis, it is time to reopen the path towards creating a collective security umbrella which should be, as General Johns said, agile and flexible. It should also be far reaching-that is to say clear of any narrow legalistic interpretations of security, all the while emphasizing the globally collective interpretation of the term. As shown by the expanding threat of terrorism, it is not only the West which is threatened by this barbaric force. It is the whole world.
A new relation between the GCC and NATO will not be a revival of the Central Treaty Organization (The Baghdad Pact) of 1955 (UK, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan). There is no way to find comparable aspects between the two moments. CTO could not survive the rising tide of national independence in the region 60 years ago.
The following step after initial exchanges on forging the new relation between GCC and NATO would be moving forward to establish the joint Arab Force. Riyadh is moving actively now to lay down the foundation of this force. King Salman was in Egypt earlier this month. He left Cairo April 11 to Ankara.
The Saudi King is determined to continue his intermediation between the two countries, Egypt and Turkey, which has two of the most powerful armies in the region. Progress on ending tension between Cairo and Ankara is very slow. A degree of restraining the sweeping crackdown on the Moslem Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt is being considered. There have been speculations about releasing most of the MB detainees currently behind bars in Egypt. Some stories went as far as getting the leaders of the group, including former President Mohamed Morsi, released and moved to another country where they would not be allowed to exercise any political activities.
This seems premature. Even Saudi foreign minister Adel Al Jubeir, while in Cairo, oscillated between rejecting the MB and qualifying this rejection on bases of “proved involvement in violence”. Egypt’s foreign minister is going to Qatar in few weeks. There are some moves to gradually clear the atmosphere.
Meanwhile, Turkish-Israeli talks on ending the diplomatic crisis between the two countries have almost reached a successful conclusion. Earlier in April, the two sides reached an agreement in principles in Geneva and the work on the text of the draft statement regarding provisions of normalization of relations is progressing. There are still some disagreement, but the gap has been considerably narrowed. One of the important steps taken during the move forward in the Turkish-Israeli track was reflected on Hamas moving all signs of its ties to the MB from Gaza streets.
This was important to the Egyptians in order to deal with the new comprehensive security framework which was under active considerations for quite some time now. Consequences of such an arrangement would be felt in Sinai which will receive substantial Saudi investments and intensive security measures to end the presence of ISIL there.
This whole multi-faceted picture emerged from the dramatic deterioration in the security environment in the Middle East during the last few years. The eruption of a chain of popular revolts in many of its principle countries, the end of Iran’s global isolation after signing the nuclear deal, the rapid progress in Tehran’s ballistic missile arsenal, the rise of terrorism and the re-emergence of Russia on the world stage are on top of the list of the hammers which shaped this phase of US regional ties and how they are perceived in the GCC countries.
It goes without saying that security concerns play the dominant role in shaping the GCC policies at the current moment. Addressing Arabs’ security concerns is indeed key to de-escalating the tension in the Middle East. However, the term “security” is defined, in any specific case, by the nature of the threat. A formal relation between the GCC and NATO does not deal with the problem of proxy-wars which are the weapon of choice in the flaring conflicts between Iran and its neighbors.
Another point is the increasing role of Iran’s IRGC in the region. The IRGC is not merely a proxy-war-Head-Quarter, it is also a conventional military force. As we heard recently from the Revolutionary Guards’ Commanders, this force is determined to carry on exporting what the Commander called “the third phase of the Iranian revolution” to the regions’ countries. The Joint Arab Force, which will spearhead the direct military ties with NATO would be active in regional deployments to confront any Iranian intervention either by proxy or conventionally. The mere existence of such a force is enough of a deterrence to reduce the threat of any IRGC adventure in the region.
Furthermore, for the GCC countries’ defensive capabilities to reach a point of building a mutually constructive and institutionally effective relations with NATO, those capabilities should be raised, within the collective framework of the GCC itself, to a certain degree of integration. As known to those who are familiar with the military ties between the region’s countries, this would necessitate an effort on the ground.
Another important point that should be considered is that internal upheaval in many of the region’s countries is not over yet. Those who assume that the Arab Spring storm is over may be proven wrong. It is clear from following the situations in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan that what has happened may not be the end of the story. Unless massive economic investment is allocated to rebuild the region and end its misery, social convulsions would be a repetitive occurrence. While external parties can play a secondary role in defining the course of domestic problems, those convulsions open the gates in any given country to all kinds of regional interventionism which, in its turn, would have an implication on both regional and global balances of power.

Washington Prepares Offensive against Mosul and Raqqa
Middle East Briefing/April 17/16
The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff are in the final phase of developing expanded war plans against the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, visiting the Indian port of Goa last week, where the regional command ship, the USS Blue Ridge is based, confirmed that the U.S. is preparing to expand the number of American troops deployed in Iraq, beyond the 5,000 currently deployed. A major troop rotation is also now underway, in preparation for an escalation against ISIL.
In addition to the increase in ground troops in Iraq, the JCS plan is expected to also include the deployment of Apache helicopters into combat missions, an increase in the number of U.S. military advisers embedded in frontline Iraqi Army units, and the increase in the number of U.S. Special Forces deployed in Iraq on “decapitation” missions.
At the same time that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is increased, the number of U.S. Special Forces inside Syria is expected to increase significantly, from the current deployment of 50 Special Forces embedded in Syrian Democratic Force fighting units in the north of the country.
