LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 29/15

Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com/newsbulletins05/english.december29.15.htm 

Bible Quotations For Today
Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 02/13-18: "Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.’Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son.’ When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah: ‘A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.’

By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had received the spies in peace.
Letter to the Hebrews 11/23-31: "By faith Moses was hidden by his parents for three months after his birth, because they saw that the child was beautiful; and they were not afraid of the king’s edict. By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called a son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to share ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered abuse suffered for the Christ to be greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking ahead to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, unafraid of the king’s anger; for he persevered as though he saw him who is invisible. By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as if it were dry land, but when the Egyptians attempted to do so they were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell after they had been encircled for seven days. By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had received the spies in peace.

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on December 28-29/15
Does the U.S. Need the Minuteman/by Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/December 28/15
Are mutual feelings of isolation pushing Turkey, Israel closer/Semih Idiz/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
Netanyahu's five-pronged strategy to delay a two-state solution/Uri Savir/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
Can Oman help Saudis save face in Yemen/Giorgio Cafiero/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
How much leverage does Russia have in Syria/Paul J. Saunders/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
26-year-old female MP has big plans for Egypt’s new parliament/George Mikhail/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
Iraqis dive deeper into sectarianism/Mustafa al-Kadhimi/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
Who's to blame for deaths of children fighting in Palestine/Aziza Nofal/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
Dumb Idea of the Year Award/Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/December 28, 2015
UK condemns Muslim Brotherhood in break from Obama administration/By Adam Shaw Published December 25, 2015 FoxNews.com
Russia has chosen the tough approach on Syria/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/December 28/15
King Salman: A true visionary with resolute policies/Mashary Sulaiman Balghonaim/Al Arabiya/December 28/15
Will Iran choose diplomacy over military fight in Syria/Camelia Entekhabi-Fard/Al Arabiya/December 28/15

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin for Lebanese Related News published on December 28-29/15
Israeli Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot warns Hezbollah of attacking Israel
Israeli Foreign Minisry director confirms: Israel foiled trasfer of arms to Hezbollah
Syrian Rebels Fly from Beirut to Turkey as Part of U.N.-backed Deal with Hizbullah, Damascus
Zabadani Rebels Head to Beirut Airport as Part of U.N.-backed Deal with Hizbullah, Damascus
Kataeb Voices Concern over 'Sovereignty' after Syrian Rebels Evacuated via Lebanon
Israel Stages Drill in Shebaa Farms amid High Tensions
Report: ABL Delegation in Washington, Hizbullah in Financial Crisis
Report: Al-Rahi Informs Hizbullah that Election of President Comes ahead of Settlement
Cyprus Seeks Lebanese Help on Seized Treasures
Berri: Internal Obstacles Hindering Hariri Initiative
Soldier Killed, 4 Hurt in Clash with Jaafar Family in Dar al-Wasaa
Airport Police Thwart Bid to Smuggle Narcotics

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on December 28-29/15
Iraq Declares Ramadi Liberated from IS, Sweeps for Bombs
Canada’s marijuana industry lights up as legalization loo‎ms
Saudi Arabia unveils 2016 budget
Algeria Army Kills 109 'Terrorists,' Arrests 36 in 2015
Up to 30 Dead as Female Suicide Bombers Target Nigeria Market
Qatari Royal Planes Land in Switzerland over Health Emergency

Links From Jihad Watch Site for December 28-29/15

Israeli Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot warns Hezbollah of attacking Israel
Yoav Zitun/ Ynetnews/December 28/15/Following threats from Nasrallah, Eisenkot says the IDF is 'ready for every challenge,' adding that Israel's enemies would face 'grave consequences' if they attack it. IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot warned Israel's enemies on Monday that any attempt to undermine the country's security will be met with "grave consequences."Eisenkot's warning comes a day after Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah once again threatened to exact revenge over the killing of Samir Kuntar in an airstrike the terror organization attributes to Israel. "Our soldiers face murderous terrorism every day with bravery and decisiveness," Eisenkot said at a ceremony honoring outstanding IDF units. "Even beyond our borders, in the face of the threats coming from the north - we are ready for every challenge. As we have proven in the past, we know how to get to all of those who seek to harm us. Our enemies know that if they try to undermine Israel's security, they will be met with grave consequences," the IDF chief said. Kuntar, who murdered several members of the Haran family and an Israeli police officer in a 1979 terror attack, was imprisoned in Israel for almost three decades until he was freed in the 2008 Hezbollah-Israel prisoner exchange, in return for the bodies of Israeli soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. He has since returned to terror activity in the Syrian Golan Heights, planning attacks against Israel. "There is no doubt the Israeli enemy committed this assassination, this is not an incident that we need to investigate who is behind it," Nasrallah said following Kuntar's killing. "Israel launched missiles directly at a residential building in which brother Samir Kuntar and others were staying. The building was hit and Kuntar died along with others. The Israeli aircraft did not infiltrate Syria's airspace and were over the (Israeli) Golan. We will retaliate at any place or time we see fit."  At a memorial ceremony marking a week to Kuntar's killing, Nasrallah added: "The response for the assassination of Kuntar is coming, there's no doubt. The Israelis have a reason to be worried, in the border area and outside it."

Israeli Foreign Minisry director confirms: Israel foiled trasfer of arms to Hezbollah
Roi Kais/Ynetnews/December 28/15
In interview with Saudi-owned website, Dore Gold says IDF stopped Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles from arriving to Lebanon. This is the first official Israeli confirmation of the military operations the IAF holds in Syria. Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold confirmed to a Saudi-owned website on Monday that the IDF thwarted attempts to transfer advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Hezbollah. This is the first time an Israeli official makes such a statement not under the cover of anonymity. Speaking to the London-based Saudi-owned website Elaph, Gold said Israel managed to foil an attempt to transfer Russian-made SA-22 missiles to Lebanon. "We in Israel did not take sides and did not interfere in the Syrian war," Gold said in a rare interview of an Israeli official to Saudi media. "We have interests that we will protect and red lines. When we saw that there are those who wanted to transfer Russian missiles from Syrian warehouses to Hezbollah, we had to disrupt that activity, and we will not allow it."
Gold declined to comment on whether or not the IDF bombed Syrian army depots, but stressed that "Israel has not and will not allow anyone to violate its sovereignty, nor will it allow the transfer of weapons that would undermine Israel's air supremacy."Earlier this month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted for the first time that Israel does operate militarily in Syria, but Gold confirmed exactly what these operations entail - details that so far were only disclosed by foreign sources. "We're operating in Syria from time to time in order to stop the country from becoming a front against Israel," Netanyahu said.
"We're operating against another terror front that Iran is trying to build in the Golan, and in order to thwart the transfer of particularly deadly weapons from Syria to Lebanon. We will continue doing this," the prime minister continued. Referring to threats ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi made against Israel in an audio recording released last week, Gold assured that "Israel knows how to defend itself."
The Foreign Ministry's director-general asserted that Iran is as dangerous to Israel as it is to Arab states. "We have common interests concerning the Iranian threat, not only Tehran's nuclear program, but also Iran's activities on the ground, and its repeated attempts to use the Shiite sect in the Arab world, to make them a fifth column among those states," he said. Gold also discussed the possibility of warming ties with Turkey. "There are intensive talks," Gold said.
"There are issues that have been agreed upon and issues that are still under dispute, but things are moving in the right direction," he said. "Turkish and Israeli interests converge because of what is happening in the region - economic, security and regional interests, so I don't believe things will drag on, but we have not set a date for the final agreement. The regional situation leaves us no choice but to agree on the most important points, and our teams are working on this basis."Relations between Turkey and Israel soured when the activists were killed in a raid by IDF commandos on a Turkish boat, the Mavi Marmara, which was trying to breach the blockade. Expectations of a breakthrough were intensified after senior officials met this month to try to repair ties. The talks have raised hopes of progress in negotiations to import Israeli natural gas, particularly since Turkey's relationship with major energy producer Russia has worsened over Syria. But comments from Presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin suggest Turkey may be trying to play tough in the negotiations. "Turkey - Israel relations will not normalize until Israel realizes the three conditions. We have not given up on these," Kalin said at a regular news conference.
Ankara wants an apology for the Mavi Marmara killings, and compensation for families. It also wants Israel to end the blockade of Palestinians living in Gaza, seen as a sticking point in the talks. "Turkey will continue to play its role until a two-state solution is reached, and the Palestinian people have their own state. There cannot be permanent peace in the region until the Palestinian problem is solved," Kalin told reporters in Ankara.Reuters contributed to this report.'

Syrian Rebels Fly from Beirut to Turkey as Part of U.N.-backed Deal with Hizbullah, Damascus
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 28/15/More than 120 rebels and wounded from the flashpoint Syrian border town of Zabadani traveled Monday from Beirut's airport to Turkey as part of a U.N.-backed truce. A convoy carrying them had earlier in the day crossed from Syria into Lebanon through the Masnaa border crossing. The convoy consisted of seven buses and 22 ambulances and was accompanied by Lebanese security forces. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group, the evacuees will later cross from Turkey into rebel-held territory in Syria. Simultaneously, two planes took off from Turkey's Hatay airport to Beirut, carrying 335 people evacuated from the mainly Shiite Syrian villages of Fuaa and Kafraya.The residents had crossed into Turkey through the Bab al-Hawa border point and are to travel overland to Damascus after arriving in Beirut. According to a source close to the negotiations, national flag carrier Turkish Airlines flew both sets of evacuees.
'Humanitarian agreement' -
"We appreciate the cooperation of all sides, of the Syrian, Turkish, and Lebanese governments, and all the sides that have signed on to this humanitarian agreement," said U.N. humanitarian coordinator Yaacoub El Hillo in comments to Al-Mayadeen TV from the Syrian side of the border with Lebanon. The next part of the deal, according to the Britain-based Observatory, would see humanitarian aid delivered into the towns. The Observatory's Abdel Rahman said Assad's regime was keen to reach such agreements as part of its "efforts to secure the capital by seizing control of rebel-held areas or through ceasefire deals."Hizbullah's al-Manar TV broadcast live footage of the Zabadani convoy entering Lebanon. Dozens of people gathered at the Masnaa crossing rushed the buses as ambulance sirens wailed. The station had provided coverage earlier of bearded fighters wearing military-style fatigues boarding the buses amid bombed-out ruins in Zabadani. Syria's regime has agreed to several ceasefires with rebel groups in the past but Monday's evacuation plan was one of the most elaborate in the nearly five-year war. It was the first to involve crossing through Turkey and Lebanon.Fuaa and Kafraya have been besieged for months by the rebels. Sources close to the Islamic State and al-Qaida-affiliated al-Nusra Front have assured that they are not involved in the deal, explaining that the Zabadani fighters are linked to Jaish al-Fatah and other armed factions. Pro-government forces and Hizbullah launched an offensive to try to recapture Zabadani in July, prompting a rebel alliance -- including members of al-Nusra Front -- to besiege the Idlib villages of Fuaa and Kafraya. Hizbullah has sent thousands of fighters across the border to support Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces against the Islamist-led militants fighting to topple him. The group's intervention has helped the Syrian army recapture most towns in the Qalamoun region near the border with Lebanon. Hundreds of Hizbullah fighters have been reportedly killed in the conflict to date. In total, more than 240,000 people have been killed in Syria since the conflict began in March 2011 with anti-government protests.
The fighting has since evolved into a complex civil war involving rebels, the regime, al-Qaida and Islamic State jihadists, Lebanon's Hizbullah and Kurdish fighters.

