LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
July 12/15

http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com/newsbulletins05/english.july12.15.htm

Bible Quotation For Today/Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles
Matthew 12/14-21:”But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him. When Jesus became aware of this, he departed. Many crowds followed him, and he cured all of them, and he ordered them not to make him known. This was to fulfil what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah: ‘Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. He will not break a bruised reed or quench a smouldering wick until he brings justice to victory. And in his name the Gentiles will hope.”

Bible Quotation For Today/ Those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Letter to the Romans 08/01-11: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”

LCCC Latest analysis, editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 11-12/15
From France’s Robespierre to ISIS’ Baghdadi/Abdullah Hamidaddin/Al Arabiya/July 11/15
Prince Saud and the diplomatic state/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/July 11/15
After the Nefertiti statue, is London the new center for Arab Art/Yara al-Wazir/Al Arabiya/July 11/15
Prince Saud al-Faisal’s legacy lives on in Saudi foreign policy/Andrew Bowen/Al Arabiya/July 11/15
Playing with diplomacy: Obama’s fear of nuclear failure/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arabiya/July 11/15
Islamism: Blaming the West/Samuel Westrop/Gatestone Institute/July 11/15
How Iran's Economic Gain from a Nuclear Deal Might Affect Its Foreign Policy/Patrick Clawson/Washington Institute//July 11/15
In Iran we trust? Illegal purchases of nuclear weapons technology continued to June ‘15/By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL, EMANUELE OTTOLENGHI /J.Post//July 11/15

LCCC Bulletin itles for the Lebanese Related News published on July 11-12/15
Israeli drone crashes in Lebanon’s Tripoli
Geagea Suggests Forming Popular 'Brigade' under Army Supervision to Protect Bekaa Towns
Nasrallah Urges Aoun-Mustaqbal Dialogue, Says 'Road to Jerusalem' Goes through Syria
Report: Mustaqbal Lines 'Will Be Open' for Dialogue with Aoun
Report: Hariri, Saniora, Mashnouq Agree on Future Measures to Avoid Escalation

LCCC Bulletin Miscellaneous Reports And News published on July 11-12/15
ISIS claims Italian consulate car bomb in Cairo
Tunisia’s ‘non-NATO ally’ status confirmed by U.S.
Air strike kills ISIS commander in Afghanistan
U.S.-led warplanes strike ISIS targets in Syria, Iraq
ISIS reportedly bans prayers during Eid in Mosul
Iran declares 'good news' as nuclear deal appears imminent
Kerry: ‘Difficult issues’ remain in Iran talks
Rouhani: In nuclear talks, Iran has 'charmed the world, and it's an art''''

Jehad Watch Latest links for Reports And News
Canada: Muslim charged with plotting Islamic State-inspired attacks, calling for murder in the name of jihad
Ramadan in Egypt: Islamic jihadists murder one, injure nine in car bomb blast at Italian Consulate
Ramadan in Thailand: Islamic jihadists murder six, injure eleven in string of bomb and arson attacks
Islamic State photo: Statue of Liberty beheaded holding ISIS flag, NYC in flames
U.S. taxpayers have spent $1 billion to fund Sharia in Afghanistan
Thailand deports 109 Muslims from China who had been on their way to Turkey, Syria or Iraq to join jihad
Kosovo cuts water to tens of thousands of people in Pristina over Islamic State plot to poison reservoir
UK: Muslim teen who said “gay people should be killed” gets 40 months at youth home for supporting the Islamic State
France: Leader of group founded to counter “anti-Muslim feelings” gets 9 years for plotting jihad attacks against Jews
Strategies of Denial Revisited (Part IV)
Georgetown’s Elliott Colla Misses Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood

Israeli drone crashes in Lebanon’s Tripoli
By AFP | BeirutظSaturday, 11 July 2015
An Israeli drone crashed in the northern Lebanese port city of Tripoli on Saturday, the military said, in the second such incident in three weeks. “At around 8:30 am (0530 GMT), a drone belonging to the Israeli enemy went down in the port of Tripoli, and the army has taken the necessary measures,” the Lebanese military said in a statement, without elaborating. A security official said the pilotless aircraft crashed into the sea. “Fishermen had the impression a plane was falling down towards their harbour, close to the main port of Tripoli,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “They alerted the army which has retrieved the aircraft from eight metres (26 feet) under water. It turned out later that it was an Israeli drone,” the source added. An spokesman for the Israeli military refused to comment on the reports. On June 21, Israel carried out an air strike in eastern Lebanon to destroy one of its drones that had crashed in the mountains outside the village of Saghbine.

Geagea Suggests Forming Popular 'Brigade' under Army Supervision to Protect Bekaa Towns
Naharnet/11 July/15/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea announced Friday that the LF would support the creation of a popular brigade to defend border towns in the Bekaa against any jihadist attack, while stressing that such a paramilitary force should only operate under the supervision of the Lebanese army. In a speech in Maarab during an LF ceremony, Geagea called for “preventing the movement of arms and gunmen convoys across the border and halting some parties' continued involvement in the Syrian conflict.” The LF chief was apparently referring to Hizbullah, which has dispatched fighters into neighboring Syria to bolster Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime against an Islamist-led uprising. He suggested that the Lebanese state “exert strenuous efforts with the relevant regional and international sides in order to deploy international observers along our eastern border to help the army in the mission of controlling and defending the border.” Referring to vigilante groups that have been created in some eastern border towns to fend off any attack by Syria-based extremist groups, Geagea said he supports such a move “if it is making the residents feel reassured and safe.”But he stressed that such groups must operate under the army's supervision, and “not for the benefit of political parties that brought the Syrian war to Lebanon's gates.”Accordingly, Geagea proposed the formation of “a brigade from the Lebanese army supporters, comprised of the sons of the Bekaa border towns who are seeking to guards their towns and villages,” while emphasizing that such a group should be placed “under the direct supervision of the Army Command.”Turning to the issue of the stalled presidential elections, the LF leader said “the presidential vote in Lebanon must not remain hinging on the politics in Tehran.”He underlined that “the fate of four million Lebanese and their political and economic life” should not remain suspended over “the equations in the region and Iran's share in them.”“Impeding the presidential vote has not brought a strong president but rather vacuum,” Geagea pointed out, warning that the protracting presidential void might “undermine the political, security and monetary stability.”“The only way to restore the regularity of the work of institutions … is the immediate election of a president, a president representative of his (Christian) community who also has the ability to reassure all Lebanese,” he added.

Nasrallah Urges Aoun-Mustaqbal Dialogue, Says 'Road to Jerusalem' Goes through Syria
Naharnet/11 July/15/Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah called Friday for a “serious dialogue” between the Free Patriotic Movement and al-Mustaqbal movement to resolve the cabinet dispute, as he declared that “the road to Jerusalem” goes through Syria. “Weeks ago, it was obvious that the country was heading towards a clash over the issue of government and the FPM is a key party in the equation,” said Nasrallah in a televised address commemorating Quds (Jerusalem) Day. FPM chief MP Michel “Aoun is raising legitimate demands,” Nasrallah stressed. He said over the past weeks, “some parties believed” Hizbullah and the FPM “do not share the same stance.”They thought that “Hizbullah is preoccupied in Syria and that Aoun was alone,” Nasrallah added. “We insisted on consensus in the cabinet and we did not need to reach this extent,” he said. Emphasizing that “Aoun's allies have not abandoned the FPM,” Nasrallah pointed out that some parties tried to “drive a wedge between the allies.” Hizbullah's leader also clarified why his party did not take part Thursday in the FPM's street protests. “Hizbullah's participation would not have been in Aoun's interest, because if we take part, a thousand accusations would be raised in our faces – Iran's nuclear program, Syria, a constituent assembly, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon -- and Aoun's demands would be lost,” said Nasrallah. “Secondly, the man did not ask us to take part, because he understands the magnitude of the missions that Hizbullah is assuming in this period,” he noted. Aoun announced Thursday after a stormy cabinet session and violent street protests that his movement managed to achieve its objectives from what he had dubbed as a “fateful day,” stressing that “there will be no new president” before the political forces agree on a new electoral law. During the heated session, the cabinet's parties agreed to continue the thorny debate over the cabinet's decision-taking mechanism after Eid al-Fitr. Aoun had called on his supporters to prepare for rallies to restore what he described as “the rights of the Christians.” Preparations for the demos began after the cabinet failed to discuss the appointment of high-ranking security and military officials. The FPM chief has been lobbying for the appointment of Commando Regiment commander Chamel Roukoz, his son-in-law, as army chief. “We realize the difficulty surrounding the election of a president due to the current circumstances, but it must remain everyone's priority, and we must agree on a mechanism for the work of the cabinet in the absence of a president,” said Nasrallah on Friday. He underlined that “neither Aoun nor his allies want to topple the government, because that would plunge the entire country into vacuum.” “I call for serious dialogue, especially between Aoun and al-Mustaqbal movement, because Mustaqbal did not honor the promises it gave to Aoun,” said Nasrallah, referring to reports that Mustaqbal had told Aoun it would endorse Roukoz's appointment as army chief as part of a package deal. But Nasrallah asserted that Hizbullah “won't abandon” any of its allies or its alliance with the FPM. “A bilateral dialogue should start between al-Mustaqbal and the FPM, and we might all join it later,” he said. “Lebanon needs its civil peace, institutions and coexistence, and it has no room for elimination, exclusion or monopolization, and partnership is our destiny,” Nasrallah insisted. Turning to Hizbullah's military intervention in Syria alongside the regime's forces, Nasrallah noted that the party's fighters who are dying in Syria are making sacrifices for the sake of “resistant Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.”Citing a famous Lebanese civil war statement by senior Palestine Liberation Organization official Abu Iyad, Nasrallah stated that “the road to Jerusalem does not go through Jounieh.”But “it goes through Qalamoun, Zabadani, Daraa and Hasakeh, because if Syria is lost, Palestine would be lost,” he explained.

