LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
October 03/15

Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com/newsbulletins05/english.october03.15.htm

Bible Quotation For Today/‘An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah
Matthew 12/38-42: "Some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus, ‘Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you. ’But he answered them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was for three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! The queen of the South will rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here."

Bible Quotation For Today/You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation
Book of Revelation 05/01-10: "Then I saw in the right hand of the one seated on the throne a scroll written on the inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals; and I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, ‘Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?’ And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it. And I began to weep bitterly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. Then one of the elders said to me, ‘Do not weep. See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.’Then I saw between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. He went and took the scroll from the right hand of the one who was seated on the throne. When he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. They sing a new song: ‘You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God, and they will reign on earth."

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on October 02-03/15
Lebanon needs a citizen bill of rights/Wissam Yafi/Now Lebanon/October 02/15
Lebanon exporting refugees and its own sons/Nayla Tueni/Al Arabiya/October 02/15
Certainly a state within the state/By Ahmad Al-Assaad/Lebanese Option General Chancellor/October 02/15
U.S., allies urge Russia to halt its Syria strikes/By Tom Perry and Lidia Kelly /Reuters/October 02/15
Russia may be salvaging the ‘Axis of Resistance/Manuel Almeida/Al Arabiya/October 02/15
Obama and Sisi: Whose cold shoulder/Abdallah Schleifer/Al Arabiya/October 02/15
Signs of further cooperation between the U.S. and Iran/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya/October 02/15
Normal ties between Iran and US unlikely despite nuclear deal/By REUTERS/J.Post/October 02/15
The Israeli military option Against Iran is back on the table/Yaron Brener/Ynetnews/October 02/15
After Iran deal, can P5+1 tackle Syria civil war/Laura Rozen/Al-Monitor/ October 02/15
Power cut/Michael Young/Now Lebanon/October 02/15
Where Are We on the UN’s 70th Anniversary/Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/October 02/15
Russia’s Role in Syria/Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Al Awsat/October 02/15
Initial Russian Strikes in Syria Are Not Targeting ISIS/Fabrice Balanche/The Washington Institute./October 02/15
Chinese warplanes to join Russian air strikes in Syria. Russia gains Iraqi air base/DEBKAfile /October 02/15
Toward a Realistic Assessment of the Gulf States Taking in Syrians/Lori Plotkin Boghardt/The Washington Institute./October 02/15
Egypt's Elections (Part 2): Salafis Use Education to Campaign/Jacob Olidort/The Washington Institute/October 02/15
Muslim History vs Western Fantasy: The ‘Refugee Crisis’ in Context/Raymond Ibrahim/PJ Media/October 02/15
Abbas's Trap: The Big Bluff/Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/October 02/15
The Brookings Essay: The Prince of Counterterrorism/Reuters/Bruce Riedel/SOctober 02/15

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin for Lebanese Related News published on October 02-03/15
Salam Urges 'Quick' Measures for 'Immediate' Implementation of Waste Plan
Report: Obama, Pope Hope to Elect New Lebanese President before New Year
Hale: U.S. Doubles Military Assistance to Lebanese Armed Forces
Report: Salam Returns to Beirut, to Hold Consultations ahead of Calling Cabinet to Session
The Lebanese Syndicate Coordination Committee Threatens to Resume Strikes with Start of School Year.
Shehayyeb Informs Salam of Latest Developments in Trash Disposal Crisis
Derbas: International Support for Lebanon Should be Translated into Tangible Aid
Akkar Municipal Delegation Accepts Turning Srar Dump into 'Sanitary Landfill'
Lebanon needs a citizen bill of rights
Lebanon exporting refugees and its own sons
Certainly a state within the state

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on October 02-03/15
Patriot missiles to be pulled from Turkey as planned
Fight for Ramadi on ‘pause’: U.S. official
Obama to give address on Syria, Russia strikes
Afghan Taliban says shot down U.S. C-130 plane
Syria doubts value of talks, air strikes useless without Damascus
Russia’s first strikes on Syria’s Raqqa kill 12 ISIS militants
Syrian Christians react against Russia’s ‘Holy War’ comment
Russia defends its military action in Syria
Netanyahu in Berlin Next Week for Talks with Merkel
Russia Strikes IS Stronghold in Syria as Putin Meets Hollande, Merkel
Leaders Meet to Consolidate Ukraine's Fragile Peace

Links From Jihad Watch Web site For Today
Israel: Muslims murder Jewish couple in front of their children
Taliban take 4th Afghan district in 48 hours
Video: Robert Spencer on ISIS: A struggle of life vs. death
UK Muslim 14-year-old receives life sentence for jihad mass murder plot in Australia
Raymond Ibrahim: Muslim History vs Western Fantasy: The ‘Refugee Crisis’ in Context
Oregon massacre: Singling out Christians for murder is standard practice among Islamic jihadis
Spanish court sentences 11 for jihad recruitment
Islamic State claims Chris Harper Mercer mass murder
Non-religious” Oregon gunman targeted Christians, had Muslim friend who praised “the brave Mujahideen heroes”
New Glazov Gang: “BattleCat” Exposes Obama’s Islamic and Racist Agenda