Zabadani Rebels Head to Beirut Airport as Part of U.N.-backed Deal with Hizbullah, Damascus
Agence France PresseNaharnet/December 28/15/A convoy of more than 120 rebels and wounded from the flashpoint Syrian border town of Zabadani crossed into Lebanon on Monday as part of a U.N.-backed truce. The convoy included seven buses and 22 ambulances and was accompanied by Lebanese security forces from the Masnaa border crossing. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group, the evacuees will travel from the Beirut airport to Turkey, and will then cross into rebel-held territory in Syria. Another 335 people, also including civilians, traveled from two regime-controlled villages in northwestern Syria into Turkey on Monday, Abdel Rahman said. Residents of the mainly Shiite villages of Fuaa and Kafraya crossed through the Bab al-Hawa border point and are to fly into Beirut to travel overland to Damascus. According to a source close to the negotiations, national flag carrier Turkish Airlines will fly both sets of evacuees.
'Humanitarian agreement'
"We appreciate the cooperation of all sides, of the Syrian, Turkish, and Lebanese governments, and all the sides that have signed on to this humanitarian agreement," said U.N. humanitarian coordinator Yaacoub El Hillo in comments to Al-Mayadeen TV from the Syrian side of the border with Lebanon. The next part of the deal, according to the Britain-based Observatory, would see humanitarian aid delivered into the towns. The Observatory's Abdel Rahman said Assad's regime was keen to reach such agreements as part of its "efforts to secure the capital by seizing control of rebel-held areas or through ceasefire deals."Hizbullah's al-Manar TV broadcast live footage of the Zabadani convoy entering Lebanon. Dozens of people gathered at the Masnaa crossing rushed the buses as ambulance sirens wailed. The station had provided coverage earlier of bearded fighters wearing military-style fatigues boarding the buses amid bombed-out ruins in Zabadani. Syria's regime has agreed to several ceasefires with rebel groups in the past but Monday's evacuation plan was one of the most elaborate in the nearly five-year war. It was the first to involve crossing through Turkey and Lebanon. Fuaa and Kafraya have been besieged for months by the rebels. Sources close to the Islamic State and al-Qaida-affiliated al-Nusra Front have assured that they are not involved in the deal, explaining that the Zabadani fighters are linked to Jaish al-Fatah and other armed factions.
Pro-government forces and Hizbullah launched an offensive to try to recapture Zabadani in July, prompting a rebel alliance -- including members of al-Nusra Front -- to besiege the Idlib villages of Fuaa and Kafraya.
Hizbullah has sent thousands of fighters across the border to support Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces against the Islamist-led militants fighting to topple him. The group's intervention has helped the Syrian army recapture most towns in the Qalamoun region near the border with Lebanon.
Hundreds of Hizbullah fighters have been reportedly killed in the conflict to date. In total, more than 240,000 people have been killed in Syria since the conflict began in March 2011 with anti-government protests. The fighting has since evolved into a complex civil war involving rebels, the regime, al-Qaida and Islamic State jihadists, Lebanon's Hizbullah and Kurdish fighters.

Kataeb Voices Concern over 'Sovereignty' after Syrian Rebels Evacuated via Lebanon
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 28/15/The Kataeb Party on Monday wondered if the Lebanese government was aware of a U.N.-sponsored deal that involved the evacuation of Syrian rebels and wounded to Turkey via Lebanon. “The party calls on the Lebanese government and premier to put the public opinion in the picture of the latest security and political developments,” it said in a statement. “Was the Lebanese state part of this agreement or was it imposed on it?” Kataeb wondered. “Why didn't the Lebanese government convene to take the right decision? Where is sovereignty when gunmen cross the border from Syria and head to Beirut's airport? Which passports did they use? Where is the dissociation policy?” the party asked. More than 120 rebels and wounded from the flashpoint Syrian border town of Zabadani traveled Monday from Beirut's airport to Turkey. A convoy carrying them had earlier in the day crossed from Syria into Lebanon through the Masnaa border crossing. The convoy consisted of seven buses and 22 ambulances and was accompanied by Lebanese security forces. Simultaneously, two planes took off from Turkey's Hatay airport to Beirut, carrying 335 people evacuated from the mainly Shiite Syrian villages of Fuaa and Kafraya. “The Kataeb Party wonders if the Lebanese government was aware of this day of transit,” the party said. It also warned that the government's failure to convene “exposes the country's security and allows some officials to take unilateral, unconstitutional decisions.”Syrian forces and Hizbullah had launched an offensive to try to recapture Zabadani in July, prompting a rebel alliance -- including members of al-Qaida-linked al-Nusra Front -- to besiege the Idlib villages of Fuaa and Kafraya. Hizbullah has sent thousands of fighters across the border to support Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces against the Islamist-led militants fighting to topple him.

Israel Stages Drill in Shebaa Farms amid High Tensions
Naharnet/December 28/15/The Israeli army was carrying out a military drill on Monday evening in the occupied Shebaa Farms, amid high tensions that started with the assassination of Hizbullah top operative Samir al-Quntar in a Syria air raid blamed on Israel.“A series of explosions were heard in the towns of al-Orqoub during a maneuver for the Israeli enemy's army on the eastern peripheries of the occupied Shebaa Farms,” Lebanon's National News Agency reported. It said the drill started around 9:00 pm, noting that “heavy artillery is being used.” Tensions surged between Israel and Hizbullah in recent days after the party accused Israel's air force of carrying out a raid that killed Samir al-Quntar near Damascus. On Sunday, Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah reiterated his pledge that his group will retaliate to the assassination. “The retaliation to Samir's assassination will inevitably come,” Nasrallah vowed, noting that the timing and place of the response is now in the hands of Hizbullah's fighters and military commanders. “The Israelis are hiding like rats along the border … The Israelis are worried and they should be worried -- along the border and inside Israel. Their threats will not benefit them,” Nasrallah said. Hizbullah played a key role in Quntar's release from prison after he had spent 30 years in Israeli jails, becoming known as the longest-serving Arab prisoner. Shortly after his release, Quntar joined Hizbullah. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said he became "head of the Syrian Resistance for the Liberation of the Golan," a group launched two years ago by Hizbullah in the Syrian region, most of which Israel seized in the 1967 Middle East war.

Report: ABL Delegation in Washington, Hizbullah in Financial Crisis
Naharnet/December 28/15/A delegation from the Association of Banks in Lebanon will visit Washington and New York in January, following a U.S. law that imposed sanctions on banks that “knowingly” do business with Hizbullah, An Nahar daily reported on Monday. The delegation will be headed by the ABL chief Joseph Tarabay. The visit aims to explain the position of the banking sector in Lebanon and to renew the Lebanese banks' commitment to international laws and standards, added the daily. The U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously in December to impose tough new sanctions on banks that knowingly do business with Hizbullah. Banking sources participating in the delegation confirmed that “the sector has no problem with the U.S. authorities which are closely following up on Lebanon's commitment to international laws and adherence to them, but that these commitments must be re-confirmed after the issuance of the said law,” they told the daily. The delegation will hold meetings in Washington with officials from the U.S. Department of State and the Treasury in addition to a number of members of Congress who participated in the development of the law. The legislation also targeted Hizbullah television channel Al-Manar by aiming to cut the broadcast of satellite operators that air the channel's programming. The U.S. House of Representatives adopted the measure 422 to 0, following a unanimous vote in the Senate on November 17. The new rules direct the U.S. president to prescribe punishing regulations against financial institutions that conduct transactions with Hizbullah or otherwise launder funds for the organization. The U.S. State Department also accuses the group of supporting President Bashar Assad's regime in Syria. Reports have said that the party did not pay the due amounts it was supposed to pay during the month of November and December, promising compensation beginning of the new year. Although Hizbullah is keeping silent on the issue, but unnamed sources said that the party is suffering from a financial crisis with the shortage of funds that it usually receives from Iraq, An Nahar concluded.

Report: Al-Rahi Informs Hizbullah that Election of President Comes ahead of Settlement
Naharnet/December 28/15/Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi said that the patriarchate accepted the recently launched initiative to end the presidential deadlock as a “dynamic and not a candidate, who should be decided by the political leaderships,” reported An Nahar daily on Saturday. “The election of a president should not be part of a comprehensive settlement, but a head of state should be elected first and discussions can then be held over other affairs,” he told a Hizbullah delegation over the weekend revealed the daily. Mustaqbal Movement leader MP Saad Hariri had proposed the nomination of Marada Movement chief MP Suleiman Franjieh as president as part of a greater settlement that would revitalize the political scene in Lebanon. The proposal was met with reservations from the March 8 and 14 camps. Al-Rahi had on Thursday urged officials to take Hariri's initiative “seriously,” which drew some criticism. He clarified on Sunday that a distinction should be made between the initiative and the proposed candidate. Church sources told al-Joumhouria newspaper Monday that al-Rahi “does not care about the name of a candidate, whether it is Franjieh or any other figure.” “He is seeking to end the vacuum in the presidency, which is why he demands during each of his sermons for the election of a head of state,” they said. 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 polls.

Cyprus Seeks Lebanese Help on Seized Treasures
Agence France PresseNaharnet/December 28/15/A Lebanese expert has been called to Cyprus to examine whether confiscated artifacts seized from a vessel were illegally taken from a shipwreck, officials said on Monday. Cypriot Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides said it was not sure if the artifacts had been taken inside the exclusive economic zone of Cyprus or that of Lebanon, so an expert had been called in. "It is not clear... but this does not stop the obligation of a state, for such a cargo, to explore everything before allowing (the ship's) departure," he said. The fate of the ship and its cargo depended on the outcome of investigations, including those undertaken by experts, as well as the attorney general. "The Lebanese expert will come and give his opinion," said Kasoulides. Last week Cypriot authorities confiscated the cargo from a Bahamas-flagged ship suspected of illegal treasure-hunting and questioned the crew. Following a tip-off police, assisted by antiquities department and customs officials, boarded the Bahamas-flagged Odyssey Explorer and seized 57 crates containing ancient artifacts. Police are trying to determine whether the ship had a permit to search for antiquities. If not, the crew could face charges of illegal treasure-hunting and illegal possession of antiquities.Transport ministry official Alecos Michaelides told the Cyprus News Agency that the antiquities found on board the ship date back to the 18th century. Limassol detective Yiannis Soteriades told reporters the authorities had informed Interpol about the seizure. The items had been documented and numbered more than 600, mostly porcelain vessels which appear to be from a sunken ship. Efforts are underway to discover their origin but it has already been determined that they are not Cypriot.

Berri: Internal Obstacles Hindering Hariri Initiative
Naharnet/December 28/15/Speaker Nabih Berri stressed that the initiative to end the political deadlock “is still alive,” reported al-Joumhouria newspaper on Monday. “The presidential elections are facing internal obstacles because foreign powers have approved the proposal,” he explained according to his visitors. “We are all required to tackle this issue,” he stated. “Revitalizing government work and holding a cabinet session will be the focus of attention at the beginning of the new year, but priority should be given to the election of a head of state, which will solve all problems,” said the speaker. 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 polls. Hariri had proposed the nomination of Marada Movement chief MP Suleiman Franjieh as president as part of a greater settlement that would revitalize the political scene in Lebanon. The proposal was met with reservations from the March 8 and 14 camps, which is threatening its failure.

Soldier Killed, 4 Hurt in Clash with Jaafar Family in Dar al-Wasaa
Naharnet/December 28/15/An army soldier was killed and four troops were wounded Monday in a clash with members of the Jaafar family in the Bekaa area of Dar al-Wasaa, state-run National News Agency reported. The exchange of gunfire erupted as the army carried out a raid linked to the 2014 murder of Sobhi and Nadimeh Fakhri in the nearby town of Btedei, NNA said. The violence prompted the army to send in reinforcements from the Commando Regiment to Dar al-Wasaa and to the Baalbek neighborhood of al-Sharawneh, where young men from the Jaafar family blocked the public road in protest at the crackdown. A Syrian refugee woman was wounded in the face after armed protesters opened fire indiscriminately, the agency added. Later in the day, eight of those who opened fire at the army turned themselves in to the military, NNA said. The Fakhris were reportedly killed by gunmen from the Jaafar family who were fleeing army raids in Dar al-Wasaa. The armed men were reportedly trying to steal the couple's car. A statement issued by the Jaafar family at the time said the man and the woman were killed in the crossfire. The incident had sparked sectarian tensions in the confessionally-mixed region.

Airport Police Thwart Bid to Smuggle Narcotics
Naharnet/December 28/15/Airport police thwarted at dawn an attempt to smuggle two kilograms of narcotics through the Rafik Hariri International Airport, the state-run National News Agency said on Monday. The assailant, a Brazilian national, tried to smuggle the drugs to Lebanon from Brazil through Ethiopia, NNA added. He wrapped them in vacuum plastic bags and hid them in two children handbags. Lebanese authorities at the airport interrogated the smuggler who was later referred to the central anti-narcotics office.