The U.S. has a Special Forces training mission underway in Syria, focusing on Arab tribes who are to be part of the spearhead of the eventual assault on the Islamic State’s capital at Raqqa. In league with Turkey, the U.S. is developing a Turkmen-Arab component of the Syrian Democratic Force in the Manbij area. In recent weeks, they have received significant supplies of weapons, have gotten expanded close air support from the U.S. Air Force, as well as artillery support from Turkey.
A separate U.S. military training program across the border in Turkey is preparing Arab fighters to spot targets for U.S. bombing missions against ISIL in the north of Syria.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff’s revised deployment plans are based on two considerations. First, the U.S. has been able to develop much better intelligence on ISIL operations. The decapitation program has recently eliminated two top Islamic State military leaders, the so-called “minister of defense” Abd Al-Rahman Mustafa Al-Qaduli, and the group’s top Chechen commander Abu Omar Al-Shishani, the commander of the Islamic State’s initial takeover of Mosul.
Second, both the U.S. and European allies are intent on disrupting ISIL’s ability to carry out blind terrorist attacks in the West. The concern for homeland security has become a driving factor in the escalation plans, particularly in the wake of the recent Brussels attacks. While homeland security officials in the United States and Western Europe know they cannot stop all “lone wolf” terrorist attacks, they know that the Paris and Brussels attacks were coordinated with ISIL commanders. There is a renewed priority on disrupting the ability of the Islamic State to conduct large-scale foreign terrorist actions, and part of the expanded deployments of U.S. Special Forces will aim at eliminating or kidnapping key ISIL figures involved in the planning of the overseas actions.
The expansion of U.S. Special Forces into both Iraq and Syria is aimed at crippling the group’s ability to run its global terrorist program. According to Pentagon officials, the Special Forces actions have been very successful, but there are still serious gaps that require better intelligence and rapid response.
The revenue stream for the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria has been significantly reduced, through a combination of targeted air strikes against oil truck convoys, the further sealing of the Turkish-Syrian border, and the killing of some key ISIL officials. One indication of the success of this effort to date is reports that ISIL is now accepting $500 payments to allow captured local citizens to leave Islamic State territory. In the past, such locals were killed. The border shutdowns have reduced the inflow of foreign fighters, and increasingly, ISIL is conscripting child soldiers, further reducing their combat effectiveness.
In a visit to Baghdad on April 11, French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian declared that “Raqqa and Mosul must fall in 2016.” U.S. Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, the highly respected commander of international operations against the Islamic State, took a more cautious note. Aware of the volatile political situation inside Iraq, Gen. MacFarland candidly told officials back in Washington that he does not believe that the Iraq Armed Forces will be prepared for the assault on Mosul until the end of 2016, or early 2017.
The imperative for a crippling blow to ISIL is likely to drive the expansion of U.S. military operations in both Iraq and Syria.

Aleppo and the End of the Ceasefire: Who Fooled Who in Syria?
Middle East Briefing/April 17/16
The fierce fight north of Aleppo is one more reminder of how complex the Syria crisis is. During the first week of April, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Ahrar Al Sham and Jabhat Al Shamiyma captured a large area which was previously under the control of ISIL. However, ISIL launched a surprise counter attack the night of Saturday April 9 and regained control of the territories it lost. Turkish artillery interfered to try to stop ISIL from regaining control of the battlefield which is an important stretch of territories across its borders, but ISIL continued its advance any way. Coalition air power offered little help, if any. If ISIL’s counter attack continues with the same vigor, the presence of the non-ISIL opposition groups in that area would be seriously threatened.
While this fierce fight was going on, Assad forces advanced towards Aleppo in yet a different front. Assad forces, made mainly of Shia militias, captured Al Khalidya which was under the control of non-ISIL armed groups.
Assad forces are advancing towards Aleppo from the east as well. They are focusing on Al Bab, which is under the control of ISIL. However, the road to Aleppo is filled with opposition forces. The opposition and Assad are both theoretically committed to the cessation of hostility deal which is, in reality, non-existent around Aleppo. The situation in that area is similar, if not worse, to what it has always been before the ceasefire agreement.
Damascus circulated a story that its forces are getting ready to “liberate” Aleppo with direct assistance from the Russian forces in Syria. The story was denied by some Russian sources. However, the Russian forces seem to be providing assistance to Assad forces’ operations in the north of Aleppo. These operations clearly target the old city of Aleppo.
From these events on the ground we can clearly see that the ceasefire is collapsing, while Assad is progressing towards a milestone in Syria’s civil war: To control Aleppo. Meanwhile, the Syrian dictator is working fast on loading all the elements of the international diplomatic effort regarding Syria in his own bag. He did that through using the ceasefire to advance in the north and through a chain of superficial political moves like holding the recent Parliamentary election.
If Assad succeeds in controlling Aleppo and receives the support he expects from his allies and the hesitant powers in Europe, he will declare victory and start his amnesty circus and all the rest of his political games.
In a way, Aleppo would indeed by a milestone. The expected attack on the old city would cause yet another humanitarian tragedy. But above all, it will reopen the dossier of the diplomatic effort which seems to have culminated in the expected long siege of Aleppo and the horrors which are expected to follow.
In other words, what we see now around Aleppo is the slow process of unmaking the ceasefire deal. The central question that emerges at this moment is: Was the diplomatic effort designed to reach this conclusion?
What was said is that the ceasefire and the talks are meant to reach a political solution. However, what we see in reality is that one side of the two in the ceasefire deal is still busy killing and refusing to interact with the diplomatic endeavor.
The ceasefire and the talks will lead then to the fall of Aleppo. How could it have gone that wrong? Or did it really go “wrong”?