Report: Mustaqbal Lines 'Will Be Open' for Dialogue with Aoun
Naharnet/11 July/15/The Mustaqbal Movement is not leaning towards boycotting any political side, declared their sources in response to Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's call on the movement to launch dialogue with Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun, reported An Nahar daily on Saturday. The sources added: “Our lines are open and we have never boycotted anyone.” “We have been holding talks with Hizbullah, which is our fiercest opponent,” they continued. “Dialogue with Aoun will be open, but we are not in the process of lifting the receiver and informing him that we are going to pay him a visit,” remarked the sources. In addition, they noted how “Aoun speaks of partnership and later orders people to appoint an individual otherwise he will reject any other proposal.”Aoun wants his son-in-law Commando Regiment chief Brig. Gen. Chamel Roukoz to be appointed army chief. Roukoz's tenure ends in October 2015 while the term of army commander Gen. Jean Qahwaji expires at the end of September. Although the government has so far failed to discuss the appointments, Aoun said the Free Patriotic Movement ministers will not resign from the cabinet. Nasrallah called Friday for a “serious dialogue” between the FPM and Mustaqbal Movement to resolve the cabinet dispute.

Aoun Says Army Leadership Responsible for Scuffle, Does not Support Federal System
Naharnet/11 July/15/Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun on Saturday held the army leadership responsible for the clash that took place between his supporters and troops at a protest earlier this week. “It is a shame for the (army) leadership to behave this way with peaceful protesters,” Aoun told a delegation of supporters from Aley. FPM supporters held a protest near the Grand Serail on Thursday but they scuffled with soldiers who stopped them from reaching the government house where a cabinet session was underway.
Aoun said there was an “organized and planned assault” on the protesters. He also said that federalism is one of the solutions to resolve the country's political woes but it needs “Lebanese consensus.” “We shouldn't talk about confessionalism,” said the lawmaker, who heads the Change and Reform bloc. In remarks to al-Akhbar daily on Saturday, he also refuted claims that he had proposed the establishment of a federal system in Lebanon. “The problem with the Lebanese is that they do not read,” he said. “I did not demand a federal system, but it was imposed on them,” he explained. “The Lebanese people will prevent such a development,” he added. Moreover, Aoun stressed that he “represents the Maronites in Lebanon and forced to defend their rights.” Meanwhile, Secretary of Aoun's Change and Reform bloc MP Ibrahim Kanaan told the daily: “The FPM did not propose the establishment of a federal state.”“They forced us to make such a suggestion,” he said. “Who ever said that the elimination of the Taef Accord would lead to a federal state?” he wondered. In an interview with As Safir newspaper on July 3, Aoun announced his backing for the creation of a federal system in Lebanon despite the objection of his rivals. “If married couples disagree, they resort to divorce. We don't want divorce but we propose federalism that is based on a centralized government,” he told the daily at the time. Progressive Socialist Party chief MP Walid Jumblat remarked earlier this month to local media: “It is impossible to have a federation.”“The Taef Accord is the only guarantee for Lebanon’s Christians,” he said. “Let them drop the issue of federation and confederation and let us protect the country together,” he added.

Report: Hariri, Saniora, Mashnouq Agree on Future Measures to Avoid Escalation
Naharnet/11 July/15/Head of the Mustaqbal bloc MP Fouad Saniora and Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq returned to Lebanon from a trip to Saudi Arabia where they held talks on the latest local developments with Mustaqbal Movement chief MP Saad Hariri, reported al-Joumhouria newspaper on Saturday. Informed sources told the daily: “The officials agreed on measures to confront these developments and prevent the escalation of the government crisis.”They stressed the need to preserve the calm Lebanon is enjoying given the regional turmoil, reported the daily. Saniora and Mashnouq had traveled to Saudi Arabia on Thursday. Lebanon is facing a crisis over the Free Patriotic Movement's refusal to tackle any cabinet agenda before discussing its decision-making mechanism. The FPM supporters staged protests on Thursday against the government.FPM chief MP Michel Aoun had vowed to call his supporters to stage protests to “reclaim the rights of Christians that have been usurped by the government.” A heated dispute erupted at Thursday's cabinet session between Prime Minister Tammam Salam and Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil over the issue.

ISIS claims Italian consulate car bomb in Cairo
By Staff writer | Al Arabiya News/Saturday, 11 July 2015
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group said it exploded a deadly car bomb Saturday outside the Italian consulate in Cairo, warning Muslims to stay away from such places, SITE Intelligence Group reported. “Soldiers of the Islamic State in Cairo were able to detonate a parked booby-trapped vehicle laden with 450 kg (990 pounds) of explosives at the headquarters of the Italian consulate,” the U.S.-based security monitor quoted an ISIS tweet as saying. “We advise Muslims to stay away from these security dens, because they are legitimate targets for strikes of the mujahedeen,” the statement added. The car bomb exploded outside the Italian consulate in Cairo on Saturday morning, killing one person and wounding at least four others, an Al Arabiya correspondent reported, citing security sources and witnesses. The blast, which shook the building in downtown Cairo, occurred at around 6.30 a.m. local time. Medics at the site of the blast told Agence France-Presse that the explosion wounded two policemen stationed outside the consulate and three passers-by without identifying which was killed. In reaction, Egypt’s prime minister said “we are at war” and that the world should unite against “terrorism.” Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said “Italy knows that the fight against terrorism is an enormous challenge.”
“We will not leave Egypt to stand alone. Italy and Egypt will be together in the fight against terrorism and fanaticism,” added Renzi, who also spoke with Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. The Italian foreign minister also said his country will not be intimidated by the deadly bombing of its consulate. “Bombing against our consulate in Cairo, there are no Italian victims,” Gentiloni tweeted shortly after the attack that left one person dead. "Our thoughts are with the people affected and with our personnel. Italy will not let itself be intimidated." The blast partially destroyed the facade of the consulate building. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the explosion. Islamist militants seeking to topple the government have claimed responsibility for roadside bombs and suicide bombing attacks.

Tunisia’s ‘non-NATO ally’ status confirmed by U.S.
AFP, Washington/Saturday, 11 July 2015/Tunisia’s status as a “non-NATO ally” of the United States has been approved, the U.S. State Department said, paving the way for enhanced military cooperation between the countries. Washington hailed the partnership between the United States and Tunisia after the Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status was confirmed Friday. “MNNA status sends a strong signal of our support for Tunisia’s decision to join the world’s democracies,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. He added the “status is a symbol of our close relationship.”In May, U.S. President Barack Obama declared Tunisia a non-NATO ally while hosting his Tunisian counterpart Beji Caid Essebsi at the White House. The United States is hoping to strengthen Essebsi, who in December became the first democratically elected leader in Tunisia’s 60-year history. Kirby said the status offers Tunisia a host of “tangible privileges, including eligibility for training, loans of equipment for cooperative research and development, and foreign military financing for commercial leasing of certain defense articles.”Tunisia is the 16th country to become a Major Non-NATO Ally of the United States. Tunisia became the flashpoint of Arab Spring revolts across the Middle East in 2011 when a disaffected fruit vendor set himself alight, arousing pent-up anger at failing government and economic hardship. Granting the country MNNA status is a bid to bolster the country against the rising threat of jihadist groups in the region. On June 26, a gunman killed 38 foreign holidaymakers, including 30 Britons, at a beach resort. The massacre followed an attack in March, when two jihadists gunned down 21 tourists and a policeman at the Bardo National Museum in Tunis. Both attacks were claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group.

