LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

November 18/16

Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

 

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site

http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com/newsbulletin16/english.november18.16.htm

 

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006

Click Here to go to the LCCC Daily English/Arabic News Buletins Archieves Since 2006

Bible Quotations For Today
Very truly, I tell you, whoever keeps my word will never see death
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint John 08/51-55/:"Very truly, I tell you, whoever keeps my word will never see death.’The Jews said to him, ‘Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and so did the prophets; yet you say, "Whoever keeps my word will never taste death." Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets also died. Who do you claim to be?’Jesus answered, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, "He is our God", though you do not know him. But I know him; if I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word."

There is no one who is righteous, not even one; there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who seeks God
Letter to the Romans 03/01-12/:"What advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written, ‘So that you may be justified in your words, and prevail in your judging.’ But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), ‘Let us do evil so that good may come’? Their condemnation is deserved! What then? Are we any better off? No, not at all; for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: ‘There is no one who is righteous, not even one; there is no one who has understanding,there is no one who seeks God. All have turned aside, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, there is not even one."
 
Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on November 17-18/16
Aoun, Rai spar with Berri, Qabalan/Joseph Haboush| The Daily Star/November 17/16
After Liberation From ISIS, Iraq's Yazidis Dream Of Returning Home/Reuters 17 November 2016
What does the arrival of Trump mean for us/ Khaled M. Batarfi/Al Arabiya/November 17/16
Europe: Let's End Free Speech/Are European Countries Now Police States/ Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/November 17/16
Israel Puts the Spike Missile on its Apache Helicopters/ Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen//Gatestone Institute/November 17/16
Trump and the Middle East: Challenges to Regaining US Supremacy/ Riad Kahwaji/ November 17/16
Trump Wins With Five “Nos”/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/November 17/16
Hillary Clinton – the Ideal Choice in Normal Circumstances/Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/November 17/16
Time to Save the World, Mr. Trump/Narayana Kocherlakota/Bloomberg/November 17/16
Responses In Iran To Trump's Presidential Win/A. Savyon, E. Kharrazi, and U. Kafash*/MEMRI/November 17/16

Titles For Latest Lebanese Related News published on on November 17-18/16
Hizbullah Bloc Urges 'Broad Govt.', Electoral Law 'Fully Based on Proportional Representation'
Gemayel Vows Support for Aoun, Urges Him to Seek 'New Lebanon'
Change and Reform Says 'No Need for Rush' in Cabinet Formation Process
Berri, Aoun Trade 'Indirect' Criticisms
Man Accused of Spying for Israel Referred to Judiciary
Mental Exam Sought for U.S. Man Charged with Killing Lebanese Neighbor
Rifi Urges Parliamentary By-elections in Tripoli, Keserwan
Zahra: Cabinet Line-Up Leaked to Media True, Near Final
Special Coordinator for Lebanon Awarded the Carnegie Wateler Peace Prize
Top Cellphone Dealer, Security Personnel Referred to Military Magistrate
Aoun, Rai spar with Berri, Qabalan
Aoun Receives Official Invitation to Visit Egypt
Lebanon’s Cabinet Formation Soon as PM-Designate Seeks to Resolve LF Obstacle
Loyalty to Resistance after bloc meeting: For echoing partnership through enlarging representation in government
Army: Enemy engineering vehicle violates Blue Line off Aitaroun
Labour Syndicates Union stages sit in near NSSF in Cola

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on on November 17-18/16
U.N. to Vote on Extending Syria Gas Attacks Probe
HRW Accuses Yemen Rebels of Torture, Arbitrary Detention
Yemen Clashes Rage despite U.S. Call for Truce
Baghdad, Kurds at Odds over Post-Mosul Division of Territory
U.S. Intelligence Chief Clapper Resigns
Canada in Reversal Funds U.N. Assistance for Palestinians
Settlers Urge Israel to Return Body of Palestinian Youth
U.S. House reauthorizes Iran sanctions bill, sets Syria sanctions - report
Political Prisoner Writes Revealing Letter to UN Special Rapporteur
Repeated violations of Security Council Resolution 2231 with launching missiles and export of weapons to Syria upon Khamenei's order
Iran: People Beaten by Police, While Trying to Prevent Their Houses From Being Destroyed
MARYAM RAJAVI'S MESSAGE TO A MEETING AT THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT
Two Assyrians Among Trump's Advisors for the Middle East
Trump considering Romney for secretary of State: report

Links From Jihad Watch Site for on November 17-18/16
Trump adviser says he will ban Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots CAIR, ISNA
Life in the Islamic State: “He told me to spit on a picture of the Virgin Mary and a crucifix”
New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof: Respond to Trump by joining Hamas-linked CAIR
Hugh Fitzgerald: Arsalan Iftikhar and Trump’s Reign of Terror
Austria: Sharia patrol attacks girl for not wearing hijab
Raymond Ibrahim: ‘Break the Cross!’ Muhammad Commands It
Central Ohio becomes front line in Hamas-linked CAIR’s fight for popular support
Tennessee: Christian mom wants history textbook removed from schools for promoting Islamic propaganda
Catholic charity: “Islamist hyperextremism” could bring world to brink of catastrophe
Muslims may wear and pray to the Cross to deceive Christians, says Al Azhar cleric

Links From Christian Today Site for on November 17-18/16
After Liberation From ISIS, Iraq's Yazidis Dream Of Returning Home
Hunger, Bullying And Mental Health Problems: Children In Britain Are Paying The Terrible Price Of Debt
Christian Peer And US Bishop Narrowly Escape Ambush By Islamist Gunmen In Nigeria
After Fleeing ISIS, 7,000 Iraqi Christians To Celebrate The Hope Of Returning Home
Bishops Tell Theresa May: Stop Ignoring Christian Persecution In Iran
Humanists Want To Ban Christmas Shoebox Gifts To Children Around The World
Government Sees 'Conveyor Belt' Between Religion And Extremism, Says Ex-Minister
United Against Hate: Hundreds Of Students Protect Muslims At Prayer
Archbishop Drafted In To Help Shape Post-Brexit Economy
Teen Girls Defend Christian Faith From Muslim Attack - End Up In Jail For 'Inciting Religious Violence'.

Latest Lebanese Related News published on November 17-18/16
Hizbullah Bloc Urges 'Broad Govt.', Electoral Law 'Fully Based on Proportional Representation'
Naharnet/November 17/16/Hizbullah's parliamentary bloc on Thursday urged forming a “broad government” that comprises the biggest number of political parties, while reiterating its call for approving an electoral law fully based on the proportional representation system. “The bloc expresses its hope that the political forces will put their keenness on partnership into effect through enlarging the government,” the Loyalty to Resistance bloc said in a statement issued after its periodic meeting. Recent media reports have said that President Michel Aoun and Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri want to form a 24-member Cabinet rather than one comprised of 30 members in order to “boost productivity” and rein in the demands of the political parties. Separately, Loyalty to Resistance called for passing an electoral law for parliamentary polls that would be “fully based on proportional representation.”The law should also turn Lebanon into a single electoral district or a few enlarged electorates, the bloc said. Other political parties, especially al-Mustaqbal Movement, have rejected Hizbullah's call for proportional representation, arguing that the party's controversial arsenal of arms would prevent serious competition in regions where the Iran-backed party is influential. Mustaqbal, the Lebanese Forces and the Progressive Socialist Party have meanwhile proposed a hybrid electoral law that mixes the proportional representation and the winner-takes-all systems. Hizbullah's ally Speaker Nabih Berri has also proposed a hybrid law. The country has not voted for a parliament since 2009, with the legislature instead twice extending its own mandate.
The 2009 polls were held under an amended version of the 1960 electoral law and the next elections are scheduled for May 2017.

Gemayel Vows Support for Aoun, Urges Him to Seek 'New Lebanon'
Naharnet/November 17/16/Kataeb Party chief MP Sami Gemayel pledged Thursday to support President Michel Aoun in the beginning of his presidential tenure while urging him to “improve the political system.”“We will not bargain on our principles, neither for the presidential election nor for a ministerial seat or a parliamentary vote,” Gemayel said in an interview on LBCI television, explaining why Kataeb did not vote for Aoun in the presidential election. He reiterated that “what happened in the presidential elections gave Hizbullah the power to choose the president now and in the future.”“All parties considered that they won after the presidential vote and we're the only group in Lebanon that acknowledged its defeat,” Gemayel told LBCI. “We will bear the responsibility for our stance and we held three days of discussions before taking our final stance and we knew that there would be an attempt to besiege Kataeb in connection with its stance,” the Kataeb chief added. Renewing his pledge to cooperate with the new president, Gemayel said: “We now have a president and it is our duty to give him a chance, seeing as the failure of the president would be a failure for us all.”Asked about the latest war of words with the Lebanese Forces over the formation of the new government, Gemayel noted that the row was started by LF leader Samir Geagea. “We were not the ones who started the row with the LF but rather Dr. Geagea when he said in the media that those who did not vote for Aoun should not be in the government,” Gemayel clarified. “What we understood from Dr. Geagea's remarks is that they do not want us in the government,” he added. Asked why Kataeb has decided to join the new government although it did not vote for Aoun, Gemayel said: “We will join the government because it is a national unity government and to support the beginning of the presidential tenure. “We will be the loud voice of March 14's supporters.”Gemayel also noted that Kataeb withdrew from Tammam Salam's government “because its premier talked about its corruption.”Separately, Kataeb's leader stressed that “we must improve our political system.” “If General Aoun wants to be a historic president he must say that Lebanon's historic formula has failed. We must try to build a new Lebanon and we would support him in this,” he added.

Change and Reform Says 'No Need for Rush' in Cabinet Formation Process
Naharnet/November 17/16/The Change and Reform parliamentary bloc announced Thursday that “there is no need for rush” in the cabinet formation process, despite a flurry of upbeat media reports about the possibility of forming the new government before Independence Day. “We want a government within a reasonable timeframe but there is no need for rush. We only want the presidential tenure to begin in a good way,” MP Ibrahim Kanaan said after the bloc's weekly meeting in Rabieh. “Who can obstruct the beginning of the new presidential tenure after all what we went through and against the hopes of the Lebanese who are looking forward to this beginning?” Kanaan asked. “We are still within a very reasonable timeframe and the cabinet formation process is moving forward positively although more work is needed,” the lawmaker added. He also stressed that “there is no veto on anyone” and media reports claiming otherwise are “baseless.”“We were behind the idea of forming a national unity government,” Kanaan pointed out.

Berri, Aoun Trade 'Indirect' Criticisms
Naharnet/November 17/16/Speaker Nabih Berri and President Michel Aoun traded indirect criticisms on Thursday where each held the other responsible for weakening the state institutions. “It is true that extending the parliament term has harmed the state institutions, but obstructing the election of a president was even worse,” Berri replied to Aoun. Aoun who spoke from Bkirki during a visit to Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi said: “The extension of the parliament term has harmed the state institutions,” in reference to the 2014 decision of lawmakers to extend the mandate of the parliament until June 2017 which Aoun's Change and Reform bloc has rejected. For his part, Berri was referring to the presidential vacuum that lasted for over two and a half years because of the Free Patriotic Movement's boycott of parliamentary sessions to elect a President. Aoun is the founder of the Free Patriotic Movement.

Man Accused of Spying for Israel Referred to Judiciary
Naharnet/November 17/16/A Lebanese man was referred to the judiciary on Thursday on charges of spying for Israel, the army said. “The Intelligence Directorate has referred Lebanese citizen Suheil Hussein Qaddoura to the relevant judicial authorities over his ties to the Israeli enemy,” an army statement said. Qaddoura provided Israel with “information about the infrastructure in the Bekaa region,” the statement added. Lebanese authorities had launched a national crackdown on Israeli espionage rings in 2009 which resulted in the arrest of more than 100 people. Lebanon and Israel remain technically in a state of war and convicted spies can face the death penalty.

Mental Exam Sought for U.S. Man Charged with Killing Lebanese Neighbor
Associated Press/Naharnet/November 17/16/A Nov. 30 hearing is set for a U.S. judge to decide whether a mental evaluation is needed for an Oklahoma man charged in the shooting death of his Lebanese neighbor. Prosecutors charged 62-year-old Stanley Vernon Majors, of Tulsa, with first-degree murder and misdemeanor hate crime charges in the August killing of Khalid Jabara. But Majors' attorney is seeking a mental competency evaluation, arguing in court papers that he shows signs of dementia. The Tulsa World news portal has reported that defense attorney Paula Alfred said in a court filing that Majors appears to have problems with his long-term memory, which she says interferes with her ability to prepare a defense. Authorities say Majors killed Jabara after bombarding him with racial insults in a feud with Jabara's family that lasted several years.

Rifi Urges Parliamentary By-elections in Tripoli, Keserwan
Naharnet/November 17/16/Caretaker Justice Minister Ashraf Rifi on Thursday called for holding parliamentary by-elections to fill the two vacant seats of the Tripoli and Keserwan electoral districts. “After Tripoli's Greek Orthodox parliamentary seat became vacant following the resignation of Mr. Robert Fadel, and after a Maronite parliamentary seat became vacant in Keserwan due to the election of General Michel Aoun as president, we request taking the necessary measures to hold the elections as soon as possible in line with the Constitution's stipulations and out of respect for the people's will,” said Rifi in a memo addressed to the premiership. He noted that Article 41 of the Constitution calls for electing a successor within two months from the vacancy of any parliamentary seat. Fadel had announced his resignation from parliament in May, protesting the surprising results of Tripoli's municipal polls in which no Christian candidate managed to win a seat on the municipal council. “Pluralism, coexistence and balance among the country's components are necessary conditions for Lebanon's existence,” Fadel stressed. A list backed by Rifi achieved a stunning victory against a list backed by al-Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri, ex-PM Najib Miqati, ex-ministers Faisal Karami and Mohammed al-Safadi, Jamaa Islamiya, al-Ahbash and the Arab Democratic Party. The Rifi-backed list clinched 18 seats on the municipal council as the broad coalition's list won only six. Christian and Alawite candidates representing the city's two minorities failed to win any seats, which was a first in the history of Tripoli's municipal elections.