Iraq Declares Ramadi Liberated from IS, Sweeps for Bombs
Agence France PresseNaharnet/December 28/15/Iraq declared the city of Ramadi liberated from the Islamic State group on Monday and raised the national flag over its government complex after clinching a landmark victory against the jihadists. Fighters brandishing rifles danced in the Anbar provincial capital as top commanders paraded through the streets after recapturing the city they lost to IS in May. Pockets of jihadists may remain but the army said it no longer faced any resistance and that its main task was to defuse the countless bombs and traps IS left behind. "Ramadi has been liberated and the armed forces of the counter-terrorism service have raised the Iraqi flag above the government complex," Brigadier General Yahya Rasool announced on state television. The former government headquarters in Ramadi was the epicenter of the fighting but Iraqi forces did not rush in when IS pulled out because the entire area was rigged. "Daesh has planted more than 300 explosive devices on the roads and in the buildings of the government complex," said Brigadier General Majid al-Fatlawi of the army's 8th division. Several local officials said IS used civilians as human shields to escape the battle when it became clear their last stand in Ramadi was doomed. A senior army commander told AFP that his forces were still sweeping the outskirts of the city for potential pockets of jihadists. IS had an estimated force of around 400 fighters to defend central Ramadi a week ago. It is not clear how many were killed and how many were able to pull back to positions outside the city. The Iraqi authorities did not divulge any casualty figures for the federal forces but medics told AFP that close to 100 wounded government fighters were brought to Baghdad hospitals on Sunday alone. "The dead bodies are taken directly to the main military hospital" near the airport, said one hospital source, explaining why he could not provide a death toll. The U.S.-led anti-IS coalition praised the performance of the Iraqi forces in retaking Ramadi, an operation in which it played a significant role, training local forces, arming them and carrying out what it said were 600 air strikes since July. The speaker of Iraq's parliament was one of the first top officials to congratulate the security forces on their victory late Sunday. "This great victory has broken the back of Daesh and represents a launchpad for the liberation of Nineveh," Salim al-Juburi said in a statement.
Nineveh is home to Iraq's second city of Mosul, from which IS supremo Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed his "caliphate" straddling Iraq and Syria more than a year and a half ago.
State television showed footage late Sunday of Iraqis on the streets of Baghdad, Karbala and other cities celebrating the Ramadi victory. Anbar residents account for more than a third of the 3.2 million Iraqis who have been displaced by conflict since the start of 2014. Many have been living in the northern autonomous region of Kurdistan and some could be seen celebrating there on Sunday, but Ramadi is devastated and a return to normalcy is some way away. Sohaib Ali, 27, fled with his three children and the rest of his family to the Kurdish capital of Arbil nearly two years ago when violence first hit Ramadi. "We do not intend to return for now, although this liberation makes us very happy. We can see that huge damage was caused in the city and I don't think that basic services will return for a while, nor will security," he said. Iraq's defense minister, Khaled al-Obeidi, said a week ago that Iraqi forces had reconquered more than half of the territory lost to IS in June and August 2014. The victory in Ramadi comes on the heels of operations that saw Iraqi forces retake Baiji, north of Baghdad, and Sinjar, the hub of the Yazidi minority in the northeast of the country. Ramadi was recaptured by federal forces, with the Popular Mobilization -- a paramilitary force dominated by Tehran-backed Shiite militia groups -- remaining on the fringes. Many of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's political rivals had questioned his strategy of excluding those groups and relying on the U.S.-led coalition's air power. "The prestige goes to the Iraqi military," said political analyst Ihsan al-Shammari."As an institution, it's the first time since the Daesh invasion (in June 2014) it has achieved a victory without the support of the Popular Mobilization force," he said. The Iraq army collapsed when IS attacked Mosul in June 2014 and swept across Iraq's Sunni Arab heartland virtually unopposed.

Canada’s marijuana industry lights up as legalization loo‎ms
Peter Kovessy, Special to Al Arabiya News Saturday, 26 December 2015
From inside a former Hershey chocolate factory some 80 kilometers outside Canada’s capital, Bruce Linton is planting the seeds to tap into what’s expected to become a multibillion-dollar industry virtually overnight. Linton is the CEO and co-founder of Tweed Marijuana, one of 26 Canadian companies licensed to cultivate and sell pot to customers with legal permission to consume cannabis for medicinal purposes. Sales are already growing by 40 per cent each quarter, Linton said, and reached nearly $3 mln in the six months ended Sept. 30. But that will likely pale with what’s ahead. In October, Canadians elected a Liberal government whose platform included a pledge to legalize marijuana for recreational use. With the stroke of a pen, lawmakers will essentially be creating an entirely new regulated industry that some analysts speculate could be worth between $1.8 bln and $3.6 bln annually. “The Liberal government’s election takes what’s a substantial, rapidly growing business, and makes it – well, you just look at it and go, ‘Oh boy. We really need to get more done,’” Linton said. Using cannabis for medicinal purposes in Canada has been legal under certain conditions since 2001. However, it was a 2014 legislative change, which mandated patients to obtain their marijuana from a licensed grower, that turned it into a serious business. “At that point, the investment community began to pay closer attention because the introduction of a legal, commercialized industry created the potential of a critical-scale industry,” said Paul Rosen, the CEO of PharmaCan Capital, a Toronto-based financing company that funds medical marijuana cultivators.Rosen said he criss-crossed the country in 2014, visiting some 200 of the 1,300 firms that would eventually apply for a coveted cultivation licence.
Risky
It’s a risky investment, as would-be producers had to spend large sums of money readying their facilities without any guarantee from government regulators that they’d be allowed to grow marijuana. Linton said the first $6.5 mln he raised was spent on basic security and a growing room prototype for inspectors to evaluate. Had it not been approved, Linton once quipped to a reporter, Tweed would have been left with a very expensive facility for growing tomatoes or other vegetables. Ultimately, Tweed received a licence, as did five of the eight producers backed by PharmaCan, which has deployed more than $7.9 mln in capital to date. While Rosen said he expects some of PharmaCan’s assets to be cash-flow positive in 2016, he predicts 2017 will be “the big breakout year” as a regulated recreational market emerges. “I expect that the current regulated medical marijuana industry will be the backbone of a supply chain for both the recreational and medical market,” he said. One reason for the optimism is that the government will presumably want to squeeze the black-market growers and dealers who currently supply recreational marijuana users out of a future regulated market.  Hugo Alves, a partner at law firm Bennett Jones, said companies licensed medical marijuana growers are best positioned to steal this market share. “They have the biggest production capacity, the tightest quality control and their facilities are subject to very strict security protocols,” he said. “The government will want them to grow and produce.”How customers will actually buy marijuana remains one of the biggest questions surrounding Canada’s legalization plans. Under the current medical regulations, cannabis can only be shipped directly from a producer to approved customers. But that hasn’t stopped dispensaries from opening – particularly in Vancouver where municipal politicians have moved to license the shops – including some who are hoping to gain a foothold in advance of full-blown legalization. But at the same time, several Canadian provinces have said they want marijuana sold through their existing network of government-run liquor stores. While distribution will be a compelling sector for marijuana businesses, new opportunities will also open up for legal, marketing and financial service firms, Alves said.He added that markets will also emerge for high-tech entrepreneurs to develop, for example, a reliable marijuana roadside test similar to an alcohol breathalyzer for police officers to detect impaired drivers. “This is a legislative change that has the ability to create an industry,” Alves said.

Saudi Arabia unveils 2016 budget
Staff writer, Al Arabiya News Monday, 28 December 2015/Saudi Arabia unveiled its 2016 budget on Monday which predicted a deficit of 326 billion riyals ($87 billion) in the new year, Al Arabiya News Channel reported. The budget puts spending at 840 billion riyals ($224 billion) and revenue at 513 billion ($137 billion), officials revealed at a press conference in Riyadh. As for 2015, revenues came in at 608 billion riyals, 73 percent of which came from oil revenues, Al Arabiya reported. The budget allocates 191 billion riyals to education while 213 billion will go to “military sectors.” Separately, non-oil revenues increased by 29 percent to 163 billion riyals, Al Arabiya reported. This is the first budget announcement since King Salman’s ascension to the throne and is expected to reflect reforms he announced last week. “Our vision for economic reform is to increase the efficiency of public spending, utilize economic resources and boost returns from state investment,” he told the kingdom’s Shura Council on Wednesday. Dr. Fahd bin Jumaa, vice president of the economy and energy committee of the Shura Council had predicted the budget was drafted based on the speculated price of $45 pb, he told Al Arabiya.Net. He also ruled out cuts in subsidies and public spending or increases in fees or taxes.

Algeria Army Kills 109 'Terrorists,' Arrests 36 in 2015
Agence France PresseNaharnet/December 28/15/The Algerian army killed a total of 109 "terrorists," the term used by the government for armed Islamist fighters, and arrested another 36 in 2015, a defense ministry toll published Monday said. Troops also seized explosives, assault rifles, rocket launchers as well as "a large amount of all sorts of munitions, including 182 improvised bombs, 132 mines and five rockets," the ministry said in a statement. The ministry gave no figure for the military's losses in the same period. A dozen soldiers were killed in mid-July in an ambush laid by jihadists southwest of Algiers. Algeria suffered a war in the 1990s between the government and Islamists that killed 200,000 people. Armed groups remain active in the center and east of the country.

Up to 30 Dead as Female Suicide Bombers Target Nigeria Market
Agence France PresseNaharnet/December 28/15/Two female suicide bombers struck a market in the northeast Nigerian state of Adamawa on Monday, an army official said, with a local community leader giving a toll of at least 30 killed.The military chief in Adamawa state, Brigadier-General Victor Ezugwu, confirmed the twin suicide blasts in the town of Madagali but did not give a toll. "The two female bombers killed at least 30 people in the twin blasts in the market," Maina Ularamu, a community leader and former chairman of Madagali local government, told AFP.

Qatari Royal Planes Land in Switzerland over Health Emergency
Agence France PresseNaharnet/December 28/15/Unidentified individuals traveling in planes belonging to Qatar's royal family made an emergency trip to Switzerland over the weekend for medical reasons, a Swiss official told AFP Monday. A spokesman for Switzerland's Federal Office of Civil Aviation confirmed local media reports that multiple aircraft made unscheduled landings at the Zurich-Kloten airport overnight from December 25 to 26 and that the planes were part of the Qatari royal fleet. He gave no details as to who was on board or who any of the potential patients may have been. "The emergency landing clearance was given by the Swiss air force," he told AFP, explaining that the civil aviation office was closed during the hours in question. Night landings and takeoffs are typically forbidden at Zurich-Kloten to avoid disturbing local residents. Swiss foreign ministry spokesman Georg Farago told AFP in an email that the federation was informed about the "stay of members of Qatar's royal family in Switzerland," without giving further details. According to Zurich's Tages Anzeiger newspaper, the first Qatari plane, an Airbus, landed in Zurich from Marrakesh shortly after midnight on December 26. Members of the Qatari royal family had reportedly been on holiday at a Moroccan resort in the Atlas mountains. A second flight landed at Zurich-Kloten at 5:00 am (0400 GMT) on December 26th, with a third plane coming 15 minutes later, both having originated in Doha, the paper reported. According to Tages Anzeiger, the medical emergency in question was so significant that six more planes linked to the Qatari royal family and government landed in Zurich through the weekend. No immediate details were available about any specific health emergencies among Qatari royals. Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, 35, ascended the throne in 2013 after his father Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani abdicated in his favor.