Air strike kills ISIS commander in Afghanistan
By Reuters | Kabul/Saturday, 11 July 2015/A senior Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) commander has been killed by an air strike in eastern Afghanistan, intelligence officials said on Saturday, the fourth high-ranking member of the militant group to be killed in the area in the past week. Hafez Saeed was the leader of ISIS in the “so-called Khorasan state”, according to Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS), referring to an old term to describe Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was killed along with 30 other militants as they gathered in Achin district of Nangarhar province late on Friday, the intelligence agency said. It did not give any further details about the air strike. Saeed, a Pakistani, was among a small but increasing number of senior Taliban militants who have switched allegiance to ISIS in Afghanistan. Such figures have been targets for U.S drone strikes, which have killed three other ISIS commanders in the same area in the past week, including Shahidullah Shahid and Gul Zaman. After pushing out the Taliban insurgents, ISIS fighters have in the past two months gained ground in several districts of Nangarhar province, which shares a long and porous border with lawless areas inside Pakistan. Achin fell to the ISIS militants last month after heavy clashes with the Taliban.

U.S.-led warplanes strike ISIS targets in Syria, Iraq
By Staff writer | Al Arabiya News/Saturday, 11 July 2015/U.S.-led coalition warplanes targeted Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in 16 airstrikes in Iraq and 15 against the militant group in Syria, the U.S. military said in a statement on Friday. In Iraq, the warplanes struck targets near Baiji, Fallujah,Habbaniyah, Haditha, Makhmur, Mosul, Sinjar and Tal Afar, Reuters news agency reported. In Syria, the coalition targeted ISIS positions near Al Hasakah, Aleppo, Raqqah, Ayn Isa, Kobani and Tal Abyad.

ISIS reportedly bans prayers during Eid in Mosul
By Staff Writer | Al Arabiya News/Saturday, 11 July 2015/The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has allegedly banned Muslims from praying during Eid al-Fitr in Mosul, one of the most important holidays in Islam, claiming it was not part of the religion they practiced, reported Rudaw news agency. Ismat Rajab, an official for the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) told the Kurdish news agency that the Islamist extremist group had warned residents of the city to avoid prayers during the Eid. Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan, was not “originally an Islamic practice,” ISIS claimed, according to Rajab. The remark contradicts the practice of millions of Muslims all over the world. Since the ISIS takeover of Mosul last year, the jihadis have been imposing new rules and regulations, backed by strict punishments that include the threat of death for offenders.

Iran declares 'good news' as nuclear deal appears imminent
By MICHAEL WILNER/J.Post/07/12/2015/VIENNA -- Negotiations over Iran's nuclear program appear to have reached their penultimate moment as Tehran's nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, declared "good news" to gathered press on Saturday night.
Entering the Palais Coburg in Austria's capital, where the talks have taken place for fifteen straight days, Salehi spoke after Iranian officials briefed their press corps on the importance of the night ahead. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif met with US Secretary of State John Kerry for an hour and a half this evening, which was followed by a full plenary of diplomats from world powers— the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany— that went through midnight. The meetings came after the Iranians released photos of their top delegates sifting through stacks of papers, taking phone calls and working on laptops, all wearing large smiles. The American delegation has been largely silent, though earlier in the day, Kerry sent out a message on Twitter suggesting that more work needed to be done to resolve some "difficult issues." Drafting of the deal's text is said to be complete, according to the EU's foreign policy chief. Going into consequential talks on Saturday night, all that was left, it appeared, was a small set of political decisions to be settled by all sides.
In a briefing by their delegates, Iranian journalists were told that specific language for a key United Nations Security Council resolution still proved a political challenge in the eleventh hour of the negotiations. The Jerusalem Post was not represented at the briefing and cannot independently verify the reports. "Now that everything is on the table, the moment has come to decide," Fabius said, exiting a meeting with Kerry earlier in the evening. World powers seek to cap, restrict, monitor and partially roll back Iran's nuclear work in exchange for permanent sanctions relief. Iran wants that relief immediately.Israel opposes the deal in its current form.

Kerry: ‘Difficult issues’ remain in Iran talks
By Staff writer | Al Arabiya News/Saturday, 11 July 2015/After Iran and major powers gave themselves until Monday to reach a nuclear agreement, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned that “difficult issues” remained in nuclear talks after meeting with his Iranian counterpart for 90 minutes on Saturday. “Met with @FedericaMog and @JZarif this AM. Still have difficult issues to resolve,” Kerry said in a Tweet just minutes after ending his talks with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif. A senior Iran official also told AFP that there was “no time-limit” to the talks as negotiations hit the 15th day Saturday. “We have no time-limit in order to reach a good deal,” the senior Iranian official said, asked if the negotiations could be formally extended again in a bid to end the current deadlock. Before extending the talks to another third week, Tehran accused the West of throwing up new stumbling blocks to a deal. Both sides say there has been progress in two weeks of talks, but British Secretary Philip Hammond called it “painfully slow” and both he and his French counterpart, Laurent Fabius, left Vienna saying they would return on Saturday.
Having missed a Friday morning U.S. congressional deadline, U.S. and European Union officials said they were extending sanctions relief for Iran under an interim deal through Monday to provide more time for talks on a final deal.
Iran and six powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - are trying to end a more than 12-year dispute over Iran’s atomic program by negotiating limits on its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. The sides remain divided over issues that include a U.N. arms embargo on Iran which Western powers want to keep in place, access for inspectors to military sites in Iran and answers from Tehran over past activity suspected of military aims. Zarif said a deal was unlikely to be reached on Friday and negotiators would probably spend the weekend in Vienna. He sought to blame the West for the impasse. “Now, they have excessive demands,” he said of the major powers’ negotiating position. Britain’s Hammond said ministers would regroup on Saturday to see if they could overcome the remaining hurdles.
“We are making progress, it’s painfully slow,” he told reporters before leaving Vienna. Zarif has been holding intense meetings for two weeks with Kerry to try to hammer out a deal limiting Iran’s nuclear program in return for withdrawing economic sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy. An agreement would be the biggest step towards rapprochement between Iran and the West since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. But the negotiations have become bogged down, with final deadlines extended three times in the past 10 days and diplomats speaking of a shouting match between Kerry and Zarif. The White House said on Friday the United States and its negotiating partners “have never been closer” to agreement with Iran but that the U.S. delegation would not wait indefinitely. “The president has indicated to his negotiating team that they should remain in Vienna and they should continue to negotiate as long as the talks continue to be useful,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said at a news briefing.
“And if it becomes clear that Iran is not interested in engaging in a constructive way to try to resolve the remaining sticking points, then the negotiators should come home.” Deadline missed The negotiators missed a Friday morning deadline set by the U.S. Congress for an expedited 30-day review of the deal. Any deal sent to Congress before Sept. 7 would now be subject to a 60 day review period, accounting for lawmakers’ summer recess. U.S. officials had previously expressed concern that the extended review would provide more time for any deal to unravel, but have played down that risk in the last few days as it became increasingly likely that the deadline would not be met. On Thursday, Kerry suggested Washington’s patience was running out: “We can’t wait forever,” he told reporters. “If the tough decisions don’t get made, we are absolutely prepared to call an end to this.”
Ali Akbar Velayati, top adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Kerry’s remarks “part of America’s psychological warfare against Iran”. A senior Iranian official speaking on condition of anonymity said the United States and the other powers were shifting their positions and backtracking on an April 2 interim agreement that was meant to lay the ground for a final deal. “Suddenly everyone has their own red lines. Britain has its red line, the U.S. has its red line, France, Germany,” the official said. Back in Iran, Friday provided a reminder of the depth of more than three decades of enmity between Iran and the West that a deal could help overcome. Iranians rallied for the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan, observed in Iran as “Quds Day” to show support for Palestinians, protest against Israel and chant slogans against the “Great Satan” United States.
Optimists
Western countries suspect Iran of seeking the capability to make nuclear weapons. Iran says it has the right to peaceful nuclear technology.
Over the past two years, the nuclear talks have brought about the first intensive direct diplomacy between the United States and Iran since Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held hostages for over a year. A successful outcome would be a triumph both for U.S. President Barack Obama and Iran’s President Hassan Rowhani, a pragmatist elected in 2013 on a pledge to reduce Iran’s international isolation. Optimists say a deal could help reshape Middle East alliances at a time when Washington and Tehran face a common foe in the Sunni militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) . But both presidents face skepticism from powerful hardliners at home, making it difficult to bridge final differences. 

