New Page 5

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

Bible Quotation For Today/This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!
Mark 09/01-07:And he said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.’ He did not know what to say, for they were terrified.Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!’"

Bible Quotation For Today/Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Second Letter to the Corinthians 03/07-17: "If the ministry of death, chiselled in letters on stone tablets, came in glory so that the people of Israel could not gaze at Moses’ face because of the glory of his face, a glory now set aside, how much more will the ministry of the Spirit come in glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, much more does the ministry of justification abound in glory! Indeed, what once had glory has lost its glory because of the greater glory; for if what was set aside came through glory, much more has the permanent come in glory! Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside. But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

LCCC Latest analysis, editorials from miscellaneous sources published on August 05-06/15
Zarif: 'Karine A Was an Israeli False Flag'/Lee Smith/The Weekly Standard Blog/August 05/15
Netanyahu, Obama make dueling appeals on Iran/By The Associated Press/August 05/15
Obama: If Congress strikes down Iran deal, rockets will rain on Tel Aviv/Itamar Eichner/Ynetnews/August 05/15
News flash for Obama: With or without a nuclear deal, Hizballah’s Iranian missiles threaten Tel Aviv/DEBKAfile/August 05/15
Republican debate: Trump leads the crowded field into Thursday’s GOP showdown/The Associated Press/August 05/15
And When We Are Faced with a Nuclear Iran/Peter Huessy/Gatestone Iinstitute/August 05/15
What Society Says When Children Are Murdered/Shoshana Bryen/Gatestone Institute/August 05/15
Time for Self-Criticism Amid All the Arab Confusion/Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/August 05/15
The rise of the Turkish and Iranian roles at the expense of the Arabs/Raghida Dergham/Al Arabiya/August 05/15
Donald Trump, a breath of fresh air among usual suspects/Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor/Al Arabiya/August 05/15
Reform in the Muslim World/Articles In Saudi Press: Political Solution In Syria – The Only Way To Deal with Terrorism/MEMRI/August 05/15
The Regional Impact of Additional Iranian Money/Michael Eisenstadt, Simon Henderson, Michael Knights, Matthew Levitt, and Andrew J. Tabler/Washington Institute/August 05/15
Stopping the settler state/Chris Doyle/Al Arabiya/August 05/15
Assessing the Iran Nuclear Agreement and The Washington Institute’s Iran Study Group June 24 Policy Statement/Joint Statement by Robert Satloff, Dennis Ross, James Jeffrey, Patrick Clawson, David Makovsky, Michael Eisenstadt, and Simon Henderson/Washington Institute/August 05/15
The perils of social media’s public shaming/Diana Moukalled/Al Arabiya/August 05/15
Obama's Strategy Of Equilibrium/Yigal Carmon and Alberto M. Fernandez/MEMRI/ August 05/15

"Mar Elias's answer..."
Dr. Walid Phares/August 04/15
Many reports circulated in Lebanon, some reached Washington lately, about a "suppression by elements from Hezbollah of a celebration -in a southern Lebanon village- of the festivity of Mar Elias."
Mar Elias answer: "Don't worry about this festivity, you have lost your freedom throughout the country for the last twenty five years. Taef, Assad, Hezbollah, Doha, Iran and now the Daesh Jihadists: these are the real worries. Thousands killed, maimed, jailed and exiled for nothing, hundreds are still missing in Syria. The economy is hanging on Petrodollars, contraband, mafia deals and capital flight from dictators. And in south Lebanon, there were no Lebanese army and UNIFIL patrols to be seen, to rescue Mar Elias's "dignity." Third of the villages on the borders are empty and their people are still in exile. The dominant forces left you with that little space to dance, set off fireworks, and have fun on nights like these. But the rest, your freedoms, they took away from you a long time ago. Don't worry about me, about a night of fireworks, go take back your country and come back celebrate the greater fireworks of liberty, after...

Their words on the "Iran deal" will count the most...
Dr. Walid Phares/August 04/15
This Thursday Donald Trump; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, will appear on Fox News first national Presidential primary debate among Republicans. These politicians will exchange on all issues of interest to Americans. One of these issues is the "Iran Deal," cut by the Obama Administration and now reviewed by the US Congress. The candidates should make a historic stand that night, without any hesitation, and reject the so-called "deal" and provide cutting edge, sharp and strategic reasons why empowering the Ayatollahs regime is a direct threat to United States national security. Their staffers and advisers must not let their bosses slip, slide, or waver. A clear majority in the US Congress comprised of Republicans and of Democrats is fully conscious of the danger of such "deal with the Khomeinist Jihadists." The ten Republican candidates must compete as to whom can argue better how vital it is for America to reject the so-called deal and above all, present an alternative. By making it clear that night, America's majority would send a clear and limpid message to the region and the world as to where its citizens stand regarding this regime and Iran's people.

Obama Warns of Hizbullah Retaliation over Iran
Associated Press/Naharnet/05 August/15/President Barack Obama has warned that any possible rejection by the Congress of the Iran nuclear deal, would force the U.S. to attack Iran, a move that could lead to a Hizbulalh retaliation against Israel. "It would be destructive both to the U.S. and to Israel," Obama told Jewish leaders on Tuesday, according to Israeli media reports. "An American military action against Iran's nuclear facilities will not end with Iran declaring war on us. Iran's defense budget is $15 billion. The American defense budget is $600 billion. What Iran would do, and could do, is respond a-symmetrically by increasing its support of terrorism.""Hizbullah rockets will rain down on Tel Aviv," he stressed. The U.S. president's meeting came hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu participated in a live webcast aimed at Americans Jews. The PM railed against the agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, calling it a "bad deal" that leaves Tehran on the brink of a bomb. The White House is preparing for the likelihood that lawmakers will vote against the deal next month and is focusing its lobbying efforts on getting enough Democrats to sustain a veto. Only one chamber of Congress is needed to sustain a veto.

No Agreement In Lebanon on Appointments as Crisis Lingers
Naharnet/05 August/15/The government failed on Wednesday to agree on the appointment of high-ranking military and security officials, mainly the person who will succeed Army chief of staff Maj. Gen. Walid Salman, who is set to retire this week.Defense Minister Samir Moqbel proposed several names for the army leadership, the Chief of Staff and the Higher Relief Council but the rival ministers failed to agree on them. Moqbel stressed earlier in the day that he would “abide by laws” and regulations if the cabinet failed to agree on the appointments. “I have certain authorities that I could use,” Moqbel told al-Joumhouria daily, hinting that he would issue a decree to extend the term of Salman, who is set to retire at midnight Thursday. But Education Minister Elias Bou Saab, who is a Free Patriotic Movement official, considered the possible extension illegitimate. The FPM has rejected the extension of the terms of high-ranking military and security officials, calling for the appointment of new figures. According to al-Akhbar newspaper published on Wednesday, General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim has made an initiative to resolve the dispute on the appointments. The initiative has received the blessing of Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq. It calls for raising the retirement age of the army and security officers for three years, said the daily. It added that FPM chief MP MichelAoun and Progressive Socialist Party chief MP Walid Jumblat have approved it, while Speaker Nabih Berri hasn't set his mind and al-Mustaqbal Movement preferred to wait for Berri's response before taking any stance. Information Minister Ramzi Jreij said following Wednesday's session that Prime Minister Tammam Salam reiterated his call for the election of a president, saying “the vacuum is causing heavy damages at all levels.”According to Jreij, “Salam said that some decisions have been taken to limit the waste crisis but the solution is temporary and garbage is piling up pending a final move.”“Salam revealed that one of the options under study is the export of waste, hoping for a decision on the issue in the coming days,” said the minister. The prime minister stressed, however, that the establishment of incinerators is the final solution to the crisis that erupted when the Naameh landfill south of Beirut was closed on July 17.The cabinet is set to convene on August 13.

Berri Backs Extension of Officials' Terms if No Deal on Appointments
Naharnet/05 August/15/Speaker Nabih Berri reiterated that he backed the appointment of top security and military officials but would not reject the extension of their terms if the government failed to reach an agreement on the controversial issue.“I am with the appointments but if there were no consensus, then I would back the continued functioning of the institutions, meaning extension,” Berri, whose remarks were published in al-Joumhouria daily on Wednesday, told his visitors in Ain el-Tineh. “We resort to extension if we can't fill any administrative post,” said Berri. “This is necessary to ensure the continuation of the work of institutions.” The speaker also expressed hope that the parliament would resume its functions, either by opening an extraordinary legislative session, which is awaiting the needed signatures of cabinet ministers, or by holding an ordinary session in October. Parliament convenes twice a year in two ordinary sessions -- the first starts mid-march until the end of May and the second from the middle of October through the end of December.
Berri said that cabinet ministers and lawmakers should put their differences aside and approve important decisions and draft-laws if they are keen on the nation's interest. “We should not hold onto paralysis,” he added. The country has been suffering from a political crisis that erupted following the end of the tenure of President Michel Suleiman in May last year. The vacuum at Baabda Palace caused major differences among cabinet ministers, leading to paralysis, combined with the failure of lawmakers to attend parliamentary sessions as a result of different demands.

Lebanese Army Drone Crashes in Bekaa
Naharnet/05 August/15/A Lebanese army drone has crashed in the eastern Bekaa Valley as a result of a malfunction, the military and the state-run National News Agency said late Tuesday. “As a result of a technological failure, a Lebanese army reconnaissance plane hit electricity cables and crashed in the plains of the town of Iaat in the Bekaa at 22:30 pm,” said a communique issued by the military command. The statement did not provide further details. NNA said that troops rushed to the area to transport the drone's remains to a base. While the army communique and the news agency did not reveal the drone's mission, it was likely used by troops for the surveillance of the movement of jihadists that are taking the porous Lebanese-Syrian border as a refuge.

Lebanese Army Arrests Celebratory Gunfire Suspects after Doctor Injured
Naharnet/05 August/15/The Lebanese army arrested at dawn Wednesday several people suspected of involvement in celebratory gunfire in northern Lebanon that has injured a female doctor, the state-run National News Agency reported. NNA said the arrests took place during raids that troops carried out in the town of Ehden. The doctor was wounded in the back from a stray bullet when young men opened celebratory gunfire during a bachelor party, NNA said Tuesday. She was having dinner at a restaurant near the party's location when the bullet penetrated her lower back. She was taken to Ehden Hospital where doctors performed a surgery to remove the bullet, the agency added.

Hizbullah and Mustaqbal Discuss 'Proposals to Resolve Political Crisis'
Naharnet/05 August/15/A sixteenth dialogue session between Hizbullah and al-Mustaqbal movement tackled “proposals to resolve the political crisis” and “a number of social issues,” the two parties said in a joint statement. “The conferees discussed the suggested proposals for resolving the country's political crisis and a number of social issues that are of concern to citizens,” said a terse statement issued after talks in Ain al-Tineh on Wednesday evening. The two parties have announced that the their dialogue, which kicked off last year, is mainly aimed at defusing the Sunni-Shiite tensions in the country. Lebanon has been without a president since Michel Suleiman's term ended on May 25, 2014. The presidential vacuum is increasingly paralyzing the work of the government and the parliament. The political impasse was recently aggravated by unprecedented waste collection and electricity crises that have prompted angry citizens to take to the streets to denounce the government's shortcomings. The garbage crisis erupted after the closure of the Naameh landfill on July 17. It has seen streets overflowing with piles of trash for around two weeks. The country is also reeling from lengthy power outages that have coincided with a fierce heat wave. Electricite Du Liban has blamed the problem on the disconnection of two power generation units at the vital Zahrani plant and the high demand on electricity during this time of year.

Maronite Bishops Urge Officials to 'Adhere to Constitution, Elect President'
Naharnet/05 August/15/The Maronite Bishops Council condemned on Wednesday the ongoing vacuum in the presidency, reiterating Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi's call for officials to name their final presidential candidates. The council urged after its monthly meeting “politicians to adhere to the constitution and head to parliament to elect a new head of state.” The bishops expressed their concern over the vacuum, warning that Lebanon is on the verge of collapse. Addressing the country's waste disposal crisis, they remarked: “Officials should differentiate between petty interests and the greater national good.”“Political responsibility requires them to refrain from making excuses” over resolving the crisis, they added.Commenting on the recent agreement between Iran and the West over Tehran's contentious nuclear program, they said: “It demonstrated the necessity of dialogue as demanded by Pope Francis I.”They hoped that dialogue will pave the way to ending regional conflicts.Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Ongoing disputes between the rival March 8 and 14 camps over a compromise candidate have thwarted the election of a new head of state.

Ibrahim: Negotiations with Nusra on Arsal Servicemen Complete
Naharnet/05 August/15/General Security chief Abbas Ibrahim revealed that the negotiations with the al-Qaida-affiliated al-Nusra Front over the release of the servicemen abducted in 2014 are over. He said: “We have agreed with al-Nusra on the mechanism of a prisoner exchange, as well as its time and location and other details.” He made his remarks in the latest issue of “General Security” magazine set be published on August 27. “We have completed the negotiations along with our brothers in Qatar and all we need are some clarifications over the swap,” Ibrahim said. The servicemen were kidnapped by al-Nusra Front and Islamic State jihadists in the wake of clashes in the northeastern border town of Arsal in August 2014.A few of them have since been released, four were executed, while the rest remain held. The kidnappers are reportedly demanding the release of Islamists from Lebanese jails in exchange for the hostages.

Husband 'Deliberately Wounds Himself' to Conceal Wife's Murder
Naharnet/05 August/15/A Syrian man has conspired to murder his wife in collaboration with a compatriot with the aim of marrying another woman and achieving financial gain, the Internal Security Forces announced on Wednesday. “Today at 4:10 am, an Infiniti SUV was involved in a shooting on the Fast Metn Highway,” the ISF said in a statement. The vehicle was carrying Syrian nationals M. J., 26, his wife F. A., 26, and the driver M. B., 29. The incident resulted in the death of the woman as her husband received a gunshot wound to the thigh, the statement said. “Following intensive investigations, and in less than 24 hours, the Intelligence Branch managed to unveil the circumstances of the crime,” the statement added. It said the husband and the driver have confessed to “plotting to murder the wife and get rid of her for financial motives and with the aim of allowing the husband to marry another woman.” “The driver opened fire from a pistol at the wife before firing a gunshot at the husband to conceal the crime and give investigators the impression that it was an armed robbery,” the ISF added. “They were both arrested while the pistol used in the crime was seized,” it said.The Fast Metn Highway had witnessed several armed robberies in the past.

Obama Warns of Another Mideast War if Congress Rejects Iran Deal
Associated Press/Naharnet/05 August/15/President Barack Obama launched a blistering denunciation of opposition to his Iran nuclear deal Wednesday, arguing that none of the criticism stands up to scrutiny and warning that if Congress blocks the accord it will put the U.S. on the path to another Middle East war."The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some form of war," Obama said in an address at American University in Washington. "Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon."The U.S. president's address, which lasted nearly an hour, was part of an intense summer lobbying campaign by both supporters and opponents of the nuclear deal. Members of Congress will vote next month on a resolution either approving or disapproving the pact.
Seeking to isolate his critics, Obama said the rest of the world supports the Iran accord, with the notable exception of Israel. He reaffirmed his support for Israel's security and said he doesn't doubt the sincerity of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the fiercest opponents of the agreement. But in a blunt assessment of Netanyahu's views, Obama said "I believe he is wrong."Opponents of the deal say it would leave too much of Iran's nuclear infrastructure in place and allow Tehran to start rebuilding its program after a decade. Critics also contend Iran will use an influx of funds now frozen under international sanctions to boost "terrorist" activity around the Middle East. The White House has urged lawmakers to vote solely on the deal's ability to prevent Iran from building a bomb, not on its other destabilizing activities or anti-American sentiments. Obama said that while Iranian hardliners may chant "Death to America" in the streets of Tehran, that's not the belief of all Iranians. "In fact, it's those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo," he said. "It's those hardliners chanting 'Death to America' who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus."Republicans, who are largely united in their opposition to the diplomatic deal, appeared unmoved by the president's lengthy address. Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham accused him of relying on "endless strawmen to divert attention from his failed policies." Obama drew on history to bolster support, saying the accord builds on an American tradition of "strong, principled diplomacy" with adversaries, including the former Soviet Union. He spoke at the same university where John F. Kennedy called for Cold War diplomacy and nuclear disarmament. Recalling more recent American history, Obama cast the upcoming vote in Congress as the nation's most consequential foreign policy debate since the 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war. He said many of those who oppose the Iran pact are the same as those who pushed for the war, which is now known to have been based on flawed intelligence. While Obama was an early opponent of the Iraq war, several of his top foreign policy advisers voted for the 2002 authorization, including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. They now say the war was a mistake.
The agreement between the U.S., Iran and international powers aims to dismantle much of Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in relief from economic sanctions. The White House says the deal would cut off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb and mandate robust inspections that would catch Tehran if it cheats. Challenging those who say the U.S. should have layered tougher sanctions on Tehran and held out for a better deal, Obama said they "are either ignorant of Iranian society or they're just not being straight with the American people.""If Congress were to kill this deal, they would not only pave Iran's pathway to a bomb, they would accelerate it," Obama said. The White House is preparing for the likelihood that lawmakers will vote against the deal next month and is focusing its lobbying efforts on getting enough Democrats to sustain a veto. Only one chamber of Congress is needed to sustain a veto and keep the deal in place.

