New Page 5

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

Bible Quotation For Today/The Weeds' Parable: The righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen.
Matthew 13/36-43: "Jesus left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, ‘Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.’ He answered, ‘The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!".

Bible Quotation For Today/If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else?
Letter to the Romans 08/28-39: ""We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else? Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, ‘For your sake we are being killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered.’ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

LCCC Latest analysis, editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 22-23/15
Analysis: Nuclear accord intensifies power struggle in Tehran/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/July 22/15
David Cameron’s fatal mistakes on Syria and ISIS/Chris Doyle/Al Arabiya/22 July/15
How a Cold War foe pushed Cuba to Obama’s radar/Maria Dubovikova/Al Arabiya/22 July/15
US gave away better options on Iran/ALAN DERSHOWITZ/J.Post/July 22/15
Iran deal analysis: Playing tuba in a string quartet/HERB KEINON/J.Post//July 22/15
US Gave Away Better Options on Iran/Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/July 22/15
Turkish Journalists: Guilty Without Trial/Burak Bekdil/Gatestone Institute/July 22/15
Saudi Press: We Must Have A Military Nuclear Program Within A Decade/MEMRI 22 July/15

LCCC Bulletin itles for the Lebanese Related News published on July 22-23/15
Report: Salam Rejects 'Blackmailing' of Govt., Speaks of 'Long Project' to Topple it
Badreddine among 3 Hizbullah Officials Sanctioned by U.S. over Syria Role
Geagea: Election of President Will Weaken Hizbullah in Lebanon
Mashnouq Says Czechs Kidnap Linked to 'Drug Trafficking, Weapons'
Mashnouq Meets French Counterpart, Says Hizbullah 'Rival and Partner'
Qahwaji Says Attempts to 'Distort' Army Role Won't Succeed
17 Tons of Material Used in Narcotics Production Seized in Nabatiyeh
Report: Army Prepared for 'All Scenarios' for Thursday's Cabinet Session
Jumblat: Iran May Be Seeking to Alter Taef if it Remains Inflexible over Presidential Deadlock
Mashnouq Meets French Counterpart, Says Hizbullah 'Rival and Partner'
Residents of Kfour, Follow Naameh, Prevent Dump Trucks from Unloading
Three Arrested for Abducting and Killing Syrian Child
Khalil Urges End to Trash Crisis as Beirut Municipality Proposes Karantina as Temporary Dump
Gemayel: Sukleen Taking Lebanon Hostage, it is Time for Popular Accountability

LCCC Bulletin Miscellaneous Reports And News published on July 22-23/15
Two Police Killed in Attack in Turkey Close to Syria Border
Suicide Bomber Kills 15 in Afghan Market
Italian PM in Knesset: Supporters of 'stupid' boycotts betray their own future
U.S. defense secretary in Saudi to meet monarch
Pentagon: Top al-Qaeda leader killed in Syria
Atomic Energy Organization Of Iran Chief Ali Akbar Salehi: We Have Reached An Understanding With The IAEA On The PMD, Now Political Backing Exists And The Results Will Be Very Positive
Iranian officers interrogated Yemeni gov’t loyalists in Houthi detention: source
EU to label Israeli settlements goods
Turkey terror attacker identified
ISIS suspects thought of plotting attacks arrested in Europe
U.N. concerned over civilians in Syria’s Zabadani
Australian Muslim leader blasts govt's deradicalization drive
U.S. general touts putting air controllers with Iraqi troops
Obama pitches Iran deal to vets, Daily Show’s Stewart
Iran won’t accept nuclear curbs beyond 10 years

Report: Salam Rejects 'Blackmailing' of Govt., Speaks of 'Long Project' to Topple it
Naharnet/22 July/15/Prime Minister Tammam Salam stressed that he will not become a “false witness to practices that serve to obstruct the cabinet,” reported the daily An Nahar on Wednesday ahead of a cabinet session set for Thursday.
Ministerial sources told the daily: “The contacts that he had held over the past week have not led to any result.”“The PM has however become aware that the ongoing dispute at cabinet is not a random occurrence, but it is a part of an ongoing project aimed at striking the last foundation of the state through crippling government work and then redistributing roles among the side that its obstructing its functioning,” they explained. “Tomorrow's session will be open to discussions over any issue. We will either reach a solution, postpone talks, or suspend the meeting, meaning that blackmailing the cabinet will be rejected,” they explained. “The manner in which the issue of the government decision-taking mechanism is being proposed is aimed at obstructing the privileges of the premiership and undermining the authority of the president by distributing it among 24 ministers,” the sources told the daily. Informed sources told al-Joumhouria newspaper Wednesday that Salam will continue holding contacts with all sides until the last moment before cabinet convenes on Thursday morning to reach a solution to pending disputes. All sides are however still committed to their positions, while Hizbullah has maintained silence because it is “banking on the contacts that Speaker Nabih Berri is carrying out to protect the cabinet against any emergency that may topple it,” they explained. The Free Patriotic Movement, which has been staging street protests in recent weeks, is accusing Salam of infringing on the Christian president's powers in the absence of a head of state. During a stormy cabinet session on July 9, a deal was reached to make the debate over the decision-taking mechanism the first item on Thursday's agenda. The movement's ministers will allegedly refuse to discuss any other issue before tackling the mechanism dispute. FPM leader MP Michel Aoun said on Tuesday that his party does not intend to topple Salam's government.

Badreddine among 3 Hizbullah Officials Sanctioned by U.S. over Syria Role
Naharnet/22 July/15/The U.S. imposed sanctions Tuesday on three senior Hizbullah officials, including Mustafa Badreddine, over their alleged military role in Syria.“The U.S. Department of the Treasury today imposed sanctions against a set of key Hizbullah leaders, military officials, and an associate in Lebanon, further exposing and targeting Hizbullah's active support to the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad and Hizbullah's terrorist activities,” a statement said. It identified the three officials as Mustafa Badreddine, Fu'ad Shukr and Ibrahim Aqil. The Treasury also imposed sanctions against “Hizbullah facilitator” Abdul Nour Shaalan for “acting for or on behalf of Hizbullah.”“All assets of these four individuals that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons are frozen, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them,” it said. The Treasury said Tuesday's designations “are the latest in a series of actions the U.S. government is taking against Hizbullah for its violent terrorist activities and its support to the Assad regime's attacks against the Syrian people.” Its most recent related action took place in June 2015 with the designation of alleged Hizbullah front companies and facilitators. "As these designations make clear, the United States will continue to aggressively target Hizbullah for its terrorist activities worldwide as well as its ongoing support to Assad's ruthless military campaign in Syria," said Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. "We will pursue all of Hizbullah's revenue sources, whether charitable fundraising, criminal proceeds, or state sponsorship," he added. The U.S. Treasury statement noted that Hizbullah “began providing military support, including training, advice, and extensive logistical aid, to the Assad regime and pro-regime militias at the start of the Syrian conflict in early 2011.” “Hizbullah has coordinated its military support with senior officials in the Assad regime. Under the direction of Hizbullah Secretary-General (Sayyed) Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbullah escalated its military aid to the Government of Syria in mid-2012,” it added. One of five Hizbullah suspects being tried by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon over their alleged role in the 2005 assassination of ex-PM Rafik Hariri, Mustafa Badreddine is “assessed to be responsible for Hizbullah's military operations in Syria since 2011, including the movement of Hizbullah fighters from Lebanon to Syria,” the Treasury said.
“Since September 2011, strategic coordination was handled between Assad and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah on a weekly basis, with Badreddine accompanying Nasrallah during the meetings in Damascus,” it added. “Since 2012, Badreddine coordinated Hizbullah military activities in Syria. Badreddine led Hizbullah ground offensives in the Syrian town of al-Qusayr in February 2013, and in May 2013 the Free Syrian Army (FSA) confirmed that Badreddine was leading Hizbullah's operations in al-Qusayr,” the Treasury went on to say.
As for Ibrahim Aqil and Fouad Shukr, the Treasury said they serve on “Hizbullah's highest military body, the Jihad Council” and have played “a vital role in Hizbullah's military campaign in Syria.”Meanwhile, Abdul Nour Shaalan, “a businessman with close ties to Hizbullah leadership, has been Hizbullah's point person for the procurement and transshipment of weapons and materiel for the group and its Syrian partners for at least 15 years,” the Treasury alleged. It said Shaalan has been critical in keeping Hizbullah supplied with weapons, including small arms, since the start of the Syrian conflict. “Shaalan ensures items purchased for Hizbullah personnel in Syria make it through customs. In 2014, Shaalan used his business cover to hide weapons-related materiel in Syria for Hizbullah,” the Treasury claimed.
“In 2010, Shaalan was at the center of brokering a business deal involving Hizbullah, Syrian officials, and companies in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine regarding the purchase and sale of weapons,” it added.

Geagea: Election of President Will Weaken Hizbullah in Lebanon
Naharnet/22 July/15/Head of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea accused Iran of thwarting the presidential elections in Lebanon through its ally Hizbullah, reported the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat on Wednesday. He told the daily: “The presence of a president will weaken Hizbullah's role in Lebanon.” He made his remarks from Saudi Arabia where he met with King Salman and a number of high-ranking Saudi officials, as well as Mustaqbal Movement chief MP Saad Hariri, in recent days. “Iran wants a new president to serve Hizbullah's interests, not Lebanon's,” Geagea added. “It is therefore exerting pressure to ensure the election of a president who agree with its views,” he explained to the daily. “The rise of a Lebanese state is not among Iran's priorities,” he lamented. “The vacuum in the presidency will continue as long as Iran's allies maintain their obstruction of the electoral process,” he noted. Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Disputes between the March 8 and 14 officials over a compromise candidate have thwarted attempts by the parliament to elect a successor. Hizbullah's Loyalty to the Resistance and MP Michel Aoun's Change and Reform blocs have been boycotting the polls over the dispute. Asked about the recent meeting between him and long-time rival Free Patriotic Movement chief MP Michel Aoun, Geagea responded: “The efforts that have been exerted to that end over the past six months have been largely successful.” “They have wiped 30 years of disputes and changed the animosity between us to a rivalry between two political parties,” he remarked. “We still have a long way to go however because of the long history of differences between us. We will exert all efforts to preserve the success,” he added. More dialogue sessions between the LF and FPM will be held, especially since they have differing views on a number of affairs, Geagea stated. The LF and FPM signed on June 2 a landmark declaration of intent, in a move aimed at ending around 30 years of rivalry between the two Christian parties. The stipulations of the document were announced after a meeting between Geagea and Aoun.

Mashnouq Says Czechs Kidnap Linked to 'Drug Trafficking, Weapons'
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/22 July/15/Preliminary investigations into the kidnapping of five Czech citizens in Lebanon last week suggest the case is criminal, Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq said on Wednesday. "We've arrived at the beginning of the end of the thread (of investigations), and it relates to mafias, drug trafficking and weapons," the official National News Agency quoted him as saying. Mashnouq, who was speaking during a visit to France, did not elaborate further on any leads in the case. His comments were the first official government comment on the investigation into the missing Czechs. The five men disappeared in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon last Friday, along with a Lebanese citizen. The cause of the abduction has remained a mystery, but there has been speculation it is tied to the case of a Lebanese man in Czech custody, Ali Taan Fayyad. Fayyad's brother was the Lebanese citizen who was went missing with the group, and his defense lawyer was among the Czech group. Fayyad's family has denied any involvement in the abduction, which was reported after the group's car was found abandoned in the western part of the Bekaa. Prague has declined to speculate on the case, or even confirm the group has been kidnapped. Kidnappings of foreigners have been rare in Lebanon since its 1975-1990 civil war when some 100 foreigners, mostly Americans and West Europeans, were snatched.