Zahra: Cabinet Line-Up Leaked to Media True, Near Final
Naharnet/November 17/16/Lebanese Forces MP Antoine Zahra stated on Thursday that the government formation process is almost complete and the line-up that was leaked to media outlets is near final. “The leaked government line-up that was circulated in media outlets is true and almost final,” Zahra told LBCI. “The only obstacle in the wrangling over portfolios is the representation of the Marada Movement in the new cabinet because the two Shiite parties insist that it be represented through a key portfolio,” added Zahra.
Reports say that Marada wants to get either of three portfolios-public works or energy or telecommunications. Media reports said that Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri has submitted a draft line-up to President Michel Aoun during a meeting Wednesday at the Baabda Palace.
The following is the draft line-up as reported by MTV:
- Shiites: Ali Hassan Khalil (Finance, AMAL Movement), Yassine Jaber (Public Works or Economy, AMAL), Ali Abdullah (Public Works or Economy, AMAL), Ali Fayyad (Industry or Agriculture, Hizbullah) and a fifth minister who would be loyal to the president.
- Maronites: Jebran Bassil (Foreign Affairs, Free Patriotic Movement), Bassam Yammine (Energy, Marada Movement), Ghattas Khoury (Culture, Mustaqbal Movement), Salim al-Sayegh (Education, Kataeb Party) and Pierre Raffoul (Labor, FPM).
- Sunnis: Saad Hariri (PM), Jamal al-Jarrah (Telecommunications, Mustaqbal), Nouhad al-Mashnouq (Interior, Mustaqbal), Mohammed Kabbara (Social Affairs or Environment, Mustaqbal), Moein al-Merehbi (Social Affairs or Environment, Mustaqbal).
- Greek Orthodox: Elias Bou Saab (Defense, FPM), Ibrahim Najjar (Justice, Lebanese Forces) and Ghassan Hasbani (Deputy PM, LF).
- Greek Catholic: Michel Pharaon (Tourism, LF) and Melhem Riachi (Information, LF).
- Druze: Marwan Hamadeh (Health, Democratic Gathering) and Lebanese Democratic Party chief MP Talal Arslan for a portfolio that is yet to be allocated.
Armenians: Hagop Pakradounian (Tashnag Party) for a portfolio that is yet to be allocated and Jean Oghassabian (Administrative Development, Mustaqbal).
The political forces are pushing for forming the new Cabinet before Independence Day, which Lebanon marks on November 22.
According to media reports, a settlement has been reached under which the Lebanese Forces will be given the deputy premier post instead of a so-called sovereign portfolio.

Special Coordinator for Lebanon Awarded the Carnegie Wateler Peace Prize
Naharnet/November 17/16/The UN Special Coordinator for Lebano Sigrid Kaag, was awarded the Carnegie Wateler Peace Prize on 16 November 2016. The prize, presented to Kaag in the Peace Palace in The Hague, came in recognition of her leadership of the 2013 joint OPCW-UN mission to eliminate the declared chemical weapons of the Syrian Arab Republic as well as her role in conflict prevention and diplomacy in Lebanon. In her acceptance speech, Kaag expressed her gratitude to the Carnegie foundation for the award and her recognition for the many UN peacekeepers, humanitarian workers and human rights activists who risk their lives in areas of instability or conflict to serve others and those who strive, mostly behind the scenes, to prevent conflicts from breaking out and to build more cohesive and peaceful societies. Kaag also highlighted the challenges of achieving and sustaining lasting peace: “Peace can only be won by patient, determined effort, through trial and error, and with the knowledge that setbacks may occur but must be overcome. Peace can only be won through commitment, courage and dedication. "We all have a role to play.Individuals – within the affected communities, civil society, politicians, member states, the multilateral system, the private sector, and peace philanthropists. Not merely as recipients or providers of services and support, but as full partners. There is no stability and development without owning the path towards peace and the paper it is signed on.”The Board of the Carnegie Foundation awards the Carnegie Wateler Peace Prize every two years for individuals and organizations championing the cause for international peace. The Prize is named after Dutch banker Johan Wateler. A hundred years ago, Wateler followed up the example of Alfred Nobel and drew up a testament allocating capital for the establishment of a Peace Prize. Previous laureates include Jean Monnet, Lakhdar Brahimi,and Jeremy Gilley.

Top Cellphone Dealer, Security Personnel Referred to Military Magistrate
Naharnet/November 17/16/Financial General Prosecutor Judge Ali Ibrahim referred detainee and top cellphone dealer Kamel Amhaz and two airport security personnel to First Military Investigative Judge Riad Abou Ghaida, LBCI reported on Thursday. LBCI said that Judge Ibrahim referred the detainees to the Military Magistrate because of the involvement of military personnel in the case. Amhaz and two accomplices, Issam Amhaz and Abdullah, were arrested Tuesday on charges of smuggling phones into the country.Reports have said that Amhaz was arrested following the detention of a number of airport security personnel on charges of turning a blind eye to suitcases containing smuggled cellphones in return for bribes. The U.S. Treasury Department had in July 2014 slapped sanctions on Kamel and Issam Amhaz and their Beirut-based Stars Group Holding for electronics on charges of “procuring sophisticated military equipment for Hizbullah.” According to the U.S. Treasury, Stars Group Holding is based in Beirut and has subsidiaries in China and the UAE. After their detention on Tuesday, relatives of Amhaz blocked several roads in Beirut's suburbs and the Bekaa in protest at what they called “fabricated” charges.

Aoun, Rai spar with Berri, Qabalan
Joseph Haboush| The Daily Star/November 17/16
BEIRUT: Comments made by President Michel Aoun during a trip to Bkirki Thursday led to a war of words with Speaker Nabih Berri, while Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai’s remarks drew the ire of the Higher Islamic Shiite Council. On his first official visit outside of the presidential palace as Lebanon’s head of state, Aoun lamented the fact that Parliament had extended its term twice in recent years. “All institutions were damaged due to the extension of the Parliament’s term and the inability of the governing body to act,” he said.
Aoun’s comments drew a swift response from Berri. “Of course the extension was bad and state institutions became weak as the president said, but hindering the election of a head of state was far worse for the institutions, including the Parliament,” the speaker said in a statement issued by his media office. Aoun and allies had boycotted presidential elections for nearly two and half years before Aoun secured victory and was elected Oct. 31.
Meanwhile, Rai called on Aoun to assume his role in working with Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri to form a Cabinet, which would equally distribute responsibilities among all parties.
“It is unacceptable to [demand] a ‘package of conditions’ and [for parties] to cling on to [portfolios] by using a veto,” Rai said, apparently referring to Berri’s insistence on keeping the Finance Ministry.
Responding to Rai, vice president of the Higher Islamic Shiite Council Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan refuted the apparent jab against Berri’s insistence that the ministry remains with the Shiite community. Qabalan fired back at Rai saying, “The Shiite Muslims were and always will be the keenest for a just and equally representative state.”
Qabalan added that Shiites, historically, were deprived and disadvantaged “even in defending their own lands.”
“We refute these words that we heard today because we demand something that is a true representation in empowerment,” Qabalan said in response to Rai adding, “Yes, it is a right of ours and in the case of the abolishment of sectarianism, we will be the first to support it.”
Aoun, accompanied by his son-in-law and caretaker Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, was welcomed at the seat of the Maronite Church by Rai. A representative from the Vatican and a number of patriarchs from different sects were also present.
Following a prayer service held in Aoun’s honor, Rai congratulated the president while praising him for making his first official visit to Bkirki as has been a customary move by former presidents.
He added that after two years and five months without a president, Aoun’s election unified Lebanese political parties and parliamentary blocks, overcoming previous divisions. “It is now imperative for you to continue the positive beginning of your term to assure a balanced participation between all in the administration,” Rai said to Aoun.
Aoun was told by Rai that now was his chance to fully implement the Taif Accord by agreeing on a new electoral law that ensures the representation of all Lebanese and is capable of holding those in power responsible. “The president of the republic and the Maronite Patriarchate work together in unison to preserve Lebanon,” Rai said.
Rai called on all Lebanese to live by the words of Lebanon’s first Patriarch Elias Hoayek, whom he called the “Father of Lebanon.”
“I am a Maronite patriarch ... I am the patriarch of Lebanon ... I dedicated my life to the Lebanese cause, which I consider a holy cause. For me, it is not a Lebanon of sects, there is one sect and its name is the Lebanese sect,” Rai said, quoting Hoayek.
The first patriarch was in charge of the Maronite Church at the time Lebanon gained its independence.
Rai also quoted another former Lebanese patriarch to stress that Bkirki was for all Lebanese, not just one sect. “This patriarchate is not for the Maronite sect only, it is a house for all Lebanese. [It] has always stood for the Lebanese cause without differentiating between one sect and another,” Rai said.
Aoun echoed Rai in stressing the need for Lebanon to respect and follow Patriarch Elias Hoayek’s motto of coexistence.
“While Christians in the Middle East face potentially the most difficult times today ... we, in Lebanon, face the same threat,” Aoun said.

Aoun Receives Official Invitation to Visit Egypt
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 17/16/ Beirut – Lebanese President Michel Aoun received an official invitation from his Egyptian counterpart Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to visit Egypt. Aoun met on Wednesday with Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry at the Baabda Palace. He said afterwards that he would visit Egypt the soonest possible, stressing “the strength of the Lebanese-Egyptian relations and the necessity to promote cooperation in all fields.”“Lebanon has overcome the difficult conditions it witnessed and it is now regaining its role and presence, based on the convergence achieved among the Lebanese factions and their rallying around the oath”, Aoun said following the meeting. “We are working on anchoring this sense of understanding, and we consider that each country that achieves rooted stability must be supportive to other countries,” the Lebanese president said, hoping to reach a political solution to the Syrian crisis. The Egyptian minister conveyed to Aoun the greetings of President Sisi, and handed him a written message which stressed Egypt’s confidence in the new mandate and in its ability to lead the country to further progress and stability.  The letter also highlighted the deep-rooted Lebanese-Egyptian ties and the importance of working hand-in-hand in favor of Arab causes and against all challenges. Addressing reporters following the meeting, Shoukry said that his visit was “an affirmation of the close relationship between the two countries and a proof of Egypt’s interest in Lebanon’s affairs, mainly in the election of President Aoun and the return of stability.” “We see in Lebanon an important basis for Arabism and for maintaining common interests in the Arab Orient,” he stated. “We face common challenges, better, through cooperation, solidarity and harmony,” he added. Shoukri also met with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Prime Minister-designate Saad al-Hariri and other Lebanese officials.
 
Lebanon’s Cabinet Formation Soon as PM-Designate Seeks to Resolve LF Obstacle
Caroline Akoum/Asharq Al Awsat/November 17/16/Beirut-The obstacles facing the formation of Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri’s new government are being removed one step at a time after conditions placed by Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat have been likely met.Jumblat and the head of the Lebanese Democratic Party, Talal Arslan, voiced their anger on Wednesday after reports said that the Druze sect would be granted the social affairs ministry instead of the health portfolio, in addition to the economy ministry. The two Druze officials said so-called sovereign portfolios should not be monopolized by any party. In a series of tweets, Jumblat warned against attempts to marginalize the Druze and insisted on retaining the health ministry, which is currently held by a member of his party caretaker Health Minister Wael Abou Faour. “Every group is taking what it wants by force and it’s forbidden to even hint at seeking a sovereign ministry, which is the property of senior leaders,” the PSP chief said in one Tweet. PSP official Zafer Nasser told Asharq Al-Awsat that Jumblat needed to raise his objections over the “heresy” of sovereign portfolios. “We are not making crippling demands,” he said. While the “Druze obstacle” has been removed, there remains the condition placed by the Lebanese Forces to get a sovereign portfolio amid a Hezbollah veto. Informed sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the LF does not aim at holding onto a certain ministry portfolio.  “It wants to have an effective participation in decision-making through a certain ministry,” they said. The sources ruled out the non-participation of the LF in the cabinet.LF official Wehbe Qatisha also told Asharq Al-Awsat that proposals for the LF to give up its demand for a sovereign portfolio in return for two essential ministries and the post of the deputy Speaker were not applicable. The LF has so far not given up on its right to lead a sovereign portfolio, he said. Meanwhile, Speaker Nabih Berri remained optimistic that the new government would be formed soon. He said there was a shared desire by parliamentary blocs to form a cabinet as soon as possible.  Hariri presented President Michel Aoun a draft cabinet lineup Wednesday night. This was a sign that the new government would be formed soon.
 