Iran to Submit Syria Peace Plan to U.N.
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/05 August/15/Iran said Wednesday it will submit a new peace plan for war-ravaged Syria to the United Nations on the back of an international shift in favor of a political settlement. Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said the plan, drafted after "detailed consultations" between Damascus and Tehran, was an amended version of an Iranian initiative presented last year. The new proposal, to be submitted to U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon, amounts to "one of the most effective and serious plans on the agenda of the United Nations and international players," Amir-Abdollahian told the Beirut-based al-Mayedeen television channel that supports the Syrian regime. Amir-Abdollahian, whose country is a key ally of Syria's embattled President Bashar Assad, did not give details. But the channel spoke of four-point initiative calling for an immediate ceasefire, the formation of a national unity government, constitutional amendments on minority rights and internationally supervised elections.Amir-Abdollahian said there had been "a strategic change in the attitude of the regional players with regards to Syria. "If four years ago, many of the foreign players considered resorting to war as the solution for Syria, right now many of the players consider resorting to and focusing on a political solution as the most appropriate way to solve the Syrian crisis," he said. The Iranian announcement coincided with visits to Tehran by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov of Russia, another ally of the Damascus regime in its conflict against insurgents. On Wednesday, Muallem met President Hassan Rouhani, who assured him Tehran would "use all our capabilities" to work towards resolving the conflict and help Syria's people.

Malaysia Says Wreckage 'Conclusively Confirmed' as from MH370
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/05 August/15/Debris found on an Indian Ocean island last week is from MH370, Malaysia's prime minister announced on Thursday, confirming for the first time that the plane which mysteriously disappeared 17 months ago had crashed.
"Today, 515 days since the plane disappeared, it is with a very heavy heart that I must tell you that an international team of experts has conclusively confirmed that the aircraft debris found on Reunion Island is indeed from MH370," Prime Minister Najib Razak told reporters. "We now have physical evidence that, as I announced on 24th March last year, flight MH370 tragically ended in the southern Indian Ocean."Najib's widely expected announcement ends an agonizing wait for families of the 239 passengers and crew who have demanded concrete proof of what happened to their missing loves ones. But next-of-kin, investigators, and the aviation industry are still left with the vexing question of what caused the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft to inexplicably divert on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014. The flight apparently veered out over the Indian Ocean, flying for hours after its communications and tracking systems were shut off, in what remains one of the biggest mysteries in the history of flight. Najib gave no indication that the analysis of the debris yielded any clues into the cause of the disappearance. "I would like to assure all those affected by this tragedy that the government of Malaysia is committed to do everything within our means to find out the truth of what happened," he said. "MH370’s disappearance marked us as a nation. We mourn with you, as a nation."The piece of debris, a wing component called a flaperon, was found last week on a beach on the French island La Reunion, near Madagascar. It was flown to the French city of Toulouse where it was examined on Wednesday by French and Malaysian technical experts, and representatives from Boeing to determine any link to MH370. Many relatives accuse Malaysia's government and the airline of a bungled response to the disaster, possible cover-up, and insensitive treatment of families, charges that are vehemently denied.

Hamas Warns of New Violence unless Israel Lifts Blockade
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/05 August/15/The Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas warned Wednesday of renewed violence unless Israel lifts its blockade of Gaza, at a ceremony marking the end of a military-style summer camp for 25,000 Gazans. "Today, our message to the occupier is very clear: We will not accept a blockade," said Mahmud Zahar, a senior leader of Hamas which rules the Gaza Strip and has been holding indirect contacts with Israel over a long-term truce in return for an end to the nine-year-old blockade.
"Break the siege because we will not be able to hold back those who want to defend their territory from those who have destroyed their homes and killed their children," he said. Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing, said participants spent two weeks being "trained in military techniques and in firing live ammunition" as well as "first aid and rescue techniques." Hamas has long run summer camps devoted to sport and study of the Koran in Gaza, but over the winter the brigades started giving military training to 15- to 20-year-olds. Human rights activists condemned it as a violation of children's rights, but the brigades repeated the exercise with the summer camp, while also raising the upper age limit to 60. Moatassem, a 15-year-old, said he took part to be able to help defend Gaza. "We will grow up and be able to defend ourselves and our people," he said.A 50-day war in July-August 2014 killed about 2,200 Palestinians and 73 on the Israeli side, and destroyed or damaged tens of thousands of homes in the impoverished coastal territory.

U.S. Begins Using Turkey Air Bases to Bomb IS in Syria
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/05 August/15/A U.S. armed drone bombed a target in Islamic State-controlled northern Syria on Wednesday, in the first such air strike by a U.S. aircraft after taking off from Turkish territory, a Turkish official told AFP.
"A U.S. drone today carried out one air strike in Syria near Raqa," said the official, referring to the town in northern Syria the IS group sees as its capital. The drone had taken off from Turkey's Incirlik air base in the south of the country which Ankara has now opened to the U.S. military for armed attacks on IS targets in Syria, the source added. Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu earlier announced that Turkey was ready to begin a "comprehensive" fight against IS jihadists in Syria alongside the United States, after months of staying on the sidelines of the U.S.-led coalition. Last month Ankara said it would allow U.S. warplanes to launch attacks from the Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey, which is just 200 kilometers (125 miles) from IS positions in northern Syria. The Pentagon announced this week that U.S. armed drones had taken off from Incirlik to conduct missions over northern Syria but this was the first time an air strike had been carried out. Turkey, a member of the international coalition led by its NATO ally Washington, had so far declined to take robust action against jihadists but after a deadly bombing in July in a border town blamed on suspected IS jihadists, it launched limited strikes against the group in Syria. Turkish officials have suggested Ankara will step up its strikes against IS once U.S. operations from Incirlik are in full swing. According to media reports some 30 U.S. fighter jets are due to arrive at the facility in the next days in order to take part in the operation.

Syria Rebels Threaten Key Position near Regime Bastion
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/05 August/15/Syrian rebel groups allied with al-Qaida fought on Wednesday to advance on a key military headquarters near President Bashar Assad's coastal heartland, a monitor said. The Islamist rebels, including fighters from Central Asia and Chechens as well as jihadists from Syria's al-Qaida branch al-Nusra Front, were pressing an advance on the village of Jureen, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said. Observatory chief Rami Abdel Rahman said rebels had seized Bahsa village, less than two kilometers (1.2 miles) from Jureen, in heavy fighting which cost the lives of 19 rebels, 17 pro-regime militiamen and five villagers. Perched on a plateau in the central province of Hama, Jureen stands between Sahl al-Ghab, a plain where Assad's army has for several days been fighting the rebels, and the pro-Assad coastal province of Latakia to the west. The Syrian military and its allies -- including Iranian officers and fighters with Lebanon's Hizbullah -- have set up a military headquarters in the village to oversee the battle for the plain.
If the rebels manage to capture Jureen, they will be able to advance into the mountains of Latakia and bomb several communities from Assad's Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam. Among them would be Qardaha, Assad's ancestral town and home to the tomb of his father and predecessor Hafez Assad. "It will then be an existential battle for the Alawites," Abdel Rahman said. "There are calls for Alawite youth to take up arms and to defend the areas surrounding Jureen."The Britain-based Observatory relies on a wide network of activists, medics and fighters throughout Syria to gather information on the conflict. A military source on the ground said the aim of the rebels is "to reach the (Mediterranean) coast from the east." Since the end of March, the army has suffered a series of setbacks in the northwest, with the rebels repelling them from almost all of Idlib province to the north of Sahl al-Ghab. The rebels have advanced south since the end of July and launched an offensive in Sahl al-Ghab.
Assad's regime has been at war against different rebel groups for the past four years, in a conflict that has so far killed at least 230,000 people.

IS Threatens to Execute Croatian Abducted in Egypt
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/05 August/15/Egypt's affiliate of the Islamic State group threatened Wednesday to execute a Croatian kidnapped in Cairo last month within 48 hours if Muslim women jailed in Egypt are not freed. The man is the first foreigner to be abducted and threatened with death by militants in Egypt since an Islamist insurgency erupted two years ago. In a video posted online by the jihadists, the Croatian identifies himself as Tomislav Salopek working for a French company, and appears kneeling at the feet of a hooded man holding a knife. Reading from a sheet of paper, he says he will be executed within 48 hours if Egypt's government fails to release Muslim women held in prisons. Salopek, wearing an orange jumpsuit, did not say when the countdown began. He said he works for French company CGG's branch office in Cairo. He said he was abducted on July 22 by the Sinai Province group, IS' Egyptian affiliate based in the Sinai Peninsula. Formerly known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, the group changed its name when it pledged allegiance to IS in November. Two days after the kidnapping, the Croatian foreign ministry said in a statement that he was abducted as he traveled to work. "The armed group stopped his car, forced the driver out and drove away in an unknown direction," the ministry said at that time, without elaborating and identifying him only as T.S. Salopek is the first foreigner to be abducted and threatened with death by militants in Egypt since the Islamist insurgency broke out after the army's ouster of president Mohamed Morsi in July 2013.
Jihadist campaign
In December, the Sinai Province claimed the killing last August of an American working for petroleum company Apache. Morsi, Egypt's first freely elected president, was overthrown by then army chief and now President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi after mass street protests against his divisive single year in office. The authorities subsequently launched a sweeping crackdown targeting Morsi's supporters in which hundreds of people were killed and thousands jailed, including women and girl students. Hundreds more were sentenced to death after speedy trials, denounced as the United Nations as unprecedented in recent history."In retaliation, militants have killed hundreds of policemen and soldiers, mostly in the Sinai Peninsula where the Sinai Province group jihadists are waging a campaign against the security forces. The group has even staged attacks in other cities including the capital. In July, IS said it was behind a car bomb attack targeting the Italian consulate in downtown Cairo -- the first such attack against a foreign mission in Egypt since jihadists began their campaign following the crackdown on Islamists.
In February, IS released a video showing the beheadings of 21 Coptic Christians, all but one of them Egyptians, on a beach in neighboring Libya. The mass murder of the Egyptian Christians prompted air strikes by Cairo targeting IS inside Libya. The threat to execute Salopek comes ahead of Thursday's inauguration of the "new Suez Canal" waterway in the port city of Ismailiya, with hundreds of foreign dignitaries including French President Francois Hollande due to attend. Completion of the new waterway within just one year is being touted as a landmark achievement, rivaling the digging of the original Suez Canal that opened in 1869 after almost a decade of work.

Syria Opposition Coalition Accepts Moscow Invitation
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/05 August/15/Syria's opposition National Coalition has accepted an invitation to hold talks in Russia with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, whose country is a key ally of the Damascus regime, a coalition member said Wednesday. Its deputy leader Hisham Marwa told AFP coalition chief Khaled Khoja received an invitation at the start of August to visit Moscow. "We have decided to go but a date has not yet been fixed," for what would be the group's first mission to Russia since February 2014, when the coalition was led by Ahmad Jarba, he said. That visit took place days before a round of peace talks in Geneva between President Bashar Assad's regime and the opposition that failed to produce results. Marwa said the coalition was committed to a political solution based on a transitional government being formed ahead of legislative elections. The regime and opposition have different interpretations of a Geneva Declaration adopted in June 2012 calling for a transition in Syria, with Assad's foes ruling out any role for him. Russia in January and April organized negotiations between envoys from Damascus and elements of the opposition, but the coalition, its largest component, boycotted the talks.

Iran human rights record under increasing scrutiny after nuclear deal
REUTERS/08/05/2015/GENEVA - The top UN human rights official called on Iran on Wednesday to release a spiritual figure sentenced to death at the weekend and end its longtime "problematic" use of executions. Iran's human rights record is under increasing international scrutiny following a deal last month with world powers in which Tehran will see economically crippling sanctions against it lifted in exchange for curbing its disputed nuclear program. The Islamic Republic is reported to have executed more than 600 prisoners so far this year, while nuclear negotiations proceeded, after executing at least 753 people last year, a statement from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said. High Commissioner Zeid Ra'ad Al-Hussein said Iran had carried out many executions for drug offenses, some for crimes committed as minors, as well as cases with "broad, ill-defined charges." Mohammad Ali Taheri, a writer and founder of the spiritual movement Erfan e-Halgheh (Inter-Universalism), was arrested in 2011 and given five years in prison on charges of insulting Islamic pieties. His wife was detained briefly last year after publication of his letter to a UN investigator about abuses in Iranian prisons and new charges were then laid against him. Taheri, held in Tehran's Evin prison, was sentenced to death by the Revolutionary Court on Saturday on a charge of "fesad fel arz" (corruption on earth), Zeid said. "Taheri's multiple convictions on a variety of vague charges, his alleged detention in solitary confinement and now his sentencing to death bring into stark focus serious issues with the administration of justice and the terribly worrying use of the death penalty in Iran," Zeid said. "For an individual to be sentenced to death for peaceful exercise of freedom of expression, religion or belief is an absolute outrage -- and a clear violation of international human rights law," he said, calling on Iran to drop the charges and free Taheri forthwith. He also urged Iran to impose an immediate moratorium on all executions and to work with his office and other partners on alternative strategies to combat crime, noting that the "global trend is towards abolition."
Under international law, including a key civil and political rights pact ratified by Iran, the death penalty may be applied only for "the most serious crimes," generally interpreted to mean only crimes involving intentional murder, Zeid said.

Italian foreign minister invites Iran's Rowhani to Rome
Reuters/Wednesday, 5 August 2015/Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni has invited Iranian President Hassan Rowhani to visit Rome, Iran's state news agency IRNA reported on Wednesday, a week after France invited him to visit Paris. Gentiloni conveyed the official invitation from Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi during a visit to Tehran, his first since Iran reached a nuclear deal with world powers last month that will see international sanctions lifted. A steady stream of European officials have visited Tehran since the deal, hoping to benefit from the opening of a major regional economy. Last week, France's foreign minister, who had pursued a hard line during the nuclear talks, invited Rowhani to visit Paris in November.
Last Update: Wednesday, 5 August 2015 KSA 12:29 - GMT 09:29

Obama to evoke ghosts of Iraq, Soviet Union in another Iran plea
AFP, Washington/Wednesday, 5 August 2015/President Barack Obama will present the Iran nuclear debate as the most momentous U.S. foreign policy decision since the Iraq war Wednesday, in a fresh history-evoking bid to win support. In the address to the American University in Washington, Obama will frame Congress' polarizing debate over the deal as "the most consequential" since lawmakers in 2002 backed George W. Bush's drive to war, according to a White House official. Obama has long argued that vote represented a grave mistake that pushed the United States into eight blood-soaked years of unnecessary conflict. "He will point out that the same people who supported war in Iraq are opposing diplomacy with Iran, and that it would be an historic mistake to squander this opportunity," the official said. Obama has fervently argued in favor of the agreement that would give Iran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on a nuclear program which the United States has long suspected is cover for building a bomb. Positing the unpopular Iraq war as a cautionary tale, Obama is likely to recall John F. Kennedy's efforts to curb nuclear tests as a more worthy example to follow. Months before his assassination, Kennedy used the same university venue to vehemently argue for peace with the Soviet Union in the face of panic over a nuclear conflagration. In a 1963 commencement address, Kennedy cautioned against brandishing U.S. power to bring about the "peace of the grave or the security of the slave." Instead, he announced diplomatic efforts to check "one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms." Obama has argued that the alternative to a negotiated nuclear deal with Iran is military action, something his critics angrily denounce as a false dichotomy. The alternative to a bad deal, they say, is a better deal. The debate has split Congress largely -- although not exclusively -- along party lines, with Republicans, who are in the majority, staunchly against. That means Obama will need to win the support of fellow Democrats in order to avoid having the deal struck down by lawmakers.

5.6 million Iraqis at risk amid U.N. funding crisis
By The Associated Press | United Nations/Wednesday, 5 August 2015/The U.N. says a funding crisis has led to the closure of a majority of health programs in Iraq. The World Health Organization said the U.N. appeal for health services received only $5.1 million — just 8 percent of the $60.9 million required, which has forced more than 184 front line health services in 10 governorates to suspend operation. It said 84 percent of health programs in Iraq have been shuttered. Dr. Syed Jaffar Hussain, WHO's representative in Iraq, warned Tuesday that "unless additional funding is received, millions more will be deprived of health services they urgently need." He said WHO is contacting donors and hopes funding will be provided to restore the suspended activities and provide funds to reach 5.6 million vulnerable Iraqis.

Turkey to start fight against ISIS in Syria ‘soon’
AFP, Kuala Lumpur/Wednesday, 5 August 2015/Turkey will soon start combating Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group militants inside northern Syria, its foreign minister vowed Wednesday as he met U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Malaysia. “Now we are training and equipping the moderate (Syrian) opposition together with the United States, and we will also start our fight against Daesh very effectively soon,” Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told reporters at the start of the meeting with Kerry, using the Arab acronym for the militant group. “Then the ground will be safer for the moderate opposition that are fighting Daesh on the ground,” he added. The two envoys met at a hotel in Kuala Lumpur on the sidelines of a regional security gathering hosted by the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Washington has long been pushing its long-time ally Turkey to step up the fight against the so-called ISIS, something Ankara had until recently been reluctant to do. That position changed after deadly attacks inside Turkey, some of which were blamed on ISIS. Turkey has since carried out a series of air strikes, claiming they were targeting militants from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in northern Iraq as well as ISIS militants. But observers say PKK fighters been on the receiving end of far more airstrikes that ISIS. Last month Ankara also said it would allow U.S. warplanes to launch attacks against Islamic State from Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey. The moves marked a significant increase in Turkey’s role in the fight against the militants, who have seized large areas of Syria and Iraq.Turkey shares a 500-mile (800-kilometer) border with Syria, and a section of its southern frontier abuts directly with territory controlled by the ISIS group.