Aleppo is very relevant to this debate. While the Assad offensive to capture the city is all but a declaration of the end of the ceasefire, it calls for revisiting the “glitch” in the course of the Syrian war—the ceasefire deal—as it calls for a thorough examination of the structure of the diplomatic concept which led to the ceasefire and what should follow.
The main question raised in regard to the ceasefire, or its collapse, is either it was intentional from the beginning to turn this “cessation of hostility” into a bridge to give Assad a chance to strengthen his positions and regroup his forces using the intensive Russian assistance, or was it a sincere effort to cool down the conflict in order to reach a political solution.
In this context, it is noted that the issue of Aleppo was raised during the US-Russia preparatory talks that led later to the ceasefire deal. Russia requested a postponement of the implementation of the ceasefire until the battle of Aleppo ends. Secretary Kerry refused. That was early winter during the countdown to the US-Russia joint statement of February 22 announcing the ceasefire deal. Now, a magic rabbit is coming out of the hat–the battle of Aleppo is being resumed from where it stopped while the ceasefire is still standing, at least in name.
Bluntly put, who fooled who in bringing the ceasefire deal to the conclusion we see now around Aleppo? Who fooled who to turn the diplomatic search for a political solution into a military and political “victory” to one side?
Iranian media are currently circulating a kind of smart story to the effect that Assad is defying Putin and rejecting Russian restrains on his forces. Kayhan daily in Tehran, a mouthpiece of the conservatives there, carried an analysis April 11 claiming that Russia could not impose its will on Assad. Khamenei senior advisor, Ali Akbar Velayati also said April 3 that Iran is determined to preserve Assad in power. “Washington may have reached a secret arrangement with Moscow to remove Assad within months. But Assad is a red line for us”.
What the Iranians are saying is that Putin wanted to adhere to his arrangement with Kerry and to get Assad out of the way in few months, but this is foiled, thanks to the Iranian “red line”. Therefore, the Iranian message reads as follows: We (Assad and Iran) fooled both Kerry and Lavrov and busted their deal after benefiting to the maximum from Russia’s military assistance and from the sidelining of the opposition according to the ceasefire.
But the Iranian story is a little too much to swallow.
Let us then go through the same events but put in a different context.
Briefly, we have a distinctive picture emerging now in this regard: Assad is advancing quickly and trying to solidify his military gains through a series of political unilateral steps (Parliamentary elections for one example)–Russia is helping in the campaign to capture Aleppo under the pretext of bombing Nusra–Iran says that Moscow and Washington are not the deciders in Syria. It is Tehran that determines the fate of Assad. Obama can say as much as he wants that Assad should go, immediately or in few months. The Russians can reach as many secret deals as they want with the Americans. But at the end of the day, it is the Ayatollahs in Tehran who decide what would or would not happen.
Why would Russia then stay passive when it sees that its allies, Assad and Iran, are fooling the clever Mr. Putin in daylight?
But was Moscow really fooled by Assad and Tehran? Or, did it design the whole maneuver intentionally from the start to fool John Kerry? Or was it the Iranian chess players who ultimately fooled both powers?
If Putin feels indeed that his allies are making fun of his commitment to the Americans, he should get angry. But he is n’t. This quiet passivity is making people wonder even about the real nature of the Kerry-Lavrov deal.
The question is irrelevant.
For the Russians, either they were fooled or not, there is no risk anyway. It is obvious that Mr. Putin is not taking the matter personally in spite of his self-centrism. Assad remaining in power, or a political deal shaped to preserve Russia’s interests, amount to the same result: The Russians will remain strong in the east Mediterranean. What would be their motives to pick between the two alternate paths if both achieve their ultimate interests?
The answer is almost self-evident: None, but only if we remain within the boundaries of the Syrian crisis. The Russians are in a win-win position. They do not have to choose or to alienate this side or that one of their hard won allies.
It is becoming clearer now that the Russians have raised the Syrian game to a higher level, namely that of a wider bargain with the West. The fact that either way, if Assad goes his way, or if he approves the deal between Kerry and Lavrov (which Velayti mentioned) and voluntarily terminate his own political life, Moscow is guaranteed to achieve its core interests in Syria. What is over and beyond that is, well, negotiable. What would the Americans offer to Putin to make him move decisively against Assad? In other words, why Putin should move decisively against Assad? The Russian President is almost saying: I achieved my objectives anyway, either Assad stays or leaves. Give me something to convince me to help you, Mr. Kerry, to implement your solution which requires Assad to go “in few months” (as Velayati said).
Therefore, the question should not be either Moscow is fooled by Assad (and Iran) or is it Putin, Assad and Iran who actually fooled Kerry. The question should focus on the structure of a diplomatic game which gave the Russians, from the start, enough cards to win either way and nothing to lose anyway. The US was trying to get something from Putin for free. It does not work this way with the Russian President, or with anyone else for that matter.
If Putin wants to end the war through a political solution, and we honestly wonder why would he would want a compromise solution when his ally is winning on the ground, Moscow should take a decisive position and pull out all its forces from Syria in protest of Assad defiance-that is if he is indeed defying our Father in the Kremlin. Yet, why would Putin do that? The question is obviously addressed at Secretary Kerry.
But where else in the world should Putin get a piece in return for a half piece? He already minimized his offer: Either way in Syria, Assad or no Assad, Russia’s interests are preserved. In fact, he is not even giving up a half piece. He is giving up one person. But for what price and where else in the world? This is the question. It is time that the administration goes full speed ahead with a well-studied plan to reshape the situation in Syria in a way free of ISIL and of brutal dictators. It is time to help Syrians get back their own country and put an end to their pain.