Does the U.S. Need the Minuteman?
by Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/December 28/15
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7103/minuteman-missiles
It seems that the U.S., without a Minuteman missile force, would make it easy -- in fact tempting -- for an adversary such as Russia to take out the entire U.S. strategic nuclear force in one or a series of very limited first strikes.
Under Secretary Perry's proposal, the U.S. "target set" of nuclear submarines and bombers would consist of five military bases: three for bombers and two for submarines, and a handful of submarines at sea. From over 500 targets today, to fewer than 10. It would be as if the U.S. declared to its enemies, "Come and get us."
The elimination of the Minuteman missile force, recommended by Dr. Perry, would leave Russia with an alarming ratio -- nearly 200:1 -- of Russian warheads to American nuclear assets. This disparity could push the strategic nuclear balance toward heightened instabilities.
Another way to look at it is that the Minuteman would cost only 1/3 of 1% of the total current budget of the Department of Defense.
Former Secretary of Defense William Perry calls for the nuclear land based force of 450 Minuteman missiles to be eliminated. He says that the United States does not need the missiles for nuclear deterrence. He also says that, because of Russia's current reckless and cavalier attitude about the early use of Russian nuclear weapons, he worries that in a crisis, an American President might launch Minuteman missiles out of fear that Russia might preemptively launch a first strike against America's "vulnerable" missile silos.
Although the former Secretary of Defense is to be admired for his previous work on stealth technology, now part of the backbone of America's strategic nuclear bomber force[1], his recommendation on land-based missiles is, in fact, dangerous, wrong-headed and will lead to the very destabilizing relations with Russia he is hoping to avert.
There are five key reasons why his proposal makes little sense.
First, the U.S. is not in an arms race with Russia -- a competition Dr. Perry fears would be fueled by going forward with the Minuteman. America's strategic (long-range) forces happen to be limited -- as are those of Russia -- by the 2010 New Start Treaty between the two superpowers. Strategic nuclear warheads are capped at 1550. If anything, Russia is rapidly modernizing, ostensibly within those limits, while the United States is trying -- slowly -- to catch up.
Although special bomber-counting rules in the treaty allow both nuclear powers to field more bomber weapons than are officially counted in the treaty ceilings (a bomber with 8-12 bombs counts only as "one" bomb or warhead), both the "fast flyer" American missiles of the land-based Minuteman nuclear force and the Ohio class submarines are strictly capped -- including any new modernized force -- through 2025.[2]
The last time the U.S. modernized the Minuteman force was between 1993-2008. Then, under the START I and Moscow treaties, deployed U.S. nuclear weapons were reduced from roughly 12,000 to 2,200.[3] During that entire period, Minuteman modernization served a stabilizing role, and was fully compatible with arms control -- as remains true today.
Second, the Minuteman missile force is not in any way in danger of being launched or used recklessly or inadvertently.[4]
The nuclear force the U.S. now maintains consists of:
450 silo-based land-based missiles and their associated launch control centers;
60 nuclear-capable bombers at three bases;
4 deployed nuclear submarines each at two additional bases, of which 4-6 are at sea at any one time.
These make America's early use of nuclear weapons in a crisis unnecessary. Why? The U.S. nuclear force, including a robust ICBM fleet, cannot as a whole be eliminated in a first strike by an adversary without prompting a massive U.S. retaliatory strike in return. As noted, there are more than 500 ICBM-related American nuclear targets spread over five extremely large Western states, plus submarines in the vast expanse of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. In a first strike, all of these forces would have to be eliminated simultaneously by an adversary to prevent the U.S. from being able to launch a devastating response.
As U.S. assets are different distances from Russian missile launch points, the flight times of Russian missiles to U.S. missile silos, and submarine and bomber bases, would be different. Russian missiles therefore could not be launched simultaneously from Russia without arriving on U.S. soil at different times.
Thus, under current conditions, an adversary could not attack all U.S. assets simultaneously.
If an adversary were to set their computers for launches to compensate for the differences missile flight times, the U.S. would be warned by its satellites, which would detect the first missile launch. The U.S. could then go on full alert, and send bombers into the air and submarines out to sea.
Even to try such an attack, an adversary such as Russia would, ironically, have to give ample warning. To carry out such a surprise attack, involving so many warheads, Russia, just as an example, would have to generate (visibly deploy) its nuclear forces, and move its land-based missiles from garrison positions into the field, or move its submarines out to sea. These force movements would easily be seen by U.S. reconnaissance satellites, which exist precisely to provide the United States with a warning. There would therefore be time to generate U.S. nuclear forces and make them even more survivable than they would be on a normal, peaceful day-to-day basis. The adversary's element of surprise then would be eliminated.
It is true that during the height of the Cold War, there was indeed a fear that during a political crisis the U.S. might feel a need to "go first," ("prompt launch") its nuclear missiles. At that time, the Soviets fielded an enormous arsenal of nearly 12,000 strategic nuclear warheads, most on fast-flying nuclear-tipped missiles. Due to the relative vulnerability of U.S. nuclear forces, it was feared that, in a crisis, the Soviet leaders might be tempted to use their nuclear weapons first. Their aim would be to destroy as much of the U.S. nuclear forces "on the ground" before they could be launched in retaliation. Such fears might, in turn, prompt the U.S. into "beating them to the punch."[5]
There was also then the concern that, in a crisis, as the Soviet Union would have plenty of warheads left over after a first strike -- still far in excess of what the U.S. had left in reserve -- the U.S. could be coerced to stand down and surrender even before a shot was fired.
Today, however, given the comparatively low level of strategic nuclear weapons now fielded by both Washington and Moscow -- 90% below the Cold War levels -- and their improved relative survivability, such fears no longer apply. Russia would have to use nearly its entire nuclear arsenal just to try to take out America's hundreds of Minuteman missile silos and launch control centers. But even if successful -- an extremely dubious proposition -- Russia still would have to worry about America's submarines at sea, as well as its bombers, launching a devastating response.
In short, even if one leg of the U.S. nuclear Triad were eliminated, the other two would remain able to fight back. Taking out all three simultaneously is an unfeasible a task; taking out only one leg makes no sense.
America's robust Triad of forces -- land, sea and air -- gives the U.S. a stability that makes the successful first use of nuclear forces by either side a virtual impossibility; no rational objective could be achieved.
The U.S. nuclear "Triad" consists of nuclear warheads mounted on platforms based at sea, in the air and on land.
The third point is that if the current Minuteman force were eliminated through obsolescence or attrition, ironically the very international instabilities feared by Dr. Perry -- such as Russian leader using nuclear weapons in a crisis -- would emerge in a dramatic fashion.
Certainly, Russian President Vladimir Putin's statements about Russia's nuclear doctrine are indeed cause for concern, especially his oft-repeated remarks that he would use nuclear weapons early in a crisis and against non-nuclear armed states.
But if that is true, it seems that the United States, without a Minuteman force, would make it easy -- in fact tempting -- for an adversary such as Russia to take out the entire U.S. strategic nuclear force in one or a series of very limited, even surreptitious, first strikes? Under Secretary Perry's proposal, the U.S. "target set" of nuclear submarines and bombers would consist of five military bases: three for bombers and two for submarines, and a handful of submarines at sea. That is it. From over 500 targets today, to fewer than 10 in the future. It would be as if the United States painted a bulls-eye on its nuclear forces and told our enemies, "Come and get us."
As the former U.S. Chief of Naval Operations warned, a serious concern within the US Navy is that technological advances may render the oceans 'transparent' in the future, and U.S. submarines at sea would no longer be invulnerable to attack. If the seas were no longer opaque, Russia could over time surreptitiously eliminate American submarines deployed at sea. Then, in a crisis, Russia might seek to hold remaining U.S. assets at risk, either in port or on base, and try to coerce the U.S. to stand down and surrender.
Again, why would the United States make it easier for its enemies to accomplish such an objective? America's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), the Minuteman force, are an insurance policy against such a potential eventuality.
Fourth, what about strategic stability? Compared to the current situation, in which Russian nuclear forces now have three nuclear weapons for each of America's nuclear assets of bombers, submarines and land-based missiles, the elimination of the Minuteman force, as Dr. Perry recommends, would leave Russia with an alarming ratio -- nearly 200:1 -- of Russian warheads to American nuclear assets. This disparity could push the strategic nuclear balance toward heightened instabilities -- exactly the opposite of what nearly five decades of strategic arms control between the United States and Russia have sought to prevent. With such a huge advantage, would not Russia be tempted in a crisis to try and eliminate our relatively small nuclear deterrent?[6]
Finally, fifth, the cost of maintaining the Minuteman force is minimal compared to the overall cost of running the U.S. government, the U.S. military and the U.S. nuclear enterprise. Each year, the Minuteman missiles cost around $1.6 billion, including all soldiers, operations and maintenance, research, development and acquisition. Projected Minuteman costs for nuclear modernization in the future are $2.2 billion for 3-5 years, then gradually returning to roughly their current level of expenditures.[7]
Thus at its peak, Minuteman would cost about 20% of what Americans now pay to go to movies theaters each year. Another way to look at it is that the Minuteman would cost only 7% of the peak future nuclear Triad modernization costs per year. This comes to 1/3 of 1% of the total current budget of the Department of Defense, or an astoundingly small $1 out of every $2,500 dollars the Federal government will spend in 2025 -- the same year the Minuteman modernization effort would be ramped up.
In short, from the perspective of maintaining deterrence, strategic stability, the ability to be effective during a crisis, and using defense dollars wisely, the Minuteman force is an extraordinary asset, a required modernization, and critical to the security of our country and allies.
Eliminating Minuteman would not only be dangerous but unwise.
[1] See for example "Inside the Stealth Bomber", by Bill Sweetman (2009) and "Nuclear Inertia: US Weapons Policy After the Cold War" by Tom Sauer (2005).
[2] The ICBM and SLBM missiles possessed by both Russia and the United States are capped under the New Start Treaty at no more than 700. This limit also includes whatever strategic bombers the U.S. has in the field or what are referred to in military parlance as "deployed". Missiles, as they take roughly 30 minutes to reach their targets half way around the globe, are termed "fast flyers" by nuclear experts. The 2010 New Start treaty lasts until 2020 and can be extended by mutual agreement for an additional five years.
[3] The United States funded a life extension program for the Minuteman propulsion and guidance systems beginning in 1993 and extending through most of the first decade of the 21st century. The cost was roughly $6 billion for the propulsion and guidance systems for all 600 deployed and test missiles. The Minuteman missile will now last through 2030.
[4] Steven Young, January 9, 2015, Union of Concerned Scientists, "Obama's Nuclear Legacy #2: Ending Prompt Launch." The professional literature on prompt launch, or the supposed "hair trigger" status of Minuteman, has been reviewed by this author in many essays, including: "Nuclear Deterrence: Painting a Bull's Eye On the US" and "Should the U.S. De-Alert Its Nuclear Missiles?"
[5] This possibility -- of the Soviets in a crisis credibly threatening to fire their nuclear weapons first --was the basis of President Reagan's concern over what he termed a growing "window of vulnerability" during the 1970s. The Soviet Union was publicly proclaiming that the "correlation of forces" was moving in Moscow's direction. The heart of the issue was the vulnerability of U.S. land-based missiles, in particular the US response in 1986 of putting Peacekeeper ICBM missiles in silos. This issue is wrongly (and derisively) covered in Lou Cannon's "The Role of a Lifetime," 2008 (p.135-145), but is correctly explained in a new study, "Inside the Cold War from Marx to Reagan" (pp.263-93) by Sven Kraemer, American Foreign Policy Council, 2015.
[6] The SALT I treaty of 1972 allowed a ratio of Soviet warheads to American nuclear assets of roughly 7 to1; the SALT II treaty of 1979 (never ratified by either country) would have allowed that number to grow to more than 11 to 1. The START I treaty brought that number down to roughly 5 to 1; the 2002 Moscow Treaty brought that number down even further to roughly 4.3 to 1; and the New START treaty lowered that number to 3.5 to 1. Adopting the Perry proposal would increase this ratio to 200 to 1.
[7] These projected numbers were provided by various experts in the USAF during weekly meetings on Minuteman and ICBM modernization during the past few years.
© 2015 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Are mutual feelings of isolation pushing Turkey, Israel closer?
Semih Idiz/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
The current effort by Turkey and Israel to mend fences appears to be more a product of necessity than affinity. Both need to break out of their regional isolation.Tellingly, this development follows Turkey’s crisis with Russia, a situation that has not only further weakened Ankara’s hand in Syria and Iraq, but has also forced Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu to seek alternative energy sources to reduce Turkey’s dependence on Russian supplies. Press reports indicate that Turkey and Israel are talking about energy cooperation, given the discovery of vast gas reserves in the Mediterranean that Israel wants to pump to international markets via Turkey.
Israeli media broke the news that senior officials from the two countries had met Dec. 16 in Zurich to thrash out an agreement aimed at normalizing ties. Turkish-Israeli ties took a nosedive in 2010, after Israeli commandoes raided the Turkish aid ship Mavi Marmara as it tried to break the blockade of the Gaza Strip, killing nine pro-Palestinian Turkish activists. Turkey demanded that Israel publicly apologize, pay compensation for the activists' deaths and lift the siege on Gaza.
Under pressure from US President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in March 2013. Talks on compensation for the Mavi Marmara victims remained inconclusive, however, and Israel gave no indication that it would lift the siege. Ankara at the moment remains cautious, although it appears to be more conciliatory toward Israel.
“A deal has not been signed yet. Work on the preliminary draft is still ongoing,” Omer Celik, spokesman for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), told reporters Dec. 20. “The Israeli state and Israeli people are friends of Turkey. Our criticism is directed at the Israeli government’s extreme behavior, and its behavior that we don’t consider legitimate."
Erdogan, known for his vitriolic anti-Israeli rhetoric, also appears to be acting in a more conciliatory manner, although his latest remarks point to potential difficulties for the current efforts at rapprochement.
“We asked for an apology and got it. We asked for compensation, but this has not happened yet. We also said the embargo against Palestine must be lifted and this too has not happened,” Erdogan told reporters Dec. 13 on his plane returning from a visit to Turkmenistan. “If compensation is given, and the Palestinian embargo is lifted, then we can enter a process of normalization. [Turkey], Israel, Palestine and the region will gain much from this.”
Diplomats are reportedly working on an intermediary formula to meet Turkey’s Gaza demand, which involves an aid corridor for the besieged enclave. For Israel, an outstanding issue is limiting Hamas activities in Turkey and the expulsion of Saleh al-Arouri, a senior Hamas member living in Istanbul and accused of involvement in attacks on Israelis.
Turkish officials say Hamas is not part of the current negotiations. As if to underline this point, Erdogan received Hamas’ political bureau chief, Khaled Meshaal, Dec. 19 in Istanbul. Meshaal also held talks with Davutoglu the day after in Ankara. Some have interpreted Meshaal’s visit from the opposite perspective, arguing that he was in Turkey to be informed about the efforts to normalize Turkish-Israeli ties and to be reassured that this development does not represent a betrayal of Hamas.
If rapprochement with Israel can be achieved, it might have broader significance for Turkey’s general foreign policy orientation. It could signal that Ankara’s populist approach, predicated on Erdogan’s hard-line, Islam-based moralistic and ideological stance, might be replaced with a more realistic reading of international relations.
Ankara’s one-dimensional approach to the crises in Syria, Iraq and Egypt and its mistaken assumptions about the Arab world have reduced Turkey’s clout in the region significantly over the past four years, leaving it generally on the sidelines.
Suha Umar, who served as Turkey’s ambassador to Jordan during 1995-98, said regional developments are forcing Ankara to normalize ties with Israel. He remains skeptical, however, that Erdogan and the AKP’s ruling elite can normalize their general approach to foreign policy given their strong Islamist leanings.
“Turkey lost a lot of ground in the Middle East under this government for two principal reasons. The first was its strained ties with Israel, and second, its support for the Muslim Brotherhood,” Umar told Al-Monitor. “Relations with Israel should have been handled very carefully because of its place in the world and the influence of the Jewish lobby in the US.”
“Making an enemy of Israel gained nothing for Turkey. Meanwhile, the government’s assumptions about the Arab world also proved to be mistaken,” Umar added. “During my time in Jordan, I was often told that Turkey’s ties with Israel were actually an asset for the Arab world. It also became apparent later that Ankara’s sympathies for the Muslim Brotherhood did not leave Turkey in good stead with Arab regimes, contrary to what the government expected."
Retired Turkish ambassador Murat Bilhan differentiated between Erdogan and Davutoglu when asked by Al-Monitor if Turkey’s attempts at rapprochement with Israel represent a move away from an Islam-oriented and “ethics”-based foreign policy toward one based more on realpolitik.
“I don’t see this in Erdogan, but there are signs that Davutoglu is moving in that direction. If you look at what they say closely, there is a fine difference between them in this regard,” said Bilhan, who is currently a vice chair at the Turkish Asian Center for Strategic Studies.
Bilhan added that efforts to normalize Turkish-Israeli ties are the result of a number of overlapping factors forcing the countries to move in that direction. “Both countries feel isolated today. Russia’s involvement in Syria has also upset Israel. There is also the need for energy cooperation. These are all forcing Turkey and Israel to behave more flexibly toward each other,” he concluded.