Loyalty to Resistance after bloc meeting: For echoing partnership through enlarging representation in government
Thu 17 Nov 2016/NNA - "Loyalty to Resistance" bloc beseeched all weighty political forces to exhibit their commitment to partnership through enlarging the base of representation in government. The Bloc's fresh stance came on Thursday in the wake of its regular meeting at its Haret Hreik headquarters, presided over by MP Mohammed Raad. Loyalty and Resistance bloc called for speeding up the formation of a national unity government and the inclusion of the various political forces to echo the spirit of partnership amongst the Lebanese, notably at the onset of the new presidential mandate. The bloc also called for the endorsement of a new electoral law which would secure proper and just representation, in a way that reinforces national integration amongst the Lebanese. The Bloc renewed its stance calling for the adoption of "full proportionality" election law on the basis of a single department district or enlarged ones. The bloc expressed pride in "the national achievements of the resistance for Lebanon and all the Lebanese, with full complementarity among the army, the people and the resistance to ward off strategic risks from Lebanon and enhance opportunities for the uprising of the state and its institutions."Marking Lebanon's Independence Day on November 22, the bloc congratulated all the Lebanese, hailing the "extraordinary sacrifices and efforts undertaken by the Lebanese Army- Command, officers and soldiers- with the remaining security forces, in countering terrorists and unveiling and clamping down on their cells, in addition to thwarting their concocted attacks. The bloc also confirmed commitment to promoting its regional and international relations on the basis of preservation of national sovereignty, mutual respect and common interests.
 
 Army: Enemy engineering vehicle violates Blue Line off Aitaroun
 Thu 17 Nov 2016/NNA - An Israeli enemy engineering vehicle violated on Wednesday between 9.30 am and 16.30 pm the Blue Line off the town of Aitaroun for a distance of about one meter and a half, and removed herbs from the place, army command said in a communiqué. The enemy violation is followed up in coordination with UNIFIL, communiqué said.
 
Labour Syndicates Union stages sit in near NSSF in Cola
 Thu 17 Nov 2016/NNA - The National Union of Labour and Workers' Syndicates in Lebanon staged a sit-in near National Social Security Fund's quarters in Cola, NNA reporter said on Thursday.
 
Lebanese Army: Lebanese accused of collaboration with enemy bought to court
 Thu 17 Nov 2016/NNA - "The Lebanese Souheil Hussein Kaddoura, accused of collaboration with the Israeli enemy, has been brought before justice," the Army said in a statement on Thursday. "Kaddoura is accused of transmitting information about Lebanese infrastructure, especially in Bekaa," the statement said. 
 
Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on November 17-18/16
U.N. to Vote on Extending Syria Gas Attacks Probe
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 17/16/The U.N. Security Council will vote Thursday on extending for another year the mandate of a panel tasked with investigating chemical attacks in Syria and identifying those responsible, diplomats said. Following negotiations with Russia, the United States presented a draft resolution that renews the mandate of the joint United Nations-Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) probe until November 2017. During its year-long investigation, the panel established that Syrian government forces carried out three chlorine gas attacks on villages in 2014 and 2015. It was the first time that an international probe pointed the finger of blame at President Bashar Assad's forces, after years of denial from Damascus. Despite the findings, Russia has dismissed the conclusions as unconvincing and said no sanctions should be imposed on Syria. The panel, known as the Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM), also found that the Islamic State group in Syria used mustard gas as a weapon in August 2015. The draft resolution obtained by AFP tasks the JIM with identifying the "perpetrators, organizers, sponsors" of attacks including among groups associated with IS or with al-Qaida. It states that all "individuals, entities, groups or governments responsible for any use of chemical weapons must be held accountable."
 Despite calls by Russia to extend the probe to Iraq, the draft resolution would limit the work of the JIM investigators to Syria. Diplomats said the vote would take place at around 0000 GMT.
 No sanctions
 Calls from France and Britain for U.N. sanctions against Syria for its use of chemical weapons have yet to translate into action. Paris and London have described the use of toxic gas in attacks against civilians as a war crime and pushed for sanctions to be imposed on those who carried out the attacks. The panel's latest report said government helicopters flying from two regime-controlled air bases dropped chlorine barrel bombs on the villages of Qmenas, Talmenes and Sarmin, in rebel-held Idlib province. The panel identified the 253rd and 255th squadrons of the 63rd helicopter brigade, which flew from the Hama and Humaymim air bases, and the 628 squadron based in Humaymim as the perpetrators. Syria signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 2013 and agreed to give up its chemical stockpile under pressure from close ally Russia. At a meeting in The Hague last week, the OPCW's executive body condemned Syria for its use of chemical weapons, the first-ever condemnation of a state-party to the CWC.The mandate of the JIM was briefly extended last month and was due to expire on Friday.
 
HRW Accuses Yemen Rebels of Torture, Arbitrary Detention
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 17/16/Human Rights Watch accused Yemeni rebels on Thursday of arbitrarily detaining, torturing and forcibly disappearing opponents since they overran the capital in September 2014. The group said it had documented two deaths in custody and 11 cases of alleged torture, one of of a child. It said they were among hundreds of reported cases of arbitrary detention by the Shiite Huthi rebels and their allies -- renegade troops loyal to ousted strongman Ali Abdullah Saleh. The rebels are battling government forces who are backed by a Saudi-led coalition, which intervened in March 2015 when President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi fled into exile. "The authorities (in Sanaa) should free those wrongfully held immediately, end detention without access to lawyers or family members, and prosecute officials responsible for mistreatment," HRW said. "The conflict with the Saudi Arabia-led coalition provides no justification for torture and ‘disappearance’ of perceived opponents," it added. The United Nations says more than 7,000 people have been killed and nearly 37,000 wounded since the coalition intervention started. Millions more are in desperate need of aid.
 
Yemen Clashes Rage despite U.S. Call for Truce

Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 17/16/Clashes raged in Yemen killing at least 27 people Thursday as the Saudi-led coalition said military operations will continue despite U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announcing a truce. Fighting between loyalist forces and Shiite Huthi rebels and their allies intensified on the outskirts of the flashpoint city of Taez, killing four soldiers and five insurgents, military officials said. Pro-government forces pressed on with a three-day-old offensive to recapture the presidential residence and police headquarters in the southwestern city, they said, as rebels brought in reinforcements. Further to the east, seven rebels and five soldiers were killed in clashes in Shabwa province, as both parties fought for control of the oil-rich Usaylan region, other military sources said. Meanwhile, warplanes from the pro-government Saudi-led Arab coalition pounded rebel positions in Saada, the northern fiefdom of the Huthis, as well as in Nahm and Sarwah, close to the rebel-held capital Sanaa, they said. Six other rebels were killed in an ambush in the central province of Baida, the officials said. The fighting continued despite Kerry's announcement of a new ceasefire starting on Thursday. The U.S. chief diplomat said on Tuesday that rebels were ready to observe a ceasefire plan taking effect from November 17, but Yemeni President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi's government said it was not aware of any new peace initiative. Kerry spoke a day after meeting Huthi negotiators in Oman. The Huthis and the party of their ally, former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, confirmed their commitment to the truce, in a statement on the rebel television channel Almasirah's website. But the spokesman of the Saudi-led coalition, Major General Ahmed Assiri, told AFP: "Until now there is no demand from the legitimate government (of Yemen) to observe a ceasefire. "Consequently, the operations of the Yemeni army, supported by the coalition, will continue." Six attempts to clinch a ceasefire in Yemen have foundered, including a three-day October truce that fell apart as soon as it went into force. It was designed to allow aid deliveries to millions of homeless and hungry Yemenis. The U.N. says more than 7,000 people have been killed and nearly 37,000 wounded in Yemen since the Arab coalition launched a military campaign in March 2015 in support of the government against the Iran-backed rebels.
 
Baghdad, Kurds at Odds over Post-Mosul Division of Territory
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 17/16/Iraq's premier and its Kurdish regional chief were publicly at odds Thursday over territorial control after the recapture of Mosul, even with the battle for the city far from over. The war against the Islamic State (IS) group to recapture Mosul, the jihadists' last main stronghold in Iraq, has seen the autonomous Kurdistan region gain or solidify control over swathes of disputed territory in northern Iraq. A long-running territorial row between Kurdistan and Baghdad has been overshadowed by the battle against IS, but with the end of largescale fighting against the jihadists in sight, it is again moving to the fore. Kurdish leader Massud Barzani and Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi are giving vague but nonetheless differing interpretations of understandings on who will control territory in the Mosul area after the city is retaken. "We are in agreement with the United States on not withdrawing from the areas of Kurdistan," Barzani said during a visit to the recaptured town of Bashiqa on Wednesday. Iraqi Kurdistan has long insisted that areas skirting its official boundary that stretches from the border with Syria in the west to Iran in the east are part of the territory it should control -- a position strongly opposed by Baghdad. "These areas were liberated by the blood of 11,500 martyrs and wounded from the peshmerga" Kurdish fighters, Barzani said. "It is not possible after all these sacrifices" to return them to direct federal control."Abadi's office responded Thursday with what it termed a "clarification", saying an agreement between Baghdad and Kurdistan specifically called for the peshmerga forces to pull back. "The agreement includes a specific clause on the withdrawal of the peshmerga from the liberated areas after the liberation of Mosul," it said in a statement. The agreement stipulates that they would return "to the previous places that they held prior to the launch of liberation operations," it said, without giving specifics. Kurdish forces moved into areas vacated by federal troops that withdrew during an IS offensive in 2014, when the jihadists overran large areas north and west of Baghdad. They subsequently lost some of this territory to IS but have since steadily pushed the jihadists back, as federal forces advance in areas further south. Iraqi forces launched a massive operation to retake Mosul on October 17 with Kurdish forces playing a major role in its early stages but later saying their offensive operations had been completed.
 
U.S. Intelligence Chief Clapper Resigns
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 17/16/U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Thursday that he had submitted his resignation, stepping down as President-elect Donald Trump begins to assemble his new administration. Clapper, whose job is to coordinate the work of 17 disparate agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, said resigning "felt pretty good" after six years in the job.In a Congressional hearing he made clear he was not available to stay on in the job after Trump takes office on January 20."I submitted my letter of resignation last night," the retired air force lieutenant general, 75, told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. "I got 64 days left and I think I will have a hard time with my wife for anything past that," he said.
 Confirming that, the Directorate of National Intelligence said later in a tweet that "As required of all appointed Administration officials, DNI Clapper has signed a letter of resignation effective at noon on Jan 20, 2017." Clapper's tenure as U.S. intelligence chief was marred by the leak of documents from the NSA demonstrating that it collected massive amounts of data on the communications of U.S. citizens. In March 2013 Clapper denied in testimony to Congress that the agency swept up such data from US telecommunications providers. Months later former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents showing that the NSA did collect such data, leading to accusations that Clapper lied to Congress on the issue and calls for his resignation. The data also showed how the U.S. spies on allies, sparking tensions with top partners like France and Germany. In an interview in 2014 Snowden said that Clapper's denials had prompted him to leak the top secret data. Clapper though condemned Snowden for damaging the US ability to collect intelligence and for giving away U.S. secrets to enemies. "What Snowden has stolen and exposed has gone way, way beyond his professed concerns with so-called domestic surveillance programs," Clapper said to a hearing in January 2014. "As a result, we've lost critical foreign intelligence collection sources, including some shared with us by valued partners." But he also said separately that the revelations sparked a debate over balancing government spying powers and privacy rights that "actually probably needed to happen."
 
Canada in Reversal Funds U.N. Assistance for Palestinians
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 17/16/The government of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has reversed cuts to aid for Palestinians enacted by the previous administration, International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau announced. Ottawa pledged Can$20 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) to boost access to education, health and social services for "millions of vulnerable Palestinian refugees," Bibeau said in a statement late Wednesday. The government also committed Can$5 million to UNRWA's emergency appeal for Palestinian refugees impacted by the conflict in Syria and surrounding areas. The funding is expected to help 5.5 million Palestinians, said Bibeau. Specifically it will be used to educate about 500,000 boys and girls in 685 schools, and help finance the operations of 137 health care facilities and 61 women's programs. "Millions of Palestinian refugees across the Middle East have the right to receive basic services such as health care and to send their children to school," Bibeau said. "We want to see Palestinian refugee children in classrooms where they can learn universal values of tolerance and respect.  Prior to 2012, Canada had been a consistent contributor to UNRWA since its creation in 1949.
 
Settlers Urge Israel to Return Body of Palestinian Youth
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 17/16/Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank have appealed to the defense ministry to hand over for a family funeral the body of a Palestinian youth shot dead by the army. In a letter seen by AFP on Thursday, seven rabbis were among around 30 residents of the Gush Etzion settlement bloc who called on Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman to "immediately" deliver the body of Khaled Bahar, 15, for burial. Bahar was shot dead on October 20 as Israeli soldiers opened fire on Palestinian stone-throwers in the Beit Ummar sector of the West Bank. The signatories of the letter said an investigation by the army had found that Bahar "apparently had nothing to do with the stone-throwers." "We, inhabitants of Gush Etzion, with links to residents of Beit Ummar and neighboring villages, ask that the family be allowed to bury the young man", the letter reads, noting that the Bible does not allow bodies to go unburied. Also among the signatories were the poet Eliaz Cohen and Michal Frouman, a young woman who was stabbed by a Palestinian assailant in January at a time when she was pregnant. Since the October 2015 start of a wave of violence, many of which have targeted settlements in the West Bank, Israeli forces have confiscated the bodies of killed Palestinians, often for several months. Under former defense minister Moshe Yaalon, the army had started to return the bodies as a means to reducing tensions. But his successor Lieberman on June 9 ordered a resumption of the policy. In the past 13 months, violence has claimed the lives of 238 Palestinians, 36 Israelis, two Americans, a Jordanian, an Eritrean and a Sudanese, according to an AFP count. Most of the Palestinians killed were carrying out attacks, according to Israeli authorities. Others were shot dead during protests or clashes, while some were killed in Israeli air strikes on Gaza.