Rouhani: In nuclear talks, Iran has 'charmed the world, and it's an art'
By REUTERS /07/11/2015 /DUBAI - Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Saturday that if nuclear talks with major powers succeeded, the world would see that Tehran had solved its biggest political problem by negotiation and logical argument, Nasim news agency reported. "Even if the nuclear talks fail, our diplomacy showed the world that we are logical. We never left the negotiation table and always provided the best answer," Nasim quoted him as saying in a meeting with artists. "Twenty-two months of negotiation means we have managed to charm the world, and it's an art," he was quoted as saying. Separately, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told a meeting of students in Tehran on Saturday that the United States is the "true embodiment of global arrogance", according to remarks posted on his website. Answering a student who asked him what would happen to the 'fight against global arrogance' after the completion of nuclear talks Khamenei replied that that fight could not be interrupted, his website said. Khamenei was quoted as saying: "Fighting global arrogance is the core of our revolution and we cannot put it on hold. Get ready to continue your fight against the global arrogance."
"The US is the true embodiment of the global arrogance."
Iran, the United States and other major powers struggled on Saturday to break a deadlock in nuclear talks that has held up a historic deal that would bring sanctions relief for Tehran in exchange for curbs on its atomic program. Tehran and the six powers have given themselves until Monday to reach a nuclear agreement, their third extension in two weeks, as the Iranian delegation accused the West of throwing up new stumbling blocks to a deal. Western powers have long suspected Iran of aiming to build nuclear bombs and using its civilian atomic energy program to cloak its intention, an accusation Iran denies. The term arrogants, or arrogant powers, is used in Iran to refer to the United States and its Western and Israeli allies. Washington cut ties with Tehran a year after the 1979 revolution that ushered in Iran's Shi'ite Muslim theocracy.

From France’s Robespierre to ISIS’ Baghdadi
Abdullah Hamidaddin/Al Arabiya/Saturday, 11 July 2015/There are signs that the UK is about to change its policy toward terrorism. For the past few years, the British government took the position of combating terrorism while leaving aside the ideologies behind it, ignoring the warnings of policy experts about the dangers of such a strategy. However, Prime Minister David Cameron is now looking at the ideological aspect as well. Hopefully, other European governments will do the same. If we want to confront radical Islamist ideologies, we should imagine ourselves confronting Jacobins. It is easier for us to imagine and understand Maximilien Robespierre than Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It also helps us focus on the ideology rather than the religious language that coats it. A Muslim terrorist is best imagined as a Jacobin who happens to be a Muslim, and Baghdadi is best understood as Robespierre in a turban. A month ago, I wrote that the roots of ISIS should be traced back to al-Banna’s ideology, and that Islamists are modern ideologues who use Islamic symbolism and scripture. To better understand ISIS, Islamic radicalism and terrorism, we should go back to the French revolution, as historians and political theorists have done to understand 20th-century totalitarianism and state terror.
Shared ideologies
Watching the BBC’s 2009 documentary “Terror, Robespierre and the French Revolution” is a good place to start. “Men who loved humanity so much they felt entitled to exterminate human beings who stood in its way” - this statement encapsulated the messianic terror regimes and organizations of two centuries. Both Robespierre and Baghdadi believed in ideals that bring peace and harmony to the world. The first believed in the Enlightenment and the second in Islam. Yet both carried an ideology that suspended their beliefs. Both believed that virtue without terror is powerless, that virtue needs terror to promote it. Listen to Robespierre: “Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue…” This is not an Islamist. This is a French democratic secular revolutionary.Robespierre’s Committee of Public Safety believed – like radical Islamists - that ‘the people’ do not know what is good for them, so the Committee will think on the people’s behalf and force the people to do good. Both have a messianic belief and a vision of a perfect society. They believed that they have the Truth, and are thus entitled to enforce it on those who do not have it.
Confronting radicalism
If Western governments do confront violent Islamist ideologies, they need to do so wisely and carefully. They must know that the solution is not to be found in the way religious scripture is interpreted. Religion does not manifest in public life directly. Religion is filtered through the preconceptions one has about the world. When radical ideologies inform those preconceptions, religion manifests itself violently. This also applies to secular and democratic values. It was Robespierre’s ideology that shaped how his values manifested in public life.
We cannot simply depend on moderate clerics who advise Muslims against violence. This is like having a priest speaking to the Jacobins so as to deter them from violence. If the Muslim audience has already been initiated into a radical ideology, they will reject moderate teachings. We need an alternative approach to confront religious radicalism, one that considers religion and ideology as two distinct mental entities that co-exist in the mind of the Islamist, and subsequently confronting the ideology in a fitting language.
We should also note that Muslims are not the only source of inspiration and theorization for the contemporary Islamist ideologue. The ideas of the Jacobins are very much alive among some modern philosophers. A prominent example is Slavoj Žižek, who appeared in the BBC documentary and was supportive of the Jacobins: “In order to establish the fundamentals of democracy, you have to go through this zero level of Jacobinism.”Žižek explains his view in detail in a fascinating essay that can be summed up as: if one really believes in equality, human rights and freedom, one should have the courage to believe in the terror that is needed to defend them. When thinking of confronting radical Islam, we must broaden our target and confront all pro-violence ideologies everywhere. More importantly, we need to imagine a Western archetype of terrorism to enable them to understand Islamist terrorism. They need a Western lens to understand Islamist terrorism. This is why going back to Robespierre, the Committee for Public Safety and the French revolution is essential.

Prince Saud and the diplomatic state
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/Saturday, 11 July 2015
Saudi Arabia’s strength has always been in its diplomacy first and foremost, particularly amid recurring regional crises and erupting violence. Amid tough times, when Saudi Arabia was not able to find suitable political solutions to conflicts, Saudi diplomacy played a key role in the protection of the country through its ties with international governments and organizations. Two figures are usually in charge of the foreign policy of any country; the head of state and the foreign minister. Saudi Arabia is not an exception – the king and the foreign minister are in charge of this task that requires precise skills and a refined culture. Late Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal was known for his skills and his culture. There is no doubt he is one of the greatest men known for diplomacy, connections, wisdom and success. This is clearly seen in the fact that the kingdom survived regional weaknesses for decades, thanks to its ability to generate dialogue and maneuver through crises.
He underwent many surgeries, and despite all that, he remained conscious and did not give up on his vitality and activity.
Saudi Arabia has succeeded in managing its wars also through its diplomatic activity. Saudi Arabia drew a red line around neighboring Yemen when it was seized by Iranians and their allies; the Kingdom had no other choice but to confront them.
Saudi foreign diplomacy played a crucial role in the Security Council’s recognition of military action as legitimate, the criminalization of Houthi leaders and the prohibition of their arms. It also succeeded in bringing several countries on its side. It rallied governments to vote in favor of the Kingdom, send men to join the war against the rebels, send warships to close ports in the face of Iranian vessels and communicate important intelligence updates. It also urged other governments to positively mediate for the country.
A national treasure
Relations management between countries is akin to a chess game, requiring intelligence and patience. There is no doubt that Prince Saud was intelligent, wise and extremely patient. This is by virtue of the experiences he had amassed over the years, serving four kings and adhering to their circle of trust. He also gained the trust of their opponents too. The Middle East is haunted by ancient conflicts, personal animosities, unstable relations and uncertainties. To top it off, most disputes lack logic; they shouldn’t even exist. Amid such a tense climate, diplomacy represents an important path to safe havens and the protection of a country’s ultimate interests. Historically, the name of the late Prince has been associated to efforts made in halting Lebanon’s civil war, as well as political crises and oil crunches in the 80s, the Iranian-Iraqi war, the occupation of Kuwait, disagreements within the Gulf, ongoing tensions with Iran, the rise of terrorism, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and the disasters emerging from the Arab Spring.
I visited Prince Saud, nearly seven years ago, in the Royal Mansour Hotel in Casablanca. I wanted to know of changes occurring on the political front. The large number of medicines he was taking caught my attention. He explained how these were his daily meal, which included painkillers since the pain he felt was unbearable. Prince Saud, may his soul rest in peace, had been living on pain relievers for years. He underwent many surgeries, and despite all that, he remained conscious and did not give up on his vitality and activity. He was a great national treasure.