Iraq: A Failed State by Summer?
Middle East Briefing/April 17/16
There are two angles in the way of looking at the situation in Iraq at this moment. The first is to examine what is happening on the political boat in Baghdad. The second is to see why the boat, with all passengers, is actually sinking slowly.
From the first perspective, the political situation in Baghdad has one specific feature: mediocre games between politicians. Prime Minister Haider Abadi submitted the names of his new cabinet in a “closed envelope” to the Parliament. The names provoked all kinds of bees in the various political nests. He had to change them. In his retreat, the whole set of affairs returned to exactly the same point of the previous situation. No reform, no changes and business as usual.
This business as usual is destroying Iraq. While Abadi’s new cabinet was supposed to be made of technocrats, he had to give it up one name after the other in face of fierce Parliamentary opposition. With it, hopes of better governance was evaporating. Baghdad’s political shops were up in arms to defend their corrupt networks. The technocrat cabinet was transformed to a cabinet made mainly of the usual thieves, then was subjected to all political games. The whole comic scene ended with members of the legislative body starting a sit-in inside the Parliament and demanding that the President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker resign their posts.
The political scene in Baghdad has reached an unprecedented level of absurdity indeed. While the whole boat is sinking, the passengers are still fighting each other to expand their space on the deck. They do not even see that the boat is sinking.
This unbelievable scene is the culmination of the 2003 US invasion and the “experiment” of establishing an exported “democracy’ in an occupied country. The sad show reveals the gap which exists in reality between a political elite which deserves to be put on trial for treason and the simple demands of the Iraqi people which cannot find its way to the political establishment. This establishment is busy looting and using sectarian incitement to preserves its interests even if this incitement threaten the boat even more.
The civil society has been suffocated for decades under the heavy weight of the absolute rule of a police state. How could anyone imagine that a functional representative government based on the rule of law can exist hanging in vacuum?
The problem in Iraq is that there are no “national leadership” strong enough to put the country together in order to cross the transitional period. Those who accuse foreign powers of working to tear Iraq apart are doing exactly that and even better than the foreign powers they accuse. Ayatollah Sistani who has most of the elements to play a national leader’s role, preferred to resort to silence for the last few months. He is reported to be too disgusted and frustrated by the stupidity of politicians in Baghdad.
Abadi came out from within the political establishment. The political structure in Iraq was designed to prevent the emergence of any strong power center. Abadi carries all the germs of an incompetent political structure which was intentionally built to be so. The gap between Iraq’s limited ability to exercise institutional governance after long decades of dictatorship and the initial design of the current political system, was filled with illusions and crossed fingers. Democracy, which invasion claimed to be serving, betrayed itself and mudded its own face.
A weak Captain cannot save a sinking boat.
Iraq is confidently stepping towards its fate. Partition, fragmentation of the fragments, civil wars in each region and between the different regions and national suicide. What we see is the final act in the sad story of the invasion of Iraq. But the whole play is certainly not the last on the dusty Iraqi theatre.
Is there any way to stop this tragedy? By the nature of the narrative of this Greek-like tragedy, what is needed is a national center of power able to mobilize the Iraqis around their national identity. There is only one person who can do that in Iraq now: Ayatollah Al Sistani.
If this “national unifier” role is not performed soon, and if Sistani remains silent in frustration or disgust, the politicians in Baghdad will sink the boat faster than expected while complementing each other on their mediocre victories which would enable them to loot more. Iraqis have to look inward, at their own souls, and come out in defense of their existence as one of the oldest nations on earth. This is the moment of truth for Iraq as a nation. It came after 13 years of the invasion, and it is not going to go away. It will extract its full toll. It demands either to make or to break. And the choice would be the Iraqis to do.
If this nation does not gather its inner strength and defends its existence, it should be said then that it did not deserve to exist as a nation any longer.
Abadi’s government, technocrats or not, is forced to reform the economy and reduce subsidies. Potentially this summer, the new measures demanded by the IMF reform program would be implemented. This will certainly add up to the summer’s heat in Baghdad and would make the tragic scene of the “last moments of the Iraqi boat” more dramatic. If there would be a popular revolt, and in view of the absence of a true national political power and the abundance of corrupt political parasites, the scene would come out more dramatic than anyone in Hollywood can imagine.
But what would happen then?
Iran would cut its pound of flesh, the Kurds would mark their region and stand ready to defend it, ISIL would spread some more ideological seeds attaching the future of the region to past images and narratives, and those who looted Iraq will go anywhere else to enjoy their loot. Iraq will be no more.
Turkey is already getting ready for the dramatic moment. It is expanding its energy ties with Iraq’s Kurdistan. Iran is doing the same. A new project to build a natural gas pipeline between Kurdistan and Iran is being negotiated at present.
Everybody will get a cut in a torn Iraq, except the Iraqi people.

UK: What British Muslims Really Think
Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute/April 17/16
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7861/british-muslims-survey
The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.
"[W]e have to adopt a far more muscular approach to integration than ever, replacing the failed policy of multiculturalism... Britain's liberal Muslims are crying out for this challenge to be confronted. ... There is a life-and-death struggle for the soul of British Islam -- and this is not a battle that the rest of us can afford to sit out. We need to take sides... We have 'understood' too much, and challenged too little -- and in doing so are in danger of sacrificing a generation of young British people to values that are antithetical to the beliefs of most of us, including many Muslims." — Trevor Phillips, former head of Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The survey does show that 88% of British Muslims believe Britain is a good place for Muslims to live. According to Philips, this is because the tolerance they enjoy in Britain allows them to do whatever they want.