Mashnouq Meets French Counterpart, Says Hizbullah 'Rival and Partner'
Naharnet/22 July/15/Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq began a two-day visit to France Tuesday by meeting his French counterpart Bernard Cazeneuve. Mashnouq is accompanied by a high-ranking security delegation comprising General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim and Brig. Gen. Imad Othman, head of the Internal Security Forces Intelligence Branch. The meeting with Cazeneuve tackled “the security and political challenges that Lebanon and the region are facing and the two parties agreed on the need to end the Syrian tragedy in a manner that takes into account the Syrian people's aspirations,” Lebanon's National News Agency reported. Turning to the domestic Lebanese situations, Mashnouq underlined to the French minister that “the regularity of the work of state institutions in Lebanon cannot be complete without the election of a new president.” “The priority in Lebanon today is the speedy election of a new president,” Mashnouq said. The minister also explained the importance of dialogue among the political forces and the ongoing bilateral talks between Hizbullah and al-Mustaqbal movement. “Hizbullah is both a political rival and a partner in the country,” NNA quoted Mashnouq as telling Cazeneuve. For his part, the French minister promised that Paris will increase its “technical assistance to the General Security and the ISF.” Mashnouq then headed to the Lebanese embassy in Paris, where the Lebanese charge d'affaires Ghadi Khoury threw a lunch banquet in honor of the minister. The lunch was attended by a number of French MPs of Lebanese and Arab origins as well as some Arab ambassadors and Lebanese businessmen, NNA said. Later on Tuesday, the minister held separate talks with France's new ambassador to Lebanon Emmanuel Bon and General Directorate for External Security chief Bernard Bajolet.

Qahwaji Says Attempts to 'Distort' Army Role Won't Succeed
Naharnet/22 July/15/Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji stressed Wednesday that certain attempts to “distort” the military institution's role “will never succeed.”The military institution is committed to its national role in preserving Lebanon's unity and the coexistence among its sons,” said Qahwaji as he inspected military units deployed in the southern region of al-Zahrani. “All attempts to distort this role will never succeed,” he underlined. Lauding the army forces' “efforts and sacrifices to maintain civil peace,” the army chief noted that “the security situation in Lebanon is the best in the region, compared to the dangerous events that are shaking many of its countries.”“This is highlighted by the cultural and touristic activities in the country this summer, despite the continued political bickering and domestic woes,” Qahwaji added.

17 Tons of Material Used in Narcotics Production Seized in Nabatiyeh
Naharnet/22 July/15/The Internal Security Forces on Wednesday announced seizing 17 tons of substances used in the manufacturing of narcotics. “After months of monitoring the activities of top drug dealers, manufacturers and traffickers, the central anti-narcotics bureau and the south department managed Tuesday to intercept a truck at the Kfar Rumman roundabout in the city of Nabatiyeh,” the ISF said in a statement. The truck was carrying two people and was headed for the Bekaa region, it added. “325 barrels weighing around 17 tons of raw material used in narcotics production, including Captagon pills, were seized from the vehicle,” the ISF statement said. It noted that the quantity could have been used to produce “millions of narcotic pills.”“Lebanese national M.H., 41, was arrested and efforts are underway to apprehend the rest of the culprits,” the ISF added.

Report: Army Prepared for 'All Scenarios' for Thursday's Cabinet Session
Naharnet/22 July/15/The army will take strict measures in the vicinity of the Grand Serail while cabinet is in session on Thursday, reported al-Joumhouria newspaper on Wednesday.A prominent military source told the daily: “The army is ready for all scenarios.”
“It will protect demonstrations, but it will not allow the blocking of roads, the violation of the people's property, or any approach towards the government building,” it added. “The army will ensure that the protestors will not create clashes with it and it will block any loophole they may exploit to create unrest,” it stressed. “The Grand Serail is a red line like all other state institutions and the army will protect it,” it continued. Two weeks ago, supporters of the Free Patriotic Movement staged a rally in the vicinity of the Grand Serail while cabinet was in session to protest the alleged violation of Christian rights by the government. The demonstrators clashed with members of the military and security forces that were guarding the building. There are concerns that similar scuffles may erupt while cabinet is being held on Thursday morning.

Jumblat: Iran May Be Seeking to Alter Taef if it Remains Inflexible over Presidential Deadlock
Naharnet/22 July/15/Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat stated that Lebanon should await the outcome of the meeting between Iranian officials and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius to determine whether the election of a president will be facilitated, reported the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat on Wednesday. He told the daily: “If the Iranian side does not show flexibility regarding the elections and the cabinet's upcoming session, then it would therefore be attempting to alter the Taef Accord.” He explained that Iran would be able to make such a demand after being emboldened by the deal it reached with the West over its nuclear program, which is viewed as a “major victory.”The MP added that “we should wait to see what the Iranian side will ask from Fabius regarding Lebanon.”
“If it harbors goodwill, then it will facilitate the elections, but if it seeks to hit back at France over its rigid stance during the nuclear negotiations, then I do not believe that they will be lenient with Fabius,” noted Jumblat. French President Francois Hollande tasked Fabius to discuss with Iranian authorities Lebanon's presidential deadlock, al-Hayat reported on Tuesday. The newspaper said Hollande informed Fabius that he should discuss with Iranian officials later this month the importance of ending the presidential vacuum.
Baabda Palace has been vacant since President Michel Suleiman's six-year term ended in May last year. Differences between the March 8 and 14 alliance officials have thwarted attempts by the parliament to elect a successor. Fabius said Tuesday he would visit Iran "next week" after the historic deal on its nuclear program. Jumblat, who was present in France on Monday with his son Taymour, had held talks with Hollande on the latest developments in Lebanon. “Never forget that France will always be by your side and the side of Lebanon,” the MP quoted Hollande as saying.

Mashnouq Meets French Counterpart, Says Hizbullah 'Rival and Partner'
Naharnet/22 July/15/Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq began a two-day visit to France Tuesday by meeting his French counterpart Bernard Cazeneuve. Mashnouq is accompanied by a high-ranking security delegation comprising General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim and Brig. Gen. Imad Othman, head of the Internal Security Forces Intelligence Branch. The meeting with Cazeneuve tackled “the security and political challenges that Lebanon and the region are facing and the two parties agreed on the need to end the Syrian tragedy in a manner that takes into account the Syrian people's aspirations,” Lebanon's National News Agency reported. Turning to the domestic Lebanese situations, Mashnouq underlined to the French minister that “the regularity of the work of state institutions in Lebanon cannot be complete without the election of a new president.” “The priority in Lebanon today is the speedy election of a new president,” Mashnouq said. The minister also explained the importance of dialogue among the political forces and the ongoing bilateral talks between Hizbullah and al-Mustaqbal movement. “Hizbullah is both a political rival and a partner in the country,” NNA quoted Mashnouq as telling Cazeneuve. For his part, the French minister promised that Paris will increase its “technical assistance to the General Security and the ISF.” Mashnouq then headed to the Lebanese embassy in Paris, where the Lebanese charge d'affaires Ghadi Khoury threw a lunch banquet in honor of the minister. The lunch was attended by a number of French MPs of Lebanese and Arab origins as well as some Arab ambassadors and Lebanese businessmen, NNA said. Later on Tuesday, the minister held separate talks with France's new ambassador to Lebanon Emmanuel Bon and General Directorate for External Security chief Bernard Bajolet.

Residents of Kfour, Follow Naameh, Prevent Dump Trucks from Unloading
Naharnet/22 July/15/Residents of the southern town of al-Kfour held a sit-in on Wednesday blocking the road leading to the town's landfill and forbidding dump trucks from emptying their loads, the National News Agency said.
“Our sit-in is open until the landfill is closed completely. It has become a source of diseases and insects of various kinds. All the land surrounding the landfill has become barren and the poison accumulating affects all neighboring areas,” the residents of the town that lies in the Nabatieh district complained. Municipal chief of al-Kfour Hussein Darwish and the town's mayor took part in the sit-in. They pointed that several residents of the area have left the town in the hot summer season to escape the fumes and foul smells rising from the landfill.
The sit-in coincides with a similar move taken by residents of the southern town of Naameh and the northern town of Hbaline. Residents of Naameh have been holding a sit-in since July 17, the deadline for the closure of the town's landfill, prohibiting dump trucks from unloading and calling on the cabinet to abide by its decision. The landfill was closed on July 17 in accordance with a government decision. In January, the cabinet extended the operations of Naameh and the contract of Sukleen company which is responsible for dump collections. Beirut and Mount Lebanon were plunged in a waste disposal crisis following the closure of the landfill. The closure caused trash to spill out of dumpsters after Sukleen failed to dispose of waste following the landfill's closure. It said it can no longer fill up its premises with accumulated trash.

Three Arrested for Abducting and Killing Syrian Child
Naharnet/22 July/15/The army arrested Wednesday two Syrians and a Palestinian on charges of abducting and killing a Syrian child.“The Intelligence Directorate arrested at noon the Syrians Qusay Moussa Ouweir and Youssef Faisal al-Hamad and the Palestinian Youssef Taha al-Zaydeh,” the Army Command said in a statement. The three are accused of “kidnapping the Syrian toddler Hamza Yasser Hajjaj from (the Beirut area of) Cite Sportive on Tuesday before eventually murdering him and throwing the body in the outskirts of the town of Bchamoun,” south of Beirut, the army added. It said the child was murdered after the father “refused to pay a ransom.”“The toddler's corpse was found in the aforementioned location, while the interrogation of the gang's members is still underway under the supervision of the relevant judicial authorities,” the Army Command added. On July 6, a kidnapped child was released for a $50,000 ransom after being abducted from the town of Amchit near Jbeil. Security forces later managed to arrest the head of the gang and to recover the money.

Khalil Urges End to Trash Crisis as Beirut Municipality Proposes Karantina as Temporary Dump
Naharnet/22 July/15/Finance Minister Ali Hassan Khalil remarked that the garbage crisis in Lebanon “affects all people without discrimination between the sects or regions,” reported As Safir on Wednesday. He therefore stressed that this issue should not be addressed through political and petty means. “We need to speed up efforts to find a new dump to contain the waste crisis in Beirut and Mount Lebanon,” he told the daily. He added however that there is no available land in Beirut that can contain the garbage. There are around 870 random dumps in these areas and “we should work on organizing them and setting up ones that meet health standards,” explained the minister. Meanwhile, head of the Beirut municipality Bilal Hamad told As Safir after an extraordinary municipal session that a temporary solution to the crisis is necessary for the capital. He urged the cabinet to task Sukleen, the trash collecting company, to continue on collecting garbage in Beirut's administrative district and dumping them at the Karantina factories without landfilling them. A company will meanwhile be tasked with providing property outside of Beirut to serve as a proper landfill. Beirut and Mount Lebanon were plunged in a waste disposal crisis following the closure of the Naameh landfill last week in accordance with a government decision. The closure caused trash to spill out of dumpsters after Sukleen failed to dispose of waste following the landfill's closure.It said it can no longer fill up its premises with accumulated trash.

Gemayel: Sukleen Taking Lebanon Hostage, it is Time for Popular Accountability
Naharnet/22 July/15/Kataeb party leader MP Sami Gemayel stressed on Wednesday that the time has come for popular accountability against the dump collecting company Sukleen “which has been taking Lebanon hostage for over 20 years.”“The contract of Sukleen was extended several times since the last tender in the 1990s until today. It is time for popular accountability for a company that has been taking Lebanon hostage for over 20 years,” said Gemayel in a press conference on the waste management crisis. The government signed a contract with Sukleen in 1994 for collecting and transporting the garbage in Beirut and Mount Lebanon. The contract has been extended several times since for lack of any substitute. “We have seen waste spreading all over the streets only when the contract of that company ended, which proves the existence of a scheme to keep the situation as it has and to keep the systematic theft of municipal funds,” he added. “Fees for the company are directly deducted from the revenues of the municipalities and without the latter's permission.”
“There is a mafia taking advantage of the waste file and making profits at the expense of the Lebanese. Sukleen saw it better to drown the citizens in waste in order to use it as a pressure card on the government to extend its contract,” said Gemayel angrily.
He assured that the state must “find places to dump the waste that should be sorted beforehand for easy recycling.”Emphasizing that the current means of dumping waste material contaminate the groundwater and air, he stated: “We cannot keep doing the same thing for another 20 years.”“We are trying to improve the letter of conditions to attract new companies. We have also asked the state to purchase landfill locations, to specify the rate at which they should be filled and to directly supervise the work of those companies.”
Beirut and Mount Lebanon were plunged in a waste disposal crisis following the closure of the Naameh landfill last week in accordance with a government decision. The closure caused trash to spill out of dumpsters after Sukleen failed to dispose of waste following the landfill's closure. It said it can no longer fill up its premises with accumulated trash.