Kerry says sinking of Iran deal would be 'ultimate screwing of ayatollah'
JPOST.COM STAFF/08/05/2015
US Secretary of State John Kerry told The Atlantic on Wednesday that if Congress were to shoot down the Iran nuclear agreement, it would be "the ultimate screwing" of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Kerry made the remarks in an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. The secretary rejected Israel's criticism of the nuclear agreement, saying that the deal "is as pro-Israel" as it gets.
Reneging on the nuclear agreement, which has the support of the major world powers, would constitute a setback for Washington and justify anti-American animus in Iran.
“The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them,” Kerry said. "[Having Congress vote down the nuclear pact] will be the ultimate screwing.”“The United States Congress will prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be his point.”
Kerry also commented on the vociferous opposition to the deal expressed by Israel, which the secretary referred to as "visceral" and "emotional." He was adamant that the agreement was positive for Israel's geopolitical standing. “I’ve gone through this backwards and forwards a hundred times and I’m telling you, this deal is as pro-Israel, as pro-Israel’s security, as it gets,” Kerry said. “And I believe that just saying no to this is, in fact, reckless.”
Kerry said that he was "sensitive" to Israeli concerns over Iran's long-term aims, but he rejected arguments made by Jerusalem that the Islamic Republic was planning its annihilation. "I haven’t seen anything that says to me [that Iran will implement its vow of wiping Israel off the map]," the secretary said. "They’ve got 80,000 rockets in Hezbollah pointed at Israel, and any number of choices could have been made. They didn’t make the bomb when they had enough material for 10 to 12. They’ve signed on to an agreement where they say they’ll never try and make one and we have a mechanism in place where we can prove that. So I don’t want to get locked into that debate. I think it’s a waste of time here.”
"I operate on the presumption that Iran is a fundamental danger, that they are engaged in negative activities throughout the region, that they’re destabilizing places, and that they consider Israel a fundamental enemy at this moment in time," Kerry said. "Everything we have done here [with the nuclear agreement] is not to overlook anything or to diminish any of that; it is to build a bulwark, build an antidote."The secretary said that the nuclear deal is even more imperative if Israel's fears that Iran is plotting its destruction are true, since the agreement neutralizes Tehran's nuclear program.

Zarif: 'Karine A Was an Israeli False Flag'
Lee Smith/The Weekly Standard Blog/Aug 4, 2015
According to Iranian-based media, Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif appeared on a panel today at Iran’s Strategic Council on Foreign Relations where he spoke about the nuclear agreement he negotiated with the P5+1 last month in Vienna. Zarif explained that the so-called snap-back sanctions mechanism was less effective than the Obama administration claims. “Our snap-back is easier than theirs,” is how one Iranian journalist tweeted Zarif’s talk, “because we can resume our work with nuts and bolts, but they should convince countries to resume sanctions.” Also, said Zarif, “doing business with foreigners is a guarantee to make them unable to use snap-back mechanism.”
Zarif says he’s confident that Iran won’t violate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, but notes that “we should take care of plots like Karine A.” Here Zarif is referring to the 2002 incident when Israel stopped a ship, the Karine A, loaded with Iranian weapons destined for Yasser Arafat. Apparently, the man with whom John Kerry just negotiated a nuclear deal believes that the Karine A was a set-up to make the Iranians look bad. Israel did it. It gets Zarif so angry that he mentioned it at least twice. “I’ll never forget how the Israelis brought us to the Axis of Evil by Karine A false-flag scenario,” said Zarif. “Now they are working to derail the Iran deal.” Zarif is warning that maybe Israel will try to frame Iran again—maybe by building a secret nuclear facility under an Iranian mountain, or something equally devious. The point is that the Obama White House has tied American interests to a regime led by paranoid, anti-Semitic obscurantists. Of course Iran will never come clean about the possible military dimensions of the nuclear program. Zarif won’t even admit that Iran was responsible for the Karine A. The terrible shame is that America’s top diplomat is starting to sound like his counterpart from the Islamic Republic. Both see the handiwork of Israel everywhere they turn. Like Zarif, Kerry is preemptively blaming Israel should the JCPOA fail. If the deal doesn’t fly past Congress, as Kerry said last week, Israel will be to blame. By ignoring the vicious anti-Semitic rants of a criminal regime in order to make a worthless nuclear agreement with it, it was inevitable that the White House would come to sound more and more like its negotiating partner.

Netanyahu, Obama make dueling appeals on Iran
By The Associated Press | Washington/Wednesday, 5 August 2015/U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made dueling appeals to the American Jewish community Tuesday as they sought to rally support for their opposing positions on the Iranian nuclear deal. Obama met privately for more two hours with Jewish leaders at the White House, making a detailed case for the nuclear accord and urging opponents - including some in the room - to stick to the facts in making their own arguments, according to participants. He singled out the tens of millions of dollars being spent by critics, most notably the pro-Israel group American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The president’s meeting came hours after Netanyahu participated in a live webcast aimed at Americans Jews.
The prime minister railed against the agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, calling it a “bad deal” that leaves Tehran on the brink of a bomb.
“The nuclear deal with Iran doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb. It actually paves Iran’s path to the bomb,” Netanyahu said in his remarks. Organizers said about 10,000 people participated in the meeting. Netanyahu, one of the fiercest critics of the nuclear accord, also disputed Obama’s assertion that opponents of the diplomatic deal favor war. He called that assertion “utterly false,” saying Israel wants peace, not war. Participants in Obama’s meeting with Jewish leaders said attendees who oppose the deal raised with the president their concern over being painted as eager for war. They said while Obama appeared sympathetic to their concerns, he continued to argue that if Congress rejects the agreement, he or the next president would quickly face a decision on taking military action to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The back-to-back sales pitches from the leaders came on the eve of a foreign policy address Obama was to deliver as he seeks to bolster support for the deal in Congress. A White House official said Obama would frame lawmakers’ decision to approve or disapprove of the deal as the most consequential foreign policy debate since the decision to go to war in Iraq. The official said Obama would also argue that those who backed the Iraq war, which is now widely seen as a mistake, are the same ones who oppose the Iran deal. The official insisted on anonymity because the official was not authorized to preview the president’s address by name. Participants in the meeting were also granted anonymity in order to comment on their private discussions with the president. The White House is preparing for the likelihood that lawmakers will vote against the deal next month and is focusing its lobbying efforts on getting enough Democrats to sustain a veto. Only one chamber of Congress is needed to sustain a veto. Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that the White House is confident it can sustain a veto “at least in the House.” The president got a boost in the Senate Tuesday with Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Bill Nelson of Florida announcing their support for the deal. However, the administration lost the backing of three prominent Jewish Democrats - New York Reps. Steve Israel and Nita Lowey and Florida Rep. Ted Deutch. Obama, who has long been criticized for his lack of engagement with Congress, has gotten personally involved in selling the deal to lawmakers and other influential groups. Those who have met with him say he has a detailed understanding of the complex agreement, which is perhaps his top foreign policy priority. “It was pretty solid evidence of a couple of things: first of all, just how engaged the president is on this issue, and second, how important it is to him,” said Andrew Weinstein, a South Florida community leader who attended the meeting. Also among the roughly two-dozen leaders joining Obama in the Cabinet Room were Michael Kassen and Lee Rosenberg of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is vehemently opposed to the deal, as well as Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street, who is among the deal’s most vocal proponents. The White House said representatives from the Orthodox Union, the Reform Movement, the World Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League also attended.

Obama: If Congress strikes down Iran deal, rockets will rain on Tel Aviv
Itamar Eichner/Ynetnews/Published: 08.05.15/Israel News
In meeting with American Jewish leaders, president warns Israel will pay price for failure of nuclear deal with Tehran; 'American military action against Iran will not end with Tehran declaring war on us. What Iran could do is increase support of terrorism'.
WASHINGTON - US President Barack Obama told Jewish leaders on Tuesday that if the nuclear deal signed between world powers and Iran is rejected by Congress, the United States will be forced to attack Tehran, which will lead to Hezbollah retaliating with rockets on Tel Aviv.
"Israel would bear the brunt of a US military strike," Obama told 22 American Jewish leaders during a meeting at the White House.
The president asserted that if Congress votes against the agreement, the Islamic Republic will back out of it and he will then face pressure from those who oppose the deal to militarily strike Tehran.
"It would be destructive both to the US and to Israel," Obama warned. "An American military action against Iran's nuclear facilities will not result in Iran deciding to have a full-fledged war with the United States. Iran's defense budget is $15 billion. The American defense budget is $600 billion. What Iran would do, and could do, is respond a-symmetrically by increasing its support for terrorism."
"You'll see Hezbollah rockets falling on Tel Aviv," Obama said.
While Iran won't attack the United States directly, it could attack American targets across the world, or arming and funding its proxies on Israel's borders, Obama said.
The Republican-led US House of Representatives will vote on whether to reject the agreement when lawmakers return to Washington in September, party leaders said on Tuesday, setting up a showdown with the president.
Also among the roughly two-dozen leaders joining Obama in the Cabinet Room were Michael Kassen and Lee Rosenberg of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is vehemently opposed to the deal, as well as Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street, who is among the deal's most vocal proponents. The White House said representatives from the Orthodox Union, the Reform Movement, the World Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League also attended.
The president said he was willing to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss how to increase Israel's security, "but he won't meet with me."
"Meeting me would be, for him, like waving a white flag, and Netanyahu wants us to keep fighting over the agreement," Obama said. Obama is expected to meet with Netanyahu in the next two months, but not before the prime minister's speech at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York in September.
The back-to-back sales pitches from the leaders came on the eve of a foreign policy address Obama was to deliver as he seeks to bolster support for the deal in Congress. A White House official said Obama would frame lawmakers' decision to approve or disapprove of the deal as the most consequential foreign policy debate since the decision to go to war in Iraq.
"He will point out that the same people who supported war in Iraq are opposing diplomacy with Iran, and that it would be an historic mistake to squander this opportunity," the official said.
The president's meeting with Jewish leaders, held at the White House's Cabinet Room on the president's 54th birthday, was "serious" and "cordial" but at times "contentious," according to some participants. Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes were also present.
While admitting the agreement was "by no means perfect," the president asserted opponents could "try and poke holes in the deal. They might find small problems but the bottom line is that this deal is good for the national security of the US and Israel."
Obama told the Jewish leaders that when he entered the white House in 2008, he decided to make it his top priority to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. However, he decided to try to avoid war as much as possible, but clarified he "would not hesitate to use force only as a last resort."
The president said he was surprised to learn that despite talk of the military option during the Bush administration, there was no plan for such a contingency.
He therefore had to ask the Pentagon to prepare a plan for a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities in case it is needed.
During the meeting, Lee Rosenberg, AIPAC's chairman and a close friend of Obama's, protested the fact the president presented opponents to the deal as "warmongers."
Rosenberg was backed by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and chairman Steve Greenberg and vice chairman Malcolm Hoenlein.
The president told the gathered Jewish leaders that while it is their right to protest, they ought to do so based on the deal's merits.
"If you can't fight the deal on the merits you will weaken the coherence of the Jewish community and harm the US-Israel relationship," Obama said. "You can spend 20 or 50 million dollars on a campaign but you can't publish ads that say that if you are against the deal, you are a bad Jew or anti-Israel. Talk about the facts and not about what you think might help you convince people to oppose the deal."
Obama's meeting with the Jewish leaders came a few hours after participated in a live webcast aimed at Americans Jews, broadcast to synagogues and community centers across the country. Organizers said about 10,000 people participated in the meeting.
With surveys showing American Jewish opinion mixed on a dispute that has strained the US-Israeli alliance, Netanyahu cast his opposition to the Iran deal as non-partisan.
"The nuclear deal with Iran doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb, it actually paves Iran's path to the bomb," the prime minister said.
He argued that the deal gives Iran two paths to the bomb, "Iran can get to the bomb by keeping the deal, or Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal."
"I don't oppose this deal because I want war. I oppose this deal because I want to prevent war. And this deal will bring war," he said, cautioning that sanctions relief would result in a financial windfall for Iran that could help fund destabilizing regional conflicts.
"This is a time to stand up and be counted. Oppose this dangerous deal," Netanyahu said.
Reuters and AP contributed to this report.

News flash for Obama: With or without a nuclear deal, Hizballah’s Iranian missiles threaten Tel Aviv
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis August 5, 2015
President Barack Obama missed the point when he warned the 22 Jewish leaders he invited to the White House Tuesday, Aug. 3, that if Congress strikes down the Iranian nuclear deal, …”Hizballah rockets will rain down on Tell Aviv” – not on New York - and that Iran would… “arm and land proxies on Israel’s borders.”
Both these menaces have been fully active for years, and never related to any kind of nuclear diplomacy.
For nine years, from the 2006 Lebanese war and up to the July 2014 Gaza operation, missiles and rockets supplied by Iran have repeatedly rained down on Israeli population centers.
As time went by, the missiles became more precise and sophisticated. Terrorist attacks staged by Hizballah at Tehran’s behest are not unknown either.
Therefore, Obama’s warning to the Jewish leaders does not stand up to the test of logic or reliable intelligence.
Furthermore, as the president spoke, the contention that the nuclear accord will keep Israel and the Middle East at large safe, including from the danger of missiles, was belied.
debkafile’s military sources report that, at that very moment on Aug. 3, Hizballah units under the command of Iranian officers were firing heavy Iranian Zelzal 3 surface missiles at Syrian rebels barricaded for more than a month in the Syrian town of Zabadani, just 200km from Tel Aviv and even less, 140km, from Israel’s heavy industrial town of Haifa.
Zelzal, a proud product of Iran’s munitions industry, has an optimal range of 200km, which can be extended to 250km, by reducing its payload from 600 to 500 kg.
Israel is familiar with the deadly capabilities of the Zelzal, because it was fired by Hamas on Nov. 20, 2012 the last day of the last Gaza operation. It exploded and razed a whole built-up street in Rishon Letzion, a town situated 14 km south of Tel Aviv and 9.3 km from Israel’s only international airport at Lod.
On Jan 18, this year, Israel’s air force struck a group of Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hizballah officers as they prepared to set up military quarters and missile pads on the Syrian Golan within shouting distance of IDF border defenses.
The above partial catalogue of Iranian and Hizballah aggression was perpetrated alongside negotiations in Geneva and Vienna for a comprehensive nuclear accord with Tehran.
It is therefore obvious that Israel faces an Iranian-Hizballah missile threat today, as it did yesterday, and probably also tomorrow, regardless of whether the US Congress endorses or throws out President Obama’s nuclear deal with Tehran.
He might have made a difference to this grim reality if US negotiators had stipulated that the deal include the lifting of the Iranian missile peril hanging over Israel and that Tehran’s waive its standing threat to destroy the Jewish state. But as things stand now, this particular argument in support of his nuclear deal with Iran is an irrelevancy.

Republican debate: Trump leads the crowded field into Thursday’s GOP showdown
The Associated Press | August 4, 2015 /National Post/
Donald Trump’s rapid rise even has some fellow Republicans worried.
Fox News announced the ten candidates who will take the stage for Thursday’s Republican debate in Ohio, the first official clash of the 2016 Presidential race. Fox used a ranking based on a combination of polls to winnow down the field of hopefuls. Here’s what you need to know about the debate:
Kasich and Christie are in
While new Republican darling Donald Trump easily secured top spot, a pair of governors just squeaked into the Top Ten. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Ohio Gov. John Kasich will round out a field that also contains former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Perry and Fiorina are out
Former technology executive Carly Fiorina and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry are among seven hopefuls who were relegated to second-tier status. Republican officials were particularly concerned about Fiorina, hoping she would help balance Hillary Rodham Clinton’s push to rally women to her candidacy. Fiorina and Perry will be allowed to take part in a pre-debate forum, along with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, former New York Gov. George Pataki and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore.
The methods have been questioned
Fox didn’t say before Tuesday’s announcement which polls it would use to determine its top 10. Many candidates are grouped together in the single digits, most separated by a number smaller than the margin of error. For example, in a Monmouth University survey released Monday, Kasich was the 10th candidate with the support of 3.2 percent of voters. But after taking the margin of error into account, Monmouth noted that Kasich’s support could be as low as 1.5 percent, while almost any of the candidates who polled lower could be that high or higher. Monmouth found that only five candidates — Trump, Bush, Walker, Cruz and Huckabee — were definitely in the top tier of candidates, while just two -Pataki and Gilmore – would not make it into the top 10 even when margin of error was taken into account.
The Moderators are ready
Fox has tapped three of its anchors — Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace — to moderate the debate, which thanks to Trump’s presence could become one of the most watched events in U.S. political history. Wallace, a ten-year veteran of Fox, told the Washington Post he was thinking a lot about Trump. “He’s a big wild card because you don’t know how he’s going to react,” Wallace said.
Trump will be the focus
Donald Trump’s rapid rise has surprised many Republican officials, some of whom fear his rhetoric on immigration and other divisive issues could hurt the party. In a Tuesday interview, Trump said he’s been defying expectations all his life. “I think people are tired, they’re sick and tired of incompetent politicians,” he said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe when asked to explain his rise.
The Associated Press and The Washington Post