Many British Muslims do not share the values of their non-Muslim compatriots, and say they want to lead separate lives under Islamic Sharia law, according to the findings of a new survey.
The poll — which shows that a significant part of the British Muslim community is becoming a separate "nation within a nation" — has reignited the long-running debate about the failure of 30 years of British multiculturalism and the need for stronger measures to promote Muslim integration.
The survey was conducted by ICM Research for the Channel 4 documentary, "What British Muslims Really Think," which aired on April 13.
The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.
In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.
On social issues, 52% of the Muslims surveyed said they believe homosexuality should be illegal, compared to 22% of non-Muslim Britons. Nearly half believe it is unacceptable for a gay or lesbian to teach their children. At the same time, almost a third (31%) of British Muslims think polygamy should be legalized. Among 18-to-24-year-olds, 35% think it is acceptable to have more than one wife.
Thirty-nine percent of Muslims surveyed believe women should always obey their husbands, compared to 5% for non-Muslims. One in three British Muslims refuse completely to condemn the stoning of women accused of adultery.
The poll also found that a fifth of British Muslims have not entered the home of a non-Muslim in the past year.
Of the British Muslims surveyed, 35% believe Jewish people have too much power in the UK, compared to 8% of non-Muslims.
In an essay for the Sunday Times, Trevor Phillips, the host of the documentary and a former head of Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission, warned of a growing "chasm" between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain that "isn't going to disappear any time soon."
Phillips wrote that the poll reveals "the unacknowledged creation of a nation within the nation, with its own geography, its own values and its own very separate future." He added: "I thought Europe's Muslims would gradually blend into the landscape. I should have known better."
Phillips was referring to his rather ignominious role in commissioning the 1997 report, "Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All." Also known as the Runnymede Report, the document popularized the term "Islamophobia" in Britain and had a singular role in silencing criticism of mass immigration from the Muslim world. Twenty years later, Phillips now concedes that he has had a change of heart.
In an essay for the Daily Mail, Phillips, wrote:
"There is a life-and-death struggle for the soul of British Islam — and this is not a battle that the rest of us can afford to sit out. We need to take sides.
"Four per cent — the equivalent of more than 100,000 British Muslims — told the researchers that they had sympathy for people who take part in suicide bombing to fight injustice. Asked if they knew that someone was involved with supporting terrorism in Syria, just one in three would report it to the police.
"There is one truly terrifying finding. Muslims who have separatist views about how they want to live in Britain are far more likely to support terrorism than those who do not. And there are far too many of the former for us to feel that we can gradually defeat the threat.
"Liberal-minded Muslims have been saying for some time that our live-and-let-live attitudes have allowed a climate to grow in which extremist ideas have flourished within Britain's Muslim communities. Our politicians have tried to reassure us that only a tiny minority hold dangerous views.
"All the while, girls are shipped off to have their genitals mutilated, young women and men are being pressured into marriages they do not want, and teenagers are being seduced into donning suicide vests or becoming jihadi brides.
"We have 'understood' too much, and challenged too little — and in doing so are in danger of sacrificing a generation of young British people to values that are antithetical to the beliefs of most of us, including many Muslims.
"In my view, we have to adopt a far more muscular approach to integration than ever, replacing the failed policy of multiculturalism."
Philips added:
"Muslims want to be part of Britain — but many do not accept the values and behaviors that make Britain what it is; they believe that Islam offers a better future. And a small number feel that these sincerely held beliefs justify attempts to destroy our democracy.
"Britain's liberal Muslims are crying out for this challenge to be confronted. The complacency we've displayed so far is leaving them to fight alone, and putting our society in danger. We cannot continue to sit on the fence in the hope that the problem will go away."
The survey does show that 88% of British Muslims believe Britain is a good place for Muslims to live. According to Philips, this is because the tolerance they enjoy in the UK allows them to do whatever they want.
Some British Muslims have rejected the conclusions of the survey, which they say uses a flawed methodology because it was conducted in areas where Muslims make up more than 20% of the population, compared to 5.5% overall. They say the survey results are skewed because they are indicative of Muslims in these areas and not of British Muslims as a whole.
In an interview with CNN, however, ICM Director Martin Boon said that more than half of all British Muslims live in areas that are more than 20% Muslim and that the survey findings are sound. "In my view, this is the most rigorous survey of Muslims outside of the largest and most expensive surveys conducted by the UK government," Boon said.
The president of the British Polling Council, John Curtice, told CNN that ICM had followed standard methods of polling ethnic minorities in the UK.
Unlike many other surveys of Muslim opinion, which have usually been conducted by telephone or online, ICM used face-to-face, in-home research to question a representative sample of 1,081 Muslims across Britain.
The Muslim population of Britain surpassed 3.5 million in 2015 to become around 5.5% of the overall population of 64 million, according to figures extrapolated from a recent study on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe. In real terms, Britain has the third-largest Muslim population in the European Union, after France, then Germany.
In a statement, the Muslim Council of Britain (which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood) claimed the poll lacks "academic rigor" and warned it would "do nothing but harden attitudes on all sides." It continued:
"Many British Muslims will find it bemusing that commentators and the media have constantly tried and failed to paint a picture of British Muslims at odds with the rest of the country. The way this poll has been formulated and presented in this climate of fear against Muslims is most unfortunate."