Two Police Killed in Attack in Turkey Close to Syria Border
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/22 July/15/Two Turkish police were found dead Wednesday in the southeastern town of Ceylanpinar close to the Syrian border, two days after a deadly suicide bombing in the same region, the local governor said. It was not immediately clear if the attack had "terrorist connections", Turkish television quoted the governor of Sanliurfa region, Izzettin Kucuk, as saying. NTV television and the state news agency Anatolia quoted Kucuk as saying the police had been found dead in an apartment building. The Hurriyet daily reported both had been shot in the head. The killings came two days after a suicide bombing in the town of Suruc, also in Sanliurfa, that claimed 32 lives. It has been blamed on Islamic State (IS) jihadists.

Suicide Bomber Kills 15 in Afghan Market
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/22 July/15/A suicide bomber killed 15 people including women and children Wednesday when he blew himself up in a northern Afghan market, as militants intensify their annual summer offensive despite nascent peace talks. The attack in Almar district of Faryab province, bordering Turkmenistan, highlights the heavy toll of such attacks on civilians after 13 years of war. No group claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing, which comes just before another round of peace negotiations between the government and Taliban militants are due to start. "This morning a suicide bomber detonated his explosives-laden vest in a market in Almar," Faryab governor Abdul Sattar Barez told AFP. "Our information shows at least 15 people were killed in the attack, including women and children and at least one Afghan army soldier," he said, adding that around 38 others were wounded. Almar district chief Saleh Mohammad Saleh confirmed the death toll, adding that some of the wounded were in a critical condition. "We had received intelligence report that a suicide attacker has entered the market in Almar, so we set up a police check point to search for him," local police commander Saif, who goes by one name, told AFP. "We were looking for him when he blew himself up near an armored military vehicle," Saif said, adding that the attacker was aged between 20 and 25. Taliban insurgents, who launched their annual summer offensive in late April, have stepped up attacks on government and foreign targets despite official efforts to jumpstart peace talks. Civilians often fall victim to such attacks, with almost 1,000 Afghan civilians killed during the first four months of the year, according to the UN mission in Afghanistan. President Ashraf Ghani's government has drawn criticism for failing to end the spike in violence, which critics partly blame on the protracted delay in the appointment of a defense minister. The crucial post has not been filled since Ghani came to power last September. U.S.-led NATO forces ended their combat mission in Afghanistan in December, leaving local forces to battle the Taliban alone, but a 13,000-strong residual force remains for training and counter-terrorism operations. Afghan officials sat down with Taliban cadres this month in Murree, a tourist town in the hills north of Islamabad, Pakistan, for their first face-to-face talks aimed at ending the bloody insurgency.
They agreed to meet again in the coming weeks, drawing praise from Islamabad, Beijing, Washington and the United Nations. Afghan officials have not said when and where the next round of negotiations will take place, but they are widely expected to be conducted in the coming days. Earlier this month 33 people were killed in a suicide attack at a military base in the eastern province of Khost and a few days later 25 civilians were wounded in a bombing inside a mosque in northern Baghlan province.

Italian PM in Knesset: Supporters of 'stupid' boycotts betray their own future
LAHAV HARKOV/J.Post/07/22/2015
Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi hailed ties between his country and Israel and railed against "stupid" boycotts in a speech to the Knesset Wednesday. Renzi referred to his own excitement at visiting Jerusalem in what he called a "secular pilgrimage.""People from around the world make pilgrimages to Jerusalem and pray for peace in it," Renzi said, "but it is not enough to pray for peace in Jerusalem; we must build peace." The Italian Prime Minister called for a two-state solution with security for both sides, and said the Palestinians must recognize the Jewish People's right to a state in its homeland. That right, he said, "does not exist because of the world's generosity after the Holocaust. Israel existed hundreds of years before. It exists despite the Holocaust and it will continue to exist with the support of its friends in Europe and the world. "You do not only have the right to exist, you must exist and live for the future of your children and mine. You are a fulcrum of the world and we will stand with you," he stated. Renzi talked about a global war against terrorism, barbarism and violent extremism. "I have no doubt which side you are on. We will not stop fighting, together with you, on the right side, together with the US and the UN and Russia...and Arab states like Egypt and Jordan, led by great statesmen who want to bring us to peace and stability," he said. As for the world powers' agreement with Iran, Renzi said Italy thinks the deal "can be a compromise that will help decrease instability in the region." "We can argue and may not agree about the compromise on the Iranian matter, but we will never compromise when it comes to the future of Israel. Your security is our security," he vowed. Renzi also came out against boycotts of Israel, saying: "Whoever thinks to boycott Israel does not understand that he is harming himself and betraying his future. Italy will always stand for cooperation and never for boycotts, which are stupid and futile."
The Italian Prime Minister closed his speech by saying that "peace for Jerusalem is peace for the whole world. Our fate is your fate. Together, we will build a more just world." Throughout Renzi's speech, he made references to the Italian Jewish community and pointed out two of its members in the audience - one who fought in the Jewish Brigade in WWII and another who was hidden during the Holocaust by nuns in Renzi's hometown, Florence. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lamented the tone of European criticism of Israel. "Israel is unjustly accused. We are not perfect, but when we are referred to as the source of evil in the world, that is a blatant lie that brings up clear memories from the past," he said. "The new anti-Semitism is a clear continuation from the blood libels and anti-Semitism of past generations. The Jews were always put on the least-just trial in history." Netanyahu said that now, Israel has the power to fight back against those who want to hurt it and against lies and for truth, with countries like Italy.
"Israel is a lighthouse of morality, therefore, we expect Western countries to stand with us, united against our joint threats. Harm to Israel will also hurt Europe. We must join hands in the fight for the truth," he stated. The prime minister thanked Renzi for his work to fight anti-Semitism and boycotts of Israel. "You are a true friend of Israel, for truth and peace and against boycotts...We have always seen Italy as an important and central ally in the Middle East," he said. Netanyahu also repeated his criticisms of the Iran deal during his speech and that peace with the Palestinians can only come with security and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

U.S. defense secretary in Saudi to meet monarch
By AFP | Jeddah/Wednesday, 22 July 2015
U.S. Defence Secretary Ashton Carter landed in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday as part of a regional tour aimed at reassuring Washington's allies over a nuclear deal with Iran. Carter is to hold talks with King Salman in the Red Sea city of Jeddah, where the kingdom's rulers base themselves during the hot summer months. He was then to meet for about one hour with Salman's son Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is defence minister and second-in-line to the throne. Carter, who flew in from Jordan, is to return to Amman mid-afternoon. On Tuesday Carter visited Israel for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has predicted the Iran nuclear agreement will lead to a regional nuclear arms race. Netanyahu also fears the deal will help fund Iranian "aggression".Saudi Arabia, a regional rival of Iran, worries Tehran could still be able to develop an atomic bomb despite the limitations on its nuclear program agreed to this month under the deal with Washington and five other major powers. Like Israel, Riyadh and its Gulf neighbours believe the pact will only embolden Tehran's leaders, whom they accuse of "interference" in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. In an effort to calm these worries, Carter proposes to intensify military cooperation with Washington's traditional allies in the Middle East.

Pentagon: Top al-Qaeda leader killed in Syria
By Staff writer | Al Arabiya News/Wednesday, 22 July 2015
The alleged leader of Al-Qaeda’s Khorasan Group was killed in an air strike by the U.S.-led coalition in northern Syria, the Pentagon said Tuesday, according to Agence France-Presse. The “kinetic strike” reportedly killed Muhsin al-Fadhli on July 8 while he was traveling in a vehicle near Sarmada, Syria, Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said. He did not confirm whether a drone or a manned aircraft had killed Fadhli. Fadhli was allegedly the leader of the Khorasan Group, a group of senior Al-Qaeda members who have traveled from Central Asia and elsewhere in the Middle East to Syria to plot attacks on the West. Officials say Khorasan is part of Al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch, Al-Nusra Front, though experts and activists cast doubt on the distinction between the two groups. Fadhli “was a senior Al-Qaeda facilitator who was among the few trusted Al-Qaeda leaders who received advance notification of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States,” said Captain Jeff Davis, a Defense Department spokesman.“His death will degrade and disrupt ongoing external operations of Al-Qaeda against the United States and its allies and partners.” Davis, who heads the Defense Department’s press operations, said Fadhli was also involved in October 2002 attacks against US Marines on Kuwait’s Failaka Island and on the MV Limburg, a French oil tanker. He was reported to have been previously targeted in a U.S. air strike in September, but his death was not confirmed by U.S. officials at the time. The U.S. State Department had posted a $7 million reward for information leading to Fadhli’s death or detention. He was wanted by law enforcement authorities in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United States for terrorist activities. The U.S. .National Counterterrorism Center has said Fadhli had become Al-Qaeda’s senior leader in Iran. Fadhli was a major facilitator to late militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who once led Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and other fighters against US and multinational forces. He was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for providing financial and material support to Zarqawi’s network and Al-Qaeda. The U.N. Security Council’s Al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee cited him in 2005 for his role in planning, facilitating and financing Al-Qaeda attacks, which triggered a freeze on his assets and a travel ban.

Atomic Energy Organization Of Iran Chief Ali Akbar Salehi: We Have Reached An Understanding With The IAEA On The PMD, Now Political Backing Exists And The Results Will Be Very Positive
MEMRI 22 July/15
The PMD (Possible Military Dimensions) issue that includes an investigation of suspicions that Iran previously conducted a military nuclear program, was one of the main stumbling blocks between Iran and the P5+1 group and primarily between Iran and the United States and the EU3. These suspicions are based inter alia on a November 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report that the agency had information on Iran's performance of activities related to nuclear weapons development until 2003 and that some of these activities were possibly continuing.[1] Iran persistently refused to respond to all the IAEA's questions and due to its refusal to cooperate fully with the IAEA the UN Security Council passed six anti-Iran resolutions demanding that Iran cooperate immediately with the IAEA on this topic in order to disclose the truth.
On July 14, 2015, the day the Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action agreement between Iran and the P5+1 was declared, IAEA Secretary-General Yukio Amano and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran chief Ali Akbar Salehi, one of the lead Iranian negotiator, signed a "roadmap agreement" in which Iran committed to provide the IAEA with clarifications and explanations on the PMD. Amano announced that if Iran would cooperate fully with the IAEA (as opposed to its conduct up to now) he could submit his conclusions by December 15, 2015. Under the agreement the lifting of sanctions enters into effect only following the IAEA report's submission.
In an interview to the Iranian channel IRIB on July 21, 2015, Salehi disclosed that Iran has reached an understanding with the IAEA regarding the PMD; that now problems are solved on the political level and since political backing exists, the IAEA cannot do whatever it wants as it did in the past when such political backing did not exist. Therefore, the IAEA's PMD investigation would be most positive for Iran. Salehi explained that the IAEA had to act reasonably otherwise it would be the loser.
Below is the transcript of Salehi's IRIB interview:
Salehi: "By December 15, at the end of the year, the issue (of the PMD) should be determined. The IAEA will submit its report to the board of governors. It will only submit it. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action will continue independently of the results of this report. We have reached understandings with the IAEA. God willing, there will be very positive results. We do not accept the PMD issue, the (suspicions against) Iran's past (military nuclear) activity. We are resolving this in a political-technical framework, in order to deny them any pretext. Look, if it was decided that the (IAEA) will not be convinced no matter what... As the saying goes: If someone pretends to be asleep, you cannot wake him up. If someone does not want to be convinced, it does not matter how hard you try. You tell him that it is daytime, and he tells you that it's night. If the IAEA was not meant to be convinced in the regular track, it would never be convinced, regardless of what we did. They presented 18 questions, we answered them (but couldn't convince them), and there is nothing more that could be done. Now that the technical issues are being resolved on the political level, the pace has picked up. The technical issues are now being resolved in a political framework. They have set a time frame and, God willing, the issue must be resolved by December 15."
Interviewer: "But considering the IAEA's bad record regarding..."Salehi: "In short, they will be the losers. As I have said, the issue has received political backing. The work of (the IAEA) must be reasonable. They cannot do anything unreasonable. When there is no political backing, they do whatever they want, but now there is political backing, and the issue should be resolved, and God willing, it will be."