U.S. House reauthorizes Iran sanctions bill, sets Syria sanctions - report
Thursday, 17 November 2016 ظ U.S. lawmakers passed bills on Tuesday renewing sanctions on Iran's regime for 10 years and imposing new sanctions on Syria, underscoring their determination to play a strong role in Middle East policy no matter who occupies the White House. The House of Representatives voted 419 to one for a 10-year reauthorization of the Iran Sanctions Act, or ISA, a law first adopted in 1996 to punish investments in Iran's energy industry and deter the Iranian regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons, Reuters reported. The U.S. Senate will also vote to renew the sanctions on the Iranian regime for 10 years before adjourning next month, the chamber's Republican leader said on Wednesday, sending the bill to the White House, where President Barack Obama is expected to sign it into law. "We're going to take up the House bill," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters at the Senate's weekly Republican leadership news conference. "... And we're going to pass it." The House also passed by voice vote on Tuesday a bill that would sanction the government of Syria, and supporters including Russia and the Iranian regime, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Iran measure will expire at the end of 2016 if it is not renewed. It must still be passed by the Senate and signed by President Barack Obama in order to become law. The Obama administration and other world powers reached an agreement last year in which Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. But lawmakers said they wanted the ISA to stay in effect to send a strong message that the United States will respond to provocations by Iran's regime and give any U.S. president the ability to quickly reinstate sanctions if Tehran violated the nuclear agreement. "Even after a hard-fought election here at home and power changing hands, American leadership on the global stage won't falter," said Representative Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a bill sponsor. Republican Representative Ed Royce, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the bill's lead sponsor, called the ISA "a critical tool.""Its expiration would compound the damage done by the president's dangerous nuclear deal and send a message that the United States will no longer oppose the destructive role of Iran in the Middle East," said Royce.The vote took place one week after Republican Donald Trump was elected U.S. president. Congressional Republicans unanimously opposed the nuclear deal, along with about two dozen Democrats, and Trump has also strongly criticized it. Lawmakers from both parties said they hoped bipartisan support for a tough line against Iran's regime would continue under the new president. Based in part on wire reports
 
 Political Prisoner Writes Revealing Letter to UN Special Rapporteur
Thursday, 17 November 2016/NCRI - In a revealing letter to Mrs. Asma Jahangir, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, Mr. Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Mrs. Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the EU Foreign Affairs, the political prisoner Behnam Ebrahimzadeh exposes some of the Iranian regime’s criminal acts. Attached to Ebrahimzadeh’s letter is a list containing the names of the prisoners who have been killed over the past few years, either mysteriously or by prison guards. In a part of his letter, the political prisoner Behnam Ebrahimzadeh writes: “if today’s world is known for such indicators as progress and technology, the Iranian regime, on the contrary, is known for its support of state-terrorism, sectarianism, ethnic conflict, fueling religious differences in Iran and across the region, imprisonment, execution and suppression of dissidents and critics and a widespread human rights violations.” Ebrahimzadeh adds that “it’s quite clear to public opinion that the Iranian regime’s Human Rights Record has been one of the most disastrous among the countries in the world.”He then continues his letter by pointing to the killings committed by the Iranian regime’s intelligence agents and writes: “the targeted and politically-motivated murder of tens of political activists and critics in prisons, including Shahrokh Zamani, Hoda Saber and Sattar Beheshti, execution of thousands of prisoners in recent years, ignoring the rights of women, religious and ethnic minorities, and the targeted killing of the traffickers and tradesmen in western borders of the country, is an ongoing tragedy which is taking place every day in my country.”Behnam Ebrahimzadeh points to the killings over the last few decades and writes: “the Iranian regime’s officials should be held accountable for the executions in the 80s and the massacre in the summer of 1988. Who is responsible for these killings, anyway? Why no criminal case in this regime has been finalized? That’s because all these crimes are initiated at Khamenei’s office and carried out under his own supervision.”
 
Repeated violations of Security Council Resolution 2231 with launching missiles and export of weapons to Syria upon Khamenei's order
Thursday, 17 November 2016/Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, Khamenei's top advisor who was the regime's chief of staff until this summer, said, "His excellency (Khamenei) approved launching missile 'Emad'. No rockets are fired in this country unless having been approved by the Commander in Chief. Even for launching missiles in military drills, permission from the leader of revolution (Khamenei) is needed… he even determines the launching time and decides when it should be fired." (Tasnim, the Quds Force news agency- November 12)
 Missile 'Emad' that was launched on 11 October 2015 is capable of carrying nuclear warhead, and its launching is a blatant violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 ratified on 20 July 2015. The resolution asks Iran "not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology"The mullahs' regime launched a ballistic missile called 'Ghadr' in Chah-Bahar area on 21 November 2015, and another missile called 'Ghadr-F' with a range of 2000 km and another missile called 'Ghadr-H' with a range of 1700 km on 8 March 2016. 'Emad' and 'Ghadr' missiles are from the 'Shahab-3' missile family and are copied from North Korean 'Nodong 1' missile , and are capable of carrying nuclear warhead.
 According to the International Atomic Energy Agency report in November 2011 the regime's military-nuclear activities were carried out with the aim of mounting nuclear warhead on Shahab-3 missile. Thus, the mullahs' regime has violated this resolution four times during the 16 months since its adoption, and the regime's top military officials have admitted that these missiles were launched upon Khamenei's direct orders who also specified the firing time. Moreover, by sending missiles to Syria and making missile-production factory in that country, the regime has continuously violated the resolution. Major General Mohammad Bagheri, chief of armed forces general staff, said on November 11, "Syria reached a point where Iran created for it missile production industry and missiles in Aleppo in recent years." Four days later, Brigadier Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force, announced that the IRGC missile production factories in Aleppo had been entirely destroyed in the course of the war. By its warmongering and crisis making, the mullahs' anti-human regime has endangered peace and tranquility in the region and the world; inaction and silence of the international society emboldens the regime in this policy. Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran/November 17, 2016
  
Iran: People Beaten by Police, While Trying to Prevent Their Houses From Being Destroyed
 Thursday, 17 November 2016/NCRI - According to reports, the residents of a settlement in Karaj – Western Tehran clashed on Monday November 14 with about 2,000 of municipal agents accompanied by law enforcement and Special Forces who attempted to destroy the residents’ houses, under the pretense that these buildings pose environmental and health threat to citizens. The residents in the area say that at 4 am on Monday November 14, the municipal guards accompanied by the law enforcement forces raided the settlement located in Karaj’s Sarkhe Hesar district and clashed with the residents. A number of residents were wounded during the clashes, with one of them dead, according to eye witnesses. One of the residents of the settlement said that “It was 4 in the morning when they attacked us, crushing all the resident’s cars and beating them. The Special Forces were accompanying the municipal guards. They had brought 40-50 busses with which to take the residents away. Following the clashes, the wounded were taken to hospital.”Another resident says: “I was admitted to the ophthalmology department of Imam Hossein Hospital because of a severe blow to my eyes.” “I don’t know the exact number of wounded. Some of the wounded were taken to Imam Hospital while me and one other person were brought here to Imam Hossein Hospital”, he added. The settlement’s resident said that “a 50-year-old man was among the wounded who was unconscious due to the severity of his injuries. His head and his face were completely covered in blood and I don’t think he’s still alive.”The residents of the settlement say that “2,000 agents showing up at 5 in the morning show that they’ve had no warrant for evacuation.”
 
 MARYAM RAJAVI'S MESSAGE TO A MEETING AT THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT
 Thursday, 17 November 2016/Maryam Rajavi sent a message to a meeting held on November 17, 2016 at the House of Commons to discuss UK policy on Iran and the gross violations of human rights in that country. Text of the message follows:
 The honorable members of the British Houses of Commons and Lords,
 Distinguished Bishops,
 Dear friends,
 Greetings to everyone. I am grateful for your attention to the issue of Iran and the Iranian people's human rights, resistance and freedom.
 The P5+1 nuclear talks with the clerical regime and its consequences have placed Iran in the center of International attention over the past three years.
 Sixteen months have passed since the nuclear agreement was signed. So, there has been enough time to test various policies. The nuclear agreement was an opportunity for the mullahs to change their behavior or at least stop creating crisis and international terrorism. However, they increased their aggression and warmongering in the region, particularly in Syria. The Iranian regime remains the most hostile and significant contributor to instability in the region.
 Some thought that human rights would improve in Iran. In the past year, however, nearly 1,000 people were executed. Rouhani's interior minister has admitted that they arrest some 600 thousand people every year. These figures are only part of the reality.
 The mullahs' regime preserves its power by making arrests, and by torture and executions on a daily basis. These are accompanied by a constant and systematic crackdown on women and youths, arbitrary arrests and harassment of religious minorities: including Christians, even the arrest of British-Iranians, censorship of free access to the internet, and prohibiting concerts.
 On the opposite side, our people and Resistance have been advancing in their quest for freedom.
 A major achievement has been the Justice Seeking Movement launched to demand justice for the 30,000 political prisoners massacred in summer 1988 in Iran. The mullahs for long tried to conceal this horrific crime. The distribution of an audio recording of the remarks made by Mr. Montazeri, the ousted successor to Khomeini, revealed new dimensions of the massacre.
 The Iranian Resistance is working through supporters in Iran to collect the documents and evidence in this regard. Our aim is to have the international community recognize this tragic massacre as a crime against humanity and prosecute the officials who were responsible. If the international community had not remained silent and passive in this regard, letting the criminals evade justice the wave of executions and repression in Iran could not have continued to date.
 Another important development has been the spread of anti-government protests across the country. Thousands of people gathered on October 28th staging a protest against the mullahs in Persepolis, at the Tomb of Cyrus who was the founder of ancient Iran and the writer of a human rights charter, 25 centuries ago.
 Finally, I would like to point out a great achievement and a major victory of the Iranian Resistance in recent months, namely, the safe and sound relocation of all members of the People's Mojahedin of Iran from Camp Liberty to Europe.
 The mullahs did everything to stop this relocation. They tried to have some PMOI officials arrested by fake judicial verdicts. They launched rocket attacks to kill all camp residents.
 With PMOI's efforts and an international campaign by the Iranian resistance, the mullahs' plots failed. The relocation was the greatest blow to the mullahs over the past year.
 I would like to sincerely appreciate all the efforts and support given by the British people's elected representatives in both houses of parliament and also the UK Church leaders for this great relocation.
 Honorable friends, The Iranian resistance strives for a republic based on freedom, equality, and separation of religion and state; a country where the death penalty is abolished. We seek to end the mullahs' Sharia law and guarantee freedom and equality for followers of all religions.
 I plead for your support, the elected representatives of Britain, the UK Church, and all humanitarian people in the UK to further help and support this struggle.
 The Justice seeking movement is a just common cause with roots in human dignity. We need your assistance in this movement. We need your support to encourage western governments to recognize the Iranian people's struggle for regime change. Once again, I thank you all. And I hope to be able to see you, very soon. 

Two Assyrians Among Trump's Advisors for the Middle East
Agenzia Fides/Assyrian International News Agency/2016-11-17
Professor Gabriel Sawma, after his studies in Lebanon, and after having worked as legal advisor, which allowed him to visit various nations of the Middle East, emigrated to the US in 1975, during the Lebanese civil war, and is considered an expert in Islamic law especially on the laws concerning family, divorce, inheritance issues and legal custody of children. He wrote the book The Qur'an: Misinterpreted, Mistranslated and Misread, in which he supports the thesis that the Koran was originally written in Aramaic, not Arabic, and that the original version of the holy book of Islam allows interpretations of the text that differ from those offered so far by the various Islamic schools. David William Lazar, defined by the Israeli press an "Assyrian activist and friend of Israel", already in August 2014 had issued statements regarding the Middle East situation linked to the exploit of jihadist militias, in which, among other things, stated that "there are literally thousands of young Assyrian Christian men that have volunteered to join the protection units we are planning on establishing in the coming weeks and months".
The Trump American Middle East Advisory Committee is supported by the American Middle East Coalition for Trump, a body activated during the US election campaign to gather support in favor of Trump among voters belonging to ethnic or religious groups with roots in the Middle East: Arabs, Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Copts, Maronites, Syrians, Assyrians, Chaldean, Melkite and Jews coming from the scattered communities in the Middle East.

Trump considering Romney for secretary of State: report

 BY NIKITA VLADIMIROV - 11/17/16 /President-elect Donald Trump is considering Mitt Romney for secretary of State, a new report says. Romney will meet with Trump this weekend, NBC reported Thursday. The 2012 GOP presidential nominee was fiercely critical of Trump during the presidential campaign. Romney repeatedly blasted Trump during the GOP presidential primary for his rhetoric and policy positions, becoming one of the most prominent Republicans to oppose the party's eventual nominee. "Here's what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud," Romney said in a speech in March. "His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat." Trump endorsed Romney during the former Massachusetts governor's 2012 presidential campaign. But after Romney lost to President Obama, Trump railed against him, saying he screwed up a winnable campaign for the GOP. After Trump's victory last week, Romney congratulated Trump on Twitter. "Best wishes for our duly elected president: May his victory speech be his guide and preserving the Republic his aim," Romney tweeted. 

Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on November 17-18/16
After Liberation From ISIS, Iraq's Yazidis Dream Of Returning Home
Reuters 17 November 2016
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2016/11/17/reuterschristian-today-after-liberation-from-isis-iraqs-yazidis-dream-of-returning-home/
61-year-old Barakat has finally found work – on Sunday he will be coming back to help clear debris from the destruction wrought upon his home town. He and others who have been living in exile gathered in the town on Wednesday, just over a week after Kurdish peshmerga forces drove the jihadists out. Yazidi, Christian and Muslim former neighbors and old friends kissed and greeted each other. But it will be a long time before they can move back for good. Homes have been flattened by bombardment, shopfronts and garages gutted, burnt and looted, and black patches from mortar explosions scorch the ground along the main road. Bashiqa's residents fled in different directions and at different speeds when the militants took over in 2014 after sweeping into Iraq from Syria.
"We left immediately," said Bakarat, a Yazidi like most people from the town.
Islamic State has killed Muslims and non-Muslims alike, but has been particularly brutal with the Yazidi minority, whose beliefs combine elements of several religions. Thousands have been killed, captured and enslaved by the group in what the United Nations says is genocide.
Bakarat said some Muslim inhabitants had stayed on for a while, but Christians and Yazidis knew exactly what their fate would be if they did not get out straight away. Those who were better off rented homes in other towns, and those without the means went to camps.
Bakarat and his family still live in the northern city of Duhok. With most of Bashiqa destroyed and no services or supplies, they expect it will be a long exile. "We can begin to clean up this mess, but there's no point returning to live until there's electricity, water, and most importantly full security," he said on his first trip back, declining to give his full name in a sign of lingering concern.
"Not scared anymore"
A US-backed offensive to drive Islamic State out of Mosul, its last major stronghold in Iraq, has recaptured many towns and villages around the city since it began in earnest last month. The operation involves some 100,000 government troops, Kurdish security forces and Shi'ite militiamen.
Raghid Rashid, a local Yazidi policeman, returned this month and fought alongside the peshmerga to recapture the town, 7 miles northeast of Mosul. "The fight to get Bashiqa back was tough. Daesh (Islamic State) used suicide bombers, tunnels, snipers. When we got here half the town was destroyed – including my home," he said, adding that Yazidi shrines had also been desecrated.
On the steel shutters of several local businesses, the words "Sunni Muslim" have been scrawled by Islamic State militants, to distinguish the owners from locals of other faiths, or from those they consider apostates - both punishable by death under their rule.
Rashid, Bakarat and other men had come to listen to an address by Masoud Barzani, President of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in northern Iraq. Nominally under the jurisdiction of Baghdad, the area is controlled by the KRG and Barzani spoke only Kurdish.
Speaking from a podium and flanked by Kurdish flags and banners proclaiming religious and ethnic coexistence, he said the peshmerga, the KRG's armed forces, would not withdraw from areas they had seized from IS, and vowed to protect minorities living in areas under Kurdish control.
Kurdish fighters were recently accused by a human rights group of unlawfully destroying Arab homes in areas they captured from Islamic State between 2014 and May 2016, a charge the KRG denies. It was not possible to stray too far from the main road to visit abandoned homes because the area was not yet fully cleared of IEDs and booby traps. As Barzani spoke, two distant but large explosions were heard, apparently from the ongoing fight inside Mosul. "Daesh is gone. But even if they came back I'd stay put, and I'd fight to the death if necessary," Rashid said, dressed in combat fatigues and a black cap. "We know their tactics now and we're not scared anymore."

What does the arrival of Trump mean for us?
 Khaled M. Batarfi/Al Arabiya/November 17/16
 What does the arrival of President-elect Donald Trump mean for us? How much would that affect Saudi relations with the US? I have heard this question a lot since last Wednesday, and my answer is that: Relations with the United States stand on three bases: Mutual interests, fundamental strategies and political cooperation.  On the first base is a deeply-rooted, time-tested and powerful 85-year-old’s partnership, since the oil agreement was signed with US oil companies during the early 1930s. This partnership has expanded to cooperation in military, security, financial, commercial, educational and developmental areas in the following decades.  Saudi Arabia, today, is the largest market for a wide range of American products, which reached $20 billion in 2015, and more in the form of investments. From F15 to Dreamliner, GMC to iPhone, oil drillers to security systems, Coca cola to McDonald, US products are flooding our markets and satisfying our daily needs.  The US market has accommodated hundreds of billions of investment and oil and petrochemical products. Generations of Saudis have graduated from US schools and universities, military and security academies and returned to lead a comprehensive developmental renaissance that built up the country to one the of world most developed, largest economies, and best equipped armies.
 Saudi-US partnership
 This sort of relationship is what the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, King Abdulaziz Al-Saud, envisioned when he said that Britain is a friend, but America is a partner, and partners come before friends.  The second base is at the intersection of regional and international strategic interests, the convergence of objectives and similarity of means. Both countries are working for global and regional peace and protecting the security of international waterways in the Arabian Gulf and the Red Sea in order to fight terrorism and drain its resources. They are supporting UN efforts in the fields of environmental protection, human rights and free trade. Saudi-US relations are not free from thorny issues, such as JASTA Law, and US leniency toward troublemakers — Iran and Israel. However, these differences are normal in any relationship
 They are also striving to achieve these lofty goals through peaceful and defensive means, such as providing material and political support to concerned international organizations and to enforce resolution through implementation of Security Council and international arbitration institutions. The third base is cooperation to resolve regional conflicts, such as the Palestinian, Syrian and Yemeni, and Iranian interventions and violations of UN resolutions. Saudi-US agreement on the first and second bases is almost full. At the third base, the two allies agree on goals and might disagree on mechanisms and details. For example, on the Palestinian issue we agree on a two-state solution, but disagree on the method of implementation.  In Syria we agree on the application of Geneva 1 framework, and all Security Council resolutions, but disagree on how to support the Syrian opposition and respond to the Russian intransigence. In Yemen, our agreement is full on the implementation of the Security Council resolutions and on US Kerry Peace Plan.  Still Saudi-US relations are not free from thorny issues, such as JASTA Law, and US leniency toward troublemakers — Iran and Israel. However, these differences are normal in any relationship, and as a result of different interests and visions toward certain issues and style.
 Tackling terror
 Perhaps the new American president will be more assertive in dealing with terrorism sponsors and troublemakers in the region, as promised. These include Iran and militias like Hezbollah, ISIS, al-Qaeda and the Houthis.  As for election promises, such as charging allies for protection, I expect the new president to be briefed by his state, intelligence and defense team, during his first days in office, that US foreign military bases and access privileges are there to serve its own interests, guarding international waterways, fighting terrorism and protecting Israel. And that what America had for free or almost free, other superpowers, like Russia, China, France and Britain, would pay hefty fees for.  All in all, US-Saudi relations have been built on solid grounds, since founded by King Abdulaziz Al-Saud and the 32nd US President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in the 1930s. They remain so, thanks to the good works of thirteen presidents and six kings, up to the seventh king, Salman Bin Abdulaziz and the forty-fifth President, Donald Trump.  These constants and fundamentals will not be affected by a change of leaders. However, policies and stands over certain issues may do. Hopefully, the new leadership may find it more rewarding and beneficial to US interests if it cooperates with it allies and partners in good faith. We have tried two-faced politics for eight years and it was ugly. Let’s try, “What you see is what you get” leaders, it might get better!
 **This article was first published in the Saudi Gazette on Nov. 15, 2016.

Europe: Let's End Free Speech/Are European Countries Now Police States?
 Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/November 17, 2016
 https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9311/europe-free-speech
 According to New Europe, in Leeuwarden, "about twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region received police visits at home." In other words, the Netherlands are engaging in state censorship, thereby raising the question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?
  In the town of Sliedrecht, police came to Mark Jongeneel's office and told him that he tweeted "too much" and that he should "watch his tone": his tweets "may seem seditious". His offense? One tweet said: "The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!"
  In September 2015, Die Welt reported that people who air "xenophobic" views on social media, risk losing the right to see their own children.
  While ordinary European citizens risk arrest and prosecution for "xenophobic" remarks, a German EU Commissioner, Günther Oettinger, called a visiting Chinese delegation of ministers "slant eyes" ("Schlitzaugen"). European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has promoted Oettinger to be in charge of the EU budget.
  Clearly, the law is not equal. EU Commissioners can make "xenophobic" remarks and get a promotion; European citizens, for exercising their right to free speech, are arrested and prosecuted.
  In Europe, is the enemy now the governments? Evidence is mounting that expressing even a mild opinion that runs counter to official government policy can land you in prison, or at least ensure a visit from your friendly local Kafkaesque police. Has Europe effectively become a police state?
  Several European governments are making it clear to their citizens that criticizing migrants or European migrant policies is criminally off limits. People who go "too far," according to the authorities, are being arrested, prosecuted and at times convicted.
  In the Netherlands, the police visited people who naïvely made critical comments about asylum centers on Twitter in October 2015. In the town of Sliedrecht, police came to Mark Jongeneel's office and told him that he tweeted "too much" and that he should "watch his tone": his tweets "may seem seditious". His offense? The town had held a citizens meeting about a refugee center in the region, and Jongeneel had posted a few tweets. One said: "The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!" Earlier he had also tweeted: "Should we let this happen?!"
  He was not the only one. In Leeuwarden, according to New Europe:
  "...about twenty opponents of the plans [to establish asylum centers] in the region received police visits at home. It also happened in Enschede, and in some places in the Brabant, where, according to the Dutch media, people who had been critical of the arrival of refugees and ran a page on social media on the topic were told to stop".
  A spokesperson for the national police explained that ten intelligence units of "digital detectives" monitor Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in real time, looking for posts that go "too far," so that they can visit with people to tell them "what effect a post or tweet on the internet can have." In other words, the Netherlands are engaging in state censorship, thus raising the question: Is the Netherlands now a police state?
  In the United Kingdom, Scott Clark was arrested in February 2016 for writing on the Facebook page of the Scottish Defense League that Syrian refugees would "see the nasty side to us." According to a news report, he referred to sexual assaults on women in Cologne, Germany on New Year's Eve by men of Arab or North African appearance as justification for his online comments, in which he also wrote, "If anything happens to any young girl I will personally spit in the face of councilors who pushed and pushed to get them housed here..." He also wrote, "There's defo an Islamic invasion. Defo something going down. Just witnessed 15 Syrians in the local boozer... I opposed their arrival from the start."
  Inspector Ewan Wilson from Dunoon police office told the Guardian:
  "I hope that the arrest of this individual sends a clear message that Police Scotland will not tolerate any form of activity which could incite hatred and provoke offensive comments on social media."
  In Germany, a married couple, Peter and Melanie M., were prosecuted in a criminal trial for creating a Facebook group that criticized the government's migration policy. According to news reports, the page stated, "The war and economic refugees are flooding our country. They bring terror, fear, sorrow. They rape our women and put our children at risk. Make this end!"
  At the trial, Peter M. defended his remarks online and said, "One cannot even express a critical opinion of refugees without getting labelled as a Nazi. I wanted to create a discussion forum where you can speak your mind about refugees..." He said that in his role as an administrator of the group, he removed pro-Nazi or radical remarks, but since Facebook had deleted the page, he could not present the evidence to the court.
  In his verdict, the judge said, "The description of the group is a series of generalizations with a clear right-wing background." Peter M. was sentenced to a nine-month suspended prison sentence and his wife to a fine of €1,200 with the judge adding, "I hope you understand the seriousness of the situation. If you sit in front of me again, you will end up in jail."
  In Germany, being critical of migrants and the government's migrant policies can have other draconian consequences. In September 2015, Die Welt reported that people who air "xenophobic" views on social media, risk losing the right to see their own children. There need not even be a criminal offense for a court to consider the child's welfare to be endangered and to restrict the parents' right to see his or her child or to order "an educator" present during a meeting between parent and child, who can "intervene as required." It is also possible to forbid certain actions, expressions or meetings in the presence of the child. As a last resort, the court can take the child out of the parent's care entirely.
  According to Eva Becker, Chairwoman of the Working Group on Family Law in the German Bar Association (DAV), "The decisive factor is a healthy understanding of people." Becker estimates that it would not be enough to consider the child's welfare endangered, if a parent said that he would rather not have any Syrian migrants living in his neighborhood. On the other hand, if a father or a mother makes comments that contain verbal threats against refugees in the presence of the child, he or she would "clearly exceed the critical limit."
  It is not even relevant whether those comments are criminal according to German law. Even a comment that is not punishable under German law can push a parent over the "critical limit." It is not crucial whether the act is criminal, but whether it "influences" the child in a way that endangers its welfare. If a court establishes that the child's welfare is at risk, the parent may have his or her rights of access to the child initially limited.
  Actions, rather than talk, are considered even more incriminating. According to Becker, it is one thing to talk disparagingly with acquaintances about asylum seekers in the presence of the child, but much worse to take the child to "xenophobic" demonstrations.
  Becker never defines what is meant by "xenophobic." It seems implied that the talk is of one-way xenophobia, not Islamic xenophobia against non-Muslims, for example, but no attempt is made at a definition, although this is clearly the most crucial part of the matter.
  While ordinary European citizens risk arrest and prosecution for "xenophobic" remarks, it is an entirely different matter for those at the top echelons of the European Union.
  In a speech in Hamburg in October, Germany's EU Commissioner for digital economy, Günther Oettinger, called a visiting Chinese delegation of ministers "slant eyes" ("Schlitzaugen"), an expression that is generally considered racist. Oettinger did not even bother to apologize, but told Die Welt that it was important to see his comments in a "larger context."
  The European Commission also refused to apologize for, or investigate, Oettinger's remarks (which were apparently also disparaging of women and homosexuals). Commission Chief Spokesman Margaritis Schinas told incredulous reporters that, "We have nothing to add." Asked if there would be an investigation into the remarks, he said, "We do not have an FBI at the Commission."
  As recent as October 28, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker promoted Oettinger to the highly coveted and powerful position of vice-president with responsibility for the EU budget.
  Clearly, the law is not equal. EU Commissioners can make "xenophobic" remarks and get a promotion; European citizens, for exercising their right to free speech, are arrested and prosecuted.
  While European citizens are arrested and prosecuted for exercising their right to free speech, an EU Commissioner such as Günther Oettinger (left) calls a visiting Chinese delegation "slant eyes" and is rewarded with a promotion by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (right).
 Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.
  © 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
 