In an opinion article for the Guardian, Miqdaad Versi, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, argued that Philips "lacks nuance" and has a "distorted interpretation of the UK's diverse Muslim communities." He wrote:
"Discussions and proposals to promote integration and cohesion are always welcome. But the starting point should not be that Muslims are the problem, not quite British enough, and must be civilized into a pre-existing notion of Britishness."
By contrast, Sir Gerald Howarth, Tory MP for Aldershot, said:
"Three cheers for Trevor Phillips. I think he is absolutely right. There's an element in the Muslim community which reject our values, while enjoying our tolerance.
"We are a tolerant nation because we are routed in the Christian faith, which is a tolerant religion. As our own religious observance declines, a vacuum is being created into which the hardline Islamist community is stepping.
"We have been a very complacent society."
Allison Pearson, a columnist for the Daily Telegraph, called for an immediate ban on all Sharia courts in Britain and called on the government to ensure that all citizens are subject to British law. She summed up the British predicament:
"This is serious. Unless we succeed, the live-and-let-live attitude which makes Britain such a great place could end up being its death warrant."
**Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.
© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. 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.

Israel, Turkey, Russia and Egypt
Shoshana Bryen/Gatestone Institute/April 17/16
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7857/israel-turkey-russia-egypt
In 2011, the UN Palmer Commission Report found the blockade of Gaza -- jointly administered with Egypt -- to be legal, and said Israel owed Turkey neither an apology nor compensation.
Lifting the Israel/Egypt embargo on Gaza would empower Hamas, and thereby the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and ISIS -- which would seem an enormous risk for no gain.
Turkish sources assert that Turkish-Israeli governmental relations are about to come out of the deep freeze. But this is a reflection of Turkey's regional unpopularity and glides over Turkish demands for Israel to end the blockade of Gaza. To meet Turkey's condition, Israel would have to abandon the security arrangement it shares with Egypt -- which has increased Israel's security and has begun to pay regional dividends. To restore full relations between Israel and Turkey would irritate Russia, with which Israel has good trade and political relations, and a respectful series of understandings regarding Syria. Israel's relations with the Kurds are also at issue here.
After the 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla -- in which Turkey supported the Hamas-related Turkish organization, the IHH, in its effort to break the blockade of Gaza -- Turkey made three demands of Israel: an Israeli apology for the deaths of Turkish activists; a financial settlement; and lifting the Gaza blockade, which Turkey claimed was illegal. The last would provide IHH with the victory it was unable to achieve with the flotilla.
The Turkish-owned ship Mavi Marmara took part in a 2010 "Gaza flotilla" attempting to break Israel's naval blockade of Gaza, which is in place to prevent the terrorist group Hamas from bringing arms into Gaza. (Image source: "Free Gaza movement"/Flickr)
In 2011, however, the UN Palmer Commission Report found the blockade of Gaza -- jointly administered with Egypt -- to be legal, and said Israel owed Turkey neither an apology nor compensation. In 2013, at the urging of President Obama and to move the conversation off the impasse, Prime Minister Netanyahu did apologize for the loss of life and agree to discuss compensation. While President Obama was pleased, Prime Minister Erdogan repaid the gesture by denigrating Israel on Turkish television and announcing he would force the end of the blockade. Israel's condition -- that the office of Hamas in Ankara be closed -- was ignored.
Nevertheless, in February 2014, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told Turkish television that Israel and Turkey were "closer than ever" to normalizing relations." In December 2015, it was more of the same. And in February 2016, there was yet another announcement of imminent restoration of government-to-government ties. In March, Kurdish sources said Turkey was demanding weapons from Israel, but that Israel wanted to ensure that Turkey would not use them against Kurdish forces.
Israel finds itself in an odd position -- choosing among those who want its cooperation.
Israel and Egypt have come to a deep understanding of the sources of instability and insecurity in Sinai, and the relationship between Hamas in Gaza and its primary sponsor, Iran, as well as ISIS. Former IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz told inFOCUS magazine recently:
Coordination between us is very high and very important because we have identical interests. Period. The way to achieve them might look different, but Egypt is a very important country. It is crucial to the world to ensure its stability - progress in the fight against ISIS that is present in Sinai, and protecting the Suez Canal, and other things... They are all good reasons for Egypt to take these responsibilities seriously and do something about the threats. I'm very happy to see what they're doing. It is a good track.
This month, Egypt and Saudi Arabia upgraded relations with Egypt, ceding back to the Saudis two islands that Saudi Arabia had given Egypt in 1950 to help Egypt fight Israel in the Red Sea. According to a report in the Egyptian daily al-Ahram, as reported by the Jerusalem Post, the Egyptian government informed Israel of the parameters of the deal, noting that Riyadh would be obligated to honor all of Egypt's commitments in the peace treaty with Israel, including the presence of international peacekeepers on the islands and freedom of maritime movement in the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel approved the deal "on condition that the Saudis fill in the Egyptians' shoes in the military appendix of the peace agreement," according to Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon.
This makes Saudi Arabia an active partner in the Camp David Accords. And it follows on the heels of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) labeling Hezbollah "a terror organization" without the weasel words the Europeans used to condemn only the "military wing" of the organization.
In the face of these developments, it is hard to imagine a benefit that would accrue to Israel by negating the Israel-Egypt blockade of Gaza on behalf of Turkey.
Russia presents a similar series of circumstances. Relations between Russia and Turkey have taken a nosedive over the Syrian civil war, particularly after Turkey shot down a Russian plane. But even before that, Turkey's support of Sunni jihadist organizations was a thorn in the side of Russia, which still fears Sunni jihad inside southern Russia.