Iranian officers interrogated Yemeni gov’t loyalists in Houthi detention: source
capital Sana’a on July 21, 2015. (Reuters/Khaled Abdullah)/Sana’a and Aden, Asharq Al-Awsat—Iranian officers were directly involved in the interrogation of Yemeni government loyalists previously detained by Houthi rebels in Aden, anti-rebel sources say.
A pro-government fighter, who was previously arrested by the Houthis in Aden, said he had been interrogated by an Iranian officer who used a translator. The Iranian interrogator questioned him about the number of forces loyal to President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi in Aden, their location and the type of weapons they had.The Yemeni fighter, who preferred to remain anonymous, fled his Houthi captors with his hands tied after clashes erupted between the Houthis and government loyalists, known as the Popular Resistance, in Aden last week. Loyalists of Yemen’s exiled government, backed by Saudi-led coalition forces, captured the strategic city of Aden last week in the biggest setback for the Iran-backed Houthis. Resistance militants have surrounded a building in central Aden where a senior Houthi leader and dozens of his guards have taken refuge, a Popular Resistance source said. The senior Houthi, believed to be Abdul-Khaliq Al-Houthi, took refuge in a building in the central Al-Tawahi district after he sustained a serious injury during violent clashes with Saudi-backed forces earlier this week.
Among those besieged are Iranian officers and personnel from the Yemeni Republican Guard many of whose members are loyal to ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh, according to the source. “We have taken two Houthi fighters captive and persuaded one of them to inform his fellow insurgents about our demand for surrender,” the source said. He added: “We placed the [Houthi] prisoner near where the Houthis are holed up to call on them to surrender through a megaphone. But they answered that we [Hadi’s forces] were the ones who had to surrender.”The besieged Houthis shot dead the arrested rebel after his call for surrender, the source said. Military forces aligned with Hadi deployed in Al-Buraiqeh district, in southern Aden, on Tuesday as Saudi-led airstrikes pounded the remaining rebel pockets in the area, a Popular Resistance source said. The heavily equipped forces will contribute to consolidating power in Aden as part of “Operation Golden Arrow” that led to the capture of the strategic city from Houthis last week. Meanwhile, Hadi loyalists on Tuesday continued their push against Lahej province, located to the north of Aden and home to the Houthi-held Al-Anad Air Base, Yemen’s largest. The Saudi-backed forces, according to the source, now control around 90 percent of the mountains and hilltops overlooking the air base and are around 200 meters away from rebels’ positions. In western Yemen, anti-rebel forces on Tuesday gained ground in western Taiz, the country’s third largest, activists and media said. After fierce clashes with the Houthis, government loyalists seized the area near Taiz central prison, bringing them closer to the main road that links Al-Mokha city to the west and Al-Hudayadah province.
Mohamed Ali Mohsen contributed additional reporting from Aden.

EU to label Israeli settlements goods
By Luke Baker, Reuters | Jerusalem/Wednesday, 22 July 2015/The European Union agreed this week to push ahead with labelling Israeli goods made in settlements in the occupied West Bank, a move that has alarmed the Israeli government; but now there are proposals to go much further, including targeting Israeli banks. In a paper to be published on Wednesday, the European Council on Foreign Relations, whose proposals frequently inform EU policymaking, argues that the EU is in breach of its own laws and must move much more firmly to distinguish its dealings with Israel from Israel’s activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied since 1967. European diplomats have long said that labelling is only the first in a series of steps the EU could take against Israel over its settlements policy, one that in financial terms is expected to have a relatively minor impact on the Israeli economy. But the new proposals would go much deeper and further, reaching into banking, loans and mortgages, qualifications earned in settlement institutions and the tax-exempt status of European charities that deal with Israeli settlements. “Under its own regulations and principles, Europe cannot legally escape from its duty to differentiate between Israel and its activities in the occupied Palestinian territories,” says the report, titled ‘EU Differentiation and Israeli Settlements’.The authors argue that by pushing much further to separate the EU’s dealings with Israel from the settlements, it will force Israel to decide what sort of relationship it wants with Europe and in turn encourage it to return to talks with the Palestinians on a two-state solution to the conflict.
Financial squeeze
The most significant proposal is on banking, where large Israeli institutions have daily dealings with major European banks, while also providing loans and financing to Israeli businesses and individuals based in the settlements. Under European Commission guidelines from 2013, EU- and member-state-funded lending cannot be provided to Israeli entities operating in the occupied territories. With the British government holding a controlling stake in some banks following the financial crisis, that would in theory prevent those banks providing financing to Israeli counterparts that have dealings in the settlements. “Do day-to-day dealings between European and Israeli banks comply with the EU requirement not to provide material support to the occupation?” the report asks, saying it is an issue that EU member states have yet to resolve. The issue extends into loans and mortgages. An Israeli with dual European citizenship should, in theory, not be able to use a settlement property as collateral for a European loan since Israeli-issued property deeds are not recognised. Another area in which the EU may be in violation of its own rules relates to European charities that are tax-exempt while using funds to support activities in the settlements, which the EU regards as illegal under international law. And the report questions whether Europe should accept qualifications from academic, medical and other Israeli institutions based in the West Bank given that it does not recognise Israel’s sovereignty over the territory. Likewise, there is a question mark over whether the EU should be dealing with Israeli institutions - such as the Ministry of Justice and the national police headquarters - which are based in East Jerusalem. The Israeli government has described Europe’s steps on labelling as discriminatory and wrong-headed, suggesting they are akin to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which Israel regards as anti-Semitic. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu raised his concerns about labelling in a meeting with the EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini in May. Mogherini raised the issue of the EU further differentiating its dealing with Israel. Mattia Toaldo, one of the authors of the ECFR paper, said the EU needed to explain more clearly the legal obligation the EU faces when it comes to differentiation, making a sharp distinction with the BDS campaign. And the ultimate aim, he said, should be to urge Israel towards a two-state solution. “Differentiation is a legal prerequisite for the EU in order to avoid violating its own laws,” he said. “You have to do it legally and by the book, but it is also beneficial to the peace process because it changes the calculations by the Israelis.”

Turkey terror attacker identified
By Staff writer | Al Arabiya News/Wednesday, 22 July 2015/A 20-year-old Turkish man carried out the suicide bombing in the mainly Kurdish town of Suruc near the border with Syria that killed 32 people, a Turkish official said on Wednesday, following DNA testing. “As a result of DNA tests, we confirm that the assailant is a 20-year-old man registered in Adiyaman,” the official told Agence France Presse on condition of anonymity, referring to a province in southeastern Turkey. Meanwhile, several internet service providers in Turkey blocked access to Twitter in line with a local court ruling to prevent the distribution of images of a suicide bombing two days ago, a senior state official said. The official said the communications technologies authority, the BTK, was not involved in the ban and that efforts were underway to have it lifted. Earlier on Wednesday, two Turkish police were found dead in the southeastern town of Ceylanpinar close to the Syrian border, the local governor said. It was not immediately clear if the attack had "terrorist connections", Turkish television quoted the governor of Sanliurfa region, Izzettin Kucuk, as saying. The killings came two days after the suicide bombing that had been blamed on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). On Tuesday, Turkish police detained at least 11 people overnight during anti-government protests. Protests erupted in a dozen or so neighbourhoods in Istanbul, as well as cities in the predominantly Kurdish southeast. There were also protests overnight in the capital Ankara, where demonstrators carried pictures of those killed in the Suruc attack as well as banners of the youth federation of which many of the victims were members.

ISIS suspects thought of plotting attacks arrested in Europe
Staff writer, Al Arabiya News/Wednesday, 22 July 2015/Italian and Spanish police arrested three men on Wednesday suspected of supporting Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group and plotting attacks. Italian police arrested Tunisian and Pakistani on Wednesday on suspicion they were plotting attacks in Italy and circulating threatening messages on the Internet in support of ISIS, Reuters reported. The men were arrested in Brescia, a small city near Milan, police said in a statement, without naming either man. It said the Tunisian man, 35, had created a Twitter account from which he posted “threatening messages signed ISIS” with the backdrop of famous landmarks such as Rome’s Colosseum and Milan’s cathedral. Police were due to give details at a news conference later on Wednesday. Italian security forces have for months been on high alert against attacks at embassies, synagogues, churches, the Vatican and areas usually crowded with tourists. Meanwhile, Spanish police with the help of Moroccan authorities, have arrested a man accused of distributing propaganda and recruiting for ISIS, the Interior Ministry said on Wednesday. The 29-old-man, a native of the Spanish North African enclave Melilla, was arrested as part of a police operation against networks dedicated to capturing and sending girls and young women to Syria and Iraq, the ministry said. On July 7, Spanish police arrested a woman in the Canary Islands accused to radicalizing and sending young women to Islamist militants in the Middle East. Austria on Islamist hardliners In the latest and one of the toughest verdicts in a string of ISIS-related cases in Austria, a court sentenced a Chechen to five years in jail on terror charges after he travelled to Syria in 2013. The 30-year-old Chechen, identified as Magomed Z., was convicted of participating in terrorism and possessing child pornography but acquitted of receiving combat training in Syria. He had faced up to 10 years in prison on the terrorism charge alone. The Chechen had pleaded not guilty to all charges, saying he had gone to Syria only to help refugees and to search for the son of a relative. Both the prosecutors and Magomed Z. will appeal the sentence, a spokesman for the court in the Austrian town of Krems said. Earlier this month, a Vienna court sentenced a 17-year-old Austrian youth to two-and-a-half years in jail for supporting ISIS in Syria. In June, an Austrian court sentenced 10 people to up to three years in jail for trying to link up with radical Islamists in Syria. In May, a 14-year-old boy from Austria who downloaded bomb-making plans onto his Playstation games console was sentenced to two years. Around 230 people, roughly half of them Chechens, have travelled from Austria to fight with militants in the Middle East, according to the interior ministry.(With Reuters)

U.N. concerned over civilians in Syria’s Zabadani
By Reuters | Beirut/Wednesday, 22 July 2015/The United Nations envoy for Syria has voiced deep concern about civilians in the city of Zabadani, the focus of an offensive by the Syrian military and Lebanon’s Hezbollah aimed at wresting control of the area from insurgents. Citing local sources in a statement late on Tuesday, Staffan de Mistura said the military had dropped a large number of barrel bombs on Zabadani “causing unprecedented levels of destruction and many deaths among the civilian population.”Control of the city, about 45 km (30 miles) northwest of the capital Damascus, is seen as crucial to consolidating President Bashar al-Assad’s control over the border zone between Lebanon and Syria. The Syrian air force has bombarded areas in and around the city and Sunni insurgents have retaliated by firing rockets and heavy mortar shells on two villages near Idlib city in the north, de Mistura said. An alliance of insurgents known as the “Army of Fatah” (Islamic Conquest) had targeted Al Foua and Kefraya, northern villages where a large number of civilians are trapped, he said. “In both cases, civilians are tragically caught in the middle of the fighting,” he added. Al Foua and Kefraya are home to Shi’ite populations. Earlier this week the Syrian army backed by Hezbollah advanced deeper into Zabadani, two weeks into a campaign to capture it from insurgents, rebels and the army said. Taking Zabadani from the insurgents would be a strategic gain for the Syrian army which is battling on several other fronts with a range of different insurgent groups. Hezbollah’s military role inside Syria has been growing steadily since the start of the conflict in 2011. The Syrian government has described the group as its main ally in the fight against the insurgents battling to topple Assad.