And When We Are Faced with a Nuclear Iran?
Peter Huessy/Gatestone Iinstitute
August 5, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6296/nuclear-iran
Are we actually being told, then, that the only way to prevent Iran from having nuclear bombs is to let it have them? If not now, in 10-15 years? And with intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the U.S.?
Even supporters of the deal say that yes, at the ten year mark, Iran will be able to breakout and build a weapon's worth of nuclear fuel in a year or less -- in other words, have nuclear bombs.
Iran has never come clean with the IAEA -- or anyone else -- about its nuclear activities. These were discovered not by IAEA inspectors but by the U.S. and allied law enforcement and intelligence services, as well as by dissident groups within Iran. Are we actually assuming that Iran, under this new deal, will now come clean?
Thus under the July deal the U.S. may not (technically) know if Iran, after a breakout, has a nuclear weapon arsenal until Iran either tests a nuclear warhead or explodes it in an American or Israeli city. Then, of course, the discovery will be "too late" to do anything about, especially if the U.S. is helping Iran with technology assistance designed to prevent attacks on Iran's nuclear sites.
Having made so many concessions to a non-nuclear Iran, how tough in the future will we be, faced with a nuclear Iran?
Iran says its nuclear technology program is totally peaceful. In 31 other countries with peaceful nuclear programs, there are 438 nuclear power plants in operation, and in another 16 countries, 67 plants under construction.
Under the terms of the 1969 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, any nation adopting nuclear energy has to comply with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rules. Every one of these nearly 50 countries does. Iran does not.
For over two decades, in fact, Iran has flouted, bamboozled and cheated the IAEA.
What, then, does this pattern of behavior bode for the emerging nuclear deal with Iran?
Past activities by Iran related to prohibited nuclear weapons have included facilities where nuclear work was done, and the attempted smuggling of nuclear weapons technology, which was interdicted.
These activities, however, were discovered not by IAEA inspectors but by the U.S. and allied law enforcement and intelligence services, as well as by dissident groups, such as the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), within Iran. We cannot necessarily count on such help in the future. Iran has never come clean with IAEA -- or anyone else -- about its nuclear activities -- unlike the nearly 50 other nations that have, or are planning to have, nuclear energy. Are we actually assuming that Iran, under this new deal, will now do so? And if it does not, are we actually assuming that we will now have access to suspicious Iranian activity simply by demanding to inspect such sites?
We are being told that access to Iranian sites where cheating has been, or might be, taking place, will be "managed."Iran will, of course, delay IAEA inspections to sanitize the suspected sites. It will also graciously allow China and Russia to help delay further inspections or enforcement action. And of course they can all graciously veto some UN Security Council action. After 24 days of forewarning and countless delay disputes, what will be left to inspect? No worry, say deal supporters. If Iran breaks the terms of the deal or is uncooperative, sanctions can be "snapped back" in place.Although Moscow insisted that there will be no automatic re-imposition of sanctions, what Russia and Iran eventually got in the final agreement was nearly as good. All deals made prior to sanctions being re-imposed will not be affected, a limitation that seriously weakens the effect of the snapback provision.
Deal supporters then optimistically point to Iran's pledge not to build certain new nuclear facilities. But these are facilities Iran had no intention of building in the first place. Supporters of the deal also tell us that that number of Iranian centrifuges will be sharply reduced. But, we are also told, these centrifuges will not be destroyed (Iran refuses to do); they will be stored. Of course, stored centrifuges can always be un-stored -- and then reconnected to enrich uranium. "Don't worry," the deal's supporters say. Some of the enriched uranium gas Iran has already produced, from which bombs could be made, will be changed into a solid form, which is not suitable for further enrichment. Except they apparently "forgot" that it takes only two weeks to turn the enriched solid material back into gas suitable for further nuclear enrichment. The deal's supporters say that Americans overwhelmingly want a diplomatic outcome to the Iranian nuclear threat and not "another war" -- and, well, a "deal" is a "diplomatic outcome," isn't it? But does this diplomatic deal deny nuclear weapons capability to Iran, as the negotiators said they set out to accomplish? No.
Is Iran's nuclear breakout time even extended? According to Public Affairs expert Alan J. Kuperman, it remains at three to four months at most. Is the deal verifiable? Proliferation expert Ambassador Robert Joseph says no. Will advanced research on centrifuges by Iran stop? The deal explicitly says that advanced research is allowed. Won't Iran just take the money unfrozen by the deal -- reportedly upwards of $150 billion -- and use it for terrorism and building more missiles? Not really, say deal supporters; Iran is already funding terrorism and missile production. Oh, then the mullahs must be planning to use the new $150 billion for hospice care and battered women's shelters.Finally, at the end of the deal, presumably in ten years or so, will Iran have, or not have, the capability to build a nuclear weapon?
Even supporters of the deal say that yes, at the ten year mark, Iran will be able to breakout and build a weapon's worth of nuclear fuel within a year or less -- in other words, have nuclear bombs. Are we actually being told, then, that the only way to prevent Iran from having nuclear bombs is to let it have them? If not now, in 10-15 years? And with intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the U.S.? But, the deal's advocates argue, the IAEA will be able detect such activity, and besides, the nature of the regime will have changed. They do not specify if this change will be for the better or for the worse. It is important to remember Israel's long-standing and repeated warnings that Iran was close to one year away from having a nuclear weapons capability. Now, even with a deal, Iran may be as close as three months away -- just in time to negotiate still further arrangements until it can run out the clock.
How long will it be, then, before we find out Iran is cheating? And then take action? Here is some history that might give some clues:
Chemical weapons are still being used by the Assad government in Syria -- although there is a US-Russia deal from September 2013 that says no such activity is allowed.
When did we find out the North Koreans had an illegal enrichment facility? When the North Koreans invited US officials to see the facility -- not to get rid of it but to boast that they were going to keep it.
North Korea's cheating, which led up to the revelation of an enrichment capability, happened during the Clinton administration -- which had agreed, along with its 1994-5 Agreed Framework partners, to build two nuclear reactors for North Korea and provide billions in energy and food assistance.
Similarly, there indeed may be a diplomatic purpose to the administration's serial concessions to Iran. The administration may believe they all were necessary -- an "outstretched hand" -- to get the Iranians to think kindly of us and "unclench its fist." What other decisions may have been made to please Iran? Iran's Foreign Minister and chief nuclear negotiator, Javad Zarif (left), is very, very pleased with the recent nuclear deal. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (right), is not unclenching Iran's fist in its relations with the West.
Were the chemical redlines in Syria, for example, not enforced for fear of upsetting Iran?
Did the Obama administration not support Iranian people's attempted "Green Revolution" in 2009-10 in order not to upset the mullahs? Did the U.S. refuse to provide weapons to the Kurds in Iraq, with which to confront ISIS, because we did not want to upset the Iranian mullahs, whose agents control much of the Iraqi government? Did the U.S. apologize for the supposed role of the U.S. in a 1953 Iranian coup -- which never in fact occurred, as the Shah had the constitutional power to dismiss the prime minister -- again not to upset the mullahs? Did the U.S. allow India, Japan, Korea and China all to receive sanctions exemptions and import Iranian oil because it did not want to upset the mullahs? It looks suspiciously as if we made all these concessions to grease the diplomatic skids to get a deal. Those represented our "outstretched hand."
But did these concessions succeed in preventing Iran from continuing to build its nuclear weapons capability? Not for a minute. Thus, under the July deal the U.S. may not (technically) know (although it would definitely be suspicious) if Iran, after a breakout, has a nuclear weapons arsenal, however small, until Iran either tests a nuclear warhead or explodes it in an American or Israeli city. Then, of course, the discovery will be "too late" to do anything about, especially if the U.S. is helping Iran with technology assistance designed to prevent attacks on Iran's nuclear sites (from terrorists, of course!). Having made so many concessions to a non-nuclear Iran, how tough in the future will we be, faced with a nuclear Iran?

What Society Says When Children Are Murdered
Shoshana Bryen/Gatestone Institute/August 5, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6285/children-murdered
Is there a difference? To the perpetrators, no. To the societies from which the murderers came, the difference is a chasm.
When the Israeli government announced it had suspects, one suspect's mother said, "I will be proud of him until Judgment Day. If... it is true... My boys are all righteous, pious and pure. The goal of my children is the triumph of Islam."
This weekend in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, thousands of Israelis protested the murder of the baby Ali Saad Dawabshe.
It is almost ghoulish to compare the deaths of children in war. They were not responsible for the situation in which they found themselves, and they did not deserve their fate. In a healthy society, such deaths are mourned without regard for the children's nationality, or the politics and misdeeds of their parents.
Is there a difference between the infant Ali Saad Dawabshe, murdered in his house in the West Bank village of Duma, and Shalhevet Pass, murdered in her stroller by a sniper? Or between Mohammed Abu Khdeir (16), murdered in revenge for the killings of three Israeli teens, and the Fogel children, Yoav (11), Elad (4) and Hadas (3 months), murdered in their beds, along with their parents? Or Einat Haran (4), forced to watch her father killed before having her head smashed against a rock? Or the Schijveschurrder children, Ra'aya (14), Avraham Yitzhak (4) and Hemda (2), murdered in the Sbarro Pizza bombing along with their parents and ten other people, including two more children? Or Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar, Naftali Fraenkel, murdered on their way home from school for Shabbat?
To the perpetrators, no.
To the societies from which the murderers came, the difference is a chasm. Not every Israeli or every Palestinian had the same reaction, but the differences in their leadership was striking.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) arrested trained sniper Mahmud Amru, a member of the Palestinian Tanzim -- an armed offshoot of Fatah, founded by Yasser Arafat -- for the murder of 10-month-old Shalhevet Pass, but released him. Arrested then by the Israelis, Amru was sentenced to three life terms. Voice of Palestine Radio later claimed the baby was killed by her mother.
Ali Saad Dawabshe, murdered last week in his house in the West Bank village of Duma.
Fatah and Hamas separately honored the Sbarro Pizza bombing perpetrator, Izz Al-Din Al-Masri. Official PA TV News reported that the murderer "gave his soul for the struggle of a nation that strives for freedom," and described the terrorist's funeral as his "wedding" to the "72 Virgins in Paradise, the great reward Islam promises to those who die as Martyrs for Allah."
Palestinian Authority-linked websites claimed the murderers of the Fogel children were "foreign workers" and not Palestinians. Two Palestinians teenagers were arrested, and reenacted the murder for Israeli police, saying, "We killed Israelis and Jews." Although they appear to have done the deed on their own initiative, they were affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and had received "considerable help" from family and friends before they were arrested. In a later indignity, gruesome images of the dead Fogel children appeared on the "Free Palestine" website, labeled as Palestinian children killed by Israel.
Samir Kuntar murdered Einat Haran and her father, but was released in a prisoner exchange and welcomed as a hero in Lebanon. In 2008, Kuntar received the Syrian Order of Merit, the highest award Syrian President Bashar Assad could bestow. [According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), 11,717 children have died thus far in the Syrian civil war.] In 2009, it was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's turn, and Kuntar received an award from him in Tehran. Kuntar was finally dispatched a last week.
Dalal Mughrabi, organizer of the Coastal Road Massacre that killed 37 Israelis, including four children under six (Erez Alfred, Ilan and Roi Homan, Liat Gal-On and Naama Hadani) had a public square named in her honor in the West Bank. "We are all Dalal Mughrabi," declared Tawfiq Tirawi, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, at the dedication.
The murderers of Yifrah, Shaar and Fraenkel were hidden by supporters in the West Bank for months, and the Palestinian Authority Facebook page featured a cartoon showing the three boys as rats on fishing hooks. During the search for the murderers:
Palestinians walked near Jews waving three fingers, signifying the three kidnapped students; staged "reenactments" of the kidnapping with the boys portrayed as soldiers; and gave candy to their children to celebrate. Children from a Hamas summer camp were used as the vanguard of a mob that attacked a group of Jews on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. During that time, Palestinians were told to place multiple calls to the Israeli Police emergency number to stymie any real calls that might come in. When the Israeli government announced it had suspects, one suspect's mother said, "I will be proud of him until Judgment Day. If... it is true... My boys are all righteous, pious and pure. The goal of my children is the triumph of Islam."
After the bodies of the boys were found, teenager Mohammed Abu Khdeir was murdered by three revenge-minded Jews. The admission unified Israelis in their revulsion to the act and to the perpetrators. One prominent religious Zionist rabbi called for the death penalty. (Israel has no death penalty, but Judaism does). There was unanimity from the prime minister to the defense minister to the leader of the nationalist Bayit Hayehudi Party, to the mother of one of the murdered Israeli teens, who denounced the revenge killing, to an uncle who paid a condolence call on Abu Khdeir's family.
This weekend in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, thousands of Israelis protested the murder of the baby Ali Saad Dawabshe (and the stabbings of six participants in Jerusalem's Gay Pride parade by a member of an Orthodox community). Saad Dawabshe, the uncle of Ali, participated in the Tel Aviv rally. The Prime Minister of Israel visited the family in the hospital.
Remember the names of the children, how they were mourned by their communities and how their murderers were treated in their own societies: Who became pariahs and who became heroes.

Time for Self-Criticism Amid All the Arab Confusion
Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/Tuesday, 4 Aug, 2015
Let us stop, even just once, our stubborn denial and talk openly about why we seem addicted to reactions and self-assurances, while others are achieving political advances which even their foes acknowledge.
I contend that if we were to pose a direct question along these lines, we would not like the answer.
There is no doubt that the Iran nuclear deal has been a significant landmark that has uncovered where we as Arabs are failing. Another significant development has been the late-coming American “understanding” of Turkey’s sensitivities towards Kurdish nationalist aspirations. Then, of course, there is the age-old Palestinian issue which has served for decades as living proof of our failure to comprehend the true relationship between the West and Israel—as a concept and entity, and in terms of political culture. Finally, we need to admit our mismanagement of the issue of coexistence in our countries. We behave either as if we know nothing about the plurality of our constituent communities, or we believe obliterating plurality is the only way to protect our “national unity” against “foreign conspiracies.”
The truth is, however, that we have been committing mistakes for a long time now. The difference this time around is that the existential challenges do not allow for more fatal “comfort zones.” Indeed, I believe the period we are going through is comparable only with the one which led to the countdown to the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel—including Anwar Sadat’s breaking all the old Arab political taboos regarding recognizing Israel and speaking in the Knesset. Actually, I believe this may be an even more dangerous time, and more decisive for the region’s future.
Well, let’s begin with the Israel–Palestine issue. Washington is now moving at full speed in order to win over Benjamin Netanyahu’s acceptance of the Iran nuclear deal, and from our long experience with Washington’s attempts to cajole Israel, we know that the weaker party—the Palestinian side—always pays the heaviest price for these efforts. And if we recall that the solid base on which Netanyahu relies includes the extremist settlers, then the murderers who committed the heinous crime against the Dawabsha family—whose 18-month-old baby Ali was burned alive in an attack by Jewish settlers—will go unpunished, while settlements will continue to expand and any chances for Palestinian statehood will recede. And with them disappear the last vestiges of Palestinian moderation that make a political solution possible.
Moving from Israel–Palestine to Iran, we find ourselves dealing with more than the occupation of one Arab entity called Palestine to several de facto occupations plus other attempts to dominate and occupy even more Arab countries. Moreover, we are witnessing a “sectarian Muslim–Muslim civil war” instead of Israel’s Jewish “isolationism” that fears peace and demographic assimilation.
Alas, as we have failed dismally in understanding the relationship between the West and Zionism even before the founding of the State of Israel. And we now look stunned by the apparent success of Iran’s “lobby” in building effective interest-based networks with the Right and Left in almost all Western countries, including the US—although some may still recall the role played by the Shah of Iran in the former Central Treaty Organization, (CENTO), originally known as the Baghdad Pact.
To be more direct, John Kerry is now visiting the Middle East in order to promote the new American strategic vision of the region, not to clarify some sudden “misunderstanding” arising between Washington and Arab countries. In fact, the priorities of the Obama Administration’s vision are very clear—at least to Arab observers based in Washington who know their way around its lobbies and corridors of power. These observers are well aware of what is being whispered and leaked, and what is being “advised” by various think-tank experts. The overall picture they are getting is not comforting.
The war on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and similar organizations is now certainly the excuse to ignore all other events in the Middle East, including the ever-expanding Iranian hegemony and emboldened Kurdish secessionist ambitions throughout the Arab Mashreq.
Consequently, shooting down the ideas of safe havens in northern and southern Syria is not only the declared policy of the Obama Administration and its team of advisers, but is also being defended and endorsed by some in Europe who do not see the end of Assad’s dictatorship as the first step towards a solution for Syria and the region, and even argue that safe havens would become refuges for “anti-Western ISIS-style extremists.”
Here it may be worthwhile to examine Turkey’s position. Many today are eager to accuse Turkey of being ISIS’s principal backer and attach all sorts of conspiracies and evils to the country’s leadership. This attitude is led by some Arabs who have grown accustomed to seeing politics in “black and white” and in terms of “either-or.” Hence, they do not seem—in good faith—to differentiate between a tactical cooperation and a strategic alliance. As a result, the anger felt against the “Islamist” policies of Turkey’s government are making this group not only underestimate the threat of Iranian expansionism, but some of them are also talking openly of siding with Iran against Turkey. As such they are willing to forget what crimes Tehran has perpetrated against the Syrian people via the Assad regime, against the Yemenis via the Houthis, and what it has in store for the Gulf states, particularly Bahrain.
They do not seem to realize that the issue is far too important to be subject to mere spitefulness and matters of temperament. The threat is too real and too dangerous to allow for misconceptions and miscalculations.
Arab countries have already paid heavily for such misconceptions and miscalculations since Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait, and have been too late in appreciating the detrimental repercussions of a sectarian regime emerging from the ruins of Saddam’s. The Arabs of the region have lost much as a mistake has been “corrected” by a worse mistake, and a sectarian hegemony replaced by an opposite sectarian hegemony.
Iraq’s tragedy needs no proof; and what Lebanon has been going through since the Rafik Hariri assassination in 2005, and the subsequent handover by Assad of “Syrian-dominated Lebanon” to Hezbollah, is another chapter in that sorry saga. And since 2011 the bloody execution of Iran’s regional domination has been extended to Syria itself with total disregard to the delicate religious, sectarian, and ethnic balance in the fine-tuned Syrian social mosaic. Thus, with a combination of conspiracy here, and ignorance there, the issue of “protecting minorities” in the Mashreq is now becoming a Damocles sword hanging ominously above the region.
The Mashreq is certainly losing badly as extremist “Political Shi’ism” abandons Imam Ali Ibn Abi Taleb’s ideals—especially his humane sense of justice—and extremist “Political Sunnism” is losing even more as it rushes to mass political suicide and global confrontation after turning its back on the traditional moderation and pragmatism of the Sunni ruling establishment throughout history.