Israel Puts the Spike Missile on its Apache Helicopters
 Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen//Gatestone Institute /November 17/16
 https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9335/israel-spike-missile
 For this reason, Israel concluded that the U.S. under Obama was not a reliable supplier of either helicopters or missiles.
 Israel's Spike is superior to the Hellfire. It has longer range, making it safer to use against an enemy that possesses shoulder-fired ground to air missiles.
 Worse yet, despite Saudi Arabia's horrible bombing performance in Yemen, the U.S. continues to sell billions of dollars' worth of weapons and has stepped up shipments of munitions.
 The Spike is a better option than the Hellfire and safer to use, which is why 25 nations now use the missile and 25,000 or more have been produced.
 Sometimes when decisions do not work out exactly as intended, they work out just fine.
 In the midst of Operation Protective Edge -- Israel's response to 182 Hamas rockets and mortars fired at Israeli towns and villages in the first week of July 2014 -- the Obama administration accused Israel of "heavy handed battlefield tactics," including the use of artillery instead of precision-guided munitions. U.S. President Barack Obama halted the supply of Hellfire missiles and announced that all military equipment supplied to Israel would be vetted individually in the White House, instead of shipped, according to prior agreements, by the Pentagon to Israel.
 The President, it appears, had been reading wild press stories about the damage to Gaza -- which ultimately turned out to be concentrated in areas in which Hamas was stockpiling munitions and rockets and conducting command and control operations, which included firing more than 2,700 rockets and missiles during the rest of July. Israel struck an UNRWA-administered school, prompting cries of outrage, but UNRWA later admitted that it covered up that Hamas had used the school for military operations.
 The Hellfire decision was especially ironic because it is a precision munition, generally less broadly damaging than bombs dropped from aircraft. The Hellfire can be fired from airplanes, drones and helicopters.
 Ironic, too, because the United States has used Hellfire missiles against terrorists -- often without the permission of the countries in which the terrorists were killed. A Hellfire was used to kill Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Kahn, American citizens, in Yemen. Al-Awlaki was designated a terrorist, and Kahn the editor of the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire, but U.S. law may have been violated by their assassination.
 Israel carried the Hellfire on its Apache helicopters -- and the story of Israel's purchase of 42 Apaches is also one of difficulty. In 2009, the Obama administration blocked the delivery of six of the Apaches to Israel, on the grounds Israel might use them in Gaza. U.S.-Israel military cooperation on the Apache was made difficult and as Obama's dislike of Israel and Israeli security policy increased, the Hellfire on the Apache became the White House target.
 For this reason, Israel concluded that the U.S. under Obama was not a reliable supplier of either helicopters or missiles. After the 2014 operation in Gaza, Israel turned to the Israeli manufacturer Rafael, developer of the hugely successful and potent Spike anti-tank missile. Rafael was to adapt Spike technology to the Apache, while the helicopter retained Hellfire capability at the same time.
 The decision was fairly easy, because Israel was already working on adopting the Spike to helicopters in Europe, where the Spike is a big hit. Spain has already installed the Spike ER version on its Eurocopter Tiger attack helicopters. Others in Europe and Asia are doing the same.
 A Tiger attack helicopter carrying two racks of Israeli Spike ER missiles. (Image source: Airbus Helicopters)
 Israel's Spike is superior to the Hellfire. It has longer range, making it safer to use against an enemy that possesses shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles known as MANPADS. Since Benghazi, sophisticated MANPADS, including US-made Stingers (the same as were used in Afghanistan in "Charlie Wilson's War"), have been smuggled from Libya and are now in the hands of terrorists including Hezbollah and ISIS.
 The Spike features a non-line-of-sight firing capability, making it a more flexible weapon. But one feature of Spike that is entirely missing in Hellfire is that the operator can change target in mid-course or even destroy the weapon in flight if the target turns out to be wrong -- a capability that is not trivial. During the Yugoslav war, NATO aircraft on a number of occasions hit targets that should have been aborted. One such incident occurred during an attack to knock out the Grdelica Bridge near Belgrade on April 12, 1999. When the missile was launched, the bridge was empty; when it struck some minutes later a civilian train was crossing and destroyed. On May 1, 1999 in Kosovo, NATO planes hit a bridge at Luzane where, again, a school bus came along after the missile was launched, killing many school children.
 The Obama administration should never have cut off the sale of a precision weapon such as the Hellfire in the middle of battle. It was bad policy: it signaled the unreliability of the U.S. at that time as an ally. Worse yet, despite Saudi Arabia's horrible bombing performance in Yemen, the U.S. continues to sell the Saudis billions of dollars' worth of weapons, and has stepped up shipments of munitions. So Israelis have reason to believe that America failed her at a moment when it counted.
 But there is a silver lining. The Spike is a better option than the Hellfire and safer to use, which is why 25 nations now use the missile and 25,000 or more have been produced.
 Stephen Bryen is President of SDB Partners, LLC. Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center.
 © 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. 

Trump and the Middle East: Challenges to Regaining US Supremacy
 Riad Kahwaji/17 November, 2016
  The Arab world, like other parts of the globe, was surprised with the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election and is still trying to figure out how to deal with President-elect Donald Trump. It was no secret that many Arab leaders had hoped for a Hillary Clinton victory, not necessarily because they hated Trump or his policies, but because they did not and still do not know much about him. For them Clinton was a known figure they dealt with for years as a First Lady, then as a Senator and finally as a Secretary of State. They have heard of Trump as a businessman and very few Arab figures have done business with him. Hence, Arab reaction to Trump’s victory was more about the fear of the unknown.
  It is really not clear why many of America’s Arab allies where hoping for Clinton victory while at the same time seeking a quick end to the policies of President Barrack Obama Administration in the Middle East. Arab officials, especially in the Gulf, have been very critical of Obama’s policies that significantly reduced America’s footprint and influence in the region and allowed Iran and Russia to move in and establish control (jointly or separately) in many parts of the region like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Of course U.S. allies in the Middle East, especially Israel, were very surprised and critical of the nuclear deal with Iran that was reached after secret talks between Tehran and Washington.
  Arab officials and Israel believe Obama has done little to check the spread of Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias in the Levant and Gulf region. But what many of Clinton’s supporters in the Arab world fail to see is that most of Obama’s Middle East policies were conceived when she was the Secretary of State. Clinton was expected to preserve Obama’s legacy and hence very little was expected to change as far as U.S. strategy in the Middle East, but maybe tactics would have evolved under her. Trump on the other hand may well be able to bring about the changes desired by U.S. allies in the Middle East.
  Trump’s speeches did not shed much light on his foreign policy vision, especially his plans for the Middle East. The most resonating words by Trump that caught the attention of Middle East leaders was his criticism of the nuclear deal with Iran and his intention to tear it up as soon as he gets into office. This surely pleased Israel and did not upset the Arabs. Iranian leaders did not publicly react much to Trump’s statements, and for some unknown reason they seemed to prefer him over Clinton – perhaps because they saw the Russians cheering for Trump, or because the Arabs were supporting Clinton. But the mere fact that Trump will likely have many conservative Republicans in his administration should be a great cause of concern to Tehran.
  It is extremely hard to make predictions at this stage as to how the next U.S. Administration will deal with the Middle East. However, it is important for Arab leaders to realize that Trump is not a conventional American official and he is not an ideologue, and based on his background he has Machiavellian traits, is a hyper-capitalist and political realist that respects strength and despises weakness – and he is ready to go all the way to achieve his goals. So for one country to gain his attention or favor, it has to prove its worthiness to his Administration. He will not be about spreading freedom, democracy and values, but about interests, gains and benefits. It will be interesting to see how much conservative establishment officials will fit and smoothly function within Trump’s administration and how much their ideology and right wing values will rub off on him. Nevertheless, his nature and businessman instinct will always be important factors for his vision. Hence, Middle East leaders should not ask what the next U.S. Administration will do for them, they should rather show first what they can do for America to get themselves on the President’s agenda.  President Trump will take over at a very crucial phase for a Middle East region experiencing a transition triggered by several factors in which the United States played a major role. Under President George W. Bush, the region witnessed an interventionist U.S. foreign policy at its most extreme. American-led alliances swept into Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda were on the run, Iran and Syria where living in fear of a U.S. invasion and desperately trying to open channels of communication with Washington to stay on its good side. Russia had a very limited role in the region with a small insignificant footprint in the Mediterranean.
  Under Obama’s reign, the region saw a major shift to the left with U.S. pulling out of Iraq and reducing its presence in Afghanistan, and adopting a policy of appeasement with Iran and empowering extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. The extreme non-interventionist policy led to the creation of a vacuum that allowed Iran to spread its influence via proxy Shi’ite militias operating today from Afghanistan all the way to Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Weakened U.S. allies and an emboldened expansionist Iran gave birth to terrorist groups more extreme than Al-Qaeda such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL). Hesitant and indecisive, U.S. policy for the Middle East presented the golden opportunity for Moscow to re-enter the picture via the Syrian door, and today has a significant military footprint on the Mediterranean coast with a naval base and an airbase on NATO’s borders just south of Turkey. The confidence of America’s regional allies in Washington’s leadership has never been lower than it is today.
  So President-elect Trump, who does not belong to the neo-conservative camp or the liberal left, might bring about the right balance needed in the Middle East today. Washington must not exercise an interventionist nor an isolationist policy in the region, but a balanced approach that secures its interests and assures its allies that they have a reliable partner and security guarantor. Many of America’s allies in the Arab world today have built their defense capabilities and can operate effectively within a U.S.-led alliance to protect the region and combat terrorism. But they need the U.S. to lead from the front and not from behind. The U.S. should also capitalize on business opportunities in the region presented by oil-rich countries seeking Western technologies and partnerships to build their industrial capabilities.
  The war on terrorism cannot be won with continued Iranian efforts to export the Islamic Revolution to its neighboring countries, which exasperates sectarianism and consequently weakens America’s allies by strengthening groups like ISIL and Al-Qaeda. Washington cannot abandon the strategically important Syrian theater so it is managed by Russia and Iran, because it will enable Tehran to create a land corridor linking its western frontiers with the Mediterranean and Israel, and will give Moscow a free hand to expand further into the oil and gas-rich Levant and threaten the southern borders of Europe. Therefore, Trump has much space to cover in order to bring America back from the low point it has reached at the culmination of the Obama presidency to the supremacy it enjoyed in the region and globally under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The question that now remains is if Trump’s performance as president positively surprises the world as his election victory did?
 ** Riad Kahwaji, is the founder and director of INEGMA with a 28 years of experience as a journalist and a Middle East security analyst. 

Trump Wins With Five “Nos
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/November 17/16
 http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2016/11/17/amir-taheriasharq-al-awsat-trump-wins-with-five-nos/
 So, what almost all pundits assured us will never happen, has happened: Donald Trump is elected President of the United States. In any democracy an election is foremost a “selfie” of the nation, reflecting its mood at a particular moment. This “selfie” is no exception.
 But what does it show? It shows an America that makes the two finger gesture at the status quo with five “nos”. The first “no” is to Barak Obama, the peddler of that “Yes-We can” bill of good that turned out to be ”No, we cannot!”
 To many Americans, a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been a third term for Obama, something that the incumbent himself stressed by going full blast campaigning for her. That was something many Americans couldn’t stomach.
 Trump managed to cast himself as the quintessential anti-Obama candidate, something that none of the other 15 initial Republic candidates were prepared to do. Americans don’t like allowing a party to hold the presidency for three successive terms, something that has happened only once since the end of the World War.
 The second “no” of this “selfie” is to the establishment. There is no precise definition of the term but to most people it means a minority, maybe a couple of millions in the United States, who dominate the political, media, business, academic and entertainment fields and run them primarily in their own interest.
 Clinton, a woman who has been in politics since she left college 40 years ago, having served as hatchet-girl in the McGovern presidential campaign of 1972, then as Frist Lady of Arkansas before moving to the White House with her husband, and not to mention stints as senator and Secretary of state, is the very symbol of the establishment.
 The impression that Clinton was standard-bearer for the establishment was reinforced by the support she received from Republican Party grandees such as the former president George W Bush and former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. All that helped Trump cast himself as the anti-establishment candidate, the “outsider” trying to storm the castle.
 The third “no” was to the current course of globalization, the dominant ideology of Western democracies since the 1990s. Initially, globalization bore immense fruits for the United States and other major industrial power by tripling world trade in two decades. However, while it made a generation of “new Americans”, people like Bill Gates, richer than Croesus, it also wiped out many well-paid jobs in traditional industries in the United States.
 In fact, for 50 per cent of American workers, purchasing power has remained constant or fallen since 1999. Trump managed to play the anti-globalization card while linking it to immigration which, providing an endless flow of cheap labor, has often helped keep wages steady or low in many parts of the United States.
 The fourth “no” is against the ideological divide in American politics as developed since the 1950s. In that divide, the Democrat Party was initially supposed to be the party of public service, emphasizing the role of the government in guiding, if not actually managing, the economy in a tradition established by President Franklin D Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and its Keynesian paradigm.
 For its part, the Republican Party was cast as flag-bearer for neo-liberal capitalism with its emphasis on free trade and open markets, a pattern set under President Ronald Reagan.
 Last week’s election, however, reversed the roles of the two parties as far as ideology is concerned. The Democrats were seen as champions of open markets and free trade. After all, it was President Bill Clinton who devised the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and President Obama who launched a similar scheme with the European Union albeit not yet concluded.
 The campaign exposed Hillary Clinton’s close ties with the Wall Street with many bankers, not to mention currency speculators like George Soros, as major funders of her campaign. In contrast, Trump brushed aside the Republican Party’s pro-capitalist posture by promising to “regulate” the market, impose tariffs on imported goods to protect American jobs, and promote an “Americans first” policy in the job market.
 The fifth “no” was to the “Rainbow Coalition” that brought Obama to the White House in the first place. Some have always seen that as a “Resentment Rainbow”, uniting the minorities around their respective grievances about real or imaginary “sufferings” inflicted on them by the majority.
 Bringing together African-Americans, Latinos, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Native Americans and gay-lesbian/trans-genders, Obama had an electoral launching pad of around 32 per cent, an immense advantage in a first-past-the-post system.
 Clinton’s hope was to use the same launching pad and reach the White House by adding a further 18 to 20 per cent from the 68 per cent “majority” remaining in the game. That didn’t happen. The “Resentment Rainbow” may be disintegrating.
 Fewer blacks voted for Clinton than they did for Obama. And more Latinos voted for Trump, the man who promised to build a wall on the Mexican border, than anyone expected. We don’t have the full details at time of writing, but it seems that even Jews and Muslims were less than solid in voting for Clinton.
 With the “Resentment Rainbow” fracturing, Americans may have rejected Obama’s strategy of mobilizing the minorities against the majority thus undermining national unity. For all that, the election which has highlighted five “nos” to reject the current establishment’s policies, has not produced a resounding “yes” to any alternative strategy.
 Americans have rejected division without massively endorsing unity. This election did not alter a pattern under which few have won the US presidency with a share of the popular votes significantly higher than 50 per cent.
 Bill Clinton was elected twice with less than 50 per cent and George W Bush captured his first presidency with a smaller share of the popular vote than his Democrat rival Al Gore. In fact, the only convincing victories, in terms of percentage of votes, were those of Richard Nixon in 1972 and that of Ronald Reagan in 1984. The upshot is that America remains divided but is groping for unity on a new basis. That in itself is good news.
 