Netanyahu's five-pronged strategy to delay a two-state solution
Uri Savir/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
A two-state Israeli-Palestinian solution seems further away today than ever. Yet, the Israeli prime minister’s office doesn't take this for granted and has developed a multipronged strategy as insurance.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to place roadblocks in the path of any political process designed to bring about a two-state solution, according to a senior European Union official in Brussels who visits the region on a regular basis and spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity.
“There are two facets to Netanyahu’s anti-two-state strategy," the official said. "Netanyahu attempts to ensure the nonviability of a Palestinian state, mainly through the expansion of settlements, and at the same time he recites a long list of reasons why Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is sabotaging possible negotiations. In every meeting with Netanyahu, we discover another obstacle and hear another argument. In the corridors of the EU headquarters there are those defining Netanyahu as a 'serial alibi-ist,' always finding a reason not to place himself at the scene of a two-state solution negotiation.”
At EU headquarters, there is a sense of hopelessness regarding Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution, given Netanyahu’s rejection of any initiative, Abbas’ weakness and the US abstention from attempts to revive a peace process or to accept a UN Security Council resolution on the issue.
The EU source warns of a possible collapse of the Palestinian Authority and an outbreak of a violent intifada.
Netanyahu has a different analysis of the situation. A close confidant of the prime minister, talking to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, said Netanyahu is interested in a two-state solution with a demilitarized Palestinian state, conditioned on the recognition of the Jewish State of Israel and with stringent security measures throughout the West Bank.
Yet the source said, Netanyahu believes that now is the wrong time to move in that direction, when the entire region faces the threat of fundamentalist terror groups such as the Islamic State (IS), al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. Terror, according to Netanyahu, must first be quelled — only then can political negotiations take place.
The Jerusalem source admitted the prime minister's office clearly has a plan to delay the two-state solution. The strategy consists of several elements.
First, the right-wing HaBayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) party of Naftali Bennett needs to be kept within the coalition. Netanyahu has made this clear to Zionist Camp leader Isaac Herzog in back-channel talks on a possible national unity government. The prime minister considers Israeli settlers his main political base for his next election campaign. This constituency must be convinced that Netanyahu is their best guarantee against a Palestinian state, as he knows how to outmaneuver the international community.
Second, settlements need to be expanded, which would render establishing a Palestinian state impossible. This is especially true in the case of the Jerusalem-area settlements and those outside the settlement blocs that disrupt the contiguity of a future Palestinian state. Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel said in a Dec. 18 interview with the daily Israel Hayom that by 2019, the government plans to increase the number of settlers by 50% — to 600,000 — in the West Bank (not counting East Jerusalem).
Then there is the element of resisting US pressure. Netanyahu responded with a resounding "No" to US Secretary of State John Kerry during Kerry's last visit on Nov. 24 regarding any meaningful confidence-building measures, such as the release of Palestinian prisoners. Netanyahu excels in resisting US pressure and pointing the finger at Abbas. During the Kerry peace initiative of 2013-14, the prime minister agreed to certain concessions on a border based on 1967 lines, but conditioned them on Palestinians recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, something he knew the Americans would accept but Abbas would reject.
A fourth strategic component of Netanyahu's plan is cooperation with neighboring countries. Part of his well-orchestrated, anti-two-state strategy is to use Israel's close security cooperation with Egypt and Jordan to defuse their pressure on the Palestinian issue. The same is true for Israel potentially exporting natural gas to Turkey.
In addition, Netanyahu's office views IS as a major propaganda asset in making the case against a Palestinian state. The prime minister and his representatives equate random Palestinian terror attacks by individuals to IS terror, and warn that the West Bank risks turning into an IS base should Israel withdraw. This approach works well with most Israelis and with some in the international community who are mesmerized by the IS threat.
This strategy also shapes the content of Netanyahu’s policy dialogue with both the United States and the EU.
This indicates that those who claim that Netanyahu has no foreign policy or does not achieve his strategic goals are wrong. The strategies, the diplomacy and the rhetoric all serve one central purpose: to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Israel is shaping a new reality, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River — a binational apartheid state in the making.

Can Oman help Saudis save face in Yemen?
Giorgio Cafiero/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
Nine months after launching Operation Decisive Storm, the Saudis find themselves entrenched in a humiliating quagmire while extremists such as the Islamic State (IS) are proving to be the only victors in Yemen’s civil war. The kingdom has received strong criticism from the international community and human rights groups, which accuse Saudi Arabia of carrying out war crimes against Yemeni civilians. Moral costs aside, the expensive military campaign has also exacerbated Riyadh’s financial crisis. In light of the failed peace talks earlier this month in Switzerland and the resumed fighting in northern Yemen, the Saudis face a major strategic dilemma. If the next round of talks scheduled for early 2016 also falls apart, should the kingdom continue funneling resources into this bloody stalemate, or retreat without having achieved any of Riyadh’s objectives? Desperate for a dignified exit from Yemen, the kingdom has turned to its neighbor Oman for a political solution to the worsening crisis. Ultimately, this plan might be Riyadh’s most realistic means of saving face in Yemen.
The sultanate: a diplomatic bridge
Last month in Muscat, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, met his Omani counterpart, Yusuf bin Alawi, to discuss greater cooperation among the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members with regard to Yemen. Calling for “calm diplomacy,” Alawi said that Oman seeks “long-lasting political solutions” resulting from a “rapprochement among all parties.” Although the collapse of Yemen’s internationally recognized government in January elicited fundamentally different responses from Saudi Arabia and Oman, Alawi said that Riyadh and Muscat have “agreed to look forward and break from the past.”
Oman was the only GCC member that did not join Operation Decisive Storm. Oman’s mature and far-sighted response to the Houthi takeover of Sanaa underscored Muscat’s understanding of Yemeni history, where no fighting force has ever been able to seize control of the entire nation. Conflict resolution in Yemen will require a power-sharing agreement in which all sides have a voice at the table, rather than a military campaign aimed at crushing the Houthi rebel movement. To this end, Muscat has maintained its neutrality throughout the conflict and has been committed to advancing peace talks.
Since the launch of Operation Decisive Storm, Oman has hosted representatives from many factions in the civil war. In May, US State Department officials held secret talks in Muscat with a Houthi delegation, and Houthi representatives met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and with GCC officials. Omani officials have also secured the release of Western civilians detained in Yemen by militant groups.
Oman’s national interests
It is Oman’s own quest for long-term stability in neighboring Yemen, however, that motivates Muscat to further talks involving the relevant parties aimed at reaching a permanent cease-fire. From Oman’s vantage point, the Houthis and Saleh loyalists do not represent the same threat that Muscat’s fellow GCC members perceive from these actors. Instead, the Omani leadership is most unsettled by the threat that a prolonged conflict poses to the security of Oman’s Dhofar governorate, situated along the Gulf Arab nation’s 187-mile border with Yemen.
Before Sultan Qaboos took power in 1970, internal conflict fragmented Oman. From the 1850s to 1950s, two power centers — the Ibadi imamate in the interior and the sultanate along the coast — governed Oman. By 1959, with British support, Qaboos’ father managed to crush a revolt waged by the Ibadi imamate, consolidating the sultanate’s control over the entire country, including the newly discovered oil reserves of the interior. In the 1960s, a foreign-sponsored Marxist rebel group — the Dhofar Liberation Front, later named Popular Front for the Liberation of the Occupied Arabian Gulf — waged an insurgency, which the monarchy officially defeated in 1976 with support from the British, Iranians and Jordanians.
As Omanis face the challenges associated with the succession issue, Muscat officials are unsettled by the potential for groups in the historically neglected Dhofar governorate to reject the legitimacy of Qaboos’ successor. Within this context, promoting a peaceful resolution to the Yemeni crisis at the roundtable serves Oman’s national interests. The potential for extremist groups to infiltrate Oman and foment unrest by stoking such historic tensions during the nation’s political transition is a risk that authorities in Muscat take seriously. Memories of the conflict between the Ibadi imamate and the sultanate and of the Dhofar rebellion remain vivid for Omanis of a certain age. Today, however, there is no doubt that jihadi extremists in Yemen such as IS are cause for far greater concern than the Cold War-era fighters from the Dhofar Liberation Front/Popular Front for the Liberation of the Occupied Arabian Gulf.
Although Oman’s independent foreign policy, which has operated outside the framework of the GCC, has been an irritant for the Saudis on past occasions, officials in Riyadh may come to be grateful for the Omani wisdom that led Muscat to avoid joining Operation Decisive Storm. That Saudi Arabia, the wealthiest Arab country and the world’s top arms importer, cannot defeat an insurgency from the most underserved region of the poorest Arab country is a source of humiliation.
The Saudis would be wise to take advantage of the diplomatic avenue that Oman offers Riyadh at this difficult juncture. Surely, continuation of this conflict will not benefit the long-term interests of the Saudis, Yemenis or