The rise of the Turkish and Iranian roles at the expense of the Arabs
Raghida Dergham/Al Arabiya
Wednesday, 5 August 2015
It is clear what Iran wants to achieve in Syria and Iraq, regardless of provisional alliances and other approaches designed to further its regional influence and strategic partnerships. Tehran today tops the U.S. priorities, exactly as it had sought and engineered. Tehran has been able to shake the U.S. relations with Washington’s traditional allies, becoming the alternative to them especially in the context of the U.S. war on the Islamic State group (ISIS).
What is not clear is what Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey wants. Today, Ankara seems to be seeking to outdo Iran when it comes to fighting ISIS, with Turkey finally joining the anti-ISIS coalition of which Tehran is an honorary member via Washington. Turkey seems to be also trying to outdo the Kurds in the same respect, the Kurds being one of Washington’s key allies in Iraq and Syria against ISIS.
The Turkish president has put on many gloves, reshaping his regional roles and leaving behind a trail of enemies and accusations, including of facilitating the rise of ISIS. But this accusation has also been made against Iran, a number of Gulf nations, and the Assad regime, allegedly in close cooperation with former Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki.
ISIS is a terrible cocktail with connections to a nexus of global and regional intelligence agencies, involving even the United States and Israel. ISIS is an effective instrument of ethnic and sectarian cleansing, as required by the scheme to partition the Arab region that serves all interests except the Arab interest.
The Arab leaders, in contrast to Iranian clarity, Turkish ambiguity, and Israeli yearning for Arab fragmentation, are distraught and are in disarray. Egypt is watching Turkey from the Muslim Brotherhood angle. Egypt is crucial to restoring the Arab weight in the regional balance of power, and needs Gulf support. Yet Egypt must think outside the box and seek new practical and long-term initiatives.
As for Iraq, Tehran is staking a claim to it, while Ankara is bargaining over Syria. In the meantime, the United States seems ready to distribute roles between these players, under the pretext of the priority of crushing ISIS. Washington also seems to be more confident in the Iranian, Turkish, Kurdish, and Israeli actors than in the Arab actors, as partners in the war being fought in the Arab heartlands and with Arab blood – with a partition map that benefits Turkey, Iran, and Israel ultimately.
In Syria, there seems to be a new U.S.-Turkish agreement, blessing the idea of buffer or safe zones in northern Syria. The agreement also includes allowing the United States to use the Incirlik Air Base, while Turkey has entered as a direct party to the international coalition against ISIS led by Washington. The two nations are also jointly working on a program to train Syrian rebels to assume control of these safe zones.
Interestingly, however, the Pentagon has trained only 60 Syrian fighters, mainly because many were disqualified for refusing to pledge not to fight the regime and fight ISIS exclusively. Washington has laid the foundations for strict scrutiny to avoid training terrorists from ISIS and similar groups. However, the Pentagon’s insistence on forcing the fighters to sign a written pledge not to fight the regime has raised questions among moderate Syrian opposition leaders, who do not want to be given the task of fighting ISIS while exempting the regime, thereby strengthening it at the expense of the opposition.
Ankara and Washington will coordinate their intelligence to implement a plan to train and arm 5,000 fighters. In other words, the U.S.-Turkish agreement includes developing a Syrian opposition capable of weakening the regime, but one without terrorist links and whose first mission is to defeat ISIS.
The idea then is based on the principle of “let bygones be bygones”, whether this is about false allegations or a deliberate strategy that made Turkey a major party in supporting ISIS in Syria for Turkish interests and agendas. Ankara now has a major role in identifying, training, and arming Syrian opposition groups that would assume control of the putative safe zones.
What is not clear is what Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey wants. Today, Ankara seems to be seeking to outdo Iran when it comes to fighting ISIS
Perhaps Washington has in its mind that Arab parties could have a role in these plans. But so far, the Arab countries, which were very active in Syria, seem willing to accept solutions put forward by others, as long as they shall lead to removing Assad from power even if the regime survives in some form. While there is nothing wrong about accepting a solution proposed and implemented by a U.S.-Turkish partnership, in the context of an Arab-international anti-ISIS alliance, the Arab absence from drafting the Syrian future leaves Turkey and Iran in charge. This is almost tantamount to an investment in the Turkish and Iranian weight while undermining the Arab weight in the regional balance of power.
Turkey has different positions than Iran’s regarding Syria. Tehran is an ally to the regime and the Syrian president, and has intervened on the war in Syria through the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah. Iran insists on holding on to its influence and supply routes to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and would not abandon this except as part of a grand bargain that would guarantee its strategic interests.
Tehran has presented itself to Washington as a reliable ally to crush ISIS in Syria and Iraq. It has played a key role in turning the Syrian question into a question of the war on terror, ignoring all demands for Assad to step down or for holding him responsible for the disaster in Syria. Iran has forged an alliance with the Kurds in Iraq to fight ISIS, providing them with weapons, and encouraged the Kurds in Syria to forge an alliance with the regime in Damascus to work together against ISIS.
Washington has accepted Iran’s offer as an ally against ISIS, and chose to ignore the accusations against Tehran of having contributed to ISIS’s rise through its allies Assad and Maliki. Washington has decided to ignore what Tehran and Damascus did during the U.S. occupation of Iraq, when they allowed al-Qaeda – which ultimately became ISIS – to send fighters, killing hundreds of Americans. Interests come ahead of accountability, especially since Washington seems to have decided that its interests now lie with Iran, and that the only accountability it should pursue is against Arabs for the attacks of 9/11.
The Kurds in the Turkish-Iranian equation is an important issue worth examining. The Kurds also have a historic relationship with the United States. The relationship between the Gulf countries and the Kurds should be revised, with full awareness that Kurds in Iraq and Syria are part of these countries’ fabric.
The biggest threat
Turkey sees the Kurds as the biggest threat, because it is certain their goal is to establish a Kurdish state spanning Iraq, parts of Turkey, Syria, and even Iran. But Turkey’s war on the Kurds is not an Arab war. The Arab-Kurdish partnership would have been more effective if the Arab countries concerned helped the Kurds in Iraq against ISIS, instead of allowing Tehran to fill the vacuum. This might apply less on the Kurds in Syria, but it is worthwhile to study the available options for Arab-Kurdish relations in light of new developments, instead of being drawn into supporting Turkey’s Syrian campaign, which is targeting the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) as much as it is targeting ISIS.
The Saudi support for the Turkish campaign in Syria and Iraq may have caused anxiety in some Egyptian circles, especially in light of increasing speculations regarding Saudi’s willingness to engage with the Muslim Brotherhood and repeal their designation as “terrorists.” It has also caused anxiety in the ranks of Kurdish leaders, who are working on a new decade of strong Saudi-Kurdish relations. However, there was no such anxiety felt in Tehran, which seems certain that the Obama administration would not sacrifice it and abandon the partnership with Iran especially in Iraq.
Perhaps a change could come in Syria in light of the U.S.-Russian harmony in the Security Council during the Security Council session held for the briefing by U.N. Special Envoy of the Secretary-General Staffan De Mistura. The new approach has put fighting terrorism at the top of the priorities when searching for a political solution, and called for forming a joint working committee between the parties of the conflict in Syria.
The committee would work in parallel to avoid a battle over fighting terrorism first as the regime proposes or forming a transitional governing body with full powers as the opposition wants.
De Mistura and the Security Council have waited for too long at a high cost paid by the Syrians, for a nuclear deal was reached with Iran. De Mistura also had from the outset given precedence to fighting ISIS, for example in a statement he issued on the city of Kobani. Currently, De Mistura is officially introducing the issue of fighting terrorism as part of the negotiations over the future of Syria, in a departure from the Geneva communique drafted by Kofi Annan and interpreted by Lakhdar Brahimi.
De Mistura, Annan, and Brahimi have one thing in common: Accepting Iran as a key player in the negotiations over Syria, which was rejected categorically by Arab countries led by Saudi Arabia. For these countries, including Iran legitimizes its role in Syria.
In his Security Council address this week, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the international community must build on the political momentum generated by the recent nuclear agreement between Iran and six major powers to work on resolving the conflict in Syria and promoting peace in the region.
Coordination between Saudi and Egypt
Some members of the Security Council such as Spain and New Zealand called on main regional countries to wok to resolve the crisis, singling out Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia during a closed session of the Security Council. Egypt wants to be involved too, and it would be worthwhile to step up coordination between Saudi and Egypt to stop regional countries from imposing their decisions on Arab countries regarding other Arab countries. It is important to consult with the people of Syria too, including tribal and minority leaders, and with Syrians abroad while stepping up aid to their host countries led by Jordan and Lebanon.
Tehran knows what it wants and is putting into force what it has planned. Ankara is playing its cards shrouded in ambiguity. Riyadh, Cairo, Abu Dhabi, Amman, Beirut and other Arab capitals must not allow themselves to be misled and must take active part in shaping decisions concerning their own fate.

Donald Trump, a breath of fresh air among usual suspects
Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor/Al Arabiya
Wednesday, 5 August 2015
When real estate magnate and television personality, Donald Trump, first announced his intention to run for president, he was not taken seriously. There was a tendency to think that was little more than a PR attention-grabber. Media hounds had a field day. Jokes about this larger than life character permeate social media. It is true to say that he does not fit the usual presidential mould, whether in personality, his propensity to shoot from the hip or his colourful background, but I would argue that is a good thing.
The Bushes, Clintons and Obama all fit the usual bill in terms of Ivy League educations and sterling career paths, but all have embroiled the U.S. in unnecessary conflicts at great cost to the nation in terms of lives and treasure. Barack Obama, in particular, has weakened what was once considered as the most successful economic and political powerhouse on the planet with his dithering and poor decision-making that has alienated many of America’s previously staunch allies. He may possess an unusually high intellect; he is by nature a thinker, but what the U.S. needs most of all is a fearless doer; someone prepared to put their money where their mouth is.
America no longer inspires the world nor is capable of leading by example. Obama’s critics accuse him of leading from behind. They are right! If anyone is to blame for the rise of ISIS and the confused mess which the Syrian people find themselves in, then President Obama fits the bill by default. He has worn blinkers when it suited him and, worse, when he signed up to the Iran nuclear deal, he placed the Middle East and the Gulf in grave danger from an enriched, empowered and legitimized Tehran. In my opinion, he has dashed the hopes of the Palestinian people with unfulfilled promises and, although he was once an activist in the civil rights movement, he has done little to stem institutional racism that, if anything, has risen on his watch.
They all say the right things, what America wants to hear, but as soon as they get their feet through the Oval Office door, they bin their pledges to become almost clones of their predecessor, especially with regards to foreign policy. Without exception they morph into paid up members of the establishment, throwing themselves under the influence of lobbies, corporations and big money individuals with vested interests.
There is no guarantee that a President Trump would not do the same, but so far he has shown to be his own man capable of shrugging off criticisms. Nobody can accuse him of not standing up for what he believes in a forceful fashion...and he believes in bringing back his country’s superpower status. He has guts, determination and most of all he is a true American patriot.
The American people have had enough of flowery speeches, intellectual theories and empty promises. It is time that voters began scrutinizing presidential candidates through a new lens, one that is serious, positive and objective. Americans should quit judging a man by his cover and dig deep to see who possesses the necessary substance as well as life experiences.
I believe Donald Trump could be that man – and so do many Republican voters it seems. According to a poll conducted by Monmouth University he currently enjoys a more than 2-to-1 lead over his closest rival for the Republican nomination, Jeb Bush. Concurrently Democratic support for Hillary Clinton is slipping.
Trump vs. the Bush/Clinton dynasties
Until Mr. Trump held up his hand to say, I am here, the field was dominated by the Bush/Clinton dynasties, which for us on the outside looking in makes a mockery of democracy. Candidates flush with family money, capitalizing on the family name and extensive insider and corporate connections, smash the idea of a level playing field. From either Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush America can expect more of the same.
Until Mr. Trump held up his hand to say, I am here, the field was dominated by the Bush/Clinton dynasties
Then along comes Donald as living proof there are other options. A majority of American presidents come from privileged, insular backgrounds; many have been drawn from the legal profession; few have had any real business acumen and certainly not of the kind Trump has in buckets.
He is a strategist with a shrewd business mind and what I admire most about it is the way he has triumphantly rebounded from setbacks time and time again to emerge triumphant. He may not have a fancy family name or invites to political soirees in The Hamptons, but he comes with economic know how and strong relationships with world leaders and economic giants.
Until ‘America is great again’
Money is power, and money comes from smart and healthy economies. And men like Trump will know how to make that money. To save this great nation what is required is a businessman with a proven track record; someone who will not give up until “America is great again”. In truth, I don’t know Mr. Trump on a personal level but I know enough to be convinced he is the right man for the job.
Americans need employment, improved living standards, opportunity, loans for small businesses and investment in infrastructure at a time when entire cities have become economic wastelands. Most of all, they want to enjoy the fruits of a healthy economy. They have tried the brilliant speakers spouting idealistic promises or announcing unfeasible policies, who have failed to recapture America’s former glory.
Obama promised change and did not deliver because although he began his political career with a revolutionary mindset on various issues, he trampled over his own principles to reach the top and once there, was too weak kneed to rock the establishment boat. With Trump, what you see is what you get.
Yes he has a history of stepping on toes when he says it like it is – or how he sees it – but to my mind that one of his greatest advantages. He says what he thinks; he follows his heart on what is best for his country, no matter what anyone else thinks. He is a fighter and he will fight for America if he is given the chance. He is ruthless too. He has told the Republican Party that in the event he does not get its nomination, he will run as an independent, thereby splitting the Republican vote as a gift to the Democrats.
He said it himself. “I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately – fiercely, even. We are the greatest country the world has ever known. I make no apologies for this country, my pride in it, or my desire to see us become strong and rich again.”
“Wealth funds our freedom,” he has said. There has never been a truer sentence. I can only advise the American voters to reject the rich guys with fancy diplomas who have inherited famous names for someone who is proud of life’s battle scars, has overcome every challenge and come out a winner. Let us face it! America has never needed a winner in the White House as much as it does now.