Australian Muslim leader blasts govt's deradicalization drive
By Matt Siegel | Reuters/Wednesday, 22 July 2015/A prominent Australian Muslim leader criticized the government’s $1 billion programme to deradicalize Muslim youths on Wednesday, saying it put too much emphasis on law enforcement and not enough on factors that drive young people to fight overseas. About 100 Australians are fighting in Iraq and Syria but Samier Dandan, president of Australia’s Lebanese Muslim Association, branded the conservative government’s 9-month-old programme to stop the flow of radicalized Muslims “a mess”. The problem is faced by many Western countries, especially members of U.S.-led coalitions that fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. On Monday, British Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to unveil a five-year counter-extremism strategy he described as “struggle of our generation”. “Almost universally, research points to the enormous influence that wider social, economic and political issues have on the process of radicalization,” Dandan said. “Yet, the focus of the government’s strategy seems to rest heavily on how best it can strip people of their rights in the name of ‘security’,” he wrote in an opinion piece shown to Reuters before it was published later on Wednesday. Australia is on “high” alert for attacks by radicalized Muslims or by home-grown militants returning from fighting in the Middle East, and has carried out a series of high-profile raids in major cities. Australian citizens now face up to a decade in prison for travel to overseas areas declared off-limits and Prime Minister Tony Abbott earlier this month introduced legislation to strip citizenship from dual nationals found to have engaged in militant acts. Dandan said the government was missing an opportunity to address the root causes that drive radicalization - inequality. At least half of Australia’s Muslims live in Sydney’s west, which was transformed in the mid-1970s from white working-class districts into majority-Muslim areas by a surge of immigration from Lebanon. The most recent 2011 national census found that areas in Sydney most associated with Lebanese ancestry - Auburn, Lakemba, Punchbowl, Granville - lag far behind the rest of New South Wales state on indicators such as income and employment. A spokesman for the Australian Attorney General’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Dandan will publish the full text of the article on the website and Facebook pages of the Lakemba Mosque, Australia’s largest, later on Wednesday.

U.S. general touts putting air controllers with Iraqi troops
By David Alexander | Reuters/Wednesday, 22 July 2015/Putting U.S. air controllers with Iraqi forces closer to combat areas so they can identify and direct bombing would improve air strikes on ISIS rebel targets and should be “seriously considered,” a top U.S. general told lawmakers on Tuesday. General Mark Milley, nominee for the next Army chief of staff, also told his Senate confirmation hearing he favored providing lethal defensive equipment to help Ukrainian troops counter the artillery of Russian-backed rebels. Milley, who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, was named to replace outgoing Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno, whose four-year term ends in several weeks. Milley’s appointment is one of several that is reshaping U.S. military leadership. Another is the choice of Marine Commandant Joe Dunford as new chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to replace outgoing Army General Martin Dempsey. Asked if Iraqi security forces, who have sometimes retreated from combat, were willing to fight ISIS militants, Milley said they were when he was in the country. But after U.S. military withdrawal in 2011, the chain of command was “decimated,” troops were not getting “proper pay” and training “went down the tubes,” he said. “If three or four years go by and you lack training, you lack money, you lack equipment, you lack spare parts and most importantly you lack a competent, capable, committed leadership, then you can certainly understand why units fell apart,” Milley said. Asked if forward U.S. air controllers were needed in Iraq, Milley said they would provide “more effective close-air support.” The step “should be seriously considered,” he added later, noting that there would be “lots of issues with that, with security of our people.” Dempsey has rejected routine use of forward air controllers, but has indicated he might recommend them for important battles where they could affect the outcome. Milley said he agreed with Dunford’s recent comment that Russia posed the greatest threat to the United States because of its large nuclear arsenal and its behavior in recent years. “The activity of Russia since 2008 has been very, very aggressive,” he said. “They’ve attacked and invaded Georgia, they’ve seized the Crimea, they’ve attacked into the Ukraine. That’s worrisome.” Asked whether the United States should provide weapons to enable Ukraine to counter artillery and rocket fire from Russian-backed rebels, Milley said, “lethal equipment, I think, is something we should consider, and I would be in favor of lethal defensive equipment.”The United States has resisted providing defensive lethal weapons to Kiev due to concerns about escalating the conflict. But U.S. officials have indicated they are considering it.

Obama pitches Iran deal to vets, Daily Show’s Stewart
By Julia Edwards | Reuters/Wednesday, 22 July 2015/President Barack Obama's campaign to convince Congress to support the Iran nuclear deal led him on Tuesday to a veterans' convention and The Daily Show, where he took jabs at those opposing the agreement. In a back and forth on Comedy Central's nightly political satire show, Obama pushed back against hard questions from host Jon Stewart. "This is an adversary. They are anti-American, anti-Semitic, they sponsor terrorist organizations like Hezbollah," Obama said of Iran. "Sounds like a good partner for peace," Stewart responded sarcastically. "Well, as has been said frequently, 'you don't make peace with your friends,'" Obama said. "The issue here is, do we want them having a nuclear weapon? The answer is no." Obama urged Americans to write their representatives in Congress to express their opinion of the deal. Tuesday's efforts widened the administration's efforts to gain support for the deal, from Capitol Hill to the general public. Congress is reviewing the agreement, reached last week, and could vote to reject it. The process has prompted a lobbying effort on Capitol Hill from both the Obama administration and opponents of the accord. The White House started the Twitter handle @theirandeal on Tuesday to inform Americans about the contents of the agreement. Speaking to thousands of veterans at the 116th annual Veterans of Foreign Wars conference in Pittsburgh, Obama pushed back against Republicans who oppose him on the issue. “Some of the same politicians and pundits that are so quick to reject the possibility of a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program are the same folks who were so quick to go to war in Iraq and said it would take a few months,” Obama said. “We know the consequences of that choice, and what it cost us in blood and treasure.” The Daily Show interview was Obama's seventh and last appearance before Stewart leaves the show next month. Stewart asked Obama for his take on Republican presidential contender Donald Trump, who has made a series of comments, ranging from criticism of Mexican immigrants to insults flung at Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Obama joked, "I'm sure the Republicans are enjoying Mr. Trump's dominance of their primary."

Iran won’t accept nuclear curbs beyond 10 years
By Reuters | Dubai/Wednesday, 22 July 2015/Iran will not accept any extension of sanctions relating to its nuclear programme beyond 10 years, the Islamic Republic's senior nuclear negotiator said on Wednesday. Abbas Araqchi told a televised news conference that any attempt to re-impose sanctions after they expire in 10 years would breach the agreement Iran reached with six world powers one week ago. Araqchi was referring to a resolution the United Nations Security Council passed on Monday, endorsing the deal to curb Iran's nuclear programme in return for relief from sanctions. The world powers suspected Iran was trying to create a nuclear bomb; Tehran said the programme was peaceful. The resolution allows all U.N. sanctions to be re-imposed if Iran violates the agreement in the next 10 years. If Iran adheres to the terms of the agreement, all the provisions and measures of the U.N. resolution would end in 10 years. However, the six world powers, known as the P5+1, and the European Union told U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon earlier this month that after 10 years they planned to seek a five-year extension of the mechanism allowing sanctions to be re-imposed. “The U.N. Security Council's resolution says clearly that the timeframe of agreement is 10 years, and Iran's case will be closed in the Security Council after that,” Araqchi said. “If the U.S. and any other member of P5+1 say they want to adopt a new resolution after 10 years allowing sanctions to be re-imposed, it is the breach of Vienna agreement and has no credibility.”

Analysis: Nuclear accord intensifies power struggle in Tehran
Tuesday, 21 Jul, 2015/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/London, Asharq Al-Awsat—It is too early to know how or even if the deal announced on Iran’s nuclear program will be implemented in the way it claims. The deal is a wish list by the two sides, Iran and the P5+1 group of powers led by the United States. The 159-page wish list becomes applicable after a series of often tortuous steps, including approval by the US Congress and the passage of a resolution by the United Nations Security Council. Its full application could take up to 15 years at which time President Barack Obama would be little more than a memory.
The White House is already engaged in intense haggling with US Senators to secure a favorable vote in exchange for toughening certain aspects of the deal against Iran. For its part Iran has so far refused to publish an official Persian version of the wish list. The foreign ministry has described the existing text as “unofficial”. It has even labelled the Persian translation of the text’s appendix as “unofficial.”
It is not clear which text would form the basis of decision-making for the “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei who has so far refused to endorse or reject the deal although he has thanked the Iranian negotiating team for their “brave efforts.”
Khamenei has been studying English for more than 20 years and may be able to work with the English text. However, he would need a Persian text to fully appreciate the technical terms used and the intricacies of the lawyerly language employed.
Also, it is not normal for a country to embark on a major policy change without understanding its implications in its own language. Was the deal submitted to the Islamic Majlis, the ersatz parliament, in English rather than Persian? In any case, the official foreign language of Iranian diplomacy is French, not English.
Confusion about the text does not stop there.
The summaries published by the Islamic Republic in Arabic are all designed to bolster the claim that Tehran has scored a great diplomatic victory, rubbing America’s nose in dust. Even the daily Kayhan, reflecting Khamenei‘s views, uses the forked tongue. Its Persian version remains strongly doubtful, if not outright hostile to President Hassan Rouhani’s “Fath Al-Mobin” (brilliant victory). In its Arabic edition, however, the paper beats the drums about having “humbled the Great Satan” and forced the big powers to recognize the Islamic Republic as regional leader.
“Does this mean that, in the eyes of the mullahs, Arabs don’t deserve to know the truth?” asks Reza Tabesh, a Majlis member.
Worse still, the draft of the Security Council resolution, published last Wednesday and taken up yesterday, offers yet another twist to the plot if only by keeping some key issues in the shadows.
There is no doubt that the declared “deal” has divided the Khomeinist ruling elite and, beyond it, society at large.
Despite Rouhani’s failure to organize “spontaneous mass celebrations” of the deal there is no doubt that a majority of Iranians support an accord that promises a lifting of sanctions. Iranians are tired of being seen by the outside world as fanatics and terrorists. A deal that might restore some of the respect they enjoyed before the mullahs took power would be welcome. Some also hope that normalization with the West, especially the US, could trigger a process that might end in the demise of the Islamic Republic.
“When the head of the camel enters the tent, the rest is sure to follow,” says Azar Ahmad-Beigi, a human rights activist. “We should welcome any move that might increase contact with countries that respect human rights rather than places such hellholes as North Korea, Syria and Zimbabwe.”
In any case, the announced deal has opened a new chapter in the ideological war that has been tearing the Khomeinist movement apart for more than a decade. Disagreement over what has been agreed to is the first element in the new fissure.
“Shouldn’t Iranians be told, in their own language, what has been decided on their behalf?” demands a Hamid Rasa’i, a member of the Islamic Majlis.
The roots of the ideological fight among rival factions go deeper.
Some want Iran to close the chapter of the revolution and reorganize itself as a normal nation-state in a world of nation-states.
“We cannot forget that this is a country with real people who want a real life,” says sociologist Hormoz Massoudi. “All nations that have experienced a revolution end up closing that chapter at some point, and restart their life as normal member of the international community.”
Sadeq Ziba Kalam, an advisor to President Rouhani, puts the same idea in a different way. “No one has given us a mission to export revolution and fight Israel and America,” he says. “Our primary task must be to deal with the needs of our people and solve their problems.”
Such analysis, however, is anathema to supporters of “permanent revolution” who fear that any attempt at normalization might spell the end of the Islamic Republic as an ideological state.
“There are those who want to keep the term Islamic Republic but empty it of its content,” says Hojat Al-Islam Muhammad-Mahdi Fatemipour. “President Rouhani is moving in a direction which, far from being a faith-based option, is an American dream.”
Fatemipour even accuses Rouhani of “falsifying the basic narrative of Islam from the appointment of the Prophet to the disappearance of the Hidden Imam and his Return. He is celebrating a truce with Satan.”
For ideologues any normalization with the outside world is tantamount to a betrayal of the revolution.
“Why are they celebrating?” demands Sadeq Faramarzi, leader of the Muslim Students Association in Tehran. “One should celebrate the victories of resistance not its retreat even if they are only tactical.”
Those who follow Iranian politics closely recognize the fault lines within a regime that is split between a desire to cling to its militant idealism on all issues and the necessity of compromise with reality.
Supporters of normalization could be found at all levels, especially within the civil service, the academic world and the business community.
“Iran is the last major untapped market in the world,” says Farhad Darwish, a businessman. “Opening to the outside world is good not only for our people but also for global economy.”
That view finds strong echoes even within the small circle of economic policymakers around President Rouhani many of whom hold PhDs from American universities and are heavily influenced by market-based economics.
What the military elite think remains an enigma.
Some generals make public statements in support of the usual slogans, wiping Israel off the map, destroying the US, and creating a global Muslim superpower led by Iran. However, the entire military establishment is also heavily involved in business networks that would benefit immensely if the normalization strategy was genuinely adopted.
The military elite are tempted by something else: the prospect of access to modern American-made weapons. The recent increase in the military budget, around 23 percent, is partly based on the calculation that the Islamic Republic would place large orders for arms within the next five years.
Paradoxically, the concept of normalization seems to be also popular among the clergy, a majority of whom have maintained their distance from the regime. Their fear is that the current ideology may end up inciting Iranians against religion itself.
“You cannot send people to heavens by force,” Rouhani said in a recent speech. “It is not the task of the government to force people to comply with their religious duties.”
Ayatollah Hassan Aqamiri puts the same idea in a different way. “An angry Islam with a dour face puts people off religion,” he says. “A true Muslim society emphasizes peace, forgiveness and understanding.”
Opponents of the clergy claim that the “moderate” voices now being heard indicate a tactical retrenchment.
“The mullahs are afraid of what is coming,” says Massoud Honarmandi, a businessman. “They are trying to hedge their bets. If the regime survives they will keep their privileges. If it falls, they will claim they had warned against excesses.”
By next March the two views of Iran’s future will be put to the test in two elections, for the Islamic Majlis and the Assembly of Experts which chooses the “Supreme Guide.”
The Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani faction has promised Western powers it will win both elections if the nuclear accord is implemented and helps revive the Islamic Republic’s anemic economy.
However, much depends on who controls the electoral process.
Khamenei and his faction still have the power to veto any would-be candidates and, after the election, cancel any results they do not like. Their control of the military and security apparatus also enables them to “arrange” the results as desired.
Nevertheless, the “normalizers” are in a stronger position than any time since the late 1990s. Their control of a good part of the government machinery, much of the national budget and a network of business interests might give them an advantage in many areas.
Guessing Iran’s future behavior is always hazardous. However, one thing is certain: Whether or not the announced nuclear deal actually materializes, the power struggle in Tehran is going to intensify until the showdown next spring.
That faces foreign powers interested in Iran with a dilemma: To help the “normalizers” win more ground in Tehran or to wait until the outcome of next spring’s electoral duel is known.