Hillary Clinton – the Ideal Choice in Normal Circumstances
Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/November 17/16
In normal circumstances, and in an established democracy like the USA, there would not have been a need to choose between the two presidential candidates.
In an advanced and sophisticated institutions-based country, the presidential primaries should have been enough to differentiate between a serious politician and a maverick gate-crasher; between real programmes and protest posturing; and finally, between responsible and rational approaches that put attainable choices and unadulterated solutions before the American electorate and cheap populism that drags political discourse into the lowest abyss of personal slander, contradictory promises, and sickening out-biddings.
Given all the above, a candidate like Donald Trump should not have been picked as the official candidate of one of the two parties of government in America, i.e. the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, in the first place.
However, we are most certainly not in normal times or circumstances. The value system of America today is not the one that built the most powerful country, the most advanced educational system, and the most vibrant and energetic economy in the world.
True, protest is not something new to politics. Accidental and controversial politicians have appeared during certain periods in American history, but political life in the USA has so far remained covered by broad political and social consensus.
At one stage in the mid – 20th century, there was a large group inside the Democratic Party, namely in the states of the ‘Old South’, that was ideologically more conservative than the Republicans of the North and Northeast. This, however, began to gradually change as the North and Northeast moved towards the Democrats, while the Southern states which gave America its last three Democratic presidents before Barack Obama (Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy carter and Bill Clinton) steadily became solid Republican strongholds.
Indeed, Prof Paul Krugman, the noted academic, writer and Nobel laureate, said something quite interesting in a lecture he gave in London a few years ago. Krugman said “In today’s America there is not a single Republican anymore who is to the Left of the Democrats, and not one Democrat who stands to the Right of the Republicans”. Obviously, what he meant was that ideological polarization in America is now complete; and each of the two main parties now had its clear-cut political criteria: the Democrats are the social and religious liberals who respect individual freedoms as much as they cherish social rights, support state intervention in one way or another, support public peace and collective responsibility that insure safety nets for the underprivileged and minority groups. They also tolerate racial, gender, religious and sectarian diversity.
In the opposite camp, the Republicans are now the religious, sectarian and social conservatives who vigorously uphold absolute individual freedom even at the expense of public good, view safety nets as restrictive to these freedoms and regard government intervention as a hindrance to individual ambition and detrimental to free enterprise, success and greatness. In fact, hawkish Republicans go even further, preaching that America must go back to the one built by the ‘founding fathers’, i.e. a white, Christian homeland closed off to outsiders and foreigners.
The latter is exactly the choice that was recently put forward to American voters; and due to the clear-cut difference between the Democrat and Republican candidates, we are witnessing two noteworthy phenomena:
The first is that due to solidified political positions of the two parties’ support bases, any movement or shift is becoming virtually impossible as are the chances of listening, convincing and compromise. Such a situation has led to a nasty and vicious campaign.
The second is that the two partisan bases now reflect contradictory ‘value systems’ that pose a real threat to social harmony, and subsequently public peace.
Going back to “in normal circumstances”, I would say Hillary Clinton deserved to win because she is a wise, rational, moderate and experienced politician.
Trump, on the other hand, is an unscrupulous ‘populist’, who is willing to gamble anything, and say anything. It is truly unfortunate that Americans have grown so hateful toward the ‘political establishment’ in Washington that they voted for such a candidate.

Time to Save the World, Mr. Trump
Narayana Kocherlakota/Bloomberg/November 17/16
The planet’s wealthiest and most powerful countries face a slow-moving but potentially devastating political and economic crisis. It now falls to Donald Trump to find a way to combat it. Over the past few years, voters in much of the developed world have rebelled against the establishment. In the U.S., millions of voters supported an avowed socialist in the Democratic primary. And this week, Americans elected a new president who has essentially no support from mainstream politicians or media. Across countries, these dissatisfied voters vary wildly in terms of their preferences for (or opposition to) societal change. What they have in common is anger at the existing economic order. The well-off often treat this anger as something of a mystery. Actually, it can be traced directly to what Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, has termed a global low-growth trap. Over the last nine years, economic growth has been slow throughout the world, and particularly in developed nations. The U.S. is a prime example: Output is about 12 percent to 15 percent lower than was expected nine years ago. The primary culprit, in my view and in Lagarde’s, is a shortage of consumer demand for goods and services, which has left businesses with little motivation to invest, hire or innovate. As a result, there aren’t enough jobs to go around, and the people who are working aren’t very productive. The demand shortage creates some perverse incentives for economic policy makers. To stimulate the economy, they want to convince consumers that prices are heading upward, so that buying something today will be more attractive than waiting. In such an environment, policies that increase the cost of doing business — such as raising minimum wages or increasing the regulatory burden — can reap larger-than-usual benefits. More alarmingly, the cost reductions associated with globalization appear much less desirable in a low-demand world. Restrictions on trade, immigration and all kinds of international economic interactions become more attractive. The unwinding of economic linkages, in turn, can increase the incentives for transnational armed conflict — a danger that came to such disastrous fruition in the 1930s. Guiding the world out of this quagmire will require determined leadership, which the U.S. is uniquely well placed to provide. It is by far the world’s largest economy, with a government that still has plenty of capacity to borrow — as the low interest rates on its debt indicate. It could employ its vast resources in many ways.
For example, the president-elect has spoken of his desire to undertake a complete overhaul of American infrastructure and to cut taxes. Such a program, combined with appropriate support from the Federal Reserve, would both generate much-needed jobs for Americans and be a great first step toward leading the world out of its low-growth trap. I look forward to seeing this plan implemented in his first hundred days in office, and I hope that he is able to persuade other nations to join the U.S. in this vital effort. 