Reform in the Muslim World/Articles In Saudi Press: Political Solution In Syria – The Only Way To Deal with Terrorism
MEMRI/August 4, 2015 Special Dispatch No.6124
On August 3, 2015, a series of meetings took place in the Qatari capital Doha, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and foreign ministers from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. The meetings, which focused on the July 14, 2014 nuclear deal with Iran – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – and on the situations in Yemen and Libya, as well as on the Syria crisis and the status of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, culminated in a tripartite session with Lavrov, Kerry, and Saudi Foreign Minister ‘Adel Al-Jubeir. The discussions on the Syria crisis centered on the Russian initiative for a solution there.
In recent weeks, Russia has intensified its previously low-key efforts to arrive at a solution for the Syria crisis, drawing up an initiative whose main element is the establishment of a regional alliance to fight terrorism, that will include: the Syrian regime; its main rivals in the region, Saudi Arabia and Turkey; and Jordan. As part of Russia’s efforts to promote this initiative, Russian President Vladimir Putin met, on June 20, 2015 in Russia, with Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Salman, who is third in line to the throne, and, on June 29, with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu’allem. At a joint press conference with Al-Mu’allem, Putin said that he had received signals from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan that they would be willing to participate in the struggle against the Islamic State (ISIS).[1] Officials in the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad have also repeatedly expressed willingness to cooperate with the Russian initiative.[2]
It appears that the background to Russia’s renewal and intensification of its efforts to form a regional alliance for fighting terrorism in Syria at this time is connected to international developments: the Russia-U.S. power struggle; the Iranian nuclear talks, which concluded with the JCPOA; and Saudi Arabia’s rapprochement with Russia because of the Saudi disappointment with the Obama administration’s foreign policy. To these factors are added developments on the ground, including ISIS’s increasing danger to the countries in the region and to Russia itself, and the Syrian opposition’s advance on the Syrian regime’s stronghold on the Syrian coast along with the Kurdish advance in northwestern Syria – both of which endanger the Syrian regime.
In effect, the Russian initiative is another link in the chain of Russia’s political efforts to rescue the Assad regime and to legitimize it in the eyes of the international community by claiming that it guarantees the elimination of ISIS – in this way, Russia, is effectively beating back regime opponents’ demands that Assad be removed. Russia has used this tactic before; at the January 2014 Geneva II conference, it took the position of the Assad regime and called for prioritizing the fight against terrorism and for leaving the issue of Assad’s fate for a later date.
Arab media outlets, both those close to the Assad regime and those close to Saudi Arabia, expressed high hopes for the tripartite Russian, U.S., and Saudi meeting, calling it “crucial” to the Syria crisis and to Assad’s fate.[3] This optimism came against a backdrop of numerous reports in the various Arab media, often conflicting, regarding the increasing proximity of the Saudi and Russian positions with regard to the Assad regime, and regarding growing Saudi flexibility on the issue. Thus, for example, the Saudi Al-Arabiya channel reported, citing “Russian diplomatic sources,” that the Russian initiative had garnered Saudi and U.S. support, as well as support from the Assad regime, and that therefore the meeting would put into action the Russian initiative for establishing a regional anti-terror alliance that included the Syrian regime.[4] The Lebanese Al-Akhbar daily, which is affiliated with the Syrian regime, reported that at Putin’s June 20 meeting with Saudi Prince bin Salman in Russia, bin Salman was won over, “even if against his will,” by Putin’s claim that there was no option but to cooperate with the Syrian regime in fighting the terrorism that threatened Saudi Arabia as well. This understanding led to a recent Russia-brokered meeting in Riyadh between Syrian National Security Bureau director ‘Ali Mamlouk and Saudi Prince bin Salman. While that meeting produced no results, as indicated by the reports, it was significant for having taken place at all.[5] Another report, on a Syrian opposition website, stated that at the Putin-bin Salman meeting, Putin agreed that Assad would not run in the presidential election that would follow the interim period set by the 2012 Geneva I conference,[6] but stressed that Assad would remain in power during that period and that the idea of the regional anti-ISIS alliance would be implemented.[7] The U.K.-based UAE daily Al-Arab reported that the Russian-Saudi rapprochement was coming in light of Russia’s disappointment in Iran for what it said was its destruction of the Syrian state institutions that Russia had attempted to preserve, and in light of Russia’s understanding that the Gulf states were the only ones capable of guaranteeing Russia’s interests in Syria in the future.[8]
However, these hopes were dashed. The statements of the foreign ministers and the activity of the various elements during the Doha meetings showed no progress on the issue of the Syria crisis, and showed also that both sides were still adhering to their positions. The lack of a joint concluding statement at the end of the tripartite meeting also indicates the profound disagreement among the sides. Thus, the statement that the U.S. had issued several hours prior to the tripartite meeting, that the U.S. would defend the U.S.-trained Syrian opposition fighters against all elements, including the Syrian regime, was understood by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov as thwarting the war against the terrorists. With regard to Assad’s fate, it was noted in the Joint Statement released by the U.S.-GCC foreign ministers meeting that “President Assad has lost all legitimacy” and “stressed the necessity of a new Syrian government that reflects the aspirations of the Syrian people,[9] also seems to contradict the proposed Russian initiative.
At a joint press conference with his Qatari counterpart, Lavrov declared that the Geneva I conference had not stated that there must be regime change in Syria, but that the participants in the talks had at that time agreed that an interim period be declared, whose aspects would be determined by both the Syrian regime and the Syrian opposition. He added that his country “is providing military and technical aid to the Syrian government in the struggle against the [ISIS] threat, and we have reason to believe that without this aid, the territory controlled by the terrorist entity would have been much greater.”[10]
Until recently, official Saudi elements, and the Saudi media, have refrained from expressing any position on, or even from mentioning, the Russian initiative. However, in recent days the Saudi press has published articles that could indicate the kingdom’s policy on the matter. These articles have maintained that a political solution to the Syria crisis takes precedence over fighting ISIS – which contradicts the Russian initiative discussed at Doha.
The following are excerpts from articles in the Saudi press on the issue:
Saudi Al-Watan Daily To Russia: Agreement Can Be Reached On Removal Of Assad, Status Of The Regime In Syria’s Future
The official Saudi daily Al-Watan wrote in an editorial: “… A solution to the Syrian crisis is the hub to solving the terror crisis. It is necessary to end the crisis in any way whatsoever in order to stop the bloodshed in Syria and restore security to the [country's] districts and cities. Possibly the best way is to return to the Geneva I agreement, that stipulates the necessity of establishing an agreed-upon transition government that will lead the country to secure shores.
“Although the Geneva I agreement did not explicitly determine that Bashar Al-Assad must be removed from power, this can be agreed upon, given the changes and circumstances, if the powers are interested in helping solve the problem – particularly Russia, that has more than once used its veto [power] in the [UN] Security Council in order to defend the Syrian regime…
“As for the regime’s status in Syria’s future, this is another topic that must be agreed upon, either by modifying its structure or by its immediate or gradual removal. However, the most important thing is that the state should not be left without an internal leadership capable of managing things, preventing chaos, and cooperating in order to eradicate the terror organizations.”[11]
‘Al-Riyadh’ Daily: The Assad Regime’s Continued Existence Will Make Waging War On ISIS More Difficult
In his August 3 editorial for the official Saudi daily Al-Riyadh, Ayman Al-Hamad wrote, under the title “Alliance Against ISIS – Or To Rescue Assad?”: “In the past, Russia had thrown a lifeline to the Syrian regime, in the form of [Syria's] conceding its chemical weapons stockpile in order to prevent an American attack. Today, however, it is trying to prevent [the Syrian regime] from collapsing with a lifeline that actually cannot save it from falling and drowning – [even though] the regime has acknowledged its losses and the reduction of its influence in Syria.
“Russia is gradually joining the war on ISIS. A few weeks ago, Moscow, which to date has monitored from close up the international [anti-terrorism] coalition’s operations that have been underway for the past two years against ISIS positions in Iraq and Syria, proposed an initiative whose actualization, according to the [Syrian] regime’s foreign minister, Walid Al-Mu’allem, would be a miracle – [even though] he is almost always wrong.
“[In this initiative] Russia spoke about a coalition for a war on ISIS of which the Syrian regime would be part. We do not know what Russia is basing this initiative on, because ISIS is the Assad regime’s pampered child. Indeed, the Syrian army and its militias are incessantly shelling cities where Syrian opposition forces are entrenched, and they do not flinch from killing civilians – while the ISIS areas are safe from attacks by the Syrian regime, with their explosive barrel [bombs]. We have rarely seen battles between the army of the [Syrian] regime and the ISIS terrorist organization.
“What Russia must do is find a diplomatic exit from the Syria crisis – even though the [June 30, 2012] Geneva I [Action Group for Syria Final Communiqué dealing with a political solution], that Moscow welcomed and that it had sponsored from the beginning, is today not accepted by the Syrian regime itself, which has decided to fight terrorism before anything [else] – and, according to Assad’s definition, [this] ‘terrorism’ is the Syrian opposition forces… Therefore, it is better for Moscow to pressure the [Syrian] regime to carry out a political transition that will guarantee stability of what remains of the Syrian institutions, so they will serve as the foundation [for the next stage], thus preventing a governmental vacuum.
“Currently, it is not logical that we would hear from Russia about its intention to discuss forming an anti-ISIS coalition, because the countries of the region, and of the world, have vomited out the Syrian regime; there is no possibility of turning back the clock, after the sacrifices made by the Syrians and the rivers of blood shed with the barbarity that pained the conscience of the world. What can usefully be done now is to seek an urgent exit from the Syria crisis, by means of Geneva I, and to not bring this crisis into new mazes and [lengthy] corridors that will lead only to [the shedding of] more Syrian blood, and to the strengthening of ISIS and the extremist organizations – which themselves are a product of the foot-dragging and hesitation of the Americans and the international [community] since the crisis began, on the pretext of ‘letting history run its course.’
“In light of today’s developments, with Turkey’s and the U.S.’s forceful entry into the war on ISIS, it should be said that the Syrian regime’s continued existence will make the efforts [against] and the [ultimate] triumph over ISIS lacking. The continuation of the Syria crisis means the continuation of ISIS’s existence…”[12]
Former ‘Al-Sharq Al-Awsat’ Editor: Resolving Syrian Crisis – The Key To Resolving The Problem Of ISIS
Tariq Al-Homayed, former editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote that the Syria issue was the test of how serious Russia is about turning over a new leaf in its relations with the Gulf states: “The Russian foreign minister will hold a tripartite meeting with his Saudi and American counterparts in Qatar… today [August 3]. The meeting will discuss peace efforts in Syria, Yemen, and Libya, the anti-ISIS coalition, and Gulf stability. The most striking aspect of the Russian [foreign ministry] statement [that referred to the Qatar talks]is that it does not mention the nuclear agreement with Iran…
“The knottiest and most important problem in our region today – the Syria crisis – is [also] the key to a solution in the battle against ISIS, in ending Iran’s influence in the region, and, above all, in stopping Assad’s crimes. As long as the Syrian crisis is not dealt with, the problem of ISIS [will not be resolved], and the struggle against terrorism will not succeed – it will be just a waste of time, effort, and lives, and after ISIS, more groups [like] ISIS, but worse, will emerge.
“If Russia wants to turn over a new leaf [in its relations with] the Gulf, and play a more active role, the starting point, and the test of Russia’s seriousness, must be Syria. The real solution for the struggle against terrorism, ending Iranian expansionism, and restoring the balance in Iraq lies in Syria, and nowhere else.”[13]
Senior Saudi Diplomat Turki Al-Faisal: The Political Solution In Syria Takes Precedence Over War On Terror
On July 30, 2015, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat published an article coauthored by former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to the U.S. Turki Al-Faisal, former Egyptian foreign minister and Arab League chairman ‘Amr Moussa, former Jordanian foreign minister Abdulilah Khatib, and former Kuwaiti foreign minister Muhammad Al-Salem Al-Sabbah. The article, titled “Let the Syrians [Themselves] Decide Their Future,” presents a new initiative for resolving the Syria crisis, the gist of which is holding a national Syrian conference in which all political streams and forces, from both the regime and the opposition, will participate, in order to reach understandings about Syria’s future and on the form its future regime will take.
The article states: “The Syrian people… is rooted deep within human civilization. Its history, which goes back thousands of years, is rich with cultural achievements and achievements in governance, and, if we allow it to do so, it will find its own way to save itself. Modern Syrian history includes an example [of this] in which the Syrians take pride and which they consider an honorable chapter of their political history: the 1919-1920 Syrian National Congress following the liberation of Syria during World War I. [At that time,] the Syrians themselves, with no intervention, decided to convene the congress in order to formulate the shape of the state that they wanted, and the regime it would have. Though their plan did not succeed, because France occupied their country… this [congress] is nevertheless a model to be emulated in building a new and promising future for Syria.
“We, the coauthors of this article, sincerely believe that convening an inclusive national Syrian conference, in which representatives of all the political forces, parties, and social elements in Syria will participate – [including] representatives of civil society and of cities, villages and tribes [across the country], both regime loyalists and regime opponents, however many they are – will ensure that the Syrians arrive at an understanding on the form of government and constitution that they want and that will meet their aspirations. [This will be possible] as long as they are provided with the conditions necessary for success.”
The authors go on to stress that foreign countries and elements must have no hand in the conference, neither in selecting participants nor in directing it, setting its agenda, running its sessions, or influencing its decisions. Once the Syrians reach an understanding regarding the future of their state, they said, it will be easier to wage the fight against the extremist terrorist organizations: “The propaganda that is being spread constantly by the Syrian regime [notes] the option of holding such a constituent conference, [but of doing so only] after it has successfully eliminated what it calls terrorism. But Syria could sink and disintegrate even more, and even disappear as a single united country, if the regime insists, impossibly, on turning back the clock – and it will never manage to do this. Therefore, if the regime [truly] wants what is good for Syria, it must agree to the option of the conference, in order to save the state and its people.
“It might be difficult to think about a proposal like this under the current conditions, and under the shadow of the ISIS and Jabhat Al-Nusra presence in large areas of Syria. But this could be the only way to [separate] the Syrian crisis from [the issue of] terrorism and the fight against it. This is because when the Syrians agree on the solution to their problem, the distinction [between the political crisis and the war on terror] will be clear to all the forces in the Syrian arena, both making it easier to combat terrorism and legitimizing [the war on terror] among all the forces in the region…”[14]
‘Al-Hayat’ Editor: Diplomatic Compromise Is The Only Way Out Of The Current Hell
Against the backdrop of the previous articles, an article by Ghassan Charbel, editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat, stood out in contrast. Charbel argued that any future diplomatic solution attained in Syria would have no victor or vanquished. All the parties involved in the Syrian fighting, he wrote, including the countries that had supported them, would have to make painful compromises and “drink from the poisoned chalice,” because ISIS and the other terrorist organizations represented a greater danger to the countries supporting the Syrian opposition than to the Assad regime. He wrote:
“As of now, no one can claim victory in this difficult war [in Syria]. The maximum that each party can claim is half a victory and half a defeat. The cruelest thing is that no solution in Syria can provide any party with gains or guarantees that can balance out the losses that it incurred. No party will obtain in negotiations the maximum that it failed to obtain in the battle arena. It is possible that for this reason some prefer the disasters involved in the continuation of the war to the disappointments that will be involved in a diplomatic solution – even despite the knowledge that this is the only way out of the current hell.
“The Syrian opposition cannot claim victory. Obviously it has managed to undermine the regime that has ruled in the country for over five decades with tough security control, and compelled it to retreat from part of the Syrian lands. But it has not managed to completely uproot it. Additionally, at the start of the protests, the opposition demanded a united and democratic Syria – but the areas [that it has conquered], and which should presumably be under its control, are ruled by anti-democratic and anti-pluralist elements that are opposed by a wide range of Syrians, as well as by regional and international parties.
“[Likewise], the regime cannot claim victory. [It is true that] it boasted repeatedly [of its victory,] but it later retreated and withdrew into an area representing 20% of Syrian soil… The regime can view its very survival as half a victory, but it is undeniable that its weakening constitutes half a defeat.
“The states that supported the [Syrian] regime cannot claim victory [simply] because they prevented its removal. They can speak of half a victory, that guarantees the [regime's] representatives a seat around the [diplomatic] solution table, and guarantees their places in the framework of efforts to attain the solution. Nevertheless, these countries cannot deny that they [have suffered] half a defeat, manifested in their fighting against the majority [of the Syrian people] and by the fact that their ally [Assad] is [now] situated on only a fraction of the Syrian map. Neither can the elements that supported the opposition complete victory, because the regime that they dreamed of removing still exists, even if it is weakened and defeated. They cannot deny that ISIS, Jabhat Al-Nusra, and their ilk pose a greater danger to them than the Assad regime and its alliance with Iran…
“Any diplomatic solution in Syria will make each of the sides, inside and outside Syria, drink not insignificantly from the poisoned chalice. There is no solution in Syria that will give all the parties something to counterbalance the loss in life and other damage caused them. This is true for both the Sunnis and the ‘Alawites… There is no solution that will give Iran a status similar to what it enjoyed before the outbreak of the fighting…
“I k that the expression ‘half a victory and half a defeat’ is very painful to someone who lost dear ones to the barrel [bombs] and other weapons, to those scattered in wretched refugee camps, to those waiting a long time in the refugee camps of Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, and to those suffering the horror of the sunken [refugee] death ships. But this is the reality. No one won by a knockout. The one certain thing is that Syria itself was killed in the war – it is the biggest fatality.”[15]
Endnotes:
[1]Al-Watan (Syria), June 30, 2015.
[2] Dp-news.com, July 22-23, 2015.
[3] Elaph.com, August 2, 2015.
[4] Alarabiya.net, August 1, 2015
[5]Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), July 31, 2015.
[6] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 867, Amidst Accusations Of Collaborating With Assad, Russia, And Iran, UN Envoy Annan Resigns In Failure, August 02, 2012.
[7] Orient-news.net, August 3, 2015.
[8] Alarab.co.uk, August 1, 2015.
[9] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), August 4, 2015; State.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/08/245619.htm, August 3, 2015.
[10] Mid.ru, August 3, 2015.
[11] Al-Watan, (Saudi Arabia), August 4, 2015.
[12]Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), August 3, 2015.
[13]Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 3, 2015.
[14]Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), July 30, 2015.