How much leverage does Russia have in Syria?
Paul J. Saunders/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
Though Washington and Moscow recently set aside their differences over Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s future role in governing Syria to pass a unanimous UN Security Council resolution establishing a timeline for a political process and a cease-fire to end Syria’s almost 5-year-long civil war, establishing a timeline and implementing it are two very different things. A shared understanding of Assad’s future will be a key factor in whether the latest effort to bring peace to Syria succeeds or fails. But it will not be the only factor: A clear understanding of leverage — and how and when to use it — might be no less important. The United States and many of its allies are eager to see Russia use its leverage over Assad to persuade the Syrian president to agree to step down as part of a political transition. Though Washington and others earlier saw this as a precondition for talks, the United States appears to be softening this stance, if one is to take US Secretary of State John Kerry at his word in assessing his recent assertion that "the United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change" in Syria. If Assad’s eventual departure is no longer a precondition for talks, however, it likely remains among the Obama administration’s core requirements for a deal.
This raises an important question, however. If the parties eventually reach a settlement on this basis, how would Moscow persuade Assad to accept it? How much leverage does Russia have?
These questions are not easy to answer, since no one can objectively measure leverage against a universal standard. That said, Russia’s military intervention in Syria clearly provides Moscow with greater leverage over Damascus than it had as an arms supplier and an occasional friend in the UN Security Council. Russia’s airstrikes also increase its leverage relative to Iran, which is no longer the only state with a combat role in support of Syria’s government. Since the Kremlin looks less committed to Assad personally than Tehran, this could become important, too.
Still, Russia’s leverage over the Assad regime seems likely to subside over time. The reason is straightforward: Moscow’s influence over Damascus rests on not only what it is currently doing to support the Syrian government, but also what Syrian officials expect that Russia might do in the future. If Assad downgrades his expectations, then he would be less inclined to defer to Russian preferences and Moscow would have less leverage. As one of my colleagues likes to say, people are always more grateful for a favor they expect than for a favor already granted.
What could change Assad’s expectations? Several things. One possibility would be if Russia’s intervention produces minimal results, which would devalue future assistance. Another would be a slowdown in Moscow’s current pace of operations if, for example, Russia’s military proved unable to sustain its air war over an extended period. A third potential trigger could be faltering Russian public support, though Russian officials could credibly ignore these sentiments for a time. Finally, and perhaps perversely, Moscow could actually lose leverage over Assad if Russia accedes to US pressure to focus its attacks primarily on Islamic State fighters. Like ineffective attacks, this could diminish Russia’s perceived future assistance to Syria.
From this perspective, the Obama administration’s “strategic patience” in Syria could backfire. If Russia’s leverage declines too much either in absolute terms or relative to Iran, the Kremlin might be unable to encourage Assad to accept a settlement that would require him to step down or to promise not to compete in new elections.
The unpleasant problem for America is that Russia’s role in Syria provides Moscow with leverage not only in its dealings with Damascus and Tehran, but also with Washington. A Russia without leverage in Syria would have little diplomatic value to the United States and, consequently, would have limited leverage in working with Washington. Conversely, a Russia that might have sufficient influence to facilitate Assad’s departure is more valuable to the Obama administration, more important in finding a settlement — and more able to exercise leverage to advance its own interests in the process.
This leaves the United States with two alternatives. One is to try to reach an understanding about Assad now, while Russia has more influence in Damascus but can also extract greater concessions from America. The UN Security Council has defined this process, though without the agreement on Assad necessary for its success. If the Obama administration is unwilling to take steps to increase its own leverage — such as significantly intensifying the US role in the war — this may well require further US concessions.
America’s other option is to let “strategic patience” fully run its course. That means waiting to see whether and when Moscow scales back its role, whether and when Iran faces similar choices, and whether Assad would eventually step down or go down fighting. Since governments in Russia, Iran and Syria don’t face any immediate pressure to make these kinds of hard decisions, this could mean waiting for quite some time as the Islamic State continues to win new recruits and plans or inspires new terrorist attacks outside Syria — and as ordinary Syrians die or flee. With little if any evidence that patience will make Syria better rather than worse, that sounds more like “strategic hope.”

26-year-old female MP has big plans for Egypt’s new parliament
George Mikhail/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
CAIRO — Following her victory in the recent Egyptian parliamentary elections, Sarah Saleh, 26, became the youngest parliament member in the history of the South Sinai governorate. In an interview with Al-Monitor, she noted that while her age was the biggest obstacle she faced, she managed to transform it into one of the driving forces of her victory. Saleh said she has now become a representative for the youth of her governorate, and she will bring up their issues and demands before the parliament. She believes unemployment is the main problem facing the youth of South Sinai and fears unemployment and neglect are turning some young residents into terrorists.
The full text of the interview follows:
Al-Monitor: You decided to run in the parliamentary elections despite being only 26 years old — what are the main obstacles you faced in the electoral battle?
Saleh: My young age was the biggest obstacle in the elections, in addition to my lack of experience in politics, although I am a member of the National Council for Arab Tribes. It is through this council that I was selected to be on the “For the Love of Egypt” list as the youngest parliamentarian from Sinai. However, I managed to turn this obstacle into positives that led to my victory. I took advantage of my age to approach the youth of Sinai. It was very easy for me to communicate with them since we share the same ideas. I started touring the governorate with the support of some people from my generation who showed enthusiasm for the idea of ​​having a young representative in the parliament. Indeed, my intensive electoral tours and the faith of young people in me led me to score the highest score on the For the Love of Egypt list in South Sinai governorate.
Al-Monitor: What are the main problems facing your constituency in South Sinai?
Saleh: The biggest problem plaguing the governorate is widespread unemployment. Facilities, hotels and petroleum companies refuse to employ the people of South Sinai under the pretext that they are not qualified. This is not true. The people of South Sinai are highly qualified and can speak many languages, but the employers are recruiting a workforce from outside the governorate. Moreover, the state does not employ them in government jobs. The Ministry of Religious Endowments, for example, announced the vacancy of 50 positions in South Sinai but chose people who do not hail from the governorate.
Another problem is that the people of South Sinai are unable to own land in Sinai and are only allowed to have usufruct rights. Add to this the health problems in the governorate. South Sinai has some of the largest hospitals in Egypt, but suffers from a lack of medical equipment and a shortage of doctors, as many refuse to work in a remote governorate. A weekly medical caravan must be allocated to South Sinai and it is necessary to employ the people of South Sinai in these hospitals.
Al-Monitor: Has South Sinai been impacted by the ongoing violence in the neighboring North Sinai governorate?
Saleh: South Sinai was certainly affected by the violent events that occurred in North Sinai. It should be noted that the South Sinai governorate is completely safe and clear of any violence, but the lack of awareness campaigns to distinguish between the two governorates affected tourism in South Sinai, not to mention the repercussions of the Russian plane crash, which contributed to the deterioration of tourism in Sharm el-Sheikh.
Al-Monitor: How can Sharm el-Sheikh, which is one of the most important cities in South Sinai, regain its position as an important tourist destination following this plane crash?
Saleh: The initiatives organized by the ministries, institutions and political parties to visit Sharm el-Sheikh and promote tourism are part of the solution to the tourism crisis in this city. However, the media should target the West and spread messages about the beauty and splendor of the cities of South Sinai, such as Sharm el-Sheikh, Ras Mohammed, Ras Shaitan and Dahab. The youth in Sinai must be employed in the tourism sector since they are the keenest on the return of tourists to their governorate. The state should know that the prevalence of unemployment among the youth of Sinai turns them into terrorists.
Al-Monitor: Given that you yourself are a young woman from South Sinai, what are the most prominent demands of the youth in your governorate?
Saleh: The most important demand is combating unemployment and engaging the young workforce by issuing resolutions requiring employers to hire the people of the governorate for their projects. Moreover, a law must be passed allowing the people of Sinai to own lands and attention must be given to health and education services in the governorate.
Al-Monitor: You’ve stated that you seek to create a training institute for young people in South Sinai focusing on the fields of mining, tourism and the petroleum industry. What is your plan to make this a reality?
Saleh: I submitted to Maj. Gen. Khalid Fouda, the governor of South Sinai, the project to establish an academy to train the people of the governorate and prepare them for the labor market. The governor welcomed my proposal and confirmed that immediately upon his return from his current travels, he will implement this project. He also promised to hire the youth of the governorate in the vacant governmental jobs within the South Sinai governorate.
Al-Monitor: What are the demands of Bedouin women in your governorate?
Saleh: Women in general, and Bedouin women in particular, contributed significantly to the success of the elections and effectively participated in these elections. It is necessary to solve their problems and see to their demands to encourage them to actively participate in all elections in Egypt. The initial demands of the Bedouin women are to have job opportunities and to be trained to fit the labor market in the governorate. Awareness campaigns must be organized to combat the phenomena of early marriage and female genital mutilation, and health care must be provided to Bedouin women and their children.

Iraqis dive deeper into sectarianism
Mustafa al-Kadhimi/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
The Middle East is experiencing several conflicts at the regional level (Russia-Turkey), the religious sectarian level (Sunni-Shiite), the ethnic level (Kurd-Arab-Turkmen) and the political level (US-led front-Russian-led front). The situation has plunged the Iraqi public into conflicts that remain unresolved despite numerous attempts to address them. Regional as well as international parties have invested heavily in these conflicts in an attempt to protect their interests.The involvement of major powers in the Middle East has turned communities into political tools. Each community relies on its patron power to fight an opposing community. As the situation changes, the roles of the conflicting powers shift in the sectarian collective imagination.
When the United States advanced Shiite interests by overthrowing Saddam Hussein and his Sunni Baath Party in 2003, Russia was on the Sunnis' side. Moscow maintained good relations with the Baathist regime until the very end and had opposed the US-led invasion. When US President George W. Bush issued his ultimatum on March 18, 2003, for the Iraqi president to leave the country within 48 hours or face war against the United States and its allies, Russia declined to join the allied coalition.
The equation that existed in 2003 has since changed. Now Russia and the Shiites are on the same side, fighting the Islamic State (IS) while supporting the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. Russia launched military airstrike operations in Syria on Sep. 30. Meanwhile, the United States, in league with its Sunni allies in the Gulf and Turkey, continued to work toward toppling Assad.
Following the launch of Russian attacks in Syria, 52 Saudi clerics from the International Union of Muslim Scholars issued an Oct. 4 statement denouncing Russia's actions. According to them, “Russians are ultra-Christians,” and “Russian support for the Safavids and the Nusayris is a real war on Sunnis, their country and their identity.”
Applying a sectarian interpretation to events is not limited to where Saudi Arabia and Iran are involved, although their rivalry exemplifies the Sunni-Shiite regional conflict. Sectarian polarization has also engaged Egypt, Lebanon and Pakistan along with the other Gulf states. It is as if taking sides is a must. The regional powers’ political positions are therefore widely interpreted based on sectarian logic.
For instance, news about some of Turkey's recent positions and actions, including its confrontation with Russia, was cast in the context of sectarian configurations: The Shiite axis includes Russia, Iran, the Alawite-led Syrian regime and Shiite organizations in the region, such as Hezbollah from Lebanon and the League of the Righteous in Iraq. Meanwhile, the Sunni axis consists of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Sunni armed groups, such as the Free Syrian Army, opposing the Syrian regime.
What’s more, there are times when powers in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iraq fuel sectarianism tensions with their choice of words. For example, in 2010, the widely known Sunni Saudi preacher Mohammed al-Oraifi declared the phrase “Supreme Shiite Iraqi” “heretical.” After the fall of Mosul to IS in June 2014, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, in October that year, that the Iraqi army consisted only of Shiites and that Turkey was ready to train Sunnis in Iraq to fight IS. On Dec. 4, 2015, Turkish authorities sent an armored regiment of 150 soldiers into the Bashiqa area, north of Mosul, to do just that.
Erdogan’s statement and Turkey's recent actions have reinforced a sectarian perspective in which Ankara is supporting Sunnis against Shiites in Iraq and Syria. The Rule of Law Coalition issued a Dec. 9 statement accusing Turkey of “inciting sectarian strife.”
Despite soothing statements made Dec. 15 by Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu while trying to explain that Turkish troops had entered Iraq only to train peshmerga forces in their fight against IS, Ankara’s provocative style led Iraq’s Shiite-majority government to condemn Turkey's actions, accusing it of exacerbating an already difficult sectarian situation.
Turkey did not coordinate with the Iraqi government before sending in its troops. In addition, Turkey confined its cooperation to Sunni areas, in particular to Mosul. In addition to the peshmerga forces there, Turkey is training the Sunni Popular Mobilization Units, which were formed to liberate Mosul.
Previously, sectarian sensitivities had been triggered Oct. 29 by the uncontrolled entry at the Zurbatiyah border crossing of hundreds of thousands of Iranians making the Arbaeen pilgrimage to Karbala, Iraq. According to some observers, the incident violated Iraq's national sovereignty. The Iranians’ entry without official permits might be interpreted as a sign of leniency on the part of the Iraqi Shiite-majority government toward Shiite Iranians.
The uncontrolled entry took place, however, because Iraq is unable to maintain control over large religious events, let alone its borders. Looking at the incident in a sectarian context could nonetheless be justified given the polarization riddling the local and regional arenas.
All regional and international actors must grasp the seriousness of manipulating an already critical sectarian situation. Powers seeking to protect their regional interests should not give the impression that they have caved in to sectarianism by serving the agenda of a given axis against another. This highlights the need for those powers to carefully think about their discourse, positions and actions when they have the potential to fuel sectarian conflicts.