David Cameron’s fatal mistakes on Syria and ISIS
Chris Doyle/Al Arabiya/Wednesday, 22 July 2015
Back in August 2013, British Prime Minister David Cameron gracefully accepted a Parliamentary decision to reject going to war on Syria. A Parliamentary vote would not be challenged and he even refused to try again. Even among those in the Middle East who had wanted intervention, many at least respected the way in which Parliamentary democracy had trumped the wishes of the British leader. There was a mix of open and grudging respect. Britain had burnished its democratic credentials, which had not always shined too bright to the peoples of the Middle East. In a small way it had reversed some of the negative damage of Iraq, in terms of respect for Britain’s political system. Cameron set great store on getting this Parliamentary stamp of approval as he also did with his intervention in Libya and the September 2014 vote to bomb ISIS targets in Iraq. Back last September his deal with the then Labor leader, Ed Miliband, that strikes on Syria would mean going back for House of Commons approval. Yet on July 17 it was revealed that British forces had participated in strikes on ISIS targets in Syria. This was not through a Prime Ministerial statement let alone a vote in Parliament. It was smuggled into the public domain following a Freedom of Information request by a campaign group. British pilots embedded with the U.S. military had been flying in U.S. planes. The Defense Secretary admitted that approval has been given as long ago as last autumn. Cameron’s approach is aggressive, ill thought-out and based on misguided surface-level assessment of the issue. All of a sudden British forces were involved in bombing Syria and nobody including Parliament had been informed and no debate was held. Amazingly Cameron would probably have won a vote this time around. Unlike in 2013 he has a majority in the House of Commons. The Labor leadership may also have supported such a move. He does of course still promise one - which will have to take place in September when Parliament returns (though some will resent Cameron’s reference to “my Parliament” as if it belonged to him). Will British participation in strikes continue in the interim?
An ‘on the hoof’ policy
Cameron then owns this mission. He owns it completely. Success or failure will reside at this famous door at No 10 Downing Street. There are high level critics of his actions including the newly elected Chair of the Defense Select Committee who said that policy on Syria was made “on the hoof.” This is a politician from Cameron’s own Conservative party. To win over the doubters Cameron will have to answer a variety of charges. Firstly, many will argue that it is illegal as it does not unlike Iraq come at the invitation of the government even if Bashar al-Assad has hardly protested at U.S. attacks inside Syria. Secondly, British airplanes may be seen as nothing less than the air arm of the Assad regime hence the lack of outrage in Damascus. Thirdly, what defines success? What will be the mission parameters? Will the air strikes aim to assist certain actors on the ground? If so, who? Finally, will this make a difference? The Royal Air Force will be a meager contributor to the air power of the anti-ISIS coalition. It is hard to see just how this will make any significant difference or advance the full and final defeat of ISIS. The U.S.-led bombings since last summer have not dislodged ISIS from any area except arguably Kobane and then only as back up to ground forces. Key military figures such as Lord Richards, the former British Chief of Defense Staff, have said that only ground forces can defeat ISIS or as Cameron misguidedly referred to it, "the Caliphate."
So perhaps the best response to Cameron’s Syria foray is “So what? Big deal?”
Is this not just posturing after the massacre in Sousse in Tunisia when 38 British citizens were killed? More accurately it exposes the sheer absence of ideas as how best to handle the whole ISIS conundrum. And as yet, there is no strategy for Syria and Iraq let alone Libya. Not just in Britain but the global community has lamentably and criminally failed to articulate a political horizon in the very states where the crisis has fomented the rise of ISIS. As ever, the accusation will circulate that military powers such as Britain only know how to bomb and destroy not how to build and create with Iraq and Libya cited as exhibits A and B on the case for prosecution.
Domestic challenge
But if Cameron is floundering in the muddy waters of the Middle East, he is faring little better in combating ISIS in Britain. The aggressive posture towards ISIS in its heartlands is echoed in an aggressive stance towards British Muslims. In the same way that he has failed to appreciate the political and social realities in Iraq and Syria, he is only slowly coming to terms with the domestic challenge and the dynamics among British Muslims. In the same way that most Western states believed that their own anointed Syrian opposition groups could take on either the Syrian regime and its better equipped army or the better funded fanatical Islamists, the British Muslim community is also ill-equipped to do the job of counter-radicalization in Britain without effective cooperation. The extremists have next-to-no time for their less fervent-minded brethren. Yet Cameron’s consistent messaging is that British Muslims must do more, must kick out the extremists and must adhere to some vague batch of "British values” even if these are notoriously absent from whole swathes of British foreign policy. As damaging is the government’s prevent strategy, where even teachers are supposed to identify those kids vulnerable to radicalization. All in all, many British Muslims feel tagged as potential terrorist threats. Handling the threat of radicalization at home and abroad is hampered by the lack of credibility of successive British governments. In the region, it is nigh impossible to find positive examples of U.S.-UK interventions. At home, no British government has yet to unravel how to engage its British Muslim communities. In both cases arguably the government may not be the best party to address these issues. Cameron’s approach is aggressive, ill thought-out and based on misguided surface-level assessment of the issue. He places sole responsibility for radicalization on ideology and just like his predecessor, Tony Blair, refuses to admit that politics plays a role too. In fact Cameron sounds like an echo chamber of Blair’s speeches on these issues. There is the same preachy, good and evil tone. He has his own crusade on extremists. Let us hope he does not echo Blair’s failure.

How a Cold War foe pushed Cuba to Obama’s radar
Maria Dubovikova/Al Arabiya/Wednesday, 22 July 2015
How can one go down in history showered in glory, while having an illogical and irrelevant foreign policy? Just ask Barack Obama! After the successful demonization of Russia, pushing it to the same corner as ISIS and Ebola, Washington has signed with Russia's help the Iranian nuclear deal. Iran was once a core element of the world’s “Axis of Evil,” according to Washington's philosophy during George Bush’s administration. And now Washington and Havana restore diplomatic ties – a move akin to a controlled shot in the head to all those who have criticized Obama. And intriguingly, the Russian factor has played a role in this, however indirect that role may be. Obama has cozied up to one Cold War enemy, Cuba, while tightening a noose around another, Russia. Two days ago, during a visit by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez to Washington, a flag-raising ceremony was held at the Cuban embassy marking the end of more than 50 years in severed diplomatic ties. On a symbolic note, the year diplomatic ties froze was the year of Barack Obama’s birth. But another remarkable thing about the Rodriguez’s visit to Washington was that it was the first from a Cuban foreign minister since September 1958, when Eisenhower was in the Oval Office. Obama has cozied up to one Cold War enemy, Cuba, while tightening a noose around another, Russia. Cuba now expects from the U.S. the “removal of an economic, commercial and financial blockade, the return of occupied territory in Guantanamo, and respect for the sovereignty of Cuba."Skepticism remains from some sides, as there are still a lot of differences that still separate both countries. Many believe it is likely that the blockade will continue, that Guantanamo will remain a U.S. torture base, and that there is little chance that Cuban sovereignty will be respected.
Russia indirect role
But one important factor that handed Obama the historical moment is a country that is more than 10,000 kilometers away from the island – Russia. This comes at a moment when relations between the U.S. and Russia have started to resemble ties during the Cold War. In July 2014, a year ago, Vladimir Putin visited Cuba during his Latin America tour. He declared 90 percent of Cuba’s unpaid Soviet-era debts forgotten (totaling $32 billion) and he signed a deal to reopen the Soviet-era spy base in Loudes, that had been previously closed in 2001. Through the Soviet-era “fidèl” (faithful) ally Russia sought to flex its muscles in the face of Cuba, it recalled back to life a past that seemed to have already been shelved. The presidential visit was followed by several visits from Russian delegations and several deals were reached. Military cooperation was among of the key dimensions of bilateral cooperation between the two countries. In Russia, these military steps are perceived as a direct response to U.S. policies and Russia’s will to show that it has an answer to U.S. threats.
Obama has taken on a strong path towards normalization of relations with Cuba. Washington will do as much as possible in order to return Cuba to its orbit and influence. The blockade will be lifted soon. It’s in the interest of the both sides and will bring about the opening up of borders and trade. There is no use in expecting Washington’s direct involvement in the internal affairs of Havana, even if the internal issues and violations of human rights are already becoming stumbling points in the negotiation process. Cuban human rights activists at home and abroad will become important political instruments to undermine the fading Castro regime. The normalization of the ties with the U.S. will soon put an end to Cuba’s isolated image, which we have gotten used to, and to a political regime that has existed for so many years. A thaw ties is clearly good for the people of Cuba, in terms of trade and tourism, but for Obama it will mean his name engrained in their history books. But it’s also thanks to Russia’s foreign policy and its national interests that have irked the U.S. and pushed Cuba to the American radar and shaped Obama’s post-Cold War legacy.