After the Nefertiti statue, is London the new center for Arab Art?
Yara al-Wazir/Al Arabiya/Saturday, 11 July 2015
The city of Samalut in Egypt was home to one of the greatest insults to Arab art and history this week, after a replica statue of Nefertiti was erected on a highway. The statue was meant to replicate the original, which has been on display in Berlin for decades. Yet this statue did not pay tribute to Nefertiti, Egyptian history, the Arab population, or the beautifully traditional Armana style art. Instead, it was very much a greenish-yellow coloured slap in the face to Arab art. Egyptian social media users said the bust was a disgrace to the original version and compared it to Frankenstein. (Twitter) Is it time for Arab art to migrate to where artists are given enough respect and sufficient tools to create the beauty they are able to? Like shopping and investments, it may be time for Arab art to migrate to London.
It’s about time we showcase the art we create While there is a relative shortage of art galleries in the Middle East, there’s certainly no shortage of artists. This was realized by Europe, and London has answered the calls by Arab artists and given them an opportunity to showcase their work during a two-week festival. The Shubbak Festival is building a window into the Middle East when it is most needed. The festival spoils art-lovers for choice – from poetry, to literature, films, and numerous forms of art, leaving me in a newly found personal “Ramadan Rush” – rushing from one exhibition to the other, trying to immerse myself in it all.
Stop debating stolen history – it’s time for modern history
It’s true that the ownership of the original Nefertiti statue in Berlin is debated. Egypt has numerously asked for it back, with no success. There are numerous beautiful pieces that are scattered around European Museums, although they rightfully belong in their home in the Middle East. But the question begs itself: will they be protected, respected, and admired in the Middle East? Regardless of the outcome, the Middle Eastern population deserves to see its own history through original pieces, not replicas.
The debates over where this art belongs can go on for years. In the meantime, the region can invest in the artists it has and create a collective space to showcase their art. Mat7af, a museum based in Education City in Doha is no stranger to showcasing Middle Eastern artists, but the age of single-artist collections has passed, especially in an age where there are so many heart wrenching stories that are inspiring beautiful art. This is exactly what London is offering. The Nefertiti statue may have been horrible, but it was taken down. There are plans to replace it with a statue of a white dove instead. But while the dove is a universal symbol for peace, it is not representative of the Middle Eastern art scene, which is truly erupting. The artists are abundant, the quality is incredible, and the audience is slowly growing. This is a public call for more museums, and exhibition spaces, as well as for private collections to be made public. Jewellery is not made to be kept in jewellery boxes, to be admired only by the owner.

Prince Saud al-Faisal’s legacy lives on in Saudi foreign policy
Andrew Bowen/Al Arabiya/Friday, 10 July 2015
In his decades-long service, Prince Saud al-Faisal represented the hallmarks of Riyadh’s wise and pragmatic leadership in foreign policymaking. He played a critical role in diplomatically navigating this turbulent and changing region and cultivated the kingdom’s relations with key global powers including the U.S., China, and India. Prince Saud importantly made a deep impact on the broader Muslim world through his work in helping lead the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
When Prince Saud stepped down as foreign minister this past April, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry noted, “I will continue to seek his counsel and value his friendship, forged over many hours spent discussing the challenges our nations face. Prince Saud has not just been the planet’s longest-serving foreign minister but also among the wisest. He worked with 12 of my predecessors as U.S. Secretaries of State, and was universally admired.” As a senior counsel to King Salman after retiring, his wisdom and experience continued to help guide the kingdom’s judicious navigation of regional and international security challenges including, Yemen, Iran, and Syria, and Riyadh’s engagement with the U.S.
A critical advocate for peace
Prince Saud assumed his role as foreign minister in 1975 during a period of great regional turbulence after the October War of 1973 and one that would shape his tenure as foreign minister. In a speech in front of the U.N. General Assembly in September 2014, he implored, “the Arab-Israeli conflict has overshadowed and dominated all other issues in the past six decades. No regional crisis has greater potential to affect other regional conflicts or world peace than this conflict.” Prince Saud also served as a critical partner in countering violent extremism globally and stood with the U.S. after the September 11 terrorist attacks A critical advocate of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, the late foreign minister sought to secure a just and sustainable end to this crisis. “Unfortunately, all efforts up to the present have concentrated on partial and piecemeal steps that achieved little, or unilateral measures that have only resulted in worsening the suffering of the Palestinian people,” the prince stressed.
A strong partner
Prince Saud also served as a critical partner in countering violent extremism globally and stood with the U.S. after the September 11 terrorist attacks. In a 2002 interview on PBS’ “Frontline,” the foreign minister, stressed “we had problems with al-Qaeda before 9/11, as a matter of fact. They are pursued everywhere by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” Emphasizing partnership to confront these challenges, which is salient today as the U.S. and Saudi Arabia confront ISIS, in a 2004 address to the Council on Foreign Relations, in New York, Prince Saud, noted, “In the struggle against these evils, we must be partners, who, sharing the same objectives, are still able to recognize and allow for diversity. We must not fight the wrong battle; our quarrel is not with each other. Let us join forces instead against the uncivilized, the criminal, and the unjust.” Even at times when the prince disagreed with President Bush’s decision to intervene in Iraq in 2003, the Foreign Minister sought to work with the U.S. after 2003 in securing Iraq’s future.
Strengthening Gulf unity to confront common challenges
Prince Saud was also a long-time advocate for unity amongst the Gulf States to address common security challenges, notably Iran and Yemen. In a 2004 address at IISS’s Manama Dialogue in Bahrain, Prince Saud stressed, “All GCC countries need to realize that their individual and collective interests are best served by developing a clear and unified economic and security strategy and meeting the requirements of a joint and meaningful military capability as a priority,” he said. “This should in no way affect any special relationships that some or any of these countries have with others.” A seasoned observer of Yemeni politics, the prince wisely observed that Yemen’s future and the GCC’s future are interlinked and advocated for the Kingdom’s southern neighbor to be integrated into the GCC’s security architecture. In his address to the Manama Dialogue in 2004, the foreign minister warned “the Gulf cannot be separated from the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. The geographic and demographic size of Yemen should contribute positively to the maintenance of security and stability of the region. Yemen has developed substantial and meaningful relationships with GCC countries which would undoubtedly make it easy to attain full membership in the GCC.”
In his efforts to secure Yemen’s future, earlier this April, the Prince stressed, “We came to Yemen to help the legitimate authority, which is the only party that can speak in the language used by Imam Khamenei.” A keen observer of regional politics, Prince Saud noted, “Iran’s voice has only risen after problems appeared in Yemen and it began to intervene in Yemen’s decisions.”
A careful steward of Saudi foreign policy
Despite his reservations about Iran, Prince Saud sought engagement at times and most recently, in May of 2014, he extended an invitation for Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif to visit Riyadh. He stated, “Any time that sees fit to come, we are willing to receive him. Iran is a neighbor, we have relations with them and we will negotiate with them, we will talk with them.” However, Iran’s repeated refusal to engage in serious dialogue with the GCC and its disinterest in peace led the late foreign minister to conclude Iran’s leadership isn’t committed to such a relationship. In October 2014, the foreign minister warned, “In many of these conflicts, Iran is part of the problem and not part of the solution.” He further stressed, “If Iran wants to contribute to solving the problems in Syria, it should withdraw its troops” from Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. Prince Saud’s careful stewardship of Saudi foreign policy for four decades deeply contributed both to the long-term security and prosperity of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but also, to the security and stability of the region. His positioning of Saudi Arabia as the leading broker in securing the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict from the 1970s further cemented the kingdom’s relationship with the U.S. and ensured that Washington needed Riyadh as a partner for peace and security in the region. His careful navigation of the U.S.-Saudi relationship during different periods, including the Gulf War of 1990, September 11, and the Iraq War of 2003, ensured that the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia endured.
With ISIS’ emergence in Iraq and Syria and Iran’s aggressive and expansive behavior in the region, his wise voice and experience will be missed as the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and the GCC navigate this increasingly turbulent time. His legacy and words are ones that leaders and policymakers can draw wisdom from now and in the future.