Who's to blame for deaths of children fighting in Palestine?
Aziza Nofal/Al-Monitor/December 28/15
RAMALLAH, West Bank — Taha al-Qatanani said he was expecting just an ordinary day as his daughter headed out the door early Nov. 22. He had no way of knowing she would never return.
"I thought Ashraqat was going to school when she left the house," he said of his 16-year-old daughter, who was killed that day at the Huwara checkpoint south of Nablus after allegedly trying to carry out a stabbing attack against Israelis.
Commenting on recent controversy over children participating in the Palestinian resistance, he said, "It is hard to stop the youth from doing what they have in mind — even if their plan goes against the will of their parents. It is difficult to control them."
He told Al-Monitor, “I was against engaging children in these operations and allowing them to go to checkpoints, and I publicly declared my position on mosque pulpits during Friday sermons. But after Ashraqat died, I found myself obliged to abide by her choice and defend the heroic act that she committed."
Qatanani works as a preacher in the mosque of Askar refugee camp in eastern Nablus, where he resides. He now thinks he was wrong to believe he could isolate children from their surroundings. “My daughter was influenced by the killings taking place. Children are part of the reality we live in. She failed to carry out a stabbing operation and died.”
Qatanani said he is insulted by the calls made by some Palestinian media figures and intellectuals on social networking sites and through the media to stop the so-called engagement of children in resistance operations. He said such debate is an attempt to rid Israel of its responsibility in the killing of these children.
“To those [debating the issue], I say that had the adults struggled [for their cause], Ashraqat would not have had to leave her house. Had the adults been capable of defending children, then children would not have had to carry out such individual operations,” he said.
He added, “It is shameful how some [critics] believe that the lives of our children are dearer to them than to us. This is my daughter. I had a very close and vital relationship with her, and she suddenly died. It was not easy to cope with her death, but my sorrow cannot stop me from respecting her choice and conveying her message to the whole world.”
Media figure Mohammad Rjoub was among the first who called out against involving children in the operations, which began escalating Oct. 1. On Nov. 22, he wrote on his Facebook page: “Pay attention to your children.… Fifty days into the current developments, the silent majority still has not dared oppose our children carrying out stabbing operations. My impression is that the majority is against such acts. This is what my job has led me to conclude, though I may be wrong.”
The Palestinian Ministry of Health estimates that from Oct. 1 until noon Dec. 16, 125 Palestinians were killed in the resistance, including 25 children. The ministry places the number of wounded during that time at 14,740, including 550 children.
During an interview with Al-Monitor, Rjoub said the stories of these children prompted him to take action. He particularly mentioned Hadeel Awad, 14, from the Qalandia refugee camp, who died while allegedly trying to stab an Israeli settler Nov. 23 in occupied Jerusalem.
According to Maliha Awad, her daughter undertook an operation to avenge the death of her brother Mahmoud, who was killed two years ago by Israeli forces when they invaded the Qalandia refugee camp north of Jerusalem. “Hadeel was the closest to Mahmoud, and she has been sad since his martyrdom,” Awad told Al-Monitor. Rjoub said he has talked to the parents of victims and told them to watch out for their children. "Morally speaking, [children] should not be involved in military action and nationally this is not their role; their role is to stay in school,” Rjoub said. “We need a comprehensive awareness campaign with the participation of parents, schools and the media.”
Ammar Dweik, director of the Independent Commission for Human Rights, shares Rjoub’s point of view. In spite of everything they experience, children are not aware of the consequences of their actions, he said.
"The occupation is a criminal responsible for killing children, without them posing any real threat to Israel,” he told Al-Monitor. However, Dweik believes Israel's role does not exempt society from its responsibilities toward children. Parents and institutions should talk with children to spread awareness and avoid the glorification of participating in resistance operations. Schools should allocate time to address psychological issues and focus on the fact that a child's role is to study — not to take action that "puts their lives in real danger.” On the other hand, Alaa’ al-Azzeh, an anthropology professor at Birzeit University, said Israel’s practices alone are enough to motivate children without any outside encouragement or glorification. According to Azzeh, children are all too aware that they are subject to colonial practices and that their role is to resist and put an end to those practices. “The colonial violence against Palestinians is quite visible and very difficult to hide from children, who are well aware of the seriousness of their actions and their repercussions. This full awareness stems from a volitional consciousness that is not misled by some party or the result of incitement,” he said.

Dumb Idea of the Year Award
Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/December 28, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7113/dumb-idea-of-the-year
Vadim Nikitim is the genius who last week proposed not only that we treat ISIS as a state, but that we grant ISIS diplomatic recognition.
Rather than realizing that the Soviet Union collapsed because of its economic system, Nikitim seems to think it fell apart because countries such as the US and UK recognized it diplomatically -- demonstrating that there is no better way to get the present wrong than by getting the past wrong.
The case of Saudi prince Saud bin Abdulaziz Bin Nasir might give the impression that you can rape and kill a manservant in a London hotel and get away with only the lightest of sentences.
Ambassadors from ISIS, on the other hand, will need to prove themselves somewhat, and first funnel many lucrative contracts our way before behaviour like this becomes acceptable.
Of course, there is always that pesky problem: What if militant Islam (or Iran) does not want to "forge a long (or short) peace" with us? Is there a Plan B?
It is that Dumb Idea of the Year Award time again, and among the many stellar contenders, one in particular stands out.
The diplomatic convention in Great Britain is that new ambassadors present themselves at the Court of St James. There they meet representatives of the monarch and are officially recognized as representing their state in the UK. So it would be interesting to consider even just the earliest ramifications of the British Independent newspaper contributor Vadim Nikitim getting his way. This is the genius who last week bypassed all those tedious arguments over whether or not ISIS constitutes a state, and proposed not only that we treat it as such but that it is also time to grant ISIS diplomatic recognition.
Mr. Nikitim's argument was that pariah states can be brought in to the international system through such measures, as U.S. President Barack Obama presumably imagines he is doing with Iran. Nikitim invites us to consider the precedent of the USSR. And rather than realizing that the USSR collapsed because its economic system caused it to collapse, Nikitim seems to think that the Soviet Union fell apart because countries such as the US and UK recognized it diplomatically -- demonstrating that there is no better way to get the present wrong than by getting the past wrong. He argues,
"Only by recognising and treating ISIS as a bona fide state can we hope to understand its workings and motivations... Only by accepting reality and extending diplomatic recognition to ISIS can the West hope to gain a credible means to moderate and constrain its further advance. The Soviet scenario is now the least worst option: it is time to forge a long peace with militant Islam."
"Only"? Ah, yes, we can all can see how splendidly recognition "moderated" the Third Reich, North Korea and Sudan, just for a sampling. As the columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady wrote last week on the first anniversary of Cuba's recognition by the United States: "Thousands of arrests, migrants flee and Russia wants in. Sound familiar?"
It must certainly be hoped that if Nikitim's advice is followed, that there are cameras present at the Court of St. James for the arrival of the first ISIS emissary. Every last detail of the meeting would be worth capturing for posterity.
Who might ISIS send? Middle Eastern protocol would ordinarily demand that the ambassador is a close relative of the ruler of the state in question. Does Caliph al-Baghdadi have a first cousin he might ship over? What about using the posting to address the common question of what to do with the third son -- the sort who has been drifting a bit, showing too much interest in girls and not enough in the family business? A London stint could be just the answer.
The reception ceremony might be a useful moment to explain certain "rules of the road" in Britain. Though a delicate matter, years of courtly experience should help ease things along. It is perfectly possible, for instance, that the ISIS ambassador will think that you can get away with absolutely anything in the UK. For instance, anyone who remembers the case of Saudi prince Saud bin Abdulaziz Bin Nasir might have got the impression that you can rape and beat a manservant, treat him like an animal, make him sleep on the floor and then even kill him in a 5-star London hotel and get away with only the lightest of sentences. It would have to be explained to ISIS's ambassador that you can only get away with such behaviour in London if you are a grandson of the Saudi King, or from a country with an equally long and decorous diplomatic history. Ambassadors from ISIS, on the other hand, will need to prove themselves somewhat, and first funnel many lucrative contracts our way before behaviour like this becomes acceptable.
If by this point the ISIS ambassador is feeling at his ease, he might make some inquiries of his own. How many non-Muslim women will he be allowed to enslave during his stay? How large are the Kurdish and Yazidi populations of the UK? When people talk about getting "smashed" and "off their heads" in London these days, does it mean quite what he thinks it means? What about getting stoned? By this point, the slightly sly and shifty look on the new ambassador's face may well have transformed into something altogether more trusting and a new "special relationship" have got underway.
Between a system which allows gay people to marry and one which throws them of buildings, there is bound to be some compromise. Between a group which destroys Middle Eastern culture and one which carefully preserves it in museums across its cities, there is certain to be some common ground.
Of course, the nightmare hurdle of the protocol at state dinners will still lie ahead. It is hard enough keeping the Iranian ambassador apart from the Israeli ambassador when the line-up is done alphabetically (thank God for Ireland). But it might be necessary to keep the ISIS ambassador in another room if he discovers there is an actual Jew present. The new ambassador's incessant demands for everyone else to "convert or die" could be smoothed over by the interventions of the Queen's footmen, who are past masters at delicately alerting visitors if they are using the wrong knife for the fish-course. The request of the ISIS ambassador to bring his own knife to state banquets will have to be handled carefully of course, as will the question of where to hide the Queen's dogs when the ISIS ambassador is in the house.
Of course, there is always that pesky, squirrelly problem: What if militant Islam (or Iran) does not want to "forge a long (or short) peace" with us? Is there a Plan B?
But once all these negligible diplomatic hillocks are navigated, there is no reason why the Independent's columnist may not be proven right and the "long peace with militant Islam" can finally start.
Follow Douglas Murray on Twitter
© 2015 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