Russia has goals in Syria and Israel also has requirements. In his inFOCUS interview, former Chief of Staff Gantz noted:
The [Israeli] Prime Minister and Chief of Staff [Gantz's successor] flew to Russia and had some important of discussions of intentions, deconfliction, and we expressed our interests... stability, preventing terrorist activity... preventing armament that will go from Iran through Syria to Hezbollah, or from Russia to Syria and then to Hezbollah.... People can see what it is that Israel does once in a while when it has to protect itself.
Add to this Israel's generally good economic and political relations with Russia and, again, it is hard to see the benefit that would accrue to Israel by forging closer relations with Turkey while Russia and Turkey are doing a slow burn.
Turkey is doing a faster burn on the Kurds. Having waged a fierce war against Kurdish separatists in southern Turkey, the Turkish government has taken military action against the Kurds of Iraq and Syria to prevent Kurdish forces from connecting two enclaves -- one in Iraq and one in Syria -- that could form the geographic beginning of an independent Kurdistan.
Even at the peak of Israeli-Turkish relations, Israel's support of the Kurds has been a relatively open political secret. Although the Israeli government consistently denies providing weapons, reputable sources suggest, at a minimum, training for Kurdish forces. Most recently, Israel acknowledged buying oil from Kurdish sources in Northern Iraq, and IsraAid, an Israeli humanitarian organization, provided assistance to Kurdish refugees fleeing ISIS. Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly supported the establishment of a Kurdish state.
For Israel to trade its increasingly important relations with Russia, with Egypt -- and thereby with Saudi Arabia -- and with the Kurds for Turkish political approval and a promise to buy Israeli natural gas would seem to be a bad deal. For Israel to accompany that with the lifting of the Israel/Egypt embargo on Gaza that would empower Hamas -- and thereby the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and ISIS -- would seem an enormous risk for no gain.
*Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center.
© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. 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.

Does the Middle East Still Matter? The Obama Doctrine and U.S. Policy
Derek Chollet, Ellen Laipson, Michael Doran, and Michael Mandelbaum
Washington Institute/April 17/16
Four eminent scholars and policy practitioners debate the president's worldview and how it will shape American interests and options in the next administration.
On March 12, Derek Chollet, Ellen Laipson, Michael Doran, and Michael Mandelbaum addressed a Washington Institute Policy Forum inspired by the controversial Atlantic cover story "The Obama Doctrine." Chollet is the counselor and senior advisor for security and defense policy at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Laipson is a distinguished fellow and president emeritus at the Stimson Center. Doran is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. Mandelbaum is the Christian A. Herter Professor of American Foreign Policy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. The following is a rapporteur's summary of their remarks, not a verbatim transcript.
Since his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama has sought to redefine American strength and rebalance the U.S. leadership role in world affairs. He does not think doctrinally, instead seeing global challenges in more particular ways that are best addressed with a long-term approach.
When he assumed office, Obama believed that U.S. policy was imbalanced, and he sought to restore balance on several fronts: between priorities in different regions, between domestic and international priorities, within various U.S. partnerships, and in the application of different tools of statecraft. His conception of strategic balance recognizes the limits of U.S. power and resources. While this view may be politically incorrect, grand strategy mandates the identification of priorities and corresponding resource allocation. This process is complicated by the fact that the United States faces more demands than any other nation, but America cannot do it all.
Obama views sustainability as critical to any policy, so he has aimed to develop sustainable commitments in the Middle East that are balanced with other interests. He views U.S. leadership and its capacity to set global agendas -- either from the front or behind the scenes -- as key to any sustainable, balanced policy. In some areas, such as Latin America and Southeast Asia, this approach has improved relations remarkably. The one area where things are not appreciably better is the Middle East. Yet restraint is critical to achieving balance and sustainability, and while certain actions or rhetoric might be politically expedient, the president is wary of anything that might throw America's overall foreign policy off balance.
Accordingly, Obama's record shows a preference for the more precise and discreet instruments of American power, such as drone strikes, special operations, and targeted sanctions. Precision provides maneuverability and flexibility, but patience is required for his signature initiatives, including efforts to address Iran, the Islamic State, and climate change. On some policies, however, it is fair to ask whether the United States has enough time to be patient.
Obama also recognizes that part of America's greatness derives from its ability to acknowledge its fallibility and correct course when necessary. He is skeptical of those who offer quick answers and easy justifications, and he is wary of political debates in Washington undermining strategic thinking. His optimistic long-game approach runs counter to political trends at home, but he believes it is the best way of enabling American exceptionalism abroad.
Despite the administration's rebalancing efforts, developments under his watch do not support the argument that the United States is pivoting away from the Middle East. There are more forces deployed in the region today than before 9/11. The U.S. military is working to strengthen its Gulf partners, and the past seven years have seen some of the largest arms sales in history. Similarly, Washington has maintained its support to Egypt in the face of criticism at home, while military and intelligence support for Israel is at record levels. Obama was also able to eliminate the vast majority of Syria's chemical weapons without the use of military force.
Even so, the next administration will face a reassurance problem in Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, where U.S. partners are deeply concerned about regional developments. They all want more from Washington, and they have maximalist ambitions for what the United States should be doing in the world.
Because President Obama has a cosmopolitan view of the world, he is highly empathetic toward how other countries experience American power. This mindset has led him to refine and advance a nuanced understanding of U.S. power in a globalized world.