The Regional Impact of Additional Iranian Money
Michael Eisenstadt, Simon Henderson, Michael Knights, Matthew Levitt, and Andrew J. Tabler/Washington Institute
First posted on July 28, 2015
A post-sanctions windfall would give Tehran ample capacity to rescue the Syrian regime, reshape Iraq's political environment, expand its terrorist proxy activities in various theaters, and otherwise amplify the effects of its destabilizing regional posture.
If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is implemented and sanctions are lifted, Iran will gain access to tens of billions of dollars, at first from blocked accounts and later from additional oil sales. Presumably, Tehran will spend the vast bulk of this money on pressing domestic needs. If, however, it also decides to direct substantial funding to foreign adventures in keeping with its longstanding track record (e.g., see PolicyWatch 2452, "How Iran's Economic Gain from a Nuclear Deal Might Affect Its Foreign Policy"), what impact would such expenditures have around the region? Certainly cash is not the only constraint on Iran's ability to project power; for example, it also faces shortages of Arabic-speaking trainers for its militant and terrorist proxies. But what difference would more cash make in theaters such as Syria, Iraq, and the Gulf states, for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and for Iran's own conventional military forces?
SYRIA
If Tehran increases funding to its ally in Damascus, it would dramatically improve the prospects for the Assad regime's survival, albeit in diminished form. Iran's current commitments in Syria amount to an estimated several billion dollars per year. Any new cash transfers would be used for everything from supplementing the Assad regime's public expenditures to keeping the bureaucracy functioning, maintaining the diminished army, and propping up the exchange rate of the Syrian pound. These transfers would be in addition to shipments of food and energy products for subsidized sale by the regime, particularly crude oil and refined diesel fuel, which have not been subject to sanctions. By one recent estimate, Iran shipped around sixty thousand barrels per day of crude oil to Syria in the first half of this year, which projects to about $1.2 billion annually.
Besides direct assistance to the regime, additional Iranian spending would go to the National Defense Forces, the pro-Assad local militias overseen by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). By some estimates, the minority-dominated NDF now equal the army's manpower and are taking the majority of casualties in the war. Iran also sponsors a growing number of foreign Shiite fighters in Syria, providing salaries, training, weapons, and daily expenses. These include personnel from Lebanese Hezbollah, which has deployed around 5,000 fighters. Overall, an increase in available funds would substantially expand the IRGC's ability to coordinate all of these groups' operations in Syria, and to engage in direct battlefield operations of its own, thereby increasing the Assad regime's reliance on Tehran for survival. — Tabler
IRAQ
An Iranian windfall from the JCPOA would likely trigger an unprecedented intensification of influence-buying in Iraq. Additional financial clout would be particularly useful to Iran at this time because Baghdad stands at a political threshold. Since June 2014, the Hashd al-Shabi (i.e., Popular Mobilization Units or PMUs) have contributed materially to Iraqi victories against the "Islamic State"/ISIS. These militias are commanded by Iranian-backed figures such as Badr Organization leader Hadi al-Ameri, Asaib Ahl al-Haq leader Qais al-Khazali, and U.S.-designated terrorist Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Likewise, some of the most powerful PMUs (e.g., Kataib Hezbollah) are U.S.-designated terrorist groups with direct command and logistical ties to the IRGC's Qods Force.
More money to the IRGC would therefore bring greater financial and military support to the PMUs. Currently, total U.S. funding for the Iraq Train and Equip Fund is $1.6 billion, only $700 million of which is due to be disbursed in the coming year. If Iran commits sufficient money to Iraq post-sanctions, it could overmatch Washington as Baghdad's main security partner, with disastrous effects on the Iraqi military professionals the United States is trying to strengthen. ISIS would not be the only victim of Iran-funded PMUs: the military balance could permanently shift against the formal Iraqi security forces if Tehran strongly outperforms the West in arming its allies.
Iranian proxies will also seek to exploit their prominent war role to dominate Iraq's provincial elections in 2017 and parliamentary elections in 2018. If successful, they could overturn the political order, surpassing Shiite moderates and technocrats such as Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. As with elections in other countries, money talks in Iraqi political contests. During the 2010 parliamentary campaign, Vice President Joe Biden estimated that Iran spent $100 million to strengthen its Iraqi proxies. In the coming years, it could unleash a tsunami of sponsored media, street-level electioneering, and patronage in support of former PMU commanders turned candidates. More broadly, an infusion of cash into Iran's influence-building efforts -- including subsidized electricity to Iraqi border provinces, influence-peddling among Shiite bureaucrats and leaders, and pilgrimage-related investments -- could be the nail in the coffin for moderates seeking to retain Iraq's strategic independence in the face of already-severe Iranian pressure. — Knights
HEZBOLLAH
Iran is Hezbollah's primary benefactor, funding the group to the tune of some $200 million per year, plus weapons, training, intelligence support, logistical assistance, and more. Over the past eighteen months, however, Iran has had to cut back on this support due to the drop in oil prices and the increasing pressure of international sanctions. In March 2014, the Treasury Department reported that a collateral benefit of its unprecedented sanctions regime was "squeezing Tehran's ability to fund terrorist groups such as Hezbollah," and the cutback has affected the organization's political, social, and military activities within Lebanon more than anything else. In January 2015, multiple reports highlighted its domestic financial hardships: Hezbollah social service institutions had to cut costs, employees received delayed payments and in some cases were laid off, and funding for Shiite and even Sunni civilian organizations close to the group was reduced. The exception was Hezbollah's Syria command -- a priority for Tehran given its commitment to defending the Assad regime -- which shows no sign of financial hardship.
If sanctions are lifted in whole or in part, the collateral benefit of undermining Hezbollah's financial stability would quickly be reversed. An influx of Iranian money would enable the group to push back against political and social forces -- in Lebanon writ large and within the country's Shiite community -- that are deeply uncomfortable with the consequences of its ongoing intervention in Syria.
Increased Iranian spending would also benefit Hezbollah's regional and international operations. Once limited to jockeying for political power in Lebanon and fighting Israel, the group is now a regional player engaged in conflicts far beyond its historical area of operations, often in cooperation with Iran. With more money, it could step up its aid to Shiite militias in places such as Iraq and Yemen, sending small numbers of skilled trainers to bolster local forces and sometimes fight alongside them. In particular, it could expand support to Yemen's Houthi rebels, an effort currently managed by Khalil Harb, a former special operations commander and close advisor to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Finally, increased funding could help Hezbollah further reconstitute its international terrorist capabilities. The group has already expanded operations in countries as disparate as Cyprus, Peru, and Thailand. Most recently, a Hezbollah operative was caught using his residence in the Cypriot capital as a "point of export" from which to funnel tons of explosives for attacks throughout Europe. — Levitt
HAMAS AND OTHER PALESTINIAN TERRORIST GROUPS
Hamas has faced a difficult situation in Gaza since its summer 2014 war with Israel, refusing to relinquish authority to its Fatah rival but unable to finance reconstruction on its own. The group faces a challenge from the right as well -- Salafi jihadists who profess allegiance to ISIS are contesting its authority, clashing with its forces, and plotting to attack Israel and Egypt. And so, even as Hamas political leaders pursue negotiated resolutions to their predicament, the group's military wing has become the dominant player within the movement and is already preparing for its next battle with Israel by running training camps, digging new tunnels, and producing and procuring rockets and other weapons. An infusion of funds from Iran would enable Hamas to contend with internal challenges by providing services and reconstruction in Gaza, and enhance its ability to project power by underwriting a military buildup. According to an April article in the Wall Street Journal, intelligence reports indicate that Iran began funding new tunnel reconstruction and rocket procurement earlier this year, so additional funds could kick this nascent project into high gear.
Hamas operations outside Gaza could benefit as well, including West Bank activities headed by Saleh al-Arouri and other Turkey-based Hamas military commanders. Last year, Israel authorities captured two brothers attempting to smuggle around 10,000 euros and 900 dollars into the West Bank for Hamas. This case and a host of others were traced back to Arouri's network in Turkey (see "Hamas's Not-So-Secret Weapon").
Increased Iranian funding would help other Palestinian terrorist groups too. Unlike Hamas, which pursues its goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in place of Israel through various types of activities, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) is an almost exclusively terrorist group committed to acts of violence to achieve its vision. Its operations are constrained only by financial and material limitations, so a surge in Iranian investment would have a direct impact on its ability to carry out more (and more capable) attacks. Since Tehran pulled its funding for the group earlier this year, PIJ has been suffering from what a recent al-Monitor article called the "worst financial crisis in its history." It had to shutter a television station and several of its few nonmilitary offices and committees, and it could not pay operatives' salaries for a period of time. Given its relatively small size, however, the group could quickly resurrect itself with more money.
Iran could likewise funnel funds to militant groups associated with Fatah (e.g., al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Tanzim militia), as it has done before. Even a small amount of funding could facilitate operations by disgruntled Fatah operatives seeking to assert themselves against President Mahmoud Abbas by targeting Israel. In the past, similarly modest Iranian investments enabled Palestinian terrorist groups to attack at crucial moments, such as the period leading up to Israel's 1996 elections and the second intifada. — Levitt
THE ARABIAN PENINSULA
The prospect of Iran becoming flush with money petrifies the Sunni-ruled kingdoms and sheikhdoms of the Gulf, especially Bahrain (given its majority Shiite population) and Saudi Arabia (whose own Shiites form a local majority in the Eastern Province, where the kingdom's main oil fields and installations are located). Notably, when Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif embarked on a Gulf tour in recent days, he omitted Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, instead stopping in Qatar (with which Iran shares the world's largest offshore natural gas field), Kuwait, and Iraq. Also left out, apparently at the last moment, was the United Arab Emirates, where the trading hub of Dubai is hoping to gain from increased commerce with Iran.
On July 25, Bahrain announced that it had intercepted a speedboat in the Persian Gulf carrying guns, ammunition, and explosives, describing them as being of Iranian origin. The Bahraini ambassador to Tehran was also recalled "for consultations," a significant form of diplomatic protest. In response, Iran's Foreign Ministry called the allegations "unfounded" and accused Manama of trying to "create a climate of tension in the region."
Meanwhile, two Bahraini policemen were killed and several injured in a bombing earlier today, the island's most serious violence in months. State-controlled media announced that the explosives used in the attack were similar to previously discovered caches allegedly smuggled from Iran. Whatever the case, the incident probably ends the hopeful expectation of some local activists that, after the nuclear deal, Tehran would use diplomatic pressure to press for greater Shiite political participation rather than support new violence.
In Yemen, the Saudi/UAE-led coalition fighting to reinstall President Abdu Rabu Mansour al-Hadi continues to blame Iran for backing opposition forces led by Houthi rebels and supporters of former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. Although many outside analysts doubt the extent of Iran's current assistance, the potential lifting of sanctions means that any future aid to the Houthis would not be constrained by lack of cash in Tehran. — Henderson
CONVENTIONAL ARMS
While the JCPOA retains the ban on arms transfers to the Islamic Republic (and is unclear regarding transfers by the regime), Tehran has said it will continue to reject these restrictions and seek to circumvent them. In recent years, it has succeeded in acquiring key pieces of equipment and special materials needed for its ballistic and cruise missile programs, despite sanctions and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) restrictions. The suspension of sanctions would only exacerbate this problem, as new cash could be used to pay off the many middle-men who make proscribed transfers possible. In addition, Iran would likely increase procurements from its diverse and extensive domestic arms industry, including ammunition, small arms and light weapons, and light tactical vehicles -- the type of arms most needed by its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. It might also seek UN permission to acquire equipment such as advanced sensors and night vision devices, arguing that they are needed to secure Iran's borders against ISIS.
Tehran has always preferred to fight to the last foreign proxy while keeping its own people out of the line of fire. Yet its Hezbollah and Iraqi militia allies are currently overstretched fighting against government forces in Yemen, and against oppositionists and Sunni jihadists in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. A fresh infusion of cash may permit Iran to avoid the tough decision about whether to commit more of its own forces to these fights. Instead, it might be able to expand recruitment of foreigners, including more Afghani and Pakistani Shiites (though whether they would prove useful as fighters is another matter). In a series of inconclusive fights in which its allies are showing fatigue, even incremental reinforcements might make a difference.
Once the ban on arms transfers to Iran is lifted five years hence, the regime might try to modernize its conventional forces in niche areas rather than conduct a major makeover costing tens of billions of dollars. It would likely acquire advanced surface-to-air missiles, advanced munitions, armored vehicles, attack helicopters, and ground support aircraft. It could also seek to bolster its logistical and force-projection capabilities if it expects to remain involved in regional conflicts such as those in Syria and Yemen. — Eisenstadt
CONCLUSION
Perhaps the most important impact of the JCPOA would be to confirm Iran's narrative that it is a rising power, that the United States is in decline, and that the great powers submitted to Tehran's will. And by using monies freed up by the lifting of sanctions to fund and arm its regional allies, it will try to demonstrate that it is a far more reliable partner than the United States. In other words, it will try to use the agreement to burnish its triumphalist narrative and further shape the region's psychological environment in a manner conducive to its interests. Given a regime that is all about reputation management, and a region where perception often trumps reality, many of Iran's allies and adversaries alike would see this as a signal achievement. — Eisenstadt
Michael Eisenstadt is the Kahn Fellow and director of the Military and Security Studies Program at The Washington Institute. Simon Henderson is the Institute's Baker Fellow and director of its Gulf and Energy Policy Program. Michael Knights is a Lafer Fellow with the Institute. Matthew Levitt is the Institute's Fromer-Wexler Fellow and director of its Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. Andrew Tabler is a senior fellow at the Institute.

Stopping the settler state
Chris Doyle/Al Arabiya
Wednesday, 5 August 2015
Sit back and imagine for one second what would be involved in moving six million American citizens into Afghanistan? Perhaps it is easier to envisage 400,000 Russian civilians crossing over into the Crimea. How many troops would be required to bring this about and the keep them safe from an unwelcoming population?
Well this has been the equivalent scale of the Israeli settlement project. There are nearly 600,000 Israeli Jewish settlers in 150 settlements amongst almost 3 million Palestinians. Half a century this has taken and the illegal enterprise is far from complete. Thankfully but amazingly very few settlers are killed. Palestinian ability to resist has been doused by a mixture of force, intimidation, barriers, checkpoints and curfews. The entirety of the West Bank can be locked down into separate parcels in minutes.
Can it ever be undone? Can an Israeli government reverse this and withdraw over half a million of its citizens, some of whom believe they are on a divine mission in the West Bank? Can an Israeli Prime Minister commit to his word to crack down on settler terrorism?
Born under occupation
The terrible arson attack and murder of 18-month-old baby Ali Dawabsheh on July must 31 be seen in this context. He was born under occupation where Palestinians exist on ever diminishing land and resources, confronting an ever-expanding more powerful settler movement. Not all settlers want to see Palestinians being kicked out but most do not want them to get in their way of the expansion of their cities, towns and villages. Making life as unpleasant as possible for Palestinians is an essential part of the settler strategy, and therefore the government’s. Burning Palestinian crops and olive graves, harassing them at every opportunity are designed to make them want to leave.
Can an Israeli Prime Minister commit to his word to crack down on settler terrorism?
Those that should be on trial are the Israel government and security apparatus who have indulged this illegal movement? They now find that in many ways it is a threat to the state of Israel itself.
What should the international community expect realistically from Israel? Let us dare to dream.
If major players are serious (doubtful), the long-term demand should be the complete evacuation of all settlements. Only if Palestinians agree, can there be land swaps based on equal size and quality. It should clear that no matter how many settlement announcements, how many tenders offered, how many homes built, this titanic violation of international law cannot continue. The International Criminal Court lurks around the corner, as the settlements are a breach of the Rome statute as a war crime. Ideally settlers should be withdrawn – the lands and resources returned to the Palestinians. Does anyone see this happening?
But short term, there is much the Israeli government could do or be made to do even without a political process if it wants to convince the world it is serious about settler terrorism en route to ending the occupation. It has to end the settler state.
Protect Palestinians too
First, the perpetrators of these attacks must face the full force of the law meaning that the existing figure of 2.5% of Palestinian complaints against settler crimes leading to conviction might go up. This must be done but both settlers and Palestinians must have with their full rights respected. Neither should face demolition of homes as a collective punishment as currently happens to Palestinians. The Israeli security cabinet has just approved administrative detention for Jewish terrorists. Just as it was wrong for Palestinians it is wrong for settlers – all save in exceptional circumstances.
Second, the Israeli military should change their mission not just to protect the settlers but the Palestinians too. No longer should soldiers stand aside and just allow settlers to harass and attack Palestinians with impunity.
Third, settlers should come under the exclusive jurisdiction of military law in just the same way as Palestinians do. At present they are governed by Israeli domestic civil law. This would end the dual legal system, the two laws for two peoples apartheid-like existence. Settlers would appear side by side with Palestinians in a military court. Roads should be open for all. If all this happened, settler pressure would ensure that a whole raft of unfair existing military orders would soon be changed.
Fourth, settlers should be disarmed. Only by taking away their Uzis, Galils and M16s will settlers understand that the law has to apply to them too. This was mooted back in 1994 after the Hebron massacre. Sadly, Yitzhak Rabin, then Prime Minister and ultimately a victim of a far right Israeli assassin himself, baulked at this opportunity and a chance was missed.
Fifth, Israeli politicians instead of pushing solely for Palestinians to stop incitement must end their own. The climate and hatred, racism and bigotry has reached frightening levels even at the heart of the existing coalition. Should Israel have as a Deputy Defense Minister a man who stated about the Palestinians in 2013: “To me, they are like animals, they aren’t human?” Why not rename all the myriad streets in Israel named after Jewish terrorists?
Finally, there should be a proper settlement freeze that includes Jerusalem and existing settlement building. In addition there should be no more soft loans and no settlements should be allowed to be given National Priority area status, where currently, settlements get a third of all the state’s budget for subsidizing housing units. Settlers should not get cheap mobile homes to expand their empire.
In short, Israel must end the privileged status for settlers and settlements to be taken seriously.
For the Palestinians, containing their anger and desisting from revenge attacks will be tough but necessary. Some clashes are inevitable as seen on Al Aqsa on Sunday. The West Bank was already boiling and renewed talk of a third Intifada will gain volume. Yet Palestinians must not sink to the settler level. Hamas’s call stating that Israeli soldiers and settlers are “legitimate” targets might sate their thirst for revenge but is wrong and counterproductive. A Molotov cocktail attack on 3 August in northern Jerusalem is a reminder of where this might go.
And for the international community? Well, the chance of this Israeli cabinet taking on the settlers as described above is about as likely as Donald Trump becoming President of Mexico.
The EU in particular should grow a spine and actually start taking some action to see its own declarations and laws fulfilled. How about an EU price-tag policy, impose a cost on Israel but in this case to reinforce international law not break it.
Settlement goods should become akin to conflict diamonds whose trade is outlawed by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1173. Like these diamonds, settlements and settlers exacerbates a conflict. A full legal ban on settlement products and services in the EU should be the logical outcome of declaring routinely that all settlements are illegal ever since 1967. Why not stop the sale of settlement properties in the EU where they are still freely advertised? Banks, insurance companies, and other financial services should not be allowed to deal with settlements. The barest minimum should be that the much promised labeling of settlement goods could be formalized. So far only the United Kingdom and Denmark have done this. Another suggestion is a visa ban for settlers who carry out or promote “price-tag” attacks.
When Russia illegally annexed the Crimea, immediate and tough EU measures were taken including prohibition on imports and investment as part of a complete non-recognition policy. Israel should not be treated any differently.
The vast majority of the diplomatic statements on this conflict are fit for the ever-expanding garbage mountains of Beirut. The Israeli government and settlers gleefully ignore the rhetorical condemnations. It is only specific actions with specific consequences that will have any meaningful impact. Stop dreaming now. The nightmare will no doubt continue.