UK condemns Muslim Brotherhood in break from Obama administration
By Adam Shaw Published December 25, 2015 FoxNews.com
A powerful report by the U.K. government accuses the Muslim Brotherhood of being sympathetic to terrorists and a risk to British national security, striking a contrast with the Obama administration’s more conciliatory approach – and fueling criticism that the U.S. government should wake up to the threat.
“I think the report is a damning indictment of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it’s a very realistic assessment of the nature of the Brotherhood itself,” Nile Gardiner, director of the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, told FoxNews.com. “The British government has taken a far more serious approach compared to the Obama administration’s.”
The internal review of the Muslim Brotherhood was ordered by Prime Minister David Cameron in April 2014 and while the report is classified, Cameron ordered the main findings of the report to be made public.
The report found that supporting Hamas was an important priority for the Brotherhood. It noted that while the group at times has renounced violence, senior figures have repeatedly defended Hamas attacks on Israel and justified attacks against coalition forces in the U.S. and Afghanistan.
Also, while the Muslim Brotherhood has criticized Al Qaeda, leaders have claimed that the 9/11 attacks were fabricated by the U.S. government, and that the war on terror is merely a pretext to attack Muslim countries.
The report concludes that while the Brotherhood has preferred non-violent methods on the grounds of expediency, “they are prepared to countenance violence – including, from time to time, terrorism – where gradualism is ineffective.”
“Aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security,” the report says.
Egypt's military-backed government labeled the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group in December 2013, a matter of months after the military helped topple the government of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi.
Morsi's overthrow put western countries like the U.S. and Britain in an awkward spot, after having spoken in favor of Arab Spring revolutions in Egypt and beyond. But in a written statement to the House of Commons after the release of the report, Cameron told MPs that association with the Brotherhood “should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism.”
He also said the U.K. would continue to refuse visas to those associated with the group who have made extremist comments, and would continue to review whether the group should be banned.
The Obama administration, by contrast, often has taken a more neutral stance toward the organization. In January, the State Department met with members of the Egyptian Freedom and Justice Party that was established by the Muslim Brotherhood.
In 2011, the Obama administration also had to correct Director of National Intelligence James Clapper after he described the group as “mostly secular” at a Capitol Hill hearing.
"To clarify Director Clapper's point, in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood makes efforts to work through a political system that has been, under Mubarak's rule, one that is largely secular in its orientation. He is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization," DNI spokesperson Jamie Smith said.
When asked in an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly in 2011 if the Brotherhood was a threat to the United States, Obama said “they are well organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S.” but did not call them a threat. Also in 2011, when asked if the U.S. should fear the Muslim Brotherhood, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “the jury is out.”
In a 2013 address to the United Nations, Obama said on the issue of Egypt that America had been both accused of “supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and engineering the removal of power. In fact, the United States has purposely avoided choosing sides.”
In a response to a 2013 petition to call the group a terrorist organization, the White House pushed back. “We have not seen credible evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced its decades-long commitment to non-violence,” the White House said in a statement.
Questions also have long been raised about the group’s connections inside the U.S. While some critics claim the Council on American-Islamic Relations is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR has called such accusations “false and misleading.”
“Undoubtedly this report will embarrass the Obama administration because the White House has gone out of its way to try to appease the Muslim Brotherhood, and so this report I think dramatically undercuts the Obama presidency’s weak-kneed approach on this matter,” Gardiner said of the U.K. findings.
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment by FoxNews.com. A spokesman for 10 Downing Street said they were not prepared to comment on any difference of opinion with the United States.
Other analysts suggest the report shows the fundamental difference in the understanding of the Islamic threat between the two governments.
“The Muslim Brotherhood plays word games, they know how to pretend to be moderate,” Ryan Mauro, national security analyst at The Clarion Project, told FoxNews.com. “If the Obama administration is saying the Muslim Brotherhood is non-violent and democratic then they do not understand the Muslim Brotherhood and do not understand the overall threat of radical Islam."
Mauro says this misunderstanding has been present in both the Bush and Obama administrations, and could ultimately drive a wedge between America and European countries.
“We’ve already been seeing this wedge between Europe and the U.S. where our politically correct approach -- where we describe the threat as generically violent extremism -- is very different from what Europe has been talking about, about striking at the ideology,” Mauro said.
**Adam Shaw is a Politics Reporter for FoxNews.com. He can be reached here or on Twitter: @AdamShawNY.

Russia has chosen the tough approach on Syria
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/December 28/15
A day after the Russian foreign minister made a rude statement, as he sat next to his Qatari counterpart, and announced the failure of their meeting on categorizing terrorist groups from among the Syrian opposition, warplanes, believed to be Russian, killed the leader of the Army of Islam in a Damascus suburb.
Whether or not the aim of the attack was to impose Moscow’s demands by force following the meeting’s failure, the incident is being analyzed in that context. Russia wants to be the one that decides the path of war and negotiations in Syria. It has voiced its intention to impose its opinion during negotiations, and display its power by upsetting Turkey, decreasing the latter’s influence in Syria and Iraq, and pressuring Gulf countries. Moscow has also defied the Americans, who have quickly retreated and accepted to coordinate to avoid escalation. It may win the current round in the Russian-Iranian plan to keep Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power. Before that, it imposed its own categorization of terrorist groups that were banned from attending the Vienna talks. Meanwhile, the Assad regime has constructed a facade of “moderate opposition” groups that are actually close to Iran. Moscow and Tehran have imposed the formula of the accepted political solution. Russia wants to be the decision-maker regarding Syria, but will it be able to achieve that? If it is willing to a pay high price, it may be the reference on the future of governance in Damascus for a while. Russia wants to do what the United States did in Iraq, creating and imposing a political project that although is based on weak governance, exists on the ground. The Russians are investing a lot in the governance plan in Syria, and in deepening the alliance with Iran.
Army of Islam
We cannot understand why Moscow targeted the Army of Islam, especially since it is not as terrifying as the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and does not have as much political influence as the moderate Free Syrian Army (FSA). By killing the Army of Islam’s commander Zahran Alloush, Russia has unleashed broad political repercussions. I do not know how Russia thinks it can win by being hostile to most Arab countries. The Army of Islam became known only two years ago. It was well-known for its courage in declaring that it is fighting ISIS as well as the Assad regime, and succeeded in seizing areas in the Damascus surroundings. Two years ago it was receiving Western and Gulf - particularly Qatari - support. The group succeeded in building a force that it says consists of around 15,000 fighters who are more disciplined than others. Its failures are due to the fact that it resumed its work based on a religious ideology at a time when most regional and international backers of the Syrian opposition preferred to support nationalist groups, considering the diversity of races and religions in the country. Some parties want to support armed Islamist groups because they agitate against the sectarian Assad regime and Iran, and because of Shiite dominance in Iraq and Lebanon. The flaw in this concept is that it grants Iran what it wants by tearing up the Levant via sectarian division and transferring the crisis to the Gulf, while not achieving political stability in Syria. Pushing the region toward more conflict, from Syria in the north to Yemen in the south, for another decade will serve Iran’s old and ongoing policy of creating crises in its neighbors. I do not know how Russia thinks it can win by being hostile to most Arab countries. Historically, Russians are not enemies to the region’s countries, but following their involvement in Syria they have become a target of Arab anger from both officials and civilians.

King Salman: A true visionary with resolute policies
Mashary Sulaiman Balghonaim/Al Arabiya/December 28/15
Saudi Arabia has always remained the favorite subject of foreign journalists and academics. A multitude of books, articles and commentaries have appeared in the world press, unfortunately, defaming Saudi Arabia by using an unbalanced and biased approach. The number of publications on Saudi Arabia has increased during the past few months. Most of the publications proved to be lopsided and far from reality. Authors of those books, articles and commentaries apparently rely on hearsay or rumors and don’t try to do a research before writing any thing about the Kingdom. It is due to this approach, the Kingdom and its otherwise balanced and fair policies remain largely misunderstood.
Regional and global role
There is a great need to highlight the Kingdom’s positive regional and global role and to effectively counter the propaganda against Saudi Arabia. Recent developments in the Kingdom should have been enough to quash rumors and dispel wrong notions about this important country leading the global fight against extremism. The decisive and resolute policies of King Salman should be an excellent starter to address the various challenges the Kingdom is facing. The issue of transfer of power from one king to the other has always remained a hot issue in the foreign press. After the demise of King Abdullah, analysts and political pundits went into overdrive and we experienced a deluge of analyses. Everybody was trying to come up with a unique theory without understanding the culture of Saudi Arabia. However, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman’s ascension to the throne proved to be a very smooth process. Saudis, however, were not surprised at all. We know our country and our rulers well not to pay attention to silly analyses by people who have never been to our country. This smooth transition was enough to shut the mouths of those so-called analysts who can go to any extent to malign the Kingdom.
Mutual trust
Subsequently King Salman issued a number of extraordinary decrees and orders. One of those decrees was to bring two young members of the royal family to the fore — Crown Prince Mohammed bin Naif and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. This royal appointment demolished few other wrong perceptions of the Saudi political affairs and proved to be a smooth transition in Saudi Arabia once again. Officials and masses warmly welcomed the transition and wholeheartedly supported this move and proved to the entire world that the Saudis fully trusted their leadership’s decisions. They, once again, proved that the relations between the ruled and the rulers in the Kingdom are warm and based on mutual trust. One must say that all those reports about Kingdom’s political developments and their consequences proved to be wrong and a waste of time and money. Those living outside the Kingdom appear to be very interested in commenting on Saudi politics and society but they don’t even know the basics about the Kingdom. They don’t know that the rulers and people of Saudi Arabia stand united and act as one body.
Saudi Arabia’s state institutions are also one of the favorite topics of foreign writers. Interestingly, they are not aware of the basic functions and organizational structures of these institutions but clearly they are very fond of writing about them. It is a known fact that the demographic of the Kingdom is changing very fast. Youngsters ranging from 15 to 35 years form approximately 70 percent of the total Saudi population. It is due to this very fact; King Salman attaches great importance to the development of the Saudi youth. The decisive and resolute policies of King Salman should be an excellent starter to address the various challenges the Kingdom is facing. Just a few days ago, King Salman in his address at the Shoura Council, vowed to enhance Saudi Arabia’s position in the world and enhance the economic developments in the Kingdom through various ways such as the diversification of the Saudi economy. During the last year, King Salman had shown the world his style of paving the way toward further institutional reforms and modernization to solidify the domestic front.

Will Iran choose diplomacy over military fight in Syria?
Camelia Entekhabi-Fard/Al Arabiya/December 28/15
Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who has been busy with nuclear talks with Western powers for the past two years, has now been summoned to talks of a different type – a U.N. peace conference on Syria, slated to be held on January 25. The success of the nuclear talks had served as an introduction to Iran among the international community after decades of isolation, but inclusion into international politics hasn’t yet proven to be the easy task that politicians in Tehran had been expecting. Big challenges lie ahead for Iranian President Hassan Rowhani over the crisis in Syria and the roles Iran has played in it, potentially jeopardizing the stability and security that Tehran had needed to fully implement the nuclear accord. There are domestic needs for the nuclear accord to go ahead as planned, which are mainly economic, but the international community expects Iran to have a more active diplomatic involvement in the Syria talks. The Syrian crisis has been ongoing for almost five years and with hundreds of thousands of lives lost and much of the country being destroyed, alongside the proxy wars and political wrangling, there are no clear indicators that these peace talks will amount to much.
Iran’s involvement in Syria, which has been always described as ‘logistical and advisory assistance’ to the Assad regime, has been exposed as a strong military ground presence. The number of Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) killed in Syria is increasing almost daily and is directing attention towards Tehran’s strategy.
Stamp of approval
With its military already present in Syria, it is not clear how much Iran can help towards a diplomatic solution to the crisis, even with a skilled foreign minister like Mr. Zarif being involved. With its military already present in Syria, it is not clear how much Iran can help towards a diplomatic solution to the crisis
It is important to understand that the Revolutionary Guards’ presence is not fully supervised by the president, but by the Supreme Leader who is in charge of the armed forces. Therefore, Zarif may be negotiating, but Iran’s diplomatic role in the Syrian crisis can never be furthered without Ayatollah Khamenei’s stamp of approval. If the military involvement is shifted towards diplomatic channels, Iran can continue to build its credibility as a leader in the international community and become a constructive force in a broad-based political solution. With the death tolls of Iranian casualties in Syria reported to have reached almost 300, many in Iran are openly questioning the reasoning behind their nation’s military presence in the conflict.
It would be wrong to assume, of course, that the majority of Iranians are against the IRGC’s actions. Some of these commanders are perceived as heroes, having previously served in Iraq. Still, it saddens many Iranians that these heroes are being killed without reason, particularly that this military involvement is now conflicting with the promise of a political solution. Public resistance and anger perhaps convinced Ayatollah Khamenei to agree to be involved in a diplomatic process and so Iran accepted the invitation sent by Russia and the U.S. With two major elections coming up in February 2016, a high voter turnout is one of the most important desires for Tehran right now. Having these two major elections happening just after the Syria talks, hardliners may be pushed towards supporting a diplomatic solution. Zarif and Rowhani have already stated that Iran intends to engage and cooperate in the talks. I believe this is the only way for Iran to achieve its goal of becoming a respected regional power.