Playing with diplomacy: Obama’s fear of nuclear failure
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arabiya/Friday, 10 July 2015
One of the lengthiest diplomatic negotiations, the Iranian nuclear deal seems to be never-ending. Two deadlines have already been missed in the last month. In addition, the negotiators missed the target of tonight Washington time set by the U.S. Congress. This would grant the Congress two months instead of 30 days to review any agreement. Nevertheless, it is crucial to point out that extensions or missing deadlines do not necessarily scuttle the nuclear talks or mean that the negotiations will fall apart. With Russia and China being on the side of Tehran, the Islamic Republic’s attempts to obtain more concessions from the United States, France, and Germany are on the rise. After almost two years of negotiations and meetings, the motive to reach a final nuclear deal has also intensified for Obama administration. While at the beginning of the talks, President Obama might have been searching for a lifetime legacy in the Middle East by sealing a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic, currently another reason is pushing the talks- the president’s fear of his credibility being damaged if a deal is not reached. It is evident that the current terms being negotiated will not only keep Iran’s nuclear threat intact, but will create a whole new security framework. Not reaching a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic would be a strong blow to President Obama and the Democratic Party due to the considerable amount of political capital that has been spent on these marathon talks. As a result, diplomacy is being played in order to keep dragging the nuclear talks into a seemingly never-ending process. In addition, Iran is good at this and at obtaining more points to its advantage. The Iranian leaders want the deal both ways.
Iran demands more: Political opportunism and the lifting of the arms embargo
In the eleventh hour, Iran has added another demand to the table: lifting the arms embargo on Iran as part of the U.N. sanctions against the Islamic Republic.If the arms embargo is lifted, it will have severe repercussions on ratcheting up the conflict in Iraq and Syria, as Iran will gain access to more advanced weapons. Iran’s demand in the final hours indicates that Iranian leaders are very skillful at diplomacy and realize President Obama’s weakness and desperation to seal a deal. In addition, the Iranian negotiating team is capitalizing on the split in their opponent's teams as Russia and China are on the Iranian side when it comes to lifting the arms embargo. Iranian leaders will attempt to obtain the optimum amount of concessions without rushing to seal a deal.
With the lifting of the arms embargo, the deal will be much sweeter for the Iranians. Iranian leaders will have it both ways. After 10 years , if Iran do not cheat and if the ruling clerics honor their commitments (which the Islamic Republic does not have a good record of doing), Iran’s nuclear break-out capacity will shrink to zero, meaning Iran will be a nuclear power. Secondly, Iran will gain more advanced weaponry, the IRGC will solidify its economic power, and the government will receive billions of dollars. Another issue is that, even if the six world powers and the Islamic Republic reach a “final” nuclear deal, the deal is not going to be final. Both sides will not be signing the final agreement until a few months later. First, the U.S. Congress and Iranian domestic counterparts will review the agreement. Then, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will have to inspect Iran’s nuclear activities and verify the compliance with the article of the agreement. Finally, after the IAEA verified compliance, sanctions will be lifted and both sides will sign the deal.
This method also appears to be a solution not to discredit Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s redline. Khamenei previously demanded that all sanctions should be lifted upon the signing of the final agreement. While in international diplomacy, deals are first signed and then implemented, the six world powers and the Islamic Republic are reversing the process.
Will it be a good deal? Who will be the winner?
Another crucial and lingering question is whether the potential deal will be a good one, and who the primary winner or losers will be. The response to such questions depends on the terms of the deal and the lenses through which one analyzes and examines the nuclear deal.
It is crucial to point out that the winners and losers of such a deal will not be limited to the seven countries engaged in the talks. The repercussions or positive aspects of such a deal goes beyond the gilded circle. One can argue that the winners will be primarily President Obama, the Iranian government, Shiite proxies in the region, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, President Rowhani, the Syrian government, Bashar Al-Assad, as well as Western corporations and companies. President Obama will finally have a quiet night as he will seal and achieve his awaited dream and foreign policy legacy. President Obama and his administration will also be creating the narrative that the deal is historic and a positive one for the world. On the other hand, the easing of sanctions on Iran will create a whole array of other winners including the IRGC, office of the supreme leader, and the Quds force (an elite branch of IRGC which operates in extraterritorial landscapes). As the economic power of the IRGC and the Quds force increases, Iran’s Shiite proxies in the region will benefit from the trickling down of these funds. Assad can be more assured that the Islamic Republic will continue supporting his government financially, economically, militarily, and through intelligence and advisory roles. Finally, non-state or state actors which will not benefit from the potential deal are those that are resisting the Shiite militias or are concerned with regards to the Iran’s hegemonic ambitions, it’s search for regional preeminence and supremacy and are worried about Iran’s attempts to tip the balance of power in its favor. The question of whether the deal will be a good or bad one depends on how and who looks at the deal. When we analyze the negotiations and terms comprehensively and meticulously, it becomes evident that the current terms being negotiated will not only keep Iran’s nuclear threat intact, but it will create a whole new security framework, geopolitical concerns and nuclear arms race in the region.