US gave away better options on Iran
ALAN DERSHOWITZ/J.Post/07/22/2015
The most compelling argument the Obama administration is offering to boost what it acknowledges is a compromise nuclear deal with Iran is this: it’s better than the alternatives. That sort of pragmatic point is appealing to members of Congress, particularly skeptical Democrats who are searching for ways to support their president and who are accustomed to voting for the lesser of evils in a real-politick world where the options are often bad, worse, even worse, and worst of all. But the question remains: How did we get ourselves into the situation where there are no good options? We did so by beginning the negotiations with three important concessions. First, we took the military option off the table by publicly declaring that we were not militarily capable of permanently ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Second, we took the current tough sanction regimen off the table by acknowledging that if we did not accept a deal, many of our most important partners would begin to reduce or even eliminate sanctions. Third, and most important, we took off the table the option of rejecting the deal by publicly acknowledging that if we do so, we will be worse off than if we accept even a questionable deal. Yes, the president said he would not accept a “bad” deal, but by repeatedly watering down the definition of a bad deal, and by repeatedly stating that the alternative to a deal would be disastrous, he led the Iranians to conclude we needed the deal more than they did.
See the latest opinion pieces on our Opinion & Blogs Facebook page
These three concessions left our negotiators with little leverage and provided their Iranian counterparts with every incentive to demand more compromises from us. The result is that we pinned ourselves into a corner. As Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute put it: “The deal itself became more important than what was in it.” President Obama seems to have confirmed that assessment when he said: “Put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East.”Only time will tell whether this deal decreases or increases the likelihood of more war. But one thing is clear: By conveying those stark alternatives to Iranian negotiators, we weakened our bargaining position.The consequences will be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and a greater likelihood of war.
The reality is that there were always alternatives, though they became less realistic as the negotiations progressed. We could have stuck to the original redlines – non-negotiable demands – from the beginning. These included on-the-spot inspections of all facilities rather than the nearly month-long notice that will allow the Iranians to hide what they are doing; shutting down all facilities specifically designed for nuclear weapons production; maintaining the embargo on missiles and other sophisticated weapons rather than allowing it to gradually be lifted; and most crucially, a written assurance that the international community will never allow Iran to develop a nuclear arsenal. The current assortment of indeterminate and varying timelines agreed to will allow Iranians to believe — and proclaim — they will soon be free of any constraints on their nuclear adventurism.
Instead, we caved early and often because the Iranians knew we desperately need a deal to implement President Obama’s world vision and to enhance his legacy.This approach to the deal — surrendering leverage from the outset — violated the most basic principles of negotiation 101. We were playing checkers against the people who invented chess, and their ayatollah checkmated our president. But the real losers were those countries — our allies — who were not even allowed to participate in the negotiations. Virtually every Middle Eastern leader, with the exception of Syria’s Assad, opposes this deal. Nor do they feel bound by it, since they did not have a vote. The deal was imposed on them, in much the same way the Chamberlain-Hitler deal was imposed on Czechoslovakia in 1938. The difference is that Czechoslovakia did not have the means to defend itself, whereas Israel and some of its Sunni neighbors do have the capacity to try to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal — which the mullahs would use to increase their hegemony over the area and to threaten Israel’s security through its surrogates, Hezbollah and Hamas. Those groups would become even more aggressive under the protection of an Iranian nuclear umbrella. The end result of this porous agreement may well be, to turn President Obama’s words against his own conclusion: “A greater chance of more war in the Middle East.”Churchill correctly predicted that the Chamberlain deal with Hitler would bring war. Let’s hope the Iran deal — based on deeply flawed negotiations — will not produce a similar catastrophe.
Alan M. Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking a Stand: My Life in the Law.”
**This article originally appeared in the Boston Globe.

Iran deal analysis: Playing tuba in a string quartet
HERB KEINON/J.Post/07/22/2015
he Iran nuclear agreement was signed last week, the UN Security Council endorsed it on Sunday, and the chances of the US Congress overriding a veto by President Barack Obama on the matter in two months are slim. Yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel’s other leaders and emissaries, continue to scream and shout about the accord. Why? Surely Netanyahu realizes that another television interview, or another well-argued point, or another loophole discovered in the 100-pluspage accord is not now going to get the world to scuttle an agreement that was years in the making, and which Obama is dead-set on pushing through. At Sunday’s cabinet meeting, Netanyahu seemed to indicate that if Congress did vote to override the veto, and the US didn’t lift its sanctions on Iran, then there might be a chance that the Iranians would scuttle the deal. The Iranian parliament is not set to ratify the accord until after Congress deals with it – apparently so it can save face and also reject the deal if the US lawmakers do. So the possibility of Iran walking away exists, but it is a very long shot. Yet Netanyahu still loudly speaks out. For these efforts, he earned the epithet “obnoxious” over the weekend from New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. One can only imagine the names he is being called inside the White House and the State Department.
But it would be a mistake, diplomatic officials in Jerusalem explain, to see Netanyahu’s and Israel’s protestations as solely aimed at the unrealistic goal of bringing the accord to a full halt.
Netanyahu continues to speak out, because after the Security Council endorsement and after the Congress vote, Israel will still be stuck with a radical, extremist Iran, and wants to keep it on the international agenda. Israel wants to ensure that people do not forget what Iran is and stands for, and whom it supports. Jerusalem wants to stress that Israel has serious problems with certain elements of the deal, in the hope that maybe those problems can be fixed – if not through renegotiating the whole agreement, then perhaps through congressional legislation to plug specific holes, similar to legislation Congress recently enacted to battle BDS efforts. And of course, there is life after Obama. One serious Republican US presidential contender, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, has said he would rip up the Iran deal on the first day of his presidency, and another – former Florida governor Jeb Bush – has said that if he were elected, he “would begin immediately to responsibly get us out of this deal.”
It is difficult to imagine the candidates making such statements if Israel had not responded – and continued to respond – so angrily to the deal. Netanyahu, with his uncompromising rhetoric about the agreement, is also sending a message to those chomping at the bit to do business with Iran. No sooner had the world powers and Iran said “I do” in Vienna than Germany’s Economic Affairs Minister Sigmar Gabriel went to Iran to scope out the business landscape. France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius will not be far behind; he is planning to go there next week. Netanyahu wants them all to feel bad, and to remind them with whom they are running to do business, and that they should not throw their principles out the window for a quick euro. (This apparently had some impact on Gabriel – at least at the level of rhetoric – since one of the first things he said on arriving in Iran was that Germans could not accept Iran’s questioning Israel’s right to exist – a statement the Iranians scoffed at.) Israel’s battle with Iran did not end with the signing of the agreement last week. Facing a world that may now have a tendency to see Iran in a softer, more forgiving light, Israel wants to make sure that this does not happen, and that in the eyes of the world, the country remains a pariah engaged in subversive activities around the globe.
Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, spoke a bit disingenuously when he said Sunday at a press conference following the Security Council’s endorsement of the deal that he hated to be the one “to spoil the party.” Not true – Israel wants to spoil this party. The natural tendency after an accord like this – which has been characterized again and again as “historic” – is for the world to want to accompany it with a sweet serenade, music soft and gentle. But Netanyahu doesn’t want the accompanying music to be soft and gentle. He wants it loud and harsh. He doesn’t want the harmonious sounds of Mozart, he wants the dissonance of Shostakovich. So he strikes a cacophonous note. He is playing tuba in a string quartet.

US Gave Away Better Options on Iran
Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/July 21, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6177/iran-bad-deal
The most compelling argument the Obama administration is offering to boost what it acknowledges is a compromise nuclear deal with Iran is this: it's better than the alternatives. That sort of pragmatic point is appealing to members of Congress, particularly skeptical Democrats who are searching for ways to support their president and who are accustomed to voting for the lesser of evils in a realpolitik world where the options are often bad, worse, even worse, and worst of all.
But the question remains: How did we get ourselves into the situation where there are no good options?
We did so by beginning the negotiations with three important concessions. First, we took the military option off the table by publicly declaring that we were not militarily capable of permanently ending Iran's nuclear weapons program. Second, we took the current tough sanctions regimen off the table by acknowledging that if we did not accept a deal, many of our most important partners would begin to reduce or even eliminate sanctions. Third, and most important, we took off the table the option of rejecting the deal by publicly acknowledging that if we do so, we will be worse off than if we accept even a questionable deal. Yes, the president said he would not accept a "bad" deal, but by repeatedly watering down the definition of a bad deal, and by repeatedly stating that the alternative to a deal would be disastrous, he led the Iranians to conclude we needed the deal more than they did.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during talks in Vienna, Austria, July 14, 2014. (Image source: U.S. State Department)
These three concessions left our negotiators with little leverage and provided their Iranian counterparts with every incentive to demand more compromises from us. The result is that we pinned ourselves into a corner. As Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute put it: "The deal itself became more important than what was in it." President Obama seems to have confirmed that assessment when he said: "Put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East."
Only time will tell whether this deal decreases or increases the likelihood of more war. But one thing is clear: By conveying those stark alternatives to Iranian negotiators, we weakened our bargaining position.
The reality is that there were always alternatives, though they became less realistic as the negotiations progressed. We could have stuck to the original red lines -- non-negotiable demands -- from the beginning. These included on-the-spot inspections of all facilities rather than the nearly month-long notice that will allow the Iranians to hide what they are doing; shutting down all facilities specifically designed for nuclear weapons production; maintaining the embargo on missiles and other sophisticated weapons rather than allowing it to gradually be lifted; and most crucially, a written assurance that the international community will never allow Iran to develop a nuclear arsenal. The current assortment of indeterminate and varying timelines agreed to will allow Iranians to believe -- and proclaim -- they will soon be free of any constraints on their nuclear adventurism.
Instead, we caved early and often because the Iranians knew we desperately need a deal to implement President Obama's world vision and to enhance his legacy.
This approach to the deal -- surrendering leverage from the outset -- violated the most basic principles of negotiation 101. We were playing checkers against the people who invented chess, and their ayatollah checkmated our president.
But the real losers were those countries -- our allies -- who were not even allowed to participate in the negotiations. Virtually every Middle Eastern leader, with the exception of Syria's Assad, opposes this deal. Nor do they feel bound by it, since they did not have a vote. The deal was imposed on them, in much the same way the Chamberlain-Hitler deal was imposed on Czechoslovakia in 1938. The difference is that Czechoslovakia did not have the means to defend itself, whereas Israel and some of its Sunni neighbors do have the capacity to try to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal -- which the mullahs would use to increase their hegemony over the area and to threaten Israel's security through its surrogates, Hezbollah and Hamas. Those groups would become even more aggressive under the protection of an Iranian nuclear umbrella.
The end result of this porous agreement may well be, to turn President Obama's words against his own conclusion: "A greater chance of more war in the Middle East."
Churchill correctly predicted that the Chamberlain deal with Hitler would bring war. Let's hope the Iran deal -- based on deeply flawed negotiations -- will not produce a similar catastrophe.
Alan M. Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of "Taking a Stand: My Life in the Law."
This article originally appeared in the Boston Globe.