Assessing the Iran Nuclear Agreement and The Washington Institute’s Iran Study Group June 24 Policy Statement/Joint Statement by Robert Satloff, Dennis Ross, James Jeffrey, Patrick Clawson, David Makovsky, Michael Eisenstadt, and Simon Henderson
Washington Institute/August 4, 2015
Since the announcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), members of The Washington Institute’s Iran Study Group have met to assess the agreement’s relationship to the parameters outlined in the study group’s June 24 policy statement. Members of the study group have also benefited from several hours of discussions with senior U.S. government officials from the White House, Treasury Department, and other agencies to seek clarifications of the text and discuss areas of concern held by members of the group.
Various members of the study group have elsewhere expressed their personal views on the merits of the JCPOA; others may express such views in the coming days. The purpose of this statement is narrower than that, i.e., for The Washington Institute staff experts who are signatories of the June 24 statement to assess the relationship of the JCPOA to the Study Group’s June 24 statement. None of these staff experts have yet to express definitive judgments on the merits of the JCPOA.
The JCPOA has several major achievements, especially the long-term restrictions on key aspects of Iran’s declared nuclear program that—if fully implemented, monitored and verified—are likely to prevent Iranian nuclear breakout for up to 15 years. These include the cap on the stockpile of low-enriched uranium for 15 years, the absence of any reprocessing capabilities for this same period, the removal of the core of the Arak plutonium reactor and the monitoring of the core elements of the supply chain for 25 years.
At the same time, we assess that critical aspects of the JCPOA may fall short of the standards outlined in the study group’s June 24 statement. We recommend the following clarifications and additional measures, many of which should appropriately be addressed before Congress votes on the JCPOA.
The June 24 statement outlined five technical parameters for the agreement as well as additional points on deterrence and a “resolute regional strategy”:
Monitoring and verification. The agreement meets the study group’s parameters for access to all known sites in Iran, including 24/7 access to declared sites such as Natanz and Fordow. However, we are concerned about whether it provides adequately “timely access” when it comes to undeclared sites. The 24 days allotted to potential delaying tactics by Iran before the issue is transferred for UN Security Council action would probably not permit Iran to hide or scrub sites where nuclear material is being used in illicit fashion. But it may very well make it possible to hide other types of violations, including potential violations of Iran’s commitments in terms of weapons design work, design and manufacture of nonnuclear components used in nuclear weapons, etc. We urge the administration to clarify its plans to address these important issues to ensure the integrity of the JCPOA’s monitoring and verification provisions.
Possible military dimensions. Because the precise terms of the IAEA “roadmap” agreement with Iran on this issue are so vague, and because the agreement on access to the Parchin military site has yet to be made public, it is difficult to know whether it meets the terms specified in the study group statement: that IAEA inspectors have the ability “to take samples, to interview scientists and government officials, to inspect sites, and to review and copy documents as required for their investigation.” Further clarification is needed.
Advanced centrifuges. In the June 24 statement, the study group called for measures that “preclude the rapid technical upgrade and expansion of Iran’s enrichment capacity after the initial 10-year period.” On this issue, the agreement appears to meet our standard insofar as it stipulates a cap of 300 kilograms on the stockpile of low-enriched uranium that Iran can have for 15 years. At year 10, however, limits on centrifuges begin to be removed, and at year 15, all limits are terminated. While Iran is obligated to share with the IAEA its long-term plan for research and development on centrifuges, that plan is neither public nor binding. Without knowing the content of the plan, it is difficult to judge whether this parameter has been fully met. Given that an essential element of the JCPOA is that Iran has promised “transparency” in exchange for retaining its nuclear infrastructure, we believe it is essential that Iran’s long-term R&D plan be made public soon to allow considered judgment of whether the limitations outlined in the text reflect the intent of the JCPOA.
Sanctions relief. The JCPOA does condition the most substantial sanctions relief on Iran’s fulfillment of its core requirements, as called for in our statement. Moreover, U.S. officials have committed publicly that nonnuclear sanctions will remain fully in force. In addition, U.S. officials have also clarified for members of the study group what was not spelled out clearly in the deal:
that institutions and individuals on whom nuclear-related sanctions will be lifted can subsequently be sanctioned for terrorism or other reasons, should they merit such designations;
that b¬ecause the secondary nonnuclear sanctions remain in place, the United States will still not allow use of the U.S. dollar in trade with Iranian individuals and institutions in any way associated with Iran’s support for terrorism, meaning that Iran cannot use dollars in its oil trade; and that the United States will continue to designate for nonnuclear sanctions individuals and institutions, even those on whom nuclear sanctions are being lifted, if their conduct so merits.
These are important statements. Equally important is to make sure that other members of the P5+1, especially our European allies, understand the scope of continuing U.S. sanctions, so that tensions with our allies do not substitute for pressure on Iran. The administration should publicly clarify U.S. policy on this issue and ensure that our allies have a common understanding.
Consequences of violations. The agreement includes a creative mechanism to provide for the reimposition of UN sanctions in the event of Iranian noncompliance, as called for in the study group’s June 24 statement. But this relates to significant violations of the agreement. The snapback function may work for significant violations, but there is concern whether it will work for lesser violations and whether the United States and its partners will risk the whole agreement in order to impose penalties for lesser violations, particularly given Iran’s statement in the agreement that it reserves the right to “cease performing its commitments . . . in whole or in part” in response to reimposition of any sanctions.
From discussions with U.S. officials, we appreciate that the United States has prepared its own approach toward penalties for various types of small and mid-sized Iranian violations of the agreement, which rely principally on the reimposition of certain unilateral U.S. sanctions. However, details of this have not been made public. Moreover, lack of a common understanding on this issue within the P5+1, and even between the United States and its European allies, is a potentially serious problem. After negotiating an agreement based on the idea of collective action against the Iran nuclear threat, the resort to U.S. unilateral sanctions for penalties for Iranian violations will likely trigger U.S.-European tension precisely when the focus of collective effort should be to confront Iran with the unified stance of the JCPOA parties, even on lesser violations or infractions.
To remedy this problem, the administration needs to reach common understanding now at least with our European allies on how the JCPOA parties will respond to various types of Iranian violations. To have the most-powerful deterrent effect, the key elements of these understandings should be made public. This is important: if the United States and its allies are unable to calibrate their response to a range of possible Iranian violations now, their lack of common action later might embolden Iran to miscalculate with a major violation that could threaten the entire agreement.
A similar approach is needed toward clarifying the issue of the so-called grandfather clause in Paragraph 37 (the “snapback” paragraph). From discussions with U.S. officials, we welcome the U.S. view that this language does not shield contracts entered into legally from the impact of the reimposition of sanctions. We are, however, concerned that not all P5+1 countries share the U.S. view and are willing to confirm that publicly. The administration should seek common public clarification on this issue with all P5+1 parties as soon as possible.
In addition to these technical issues within the text, the JCPOA does not address two other essential elements of the June 24 statement:
To strengthen deterrence of Iran, it is also important for Israel to have its own independent deterrent capacity. To that end, we urge the Obama administration to commit to providing technology to Israel that would secure this objective over time, starting with proposing to transfer to Israel the Massive Ordinance Penetrator and the requisite aircraft, which will ensure that Israel has the ability at a later date to deter Iran from reaching a nuclear weapon.
A call for the United States to affirm that it is U.S. policy to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from producing sufficient fissile material (highly enriched uranium) for a nuclear weapon – or otherwise acquiring or building one – both during the agreement and after it expires. This is a vital initiative because Iran will remain a nuclear threshold state (and will clearly have retained the option of becoming a nuclear weapon state) as restrictions on stockpiles of uranium and centrifuge production lapse gradually after 10 years and, along with the ban on reprocessing, end after 15 years, and the question is raised about what would deter Iran from then developing a nuclear weapon. One powerful element of deterrence would be for the United States to go on record now that it is committed to using all means necessary, including military force, to prevent this. While some senior administration officials have made positive statements in this direction, such as the statement made in recent Congressional testimony by energy Secretary Moniz to the effect that development of HEU by Iran at any point in the future would be a red line that the United States should not allow, we urge the president now to formalize this as a declaration of a U.S. policy and Congress should formally endorse it.
To strengthen deterrence of Iran, it is also important for Israel to have its own independent deterrent capacity. To that end, we urge the Obama administration to commit to providing technology to Israel that would secure this objective over time, starting with proposing to transfer to Israel the Massive Ordinance Penetrator and the requisite aircraft, which will ensure that Israel has the ability at a later date to deter Iran from reaching a nuclear weapon.
Separate from the agreement, the study group called on the president to articulate a “resolute regional strategy” to counter Iranian negative behavior throughout the Middle East. We believe the articulation and implementation of this enhanced effort to counter Iranian negative behavior—and to support allies and partners—in the region is both important and urgent, given the substantial financial benefits Iran will receive early in the implementation of this agreement and the likelihood that considerable sums will be directed toward Iran’s destabilizing regional activities. Working with our allies, we urge the administration to build on the president’s GCC Summit and discussions of Secretaries Carter and Kerry and adopt a number of tangible steps as soon as possible.
The study group offered several specific suggestions:
In Iraq. Expand training and arming of not only Iraqi Security Forces but also Kurdish Peshmerga in the north and vetted Sunni forces in the West. Allow U.S. Special Forces to leave their bases and help coordinate air strikes and stiffen Iraqi units. Provide advisors to select brigade headquarters. Sideline Iranian-backed militia and separate them from Shiite units (“popular mobilization units”) that are not under Iranian control.
In Syria. Expand and accelerate the U.S. train-and-equip programs, even if it entails accepting certain risks in the vetting of trainees. Work with Turkey to create a safe haven in northern Syria where refugees can obtain humanitarian aid and vetted nonextremist opposition fighters can be trained and equipped. Capitalize on Bashar al-Assad’s increasing weakness to split off regime elements and seek to join them with U.S.-trained opposition elements. Interdict the transshipment of Iranian weapons into Syria in coordination with the Kurds and Turkey, and consider designating as terrorist organizations additional Iranian-backed Shiite militias responsible for atrocities
In Yemen. Expand support for Saudi Arabia and the UAE in pressuring the warring parties to the negotiating table while seeking to split the Houthi elements away from Iran.
Regionally. Interdict Iranian arms bound for extremist groups and continue to counter its Iran’s efforts to harass commercial shipping and our naval forces. Reaffirm U.S. policy on Iran’s efforts to subvert local governments and project its power at the expense of our friends and allies.
In the June 24 report, the study group noted that, taken collectively, these steps also strengthen U.S. capability against Daesh (the misnamed “Islamic State”). Acting against both Iranian hegemony and Daesh’s caliphate will help reassure friends and allies of America’s continued commitment. And it will help address Israel’s legitimate concerns that a nuclear agreement will validate Iran’s nuclear program, facilitate its destabilizing behavior, and encourage further proliferation at a time when Israel faces the possible erosion of its “qualitative military edge.” We urged the U.S. administration to create a discreet, high-level mechanism with the Israeli government to identify and implement responses to each of these concerns and understand the administration has been attempting to launch such a discussion.
While the president and top officials have made some important statements in this realm, such a “resolute regional strategy” has not been clearly and definitively articulated. Given that Iran has publicly stated its intention to pursue its negative regional behavior in the period ahead, it is important for the administration to intensify its current efforts to work closely with our allies, both in the region and more broadly, so Iran sees clearly the costs of more aggressive action.
It is important to note the connection between Iran’s regional policies and the nuclear accord. If Iran views the regional environment as permissive, in which there is not sufficient pushback against its negative regional behavior, it will be more inclined to test the bounds of the nuclear agreement. By contrast, if Iran finds that it encounters effective U.S. pushback wherever it seeks to expand its influence, it will likely be less inclined to test the limits of the nuclear agreement.
Patrick Clawson, Morningstar Senior Fellow, director of research, The Washington Institute
Michael Eisenstadt, Kahn Fellow, director of the Military and Security Studies Program, The Washington Institute
Simon Henderson, Baker Fellow, director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program, The Washington Institute
James Jeffrey, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, 2010-2012, deputy national security advisor to President George W Bush, 2007-2008. Philip Solondz Distinguished Fellow, The Washington Institute
David Makovsky, senior policy advisor to the U.S. special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (2013-2014). Ziegler Distinguished Fellow and director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process, The Washington Institute
Dennis Ross, special assistant to President Obama and National Security Council senior director for the central region, 2009-2011. Counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow, The Washington Institute
Robert Satloff, Howard P. Berkowitz Chair in U.S. Middle East Policy and executive director, The Washington Institute.
This statement reflects the collective views of its signatories. It does not necessarily reflect the views of The Washington Institute’s Board of Directors, Board of Trustees or Board of Advisors; nor does it necessarily reflect the views of other members of the Iran Study Group

The perils of social media’s public shaming
Diana Moukalled/Al Arabiya
Wednesday, 5 August 2015
Some people write comments on Twitter or Facebook thinking they are funny or a little mean, but are surprised by the extent of the reaction, which sometimes turns into a campaign of public shaming that can destroy one’s social life and career.
I have for two weeks followed the most important hashtags suggested to me by Twitter and Facebook. Two or three out of 10 suggested hashtags included some sort of public shaming, contempt or mockery of certain people. A quick read of the comments shows the size and ferocity of the criticism, which most times can be insulting or even racist. Social networking websites have become an indispensable tool, as they reveal the public mood. However, they also expose how many people resort to social media to overly scandalize someone who probably made a mistake. This is not a call to fear expression on social media, but we must realize how many people are influenced by what we say and write. The phenomenon of public shaming via social media is global. Perhaps the best book written in this field is Jon Ronson’s “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed.” The book details Ronson’s travels to different countries, where he meets people who have been publicly shamed via social media, resulting in radical changes to their personal life and career. Ronson says we are living in a time of public shaming. It is true. Most people who were silent before the rise of social media now have a voice, but what are they doing with it? It seems we have become merciless as we track down people’s mistakes and adopt public shaming and condemnation as a means of social control rather than highlighting mistakes for the sake of achieving reform. Holding people accountable for their mistakes is necessary, but the problem is that some people’s reactions are far worse than the mistake itself. Is it wise to summarize an entire human being on the basis of one mistake, instead of putting the whole situation in a broader context? No one should underestimate the depth of influence of public-shaming campaigns. To be publicly shamed calls for reconsidering the cruelty we adopt toward others. It calls on us to rethink whether this cruelty is a suitable punishment for that mistake. Social media reproduces society’s authority instead of easing it. Public shaming in this case is the punishment imposed by collective values. Holding people accountable for their mistakes is necessary, but the problem is that some people’s reactions are far worse than the mistake itself. Yes, we can feel satisfied when publicly shaming others for their mistakes, and sometimes we take things too far. However, we must assess the extent of our cruelty as we resort to pubic shaming, mockery and condemnation. This is not a call to end criticism or mockery, as of course there are many stances on Twitter and Facebook that must be condemned. However, what should the extent of punishment be?

Obama's Strategy Of Equilibrium
By: Yigal Carmon and Alberto M. Fernandez*
MEMRI Daily Brief | August 5, 2015
The Middle East Media Research Institute
Introduction
In an interview with Tom Friedman of The New York Times ("Obama Makes His Case on Iran Nuclear Deal," July 14, 2015), President Obama asked that the nuclear deal with Iran be judged only by how successfully it prevents Iran from attaining a nuclear bomb, not on "whether it is changing the regime inside of Iran" or "whether we are solving every problem that can be traced back to Iran." However, in many interviews he has given over the last few years, he has revealed a strategy and a plan that far exceed the Iran deal: a strategy which aims to create an equilibrium between Sunnis and Shiites in the Muslim world.
President Obama believes that such an equilibrium will result in a more peaceful Middle East in which tensions between regional powers are reduced to mere competition. As he told David Remnick in an interview with The New Yorker, "…if we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion…you could see an equilibrium developing between Sunni, or predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran in which there’s competition, perhaps suspicion, but not an active or proxy warfare" ("Going the Distance," January 27, 2014).
In discussing the Iran deal, the President recalled President Nixon negotiating with China and President Reagan negotiating with the Soviet Union in order to explain the scope of his strategy for the Middle East and the Muslim world. President Obama seeks, as did Presidents Reagan and Nixon with China and the Soviet Union, to impact the region as a whole. The Iran deal, even if major, is just one of several vehicles that would help achieve this goal.
This article will analyze the strategy of creating an equilibrium between Sunnis and Shiites as a means to promote peace in the Middle East. It will examine the meaning of the strategy in political terms, how realistic it is, and what its future implications might be on the region and on the United States.
The Meaning Of The Equilibrium Strategy In Political Terms
Examining the strategy of equilibrium requires the recollection of some basic information. Within Islam's approximately 1.6 billion believers, the absolute majority – about 90% - is Sunni, while Shiites constitute only about 10%. Even in the Middle East, Sunnis are a large majority.
What does the word "equilibrium" mean in political terms? In view of the above stated data, the word "equilibrium" in actual political terms means empowering the minority and thereby weakening the majority in order to progress toward the stated goal. However, the overwhelming discrepancy in numbers makes it impossible to reach an equilibrium between the two camps. Therefore, it would be unrealistic to believe that the majority would accept a policy that empowers its adversary and weakens its own historically superior status.
Implications For The Region
Considering the above, the implications of the equilibrium strategy for the region might not be enhancing peace as the President well intends; rather, it might intensify strife and violence in the region. The empowered minority might be persuaded to increase its expansionist activity, as can be already seen: Iran has extended its influence from Lebanon to Yemen. Iranian analyst Mohammad Sadeq al-Hosseini stated in an interview on September 24, 2014, "We in the axis of resistance are the new sultans of the Mediterranean and the Gulf. We in Tehran, Damascus, [Hizbullah's] southern suburb of Beirut, Baghdad, and Sanaa will shape the map of the region. We are the new sultans of the Red Sea as well" (MEMRITV Clip No. 4530). Similarly, in a statement dedicated to the historically indivisible connection between Iraq and Iran, advisor to President Rouhani Ali Younesi stressed that, "Since its inception, Iran has [always] had a global [dimension]; it was born an empire" (MEMRI Report No. 5991).
In view of this reality, this strategy might create, against the President's expectations, more bitterness and willingness on the part of the majority to fight for their status. This has already been realized; for example, when Saudi Arabia intervened in Yemen after facing the Houthi/Shiite revolution, which it perceived as a grave danger to its survival, and created a fighting coalition within a month to counter it. Similarly, Saudi Arabia has previously demonstrated that it regards Bahrain as an area where any Iranian attempt to stir up unrest will be answered by Saudi military intervention. According to reports, Saudi Arabia has been supporting the Sunni population in Iraq, and in Lebanon, a standstill has resulted because Saudi Arabia has shown that it will not give up - even in a place where Iranian proxy Hizbollah is the main power. Hence, the strategy of equilibrium has a greater chance of resulting in the eruption of regional war than in promoting regional peace.
Implications For The United States
Moreover, this strategy might have adverse implications for the United States and its interests in the Sunni Muslim world: those countries that feel betrayed by the strategy might, as a result, take action against the United States – hopefully only politically (such as changing international alliances) or economically. These countries might be careful about their public pronouncements and might even voice rhetorical support to U.S. policy, as the GCC states did on August 3, but the resentment is there.
Realpolitik Versus Moral Considerations
The analysis presented here is based on principles of realpolitik: in politics, one does not align with the minority against the majority. However, sometimes other considerations take precedence. Morality is such an example: the Allies could not refrain from fighting Nazi Germany because it was a majority power – ultimately, they recognized the moral obligation to combat the Third Reich. However, with regard to the Middle East, the two adversaries are on equal standing: the Islamic Republic of Iran is no different than the Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. President Obama and Secretary Kerry would be wrong to think that Mohammad Javad Zarif, the sophisticated partygoer in New York City, represents the real Iran. Zarif, his negotiating team, and President Rouhani himself, all live under the shadow and at the mercy of the Supreme Leader, the ayatollahs, and the IRGC.
It is worth noting that the first Islamic State in the modern Middle East was not the one created in the Sunni world in 2014 and headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Rather, it was the Islamic Republic of Iran created in 1979 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and currently ruled by his successor, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who maintains – even following the Iran deal – the mantra "Death to America," continues to sponsor terrorism worldwide, and commits horrific human rights violations.
*Yigal Carmon is President and Founder of MEMRI; Alberto M. Fernandez is Vice President of MEMRI.

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

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