Islamism: Blaming the West
Samuel Westrop/Gatestone Institute/July 11, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6089/islamism-blame
Islamist terror is not the product of Western policy. As David Cameron rightly notes, it is a global ideological network, with both violent and non-violent branches, and appears committed to enveloping everyone throughout the world. But in the world of Giles Fraser, Baroness Warsi and friends, it seems as if terrorists are not radical, extremists are not extreme, and Islamism is not the product of Islamist ideas. In June, Talha Asmal, a 17-year-old Muslim, became Britain's youngest suicide bomber. In a vehicle packed with explosives, Asmal and three other jihadists attacked Iraqi forces at an oil refinery in the northern town of Baiji. Eleven people were killed.
A few days later, three sisters from the city of Bradford left with their nine children – the youngest only 3-years-old -- for ISIS territory in Syria. In the wake of these latest recruits to the jihadist cause, and a week before 30 British tourists were slaughtered on a Tunisian beach, Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech at a security conference in Slovakia. Before a distinguished audience of politicians, academics, military officials and security experts from around the world, Cameron described ISIS as "one of the biggest threats our world has faced."
eason young British Muslims join ISIS, Cameron claimed, "is ideological. It is an Islamist extremist ideology – one that says the West is bad and democracy is wrong, that women are inferior, that homosexuality is evil. It says religious doctrine trumps the rule of law and the Caliphate trumps nation state, and it justifies violence in asserting itself and achieving its aims."
A growing number of journalists, politicians and Islamist activists, however, argue that growing radicalization and support for ISIS is the consequence of an isolated Muslim community, which feels aggrieved with government policies. Baroness Warsi, for example, a former cabinet minister, told the BBC that the British government was fuelling the problem of radicalization by "disengaging" from Muslim communities.
Islamist groups argue that foreign policy and police scrutiny directly cause extremism. CAGE, an Islamist group that worked with the black-hooded British ISIS executioner, "Jihadi John," has claimed that heavy-handed security services and "long standing grievances over Western foreign policy" cause young Muslims to turn to violence.
Two of the husbands of the sisters who left for Syria with their children have claimed the British police "actively promoted and encouraged" the radicalization of their wives. They fled to Syria, the husbands claim, because of "oppressive police surveillance."
One official from the Muslim Association of Britain, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, even argued that government cuts to welfare cultivated support for ISIS.
Others, meanwhile, claim that the government does not do enough. Manzoor Moghal, a Muslim commentator, notes that the families of three British schoolgirls who joined ISIS in February expressed similar criticisms: "On that occasion, the parents and their lawyer took their complaints to Parliament, arguing that the Metropolitan Police had been 'a disgrace' in failing to give sufficient warnings of their daughters' vulnerability to the zealots."
In February, three girls from Bethnal Green Academy, in London's Tower Hamlets, travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State as "jihadi brides": 15-year-old Amira Abase (left), 15-year-old Shamima Begum (middle), and 16-year-old Kadiza Sultana (right).
All these critics downplay any individual responsibility for the young British Muslims who embraced jihad. The academic Frank Furedi writes:
"When it was revealed over the weekend that 17-year-old Talha Asmal had become Britain's youngest suicide bomber, many reports suggested that he was a 'victim' of ruthless online groomers. His family described him as 'loving, kind, caring and affable'. The obsession with representing young 'vulnerable' suicide bombers as victims is related to the association of the act of radicalisation with vulnerability. The irrational connection of an act of terrorism to the status of victimhood is so deeply entrenched that the British media have little interest in the real victims in this drama – the people that were maimed and killed by this 'caring and affable' 17-year-old."
Islamist-led Muslim groups are keen to attribute the process of radicalization to extremist online material. Officials from the Muslim Council of Britain -- a group run by operatives from the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami -- refer to "slick ISIS media" found at the "margins of the Internet." These groups might only be keen to blame the Internet, however, because it distracts attention from their own, more persuasive fundamentalism.
Commentators from across Britain's political spectrum seek to ignore the crucial role that extremist preachers and sects play in the radicalization process, inculcating vast swathes of the British Muslim community with fundamentalist ideals.
Owen Jones, a Labour Party-aligned columnist with The Guardian, writes that the government employs "a rhetoric of collective blame that does nothing but play into the hands" of ISIS and other extremist groups. Western wars in Iraq and Libya, he argues, have produced the ISIS threat.
As with Baroness Warsi, Jones seems unable to identify ideology as the key cause. In his mind, Islamism is not a concerted global threat, but an organic response to chaos caused by Western folly.
It suits both Warsi and Jones to ignore the influence of extremism. Both have accepted invitations to speak on Islamist platforms alongside preachers such as Abu Eesa Niamatullah, who claims that Jews "find it so easy and natural... to massacre... to blow up babies," and Yasir Qadhi, who has said: "Hitler never intended to mass-destroy the Jews ... 'The Hoax of the Holocaust', I advise you to read this book ... a very good book. All of this [the Holocaust] is false propaganda ... The Jews, the way they portray him [Hitler], is not correct."
To his credit, David Cameron is one of the few who appears to recognize the reality of Islamic extremism. At the security conference in Slovakia, he further stated:
"The question is: how do people arrive at this worldview? ... One of the reasons is that there are people who hold some of these views who don't go as far as advocating violence, but who do buy into some of these prejudices giving the extreme Islamist narrative weight and telling fellow Muslims, 'you are part of this'. This paves the way for young people to turn simmering prejudice into murderous intent."
In that understanding, however, the government appears curiously alone. By contrast, The Times columnist and former Conservative MP, Matthew Parris, writes that merely by mentioning extremism within British Islam, Cameron has become the "ISIS propaganda machine." Parris also claims that jihadists are no different from the "adventurers who went to fight in the Spanish Civil War. ... I've heard no evidence that a flyblown stint with murderous bigots in Syria has 'radicalised' young British Muslims who return: these are human beings like us, many of whom will have reacted to the reality of that dirty war in the same way as you or I would have done -- with shock and disillusion."
Matthew Parris seems to have a short memory. Just five months ago, terrorists who pledged allegiance to ISIS gunned down cartoonists and Jews in France. Before that, in 2014, an ISIS-trained terrorist murdered four people at a Jewish museum in Belgium. ISIS-linked terrorists have conducted attacks in over a dozen countries, including the recent attack in Tunisia.
Islamist terror is not the product of Western policy. It is, as David Cameron rightly notes, a global ideological network, with both violent and non-violent branches. It may thrive in chaos, but it is committed to enveloping everyone throughout the world.
The notion that British terrorists are victims of their circumstances is a fallacy that only serves to inspire sympathy with murderers, downplays the reality of global Islamism, and undermines efforts to combat terrorism.
Giles Fraser, a writer for The Guardian and former Canon Chancellor of St. Pauls Cathedral, recently wrote that there is no ideological connection between Islamist terror and Islam itself. The West, Fraser claims, blames "conservative Islam and the dangerous ideas contained in the Quran," for the recent horrors in Kuwait, Tunisia and France, because we refuse to "face our responsibility" for the "long history of disastrous western interventions in the Middle East."
Progressive Muslims might have reason to declare that Islamic scripture does not sanction terrorism, but no one can claim violent Islamic movements do not cause their own violent acts.
To back up his argument, Fraser cites a report published by a British group called Claystone. The study posits that "the connection between radical theology and terrorism" is built on a "flimsy empirical basis," encouraged by "conservative political lobbyists keen to blame conservative Islam for terrorism."
Claystone, however, is run by Haitham Al-Haddad, a British Salafist who describes Jews as "apes and pigs" and "enemies of God." He also claims that Osama bin Laden is a "martyr" who would enter paradise.
The Claystone report claims that Salafist Islam is an ally in the fight against terrorism. The report also makes the baffling claim that people who commit terrorist acts do not necessarily subscribe to extremist beliefs.
In the world of Giles Fraser, Baroness Warsi and friends, it seems as if terrorists are not radical, extremists are not extreme, and Islamism is not the product of Islamist ideas.
There is plenty the British government gets wrong on the question of extremism. It continues to fund problematic groups, such as Finsbury Park Mosque, which is run by Hamas operative Muhammad Sawalha; or Islamic Relief Worldwide, an Islamist charity that promotes extremist preachers. In addition, the government has proposed harsh measures to combat extremist preachers, including efforts to censor what clerics may write or say in public.
But on the question of moral responsibility, David Cameron seems to have it right. The West is not to blame for terrorism. Islamist violence is actually the product of a religious ideology openly committed to enveloping the world. It is not our domestic or foreign policies that Islamists dislike, but the existence of anything not belonging to their version of Islam -- which includes us in the West.