Responses In Iran To Trump's Presidential Win
By: A. Savyon, E. Kharrazi, and U. Kafash*/MEMRI/November 17/16
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2016/11/17/a-savyon-e-kharrazi-and-u-kafashmemri-responses-in-iran-to-trumps-presidential-win/
Introduction
While the Iranian regime's official position is that there is no difference between a Democrat or a Republican in the White House because both of them will be anti-Iran, there are a number of notable trends in Iranian reactions to Donald Trump's election:
Reactions Common To Both The Ideological And Pragmatic Camps
· Trump's win was a protest against the U.S. administration's policies of slaughter, violence, and oppression both in and outside the U.S. Despite the Obama administration's extraordinary efforts to end Iran's international isolation, speakers from both Iranian camps attacked Obama and gloated over the Democrats' loss.
· Trump is better for Iran than Clinton. In spite of the regime's official policy of not preferring either candidate, some Iranians have said that a President Trump is better for Tehran for a number of reasons:
o Trump seeks better relations, not conflict, with Russian President Vladimir Putin, so Iran expects that he will let Putin deal with Syria, which is controlled by Iran.
o Trump is unpopular in the West, and will therefore find it difficult to form an international coalition against Iran – which Clinton could have easily done.
o Trump will need some time to identify his Republican allies in Congress before he can act against Iran.
o Since Trump is a businessman, there is cautious hope that his actions will be business-oriented, not purely ideology-oriented.
Reactions From The Pragmatic Camp
· Fear that the JCPOA will now be cancelled – particularly among those who labored to achieve the agreement, including President Hassan Rohani, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, and members of the negotiating team. These representatives of the pragmatic camp were quick to stress that the U.S. must adhere to its commitments and implement the agreement with Iran, due to their apprehensions that President Trump would follow through on his campaign promise to reverse it. Others expressed cautious optimism that Trump as president would be different than Trump as candidate, as evinced by his victory speech, which they said was more measured and moderate than his campaign rhetoric.
Reactions From The Ideological Camp
· Threats against the U.S. are toned down, and instead there are vague threats that are less specific than in the past about an appropriate Iranian response to any move the U.S. might make against Iran.
· Recommendations that Trump focus on rebuilding at home rather than taking anti-Iran measures.
· Calling on Iranians to adhere to the regime's official stance by refraining completely from issuing any pro- or anti-Trump statements.
MEMRI's Assessment
It appears that Iran's military-political elite prefers to deal with a male president, not a female one.[1] Furthermore, in a November 2 speech ahead of the anniversary of the U.S. Embassy takeover in Tehran, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in an unusual statement, explained Trump's popularity among the American public as due to the fact that he speaks "honestly." Moreover, unlike Clinton, Trump is seen by the Iranian leadership as not committed to democratic values or human rights because of his past remarks on women and minorities, and as a dominant ruler with whom Iran can find common ground. Iran has actually chosen to cooperate with Republican administrations that demonstrated strength and determination.
In this context, it is important to note that it is with Republican administrations that have demonstrated strength and determination that Iran has chosen to cooperate. For instance, when the U.S. military operated in Iraq and Afghanistan during the George W. Bush administration, Iran cooperated with U.S. forces and even stopped enriching uranium of its own accord, fearing an American attack. Also, during the Reagan administration, it was the Iranian regime that initiated dialogue with the U.S. on the Iran-Contra affair.
A contemporary example is the announcement by an Iranian diplomatic source, immediately after Trump's win was declared, that Iran intends to remove from its territory a quantity of heavy water that puts it above the limits set by the JCPOA. An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report from early November 2016 warned that Iran possessed too much heavy water, but it was only after Trump's win that Iran hastened to announce its intention to rectify the violation.
It should also be noted that Trump, who was critical of the JCPOA, need not take measures to cancel the agreement. He can take another tack to do this, by this by strictly implementing all sections of the agreement as it already exists, upholding Congress' initial sanctions on Iran for its human rights violations and support for terrorism, and passing additional sanctions, for example on Iran's ballistic missile program which the Obama administration did not include in the JCPOA. In fact, in recent months, the Obama administration had been working to help Iran,[2] in direct violation of the JCPOA and of Congress's initial sanctions.
Such moves could restructure the relationship between Iran and the U.S. administration, making it into one based on cooperation and mutual understanding – in contrast to the Iranian regime's contempt for and ridicule of the Obama administration. This scenario would be like the Reagan presidential win, after which Iran immediately released the Americans it had been holding hostage for over a year during the Carter administration.
Even more important than the future of the JCPOA, and much more urgent, is what Trump will do about the military and political empire that Iran is building in the Middle East – in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen – with the encouragement of the Obama administration, which sought to shift the region's Sunni-Shi'ite power balance towards the Shi'ites.[3] What action will he take against the Iran-led Shi'ite axis that is standing against the Sunnis, led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey? What will he do about Iran's strategic partner, Putin's Russia?
Mehr, November 16, 2016.
Following are excerpts from Iranian reactions to Trump's win, from both the pragmatic and ideological camps:
Iran's Pragmatic Camp
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said, during a visit to Romania: "We do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. This is the choice of the American people. Anyone who will be president in America should recognize the reality in the region and the world, and address it realistically. Iran and America have no political ties, but America must meet its international obligations [under] the JCPOA, along with other parties."[4]
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi said: "The Iranian people and the Islamic Republic of Iran have bad and bitter memories from the previous policies and approach of American administration officials. What is important to Iran, and the Iranian people – whom [we] consider a touchstone – is how the next American administration will act and conduct itself. These things are more important than [Trump's] statements and the policies he expressed during his election campaign.
"The main cause of the escalating violence, extremism, and provocations of Muslims in the region is the policies of the previous American administrations, and their interference in the affairs of the countries in the region. The instability in the strategic regions of the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Aden, and the Red Sea, and the threats stemming from the violence, extremism, spread of deviant and dangerous thought, and terrorism of groups such as ISIS – which Iran is at the forefront of combattingindicate that America must reexamine its regional policy."[5]
Iranian President Hassan Rohani stated, at a government meeting on November 9, that the JCPOA cannot be cancelled: "Iran's wisdom in the nuclear agreement was to ratify the JCPOA as a Security Council resolution, and not a [bilateral] agreement with a particular country or administration. Therefore, [the JCPOA] cannot be changed according to the whims of a particular administration... The results of the American election will not influence Iranian policy." He added: "Because of its mistaken policies, America's status in international society and in global public opinion has waned, and its growing rift with the global society and with Europe damages this status even further... The American election results attest to domestic worry and instability, which will remain for a long time. It will also take a long time until these domestic disagreements and problems are sorted out.
"America today can no longer take advantage of Iranophobia to create a global anti-Iran coalition. Iran's policy is based on constructive cooperation with the world, on breaking the nuclear sanctions, and on economic ties with the entire world. [This policy] is now emerging, and can no longer be reversed."[6]
Reformist intellectual Prof. Sadegh Zibakalam explained on November 10 why Iran's ideological camp preferred Trump to Clinton: "After the American election, there is surely much rejoicing among the streams hostile to America, and among those in Iran who persist in remaining hostile to America, because when Trump enters the White House there will be no more opportunity to ease Iran-U.S. tensions or to bring the [two] closer together... The extremists will exploit Trump's positions and tell the moderates 'See how wrong you were? Do you see we were right and that America can absolutely not be trusted? Look at Trump's anti-Iran stances – do you see why we said that we cannot be fooled by America and that we shouldn't take its friendly smile seriously?'
"It won't be long before many in Iran long for the days when Obama was in the White House and John Kerry ran the U.S. State Department. Then they will realize how good we had it, and that we could have reached understandings with America and moved towards removing the tension – but we missed that golden opportunity.
"The Russians are also glad that an extremist is now in the White House, because they believe that they can handle extremists, but not Democrats. They believe that it is possible to get along with Reagan, Trump, and George Bush, but that it is always difficult to deal with the Democrats. Therefore, the Russians, much like our own extremists, welcome Trump's election, while moderate liberal streams in Europe that support human rights and such do not."[7]
Responding to Zibakalam's argument that Iran would welcome Trump, but not an Obama or a Clinton, the pragmatic website Asr-e Iran wrote: "Many believe that Trump's victory will damage Iran and that Iran will encounter many problems in the post-Obama era. But in this article we will state not only that Trump's victory will not harm Iran, but that Iran will benefit it.
"Unlike Obama and Clinton, Trump is more inclined [to deal with] domestic affairs, and does not wish to occupy himself with foreign affairs and regional crises. In his speeches, Trump openly stated that he opposes the attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan and does not want to bring America into other countries' problems. Obama and Clinton desperately wanted to create hegemony in the region and outside it, but because America is now weaker at home, Trump wants to improve its domestic situation, and it can therefore be said that he does not wish to deal with Iran and the Middle East region.
"The most important Trump opponents now are European governments. The Europeans did not want Trump in power. But this is today's reality, and we can say that Trump's arrival has opened up a yawning chasm between Europe and America. The American presidents who preceded Trump had global leadership strength, because the world, and especially Europe, recognized them as world leaders. But today, not even the American elite, let alone European countries, recognize Trump as a global powerbroker. This means that Trump cannot form an international coalition against Iran or against countries that oppose America.
"Certainly, Europe in the Trump era will try to engage in its own interests, and will no longer make efforts for American interests. This is Iran's best opportunity to take advantage of this possible Europe-U.S. gap. The Europeans have expressed interest in economic and political cooperation with Iran, and during these years [i.e. the Obama years], America was the only obstacle. In the Trump era, Iran could strengthen its ties with Europe.
"Trump is an economic player; for him, policy is determined by economic profit. Those who seek economic windfalls are never interested in wars or political crises, which can create market panic, unless the war benefits their economic interests.
"Trump's America will be a country focused on matters that are marginal and on mere noise. This is the best time for Iran to promote its policy on the regional and international levels. The JCPOA under Trump could be the JCPOA of Iran and Europe, and because of the red-headed American president, America might slowly drift away from the JCPOA with Iran. Of course, we must stress that nothing is certain or predictable, especially with regard to Trump, and therefore the world and Iran should keep a close eye on the 45th American president."[8]
Foad Izadi, an assistant professor in the American Studies department at Tehran University who has a degree from Louisiana State University, claimed that the biggest gift that Trump's win is giving Iran is that Trump will find it difficult to mobilize international support against Iran – unlike Clinton, who could have easily done so. He added that Trump would also work against Iran in Congress, as Clinton would have, but that it will take Trump a while to identify his allies in Congress, unlike Clinton who would easily have gained support for whatever she chose to do.
Iran's Ideological Camp
Deputy Majlis Speaker Ali Motahari said: "There will be a difference between Trump's positions during the election campaign and [those he will adopt] during his presidency. I will summarize his election positions by saying that his presidency will be better for Iran than Clinton's would have been, because the Democrats advance [toward their goals] more meticulously and they behead you with cotton wool.
"Trump is more honest and has better positions on Syria. Additionally, he does not view Saudi Arabia positively, and he wants good relations with Russia. I believe Trump's opposition to the JCPOA is good for Iran. In effect, they [the Americans] can do nothing. Ultimately, I think Trump's presidency will benefit Iran."[9]
Mocking Western democracy, the Kayhan daily, on its November 10 front page, called Trump's victory "Another Win For Liberal Democracy: The Madman Defeats The Mendacious Woman."[10] That day's editorial explained: "The whites who voted for Trump, being mostly educated [sic], and not from the upper classes, are greatly inclined to clash with racial minorities. Yesterday, immediately after Trump's victory, in one state, young people who support him [congregated] and chanted anti-black and anti-Muslim slogans. The domestic situation in America is not so great, and daily events, such as what happened in Ferguson, deprive citizens of security. The Trump era could be anything but a time to heal the wounds opened by racial discrimination...
"Trump's America will absolutely not be a new America with new capabilities, and therefore his anti-Iran declarations will not come to fruition. What is certain is that in the current situation, most Republicans in today's House and Senate wish to reduce America's extra-regional conflicts, and will abandon the rash policies of Obama, [who sought] to solve the [crisis] dossiers of the Middle East.
"Trump cannot reinvigorate America's weary army, and the region is also lacking forces that can seriously replace those who are interfering there on behalf of America [i.e. rebel groups]. That is, the Trump era will see a decline in the wars waged by those who fight in America's name.
"An interesting point in the American election was crediting Russia [with influencing the result]... Now there is talk of Russia's influence in the American elections. Donald Trump not only does not deny allegations that he depends on Russia, but his [campaign] statements regarding U.S.-Russia cooperation brought him votes. He said that if he were elected, he would consider Crimea to be under Russian rule."[11]
Iranian Army chief of staff Mohammad Bagheri said on November 10: "With regard to statements by the American president-elect and what he said during the election campaign – this man, who has now come to power, was too boastful. I have a suggestion for him: 'Relax, and ask your naval commanders and officers how your forces on that [U.S.] vessel ended up [i.e. captured by Iran, in January 2016].' Threatening Iran in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf is a joke. The might of Iran's navy also exists in the IRGC's land [branch], air [branch], passive defense, and Qods Force."[12]
Ala Al-Din Boroujerdi, chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said on November 9: "Trump's victory shows the America people's reaction to the [U.S.] policy of warmongering, which caused thousands of Americans to lose their lives and squandered hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars in vain... It seems that American public opinion expects the people's problems to be addressed [now]... We must wait and see what Trump's policy vis-à-vis the region and the Islamic world will be...
"As for implementing the JCPOA, there is a difference between Trump campaigning for election and Trump the president. It is natural that when someone is elected U.S. president, they must place themselves within the framework of laws and international relations, including the JCPOA, and must remain committed to them. Any step or action [by Trump] will be met with an appropriate [Iranian] reaction.
"If Trump wants to act according to the positions he expressed during his campaign, he must end America's cooperation with Saudi Arabia in the evil slaughter of the Yemeni people, because Saudi Arabia cannot drown tens of thousands of oppressed Yemenis in blood and ashes without American support. Trump should, at the very least, stop the [American] shipment of weapons to Saudi Arabia."[13]
Yadollah Javani, senior advisor to Khamenei's representative in the IRGC, indicated that Trump's election campaign was different from previous campaigns, and that this has to do with the domestic situation in the U.S.: "Although Trump himself is seen as a wealthy businessman, in his election campaign he defended the poor, blacks, and the lower classes, and challenged the White House's discriminatory and corrupt policy. Therefore, his message was popular." Javani added that Trump becoming president was unlikely to radically shift American policy: "Neither Trump nor Clinton nor anyone else can save America, whose power is dwindling, and which has reached the end of the line as a superpower and an empire... American hostility towards [Iran's] Islamic Revolution, its Islamic regime, and the Iranian nation lies in the arrogance of the American political regime. Thus, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans... The clearer the enemy's hostility becomes, the easier it is to deal with. Based on experience over the past 37 years, the Republicans' hostility towards the Islamic Revolution and the Iranian nation has been more out in the open [than the Democrats']."[14]
Hossein Naqavi Hosseini, spokesman for the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said on November 9 that Trump had won because the Americans "were displeased with their rulers." U.S. foreign policy, he said, "is fixed, and is based on interference, aggression, control, usurpation, and the beheading of nations. [But the difference is that] Democrats loot and behead with cotton wool, while Republicans [do it] cruelly with a knife." About the JCPOA, he said: "Trump only has two options: [Either] act within the framework of the agreement, since it is not an agreement with America [only]. [Or,] if the Americans tear up the agreement, then Iran will be ready to burn it, as the leader [Khamenei] has said."[15]
In his main official Friday sermon, on November 11, Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, Assembly of Experts member and Tehran Friday prayer leader, rebuked all those in Iran who expressed hope for a Trump presidency, contradicting the regime's official line, and advised Trump to focus on U.S. affairs rather than seek adventures overseas: "Before the election, Iran's policy [vis-à-vis the candidates] was logical and neutral, because our regime said that as far as that is concerned 'they are all the same,' and [all the candidates] take orders from somewhere else – that is, they are servants of the Zionist regime. But some websites and newspapers [in Iran] were biased, and even before the election they welcomed a particular candidate's win. This was unwise, and it would have been better for them to adhere to the regime's policy...
"The candidate who won the American presidency said, 'Our country needs new roads, tunnels, and hospitals, but we do not have the necessary funds.' Where do the [American] tax dollars go? They are spent on slaughter. I want to preach to the new president who has just come to power in America: If you continue in the path of your predecessors, be certain that your fate will be the same as theirs. They had particular characteristics, and you should not repeat their mistakes.
"The American president-elect must know that the Iranian nation exhausted previous American presidents... You called the Iranian people terrorists. If you have any decency and courage, you will apologize to them.
"Take care, because playing with the Iranian nation is like playing with a lion's tail. I hope these words will reach your ears. You should know that Iran has a single character and a single slogan. Our character is resisting to the final man and final breath, and our slogan is that of the Imam Hussein: 'Humiliation and disgrace are far from us.'
"I hope that the new American president is wise enough to carry out what he said when he said 'I do not want tense [relations] with any country.' If he does not carry this out, he will soon get to know the Iranian people..."[16]
Majlis speaker Ali Larijani called for restraint, saying, on November 13: "The analyses and editorializing regarding the American president-elect should be more mature. We must refrain from making rash judgments and from judging prematurely. We must wait and allow [Iran's] diplomatic apparatus to take a clear stance."[17]
*A. Savyon is director of the MEMRI Iran Studies Project; E. Kharrazi, and U. Kafash are Research Fellows at MEMRI*
Endnotes:
[1] Due in part to a preference by Iran's political and cultural leadership, which ideologically excludes women in key roles, to not deal directly with a woman, especially one who in the past has openly worked against Iran.
[2] According to Western media reports, the Obama administration, and particularly Secretary of State John Kerry, are pressuring European companies and banks to invest in Iran despite Congress's sanctions. See, for example, State.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/04/256536.htm, April 23, 2016; State.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/05/257116.htm, May 12, 2016. See also article by Stuart Levey, chief legal officer of HSBC Holdings, and former undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the U.S. Treasury Department (2004-11), "Kerry's Peculiar Message About Iran For European Banks: Why is Washington pushing banks like mine to do what is still illegal for American banks?”," Wsj.com/articles/kerrys-peculiar-message-about-iran-for-european-banks-1463093348, May 12, 2016; Finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-working-resolve-banking-concerns-093933912.html; and Bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-26/clinton-s-allies-promise-a-tougher-line-on-iran.
[3] Saudi Prince Turki Al-Faisal also said that Trump should not cancel the JCPOA and instead should focus on thwarting Iran, "which is working to destabilize" the Middle East. Reuters.com, November 11, 2016.
[4] Tasnim (Iran), November 9, 2016. Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) also said that "Iran is prepared for any development. Iran is attempting to continue implementing the JCPOA" and "it has a long term plan." Tasnim (Iran), November 9, 2016.
[5] ISNA (Iran), November 9, 2016.
[6] ISNA (Iran), November 9, 2016.
[7] Asr-e Iran (Iran), November 10, 2016.
[8] Asr-e Iran (Iran), November 10, 2016.
[9] ISNA (Iran), November 9, 2016.
[10] Kayhan (Iran), November 10, 2016.
[11] Kayhan (Iran), November 10, 2016.
[12] Tasnim (Iran), November 10, 2016.
[13] ISNA (Iran), November 9, 2016.
[14] Javan (Iran), November 10, 2016.
[15] Javan (Iran), November 9, 2016.
[16] Fars (Iran), November 11, 2016.
[17] ISNA (Iran), November 13, 2016.