Despite accusations that America is pulling back from the Middle East or pivoting to Asia, his 2009 Cairo speech demonstrated a significant ambition to transform U.S.-Arab relations. While some considered his reaction to the Arab Spring naive, he perceived an opportunity to change the social contract between Middle Eastern governments and their societies. More recently, though, he has referred to Arab states as "free riders," a view that is behind the times -- Arab leaders, particularly Saudis and other Gulf partners, have assumed more initiative and responsibility in the past few years.
At the same time, Obama believes that some of the region's problems are not amenable to American solutions -- certain existential issues can only be addressed by Middle Easterners themselves. This should not be misinterpreted as indifference or lack of commitment, but his administration does want the region to assume more responsibility for its problems. To be sure, the United States still maintains security partnerships in the region, but these relations are complicated -- they are not mutually binding defense agreements comparable to NATO or U.S. alliances in Asia.
In Syria, past deliberations about whether to use force in response to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons were shaped by the president's aversion to launching another military campaign in a Muslim country with no roadmap for the day after. This logic is viewed through a different lens today, however, and the decision to abstain from more forceful intervention in 2013 now appears to be a costly one.
More broadly, America's responsibilities in the Middle East transcend the declared interests of any individual states in the region. If overall stability is the primary objective, Washington should endeavor to improve relations between Arab states and Iran over the long term, though it might be counterproductive to place too much emphasis on such efforts at the moment.
Finally, the region's policy importance has been decreasing by a few degrees because of America's growing energy independence. In the future, Washington will probably accept greater risk in the Middle East and will be less likely to intervene.
Obama is a strategic thinker, and much of his thought process in the Middle East has been informed by two assessments: that the region is not strategically vital to the United States, and that Israel's security is not a crucial concern. While previous presidents sought to elevate allies over adversaries, Obama envisions the adversaries -- principally Iran and Russia -- as legitimate regional stakeholders.
The Iran nuclear deal was part of an effort to work with these adversaries in order to stabilize the Middle East and decrease U.S. commitments in the region. The White House opted not to impose costs on Iran and Russia for their activities in Syria in no small part because of the priority it gave to the nuclear negotiations. Yet while the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action may prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon for ten to fifteen years, this is a temporary delay at best, and it will come at the cost of a regional nuclear arms race.
The 2013 "chemical redline" episode likewise reflected the administration's recognition of Iranian interests in Syria. Obama did not want to use force because he believed it would threaten progress with the Iranians; instead he wrote a letter to the Supreme Leader and withheld aid to Syrian opposition groups, which helped change the balance of power in favor of the Assad regime and Tehran.
The president's strategy is problematic because Russia and Iran actively undermine American interests and allies in the Middle East. As a result, the region will not sufficiently stabilize for the United States to withdraw, and the U.S. alliance system will continue to weaken. In contrast, the Russian-Iranian alliance is growing stronger -- it represents the region's greatest transformation, and Washington is not devoting adequate resources to contain this threat.
Iran's expanding militia network is based on the Hezbollah model and provides a cheap way to undermine its adversaries. The Saudis, Turks, and Israelis do not have sufficient assets to combat this network individually, and their sundry divisions prevent them from jointly confronting the Russian-Iranian alliance. The United States is best positioned to coordinate missions and alliances in order to address this threat and arrange a stable regional order. Rebalancing requires strong allies, and the next president will need to strengthen U.S. ties in the region and reverse the idea that Washington cannot productively apply military force.
MICHAEL MANDELBAUM
For the United States, the Middle East is now relatively less important than it was between 1989 and 2014. During that post-Cold War period, Europe and East Asia were largely at peace, allowing Washington to allocate more resources and attention to the Middle East. Today, however, new strategic challenges are demanding attention in East Asia and Europe, and other parts of the globe will no doubt require a reallocation of resources in the future.
The United States has three principal concerns in the Middle East: preventing any single country from achieving hegemony, preventing nuclear proliferation, and maintaining global access to the region's oil. Although new technology has made America less reliant on Middle Eastern energy resources, Japan and Western Europe still depend on them, so preserving U.S. relationships with these close allies will likely require Washington to continue prioritizing the region's oil security. For its part, Israel still needs help in combatting proliferation among its neighbors.
While the Islamic State is the region's principal threat to individual Americans, Iran is the principal threat to America's interests and commitments in the Middle East. It is a revanchist state that seeks regional dominance and remains a proliferation concern. Accordingly, containing Iran should be Washington's primary objective in the region.
Even if the United States has no interest in the doctrinal basis of the region's sectarian conflicts, the fact is that most of its allies there are Sunni governments. Maintaining these alliances can be difficult because some Sunni partners are unable to field fighting armies or are otherwise reluctant to put boots on the ground, complicating the Obama administration's goal of confronting the Islamic State without significant U.S. ground intervention. Sunni states are especially unlikely to make such commitments when they distrust Washington's efforts to negotiate with Iran about its regional role. Russia's alignment with Tehran and the wider Shiite coalition further complicates any large-scale U.S. military intervention on the Sunni side. Another problem is that the Obama administration has no clear strategy for the day after the Islamic State is defeated, creating the risk that a new radical Islamist group will simply take its place.
Obama is sensitive to those who oppose U.S. power and less sensitive to those who depend on U.S. power. Yet credibility matters when confronting strategic adversaries. Nearly all of Obama's past political career took place in an era when the United States lacked strategic adversaries, and he has not adapted well to their reemergence in this new era.
**This summary was prepared by Patrick Schmidt.