How Iran's Economic Gain from a Nuclear Deal Might Affect Its Foreign Policy
Patrick Clawson/Washington Institute
July 11, 2015
The additional resources unleashed by the agreement will put Iran in a better position to spend more on its various priorities, but how much it puts toward foreign adventurism will remain a political, not an economic, decision.
The economic windfall Iran will gain from a nuclear agreement will create opportunities for Tehran. Yet understanding the impact this influx will have on its foreign policy requires some context about the Iranian economy and the regime's activities abroad.
IRAN'S NEEDS ARE NOT DIRE
Like other countries, Iran has pressing domestic needs on which it should spend money, yet its situation under sanctions is hardly as bad as one might expect -- in fact, it is comparable to that of Western governments in many respects. Consider first infrastructure. In 2013, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that the United States had $3.6 trillion in unmet infrastructure needs, equal to 25% of its GDP. Indeed, a good argument can be made that U.S. infrastructure is in worse shape than Iran's. The Islamic Republic is certainly adding infrastructure at a faster pace -- it is building more subways and high-speed roads than the United States, in a much smaller territory. And according to the most recent five-year period of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Iran has expanded its electricity generating capacity at more than seven times the rate of the United States.
Second, Iran needs more affordable housing and job creation, but so does the United States. In fact, Iran's gaps in these sectors may not be as great as America's when measured as a share of GDP. Iran is coming off a period of massive investments in social housing -- though admittedly, much of it has been poorly planned and badly built. And with its working-age population shrinking, Iran's need for investments to create jobs is not what it was ten years ago, when its post-revolution baby boomers were expanding said population by 3% each year.
Third, Iran needs tens of billions of dollars to shore up pension funds for its rapidly aging population. Again, hardly unique -- U.S. public pension funds are at least $3 trillion short of being fully funded, and debate continues about what is needed to ensure that Social Security and Medicare benefits continue at the same level. The Social Security system's trustees estimate the "unfunded obligation through the infinite horizon" for the two programs at $46 trillion, though most of that is for the far, far future.
Fourth, Iranian economic growth has not been good recently, but the same can be said for the global economy. Advanced industrial countries were hit hard by the 2008 financial crisis, oil exporters were clobbered by the oil price collapse, and emerging market economies have been hit by a series of problems. To be sure, Iran went through a steep recession in 2012-2013, and two years of anemic growth have not brought its GDP back to pre-recession levels. Yet as bad as these results sound, they followed several years of solid growth. Iran's economic growth over the past eight years is as good as America's: according to the World Bank, both countries' GDPs are 12% higher in 2015 than they were in 2007.
Moreover, Iran achieved this growth without running up a huge public debt. Recently, Finance Minister Ali Tayyebnia bemoaned the cooked books he inherited from former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, complaining that government debt is actually 25% of GDP rather than the lower figure previously reported. Yet the International Monetary Fund pegs the U.S. public-debt-to-GDP ratio (including state and local debt) at 107%, up more than 40 percentage points since 2007.
Over the same period, most European nations have done even worse than the United States and much worse than Iran, with lower growth and higher debt increases. At a time when EU member Greece is facing economic collapse, Iranians have good reason to believe that their economy is in better shape than Europe's.
In sum, Iran is arguably doing about as well as the United States at meeting its domestic needs even while under sanctions -- though matching America's poor performance of late is no great accomplishment. Economists may say that it is more appropriate to compare Iran to other oil exporters, but Iranians rarely think of themselves in the same category as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait; their points of comparison are the advanced Western countries. Besides which, the oil exporters are not doing so well these days now that per-barrel prices have stayed down; many are sustaining economic growth only by running massive budget deficits.
Of course Iran's leaders still want to see the economy improve. That has been perhaps their main motivation for compromise in the nuclear talks -- the pain that the West is inflicting on Iran's economy has been central to persuading Tehran to negotiate seriously. At the same time, however, Iran has muddled through the shock of the sanctions imposed in 2012, and its structural problems are not particularly severe compared to those of other countries, including the United States. Most significant, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei does not believe that sanctions relief is particularly important politically or even economically. Part of this thinking rests on his ideological conviction that resistance to Western "arrogance" matters more than prosperity, but another part is based on his largely correct view that Iran's path to prosperity lies in diversifying away from dependence on oil.
IRAN'S INEXPENSIVE WAY OF WAR
Tehran's most troubling activities do not cost much, at least in budgetary terms. Although its exact expenditures on terrorism and cyberwarfare are unknown, few estimates suggest that either runs more than a billion dollars annually. As for the nuclear program, the official budget of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has been around $300 million per year, and the program's direct financial cost is likely no more than $1-2 billion per year. Regarding Iranian support for sectarian militias in Iraq and Syria, even the highest estimates -- $300 monthly salaries for 140,000 militia members plus another $900 per month each for arms and sustenance -- amount to only $2 billion annually. Propping up Syria's Assad regime may require a few billion dollars a year, but much of Iran's funding to date has been in the form of oil it could not otherwise easily sell (because of sanctions and poor market conditions), not cash. Tehran's numerous other operations in Iraq and Syria -- from bribery to humanitarian aid -- may cost another $1-2 billion.
At most, then, the combined price tag for all of these problematic activities is around $10 billion a year. Yet even this maximal figure represents less than 3% of a GDP that falls in the range of $400 billion to $1 trillion, depending on how one translates Iran's distorted currency into U.S. dollars.
HOW IRAN WOULD USE A WINDFALL
To understand how much of Iran's windfall from the nuclear deal might go toward meeting its pressing domestic needs, it is useful to look at what the United States has done with its much larger windfall from the boom in oil and gas production over the past few years. Rather than finding ways to tap this money to address economic inequality and crumbling infrastructure, Americans have used most of it along the same lines as previous spending -- meaning very little went for social needs or government investment.
If Iran follows the same status-quo path, the vast majority of its windfall would be used for domestic purposes, but some proportion could also be spent on foreign adventurism. Over the past few years, Iran's decisionmakers have put billions of dollars into their drive for regional influence despite being tightly constrained by sanctions, showing the high priority they have placed on that goal. Perhaps their priorities will change once a nuclear deal is reached, but that assumption is more than a little optimistic.
FOREIGN POLICY ONLY LOOSELY CONNECTED TO ECONOMICS
Iran is a substantial economic power that has developed inexpensive ways to challenge the U.S.-aligned camp, from soft-power broadcasting and bribes to low-cost tools of war such as terrorism and extremist militias. Therefore, the constraints on its foreign policy have not been, and are unlikely to be, primarily economic. Tehran's calculations about whether to be even more assertive abroad are less likely to be influenced by economic calculations than by the prospects it sees for political success of one form or another, e.g., increased influence in the countries where it intervenes or domestic reinforcement of the leadership's position. The additional resources unleashed by a nuclear deal will put Iran in a better position to spend more on foreign adventurism, but the basic factors determining the scope and nature of such expenditures will remain political, not economic.
**Patrick Clawson is director of research at The Washington Institute.

In Iran we trust? Illegal purchases of nuclear weapons technology continued to June ‘15
By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL, EMANUELE OTTOLENGHI /J.Post
07/12/2015 00:33
LONDON/BERLIN – Can Iran be trusted to uphold the nuclear deal being finalized in Vienna? Can the Obama administration and its partners in the P5+1 be trusted to hold Iran’s feet to the fire in case of violations? We know the answer to the first question – Iran cannot be trusted. It is Iran’s history of nuclear subterfuge that got us here in the first place. That is why the deal, even in the negotiations’ final stretch, remains so elusive.
After all, the remaining gaps all relate to verification of Iran’s past activities and future compliance.
The answer to the second question is trickier, because unless Iran’s violations are egregious, there will be a temptation to ignore or downplay them. The evidence of this has been apparent for some time now. Iran got away with selling more oil than it should have under the interim agreement. More ominously, Tehran repeatedly pushed the envelope on technical aspects of the agreement – such as caps on its uranium stockpile – and got away with it as an Obama administration loath to see its diplomatic efforts stymied denied such violations ever occurred.
More evidence has now come to the surface, thanks to two reports recently published on Iran’s attempts to illicitly and clandestinely procure technology for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
What emerges from these reports is troubling – Iran’s procurement continues apace, if not faster than before the interim agreement was signed in Geneva in November 2013. But fear of embarrassing negotiators and derailing negotiations has blunted the willingness of countries to publicly denounce these efforts.
And if countries hesitated to expose and denounce such efforts during the negotiations, it is even more likely they will refrain from making a public stink once the deal is done, so as not to spoil diplomacy’s success too soon.
The first report was released last month by the UN panel of experts in charge of reporting compliance with Security Council resolutions against Iran. The panel noted that UN member states had not reported significant violations of UN sanctions and speculated on the reasons, suggesting two alternative explanations: Either Iran was complying or countries did not wish to interfere with negotiations.
The second report, released last week by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, is less ambiguous. The Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) agency confirmed in its report that Iran continues to seek illicit technology for its nuclear and missiles program. According to information provided to us from the agency, Iran’s illegal proliferation activities have continued since the Joint Plan of Action agreement was agreed upon in 2013 through the present day.
Iran has had a long history of trying to obtain nuclear technology from German companies, particularly by seeking ways to transport merchandise in circumvention of international sanctions. One would think that if Iran were genuinely seeking a new path, as the Obama administration believes, its efforts would be concentrated on mending its old ways and reassuring the international community, in the midst of critical negotiations about its nuclear program, that it no longer seeks to illicitly procure dual-use nuclear technology.
Yet, as German intelligence sources told us, “Despite the talks to end Iran’s program, Iran did not make an about-turn.”
It is not just that the procurement efforts are as frequent as before negotiations.
They are qualitatively significant: Since November 2013, Tehran has sought industrial computers, high-speed cameras, cable fiber and pumps for its nuclear and missile program while negotiating in Vienna, Geneva and Lausanne.
While our German sources diplomatically added that one can only “speculate” on the reason Iran’s regime continues to evade nuclear sanctions, their findings only confirm what critics of the deal have been saying all along. Iran’s readiness to negotiate does not reflect any substantive policy change – it is a tactical retreat forced by economic distress, not a strategic rethinking of its priorities.
It is unclear whether the German government shared the information on Iran’s ongoing violations with the UN sanctions committee responsible for enforcing resolutions against Iran. If it did, why would the UN report omit such breathtaking evidence that Iran’s systematic cheating continued in Germany? Iran’s cheating should give Western negotiators additional resolve to ensure there are iron-clad guarantees in the agreement, or walk away. Iran must reveal its past activities, including its recent, post-November 2013, procurement and must accept tough, intrusive, “anytime, anywhere” inspections before sanctions are suspended, let alone lifted.
Instead, the lack of reporting to the UN despite evidence of cheating suggests timidity on the part of Western nations invested in the agreement, and a willingness to downplay all but the most egregious violations. This does not bode well. If Iran’s continued efforts to evade sanctions have not been met with due penalties for fear of spoiling the negotiations, how will future violations be treated? The answer is that Tehran’s cheating will continue, while those who were afraid to rock the boat for the sake of a deal will now seek to downplay any Iranian violation that might disprove their zeal for a deal.
A shorter version of this article first appeared in The Weekly Standard.
Emanuele Ottolenghi is a senior fellow for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Benjamin Weinthal reports on European affairs for The Jerusalem Post and is a research fellow for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.