Turkish Journalists: Guilty Without Trial
Burak Bekdil/Gatestone Institute/July 22, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6189/turkish-journalists-trial
The case is against Ceyda Karan and Hikmet Cetinkaya, columnists for Cumhuriyet daily. In solidarity with the French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, they displayed the cartoons in their columns. They now face up to four years and six months in jail on charges of "inciting public hatred" and "insulting religious values." If the Erdogan siblings join the group of plaintiffs, they will be joining a group with quite interesting ideas. "If the court does not punish them, let us punish them," one plaintiff said, clearly asking the judge to permit the group of plaintiffs to lynch the journalists. "We should not leave [their punishment] to afterlife," the angry plaintiff said in the courtroom. And another plaintiff asked the judge "to silence the Cumhuriyet daily."The civilized world should support Cumhuriyet and its journalists, who have been found guilty by the Erdogan family -- without trial. Two of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's children are better known by the public than the other two. His 34-year-old son, Bilal, made his debut at the Turkish hall of fame when recordings of phone-tapped conversations he had with [then prime minister] Erdogan were leaked on the internet.
The recordings appeared to capture the prime minister passionately instructing his son to dispose of large amounts of hidden funds from their private home in the midst of a corruption investigation. Although Erdogan later admitted that his private phones had been tapped, he rejected the telephone conversation with Bilal as "complete lies," fabricated by an Islamist group that wanted to discredit his government and take over state institutions in Turkey. For the curious reader, here are a few lines from that telephone conversation:
Erdogan: "OK, so what I am saying is, get all that stuff in your house out. OK?"
Bilal: "Dad, could that be? There is your money in the safe."
Erdogan: "That's what I mean."
And in a later conversation:
Erdogan: "Did you make most of it vanish?"
Bilal: "We haven't been able to do all of it yet. There are about 30 million euros left. We haven't been able to get that out yet."
Erdogan's daughter, Sumeyye, devotes most of her time to social work. She is the vice president of the Women and Democracy Association, an NGO "advocating women's rights." But Ms. Erdogan has a different vision on women's rights. In a speech in April, she defended an Islamic commandment that male children inherit more than their female siblings. Ms. Erdogan rejected any link between Islam and gender inequality in most Muslim countries. But how did she justify the inequality between the two sexes when it comes to inheritance, in light of the Muslim holy book that commands that "God decrees a will for the benefit of your children; the male gets twice the share of the female"? She explained: "[People question] why more inheritance goes to the male child and less to the female. When we analyze this, we see that this is because the male child is given the responsibility to earn [a family's] living. So naturally it is only natural and fair that the male child inherits more." That was how Ms. Erdogan wanted to defend women's rights.
Recently, the two Erdogan siblings and the president's son-in-law, Berat Albayrak, a wealthy businessman who was elected to parliament in June's elections on the president's party's ticket, appealed to a Turkish criminal court that is trying two journalists, with a request to become plaintiffs in the case.
The case is against Ceyda Karan and Hikmet Cetinkaya, columnists for the secular, left-wing Cumhuriyet daily. After the Islamist attack on the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo in January (an attack that killed 12 people), the Turkish columnists, in solidarity with the French magazine, displayed the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in their columns. They now, in connection with the cartoons, face up to four years and six months in jail on charges of "inciting public hatred" and "insulting religious values."Ceyda Karan (left) and Hikmet Cetinkaya, columnists for Turkey's Cumhuriyet daily, are on trial for reprinting cartoons from Charlie Hebdo. The prosecution asked the judge to issue an arrest warrant for the two journalists, who said they were out of Istanbul on a work trip. The hearing was adjourned to Oct. 12. Karan and Cetinkaya were not present at the first hearing, but about 100 plaintiffs were. Most plaintiffs described themselves as readers offended by the columns. If the Erdogan siblings join the group of plaintiffs, they will be joining a group with quite interesting ideas. For instance, one plaintiff, during the hearing, said that publishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoon was like "pouring gasoline on a fire" in an overwhelmingly Muslim country.
Another went further down the Islamist route: "If the court does not punish them, let us punish them," one said, clearly asking the judge to permit the group of plaintiffs to lynch the journalists. "We should not leave [their punishment] to afterlife," the angry plaintiff said in the courtroom.
And another plaintiff asked the judge to "silence the Cumhuriyet daily." Mustafa Varank, an aide to Erdogan, is also a plaintiff.
Such is the profile of the plaintiffs in the trial of two journalists who only wrote their columns and published Charlie Hebdo cartoons in a presumably secular country that happens to be a candidate for European Union membership. It is not surprising at all but thought-provoking, to put it mildly, that President Erdogan's son, daughter and son-in-law are so passionate about joining the ranks of "provoked Muslims" who demand from a judge a permission to lynch journalists and shut down their newspaper.
Cumhuriyet and its journalists are becoming increasingly intimidated by the Erdogan family. After the newspaper published documents and photos showing Turkish intelligence transporting arms to jihadists in Syria, prosecutors indicted its editor-in-chief, Can Dundar, demanding two life sentences plus 42 years in prison on multiple charges including military espionage and being a member of a terrorist organization. In the run-up to the June 7 elections, Erdogan personally got involved in the Dundar case and publicly said: "He [Dundar] will pay a heavy price for that. I won't let him go away with this." See the common thinking? In one case there are two defendants being tried in a court, but one plaintiff asks for their lynching -- without a court verdict. In the other there is another defendant and the president of the country promises that he will pay a heavy price for what he published -- again, without a court verdict. None of this is coincidence. The civilized world should support Cumhuriyet and its journalists, who have been found guilty by the Erdogan family -- without trial.
Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Saudi Press: We Must Have A Military Nuclear Program Within A Decade
MEMRI 22 July/15
Following the July 14, 2015 announcement in Vienna of the Iran-P5+1 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Saudi press featured numerous articles openly calling for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to use the coming decade – the time frame of the JCPOA – to develop their own military nuclear program, against the nuclear threat that they say Iran will constitute after the agreement expires.
There have already been calls for a clandestine Saudi nuclear program to parallel Iran's, which were backed up by official Saudi sources. For example, the month before the announcement of the JCPOA, Saudi Ambassador to the U.K. Emir Muhammad bin Nawwaf bin 'Abd Al-'Aziz Al-Saud told the Daily Telegraph that if the upcoming nuclear agreement with Iran did not include a serious Iranian commitment to refrain from developing nuclear weapons, then as far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, "all options are on the table." He emphasized that over the years, his country had opposed the development of nuclear weapons, but that Iran's policy on the issue "has changed the whole outlook in the region."[1]
Emir Turki Al-Faisal, former Saudi intelligence chief and Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., made similar statements, on a number of occasions. In April 2014, at a security conference in Bahrain, Al-Faisal called on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to acquire nuclear knowledge to deal with the Iranian danger.[2] The previous year, at the 2013 Arab-U.S. Policymakers Conference, he threatened that if Iran developed nuclear weapons, the GCC would consider acquiring its own "nuclear deterrent."[3]
Alongside these statements by Saudi officials, there have been various reports in media worldwide on Saudi intentions to establish a military nuclear program,[4] or to acquire nuclear weapons from a third party, meaning Pakistan.[5]
In addition, Saudi Arabia has recently taken practical steps to develop a civilian nuclear program. In recent months it has signed nuclear agreements with France,[6] Russia,[7]and South Korea,[8] which include the establishment of civilian nuclear reactors in the kingdom.[9]
Following are excerpts from articles in the Saudi press calling for the establishment of a Saudi nuclear program:
No Alternative To Nuclear Arms Race
Dr. Hashem 'Abdu Hashem, columnist for the official Saudi daily Al-Riyadh, called on the Gulf states and Arab countries to work on two fronts – the military front, that is, immediately launching a nuclear arms race, and the diplomatic front, that is, beginning a dialogue with the superpowers and taking advantage of the prevailing atmosphere of economic interests overriding security interests. In his column, titled "There Is No Alternative To The Option Of A Nuclear Arms Race," he wrote: "... The situation is dangerous – very dangerous – and the need to operate on all levels is increasing. There is a need for direct and transparent dialogue with the P5+1 and for working to bolster our self [defense] capabilities as a country, as a single Gulf entity, and as a homogenous Arab group that senses the same threat, thinks alike, and seeks the best guarantees for stability in its lands and for dealing jointly with this new reality.
"Just as Iran has opened the [nuclear] door wide, we must not delay in breaking [the nuclear door] down, with all necessary speed. We must benefit from the [current] international willingness to prioritize economic interests above existing security issues.
"We are facing a new reality, with no room for tiptoeing around the arms race issue. The countries of the region must confer on how best to cooperate and coordinate on this vital issue, now that it has become the preferred option.
"I do not know if such a move will benefit our countries and peoples, but I do know that hesitating or delaying will do us no good. Additionally, such an agreement requires the countries of the region to act to achieve a balance in our relations with all countries of the world, in accordance with the scope of our interests with each country..."[10]
Saudi flag superimposed over image of nuclear reactor (Source: Annabaa.org, July 6, 2015)
We Must Establish Arab Nuclear Reactors To Create A Balance Of Power With Iran And Israel
In a similar vein, in his column in the official Saudi daily Al-Jazirah, Jasser 'Abd Al-'Aziz Al-Jasser wrote, under the headline "So We Don't Fall Victim To The Nuclear Deception": "... A decade from now, Iran will be able to manufacture nuclear weapons... It has the knowhow, which will surely develop in the coming decade, in addition to amassing thousands of tons of enriched uranium – which will facilitate Iran's production of nuclear weapons. Therefore, the countries of the region, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE, must prepare for that day, and work to create a scientific base and a nuclear [facility] infrastructure by establishing research reactors for producing energy, that can serve the region's countries [in their efforts] to attain a nuclear balance [of power] with Iran or with Israel. Otherwise, only Arab countries will be targets for extortion, by both Iran and Israel."[11]
Saudi academic 'Abd Al-'Aziz Al-Tuwaijri wrote in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat: "... Today we are on the threshold of a new crisis that requires the Arab countries, and the other members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC], to take the necessary actions to deal with this dangerous challenge, and strengthen and expand the [Saudi-led] Arab coalition [operating in Yemen] to meet this challenge with strength and determination... We have entered a new phase of dangerous challenges... There is no escape from taking the initiative and establishing nuclear programs that are similar to the one agreed upon between the superpowers (the P5+1) and Iran, and under the same conditions, and [there is also no escape] from bearing all expected and unexpected consequences [of establishing these programs], in order to preserve [the Arab] lands and to defend their existence and security."[12]
Saudi Arabia Must Develop A Secret Nuclear Program So That It Can Produce Nuclear Weapons In 10 Years
Al-Jazirah columnist Khaled Ibrahim Al-Hajji set out the steps that he says Saudi Arabia must take to develop a nuclear program in the coming decade: "... Training Saudi personnel in the field of nuclear energy that will produce results, as part of a known timetable [concurrent with] the term of the Iranian nuclear agreement; recruiting outstanding Saudi students for this program, along with a special staff and financial benefits in line with their scientific capabilities; establishing nuclear energy Research and Development [R&D] centers within the timeframe of the Iranian nuclear agreement; conducting clandestine scientific research in absolute secrecy to preserve national security; and recruiting nuclear physicists and scientists from around the world to work in Saudi Arabia in return for special benefits, and granting Saudi citizenship to those who desire it. The Saudi nuclear program will be ready to develop and produce nuclear weapons that will deter Iran's nuclear program once its agreement with the superpowers expires..."
Al-Hajji concluded his piece by stating: "The timeframe of the Iranian nuclear agreement should be long enough for us to build a Saudi nuclear program that will serve as a deterrent to the Iranian nuclear program."[13]
Endnotes:
[1] Daily Telegraph (UK), June 8, 2015.
[2] Newnews.com.pk, April 24, 2014.
[3] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5502, Former Saudi Ambassador To Washington Turki Al-Faisal: If Iran Acquires Nuclear Weapons, The GCC Should Consider Acquiring A 'Nuclear Deterrent' Of Its Own; 'The Shameful Way That The World Community Accepts The Impunity Of The Butcher Of Syria Is A Blot On The Conscience Of The World', October 28, 2013.
[4] The pro-resistance axis Lebanese daily Al-Safir reported that the Gulf states had made a strategic decision to use the coming decade for a nuclear and ballistic missile arms race, which received American approval at the May 2015 Camp David summit. According to the report, Saudi Arabia has devoted $60 billion to the program, which would make it a nuclear power by 2025. Al-Safir (Lebanon), July 7, 2015.
[5] An American official told the British Sunday Times that Saudi Arabia has decided to acquire readymade nukes from Pakistan. Sundaytimes.co.uk, May 17, 2015. The BBC reported that Saudi Arabia provided financial support for the Pakistani nuclear program with the aim of purchasing nuclear weapons in the future. BBC.com, November 6, 2013. The World Tribune reported that Saudi Arabia sent money to Pakistan for the purchase of nuclear missiles, which would be delivered once Iran possesses the same capability. Worldtribune.com, November 13, 2013.
[6] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), June 24, 2015.
[7] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), June 19, 2015.
[8] Al-Hayat (London), March 4, 2015.
[9] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), June 24, 2015.
[10] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), July 18, 2015.
[11] Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia), July 20, 2015.
[12] Al-Hayat (London), July 20, 2015.
[13] Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia), July 20, 2015.

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

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