Salam Urges 'Quick' Measures for 'Immediate' Implementation of Waste Plan
Prime Minister Tammam Salam on Friday demanded “quick technical, legal and administrative measures” to facilitate the immediate implementation of an emergency waste management plan devised by Agriculture Minister Akram Shehayyeb and a team of experts. Salam's recommendations were voiced during a broad meeting at the Grand Serail with Shehayyeb, Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq, the head of the Council for Development and Reconstruction, and a group of consultants, lawyers, experts and contractors in charge of running garbage dumpsites. “Salam opened the meeting by warning that the problem is not a regular problem and that it requires extraordinary and speedy measures,” said Shehayyeb after the meeting. “After being briefed on the steps that have been taken by the ministers of agriculture and interior and the CDR chief, the premier called on the conferees to employ all the quick technical, legal and administrative measures that can facilitate the immediate implementation of the plan,” Shehayyeb added. Participants stressed that “it is our duty to set up sanitary landfills to replace the existent random dumps, even if the two regions (Akkar and Bekaa) do not take in garbage from other areas,” said the minister. “This is a final decision and I tell our people in Akkar and Bekaa that this step is in favor of their demands, knowing that sanitary landfills are a developmental model that every region needs instead of random dumps,” Shehayyeb noted. He pointed out, however, that the plan will be implemented through “consultations with the partners who took part in devising this plan and the dignitaries and residents of the two regions.”Shehayyeb also announced that another meeting will be held Monday at the Grand Serail to “assess the practical steps that are being implemented at the Srar site (in Akkar) and the possible steps at the al-Masnaa site” in the Bekaa. Salam had held talks with Shehayyeb upon his return to Lebanon from the United States on Thursday on the latest efforts to resolve the trash disposal crisis, reported al-Joumhouria newspaper on Friday. Another meeting was held on Friday between Salam, Shehayyeb and Mashnouq. Prior to the meetings with Salam, Shehayyeb had held bilateral talks with Mashnouq on the matter. He had held discussions earlier this week with numerous officials to explain to them his proposal on ending the trash crisis that has plunged Lebanon in waste since July. The minister's proposal calls for the reopening of the Naameh landfill whose closure on July 17 sparked the country's unprecedented garbage crisis. It also envisions converting two existing dumps, in Srar and the eastern border area of al-Masnaa, into “sanitary landfills” capable of receiving trash for more than a year. After he announced his plan earlier this month, the civil society and local residents of Akkar, Naameh, Majdal Anjar, and Bourj Hammoud protested against the step. Experts have urged the government to devise a comprehensive waste management solution that would include more recycling and composting to reduce the amount of trash going into landfills. Environmentalists fear the crisis could soon degenerate to the point where garbage as well as sewage will simply overflow into the sea from riverbeds as winter rains return. The health ministry has warned that garbage scattered by seasonal winds could also block Lebanon's drainage system.
The trash crisis has sparked angry protests that initially focused on waste management but grew to encompass frustrations with water and electricity shortages and Lebanon's chronically divided political class. Campaigns like "You Stink" brought tens of thousands of people into the streets in unprecedented non-partisan and non-sectarian demonstrations against the entire political class.

Report: Obama, Pope Hope to Elect New Lebanese President before New Year
Naharnet/October 02/15/U.S. President Barack Obama and Pope Francis I had reportedly discussed the developments in Lebanon during their meeting during the pontiff's visit to the United States, reported the Kuwaiti daily al-Anba on Friday. Informed sources from the Vatican told the daily that pledges were made by “influential international forces” to exert serious efforts to end the presidential vacuum in Lebanon “before the end of the year.” The pope concluded earlier this week a five-day visit to the United States during which he held talks with Obama on numerous global affairs. Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Ongoing disputes between the rival March 8 and 14 camps over a compromise candidate have thwarted the polls.

U.S. Sanctions Lebanese Mogul Suspected of Ties to 'Hizbullah-linked Criminal Organization'
Naharnet/October 02/15/The United States has slapped sanctions on prominent Lebanese businessman Merhi Ali Abou Merhi on charges of facilitating the activities of a Lebanese-Colombian drug trafficker and money launderer accused of having ties to Hizbullah. The U.S. Treasury Department designated “four Lebanese and two German nationals and 11 companies as Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers,” said a statement published on the Treasury's website. These individuals provide support for “narcotics trafficking and money laundering activities conducted by Lebanese-Colombian drug trafficker and money launderer Ayman Saied Joumaa, key Joumaa associate Hassan Ayash, and the Joumaa criminal organization, which has ties to Hizbullah,” said the statement. As a result of the department's action, any assets these designated entities and individuals may have under U.S. jurisdiction are “frozen,” and U.S. persons are “generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them,” the Treasury added. “Merhi Ali Abou Merhi operates an extensive maritime shipping business that enables the Joumaa network’s illicit money laundering activity and widespread narcotics trafficking,” said John E. Smith, Acting Director of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. “The Joumaa criminal network is a multi-national money laundering ring whose money laundering activities have benefited Hizbullah. Today’s action demonstrates Treasury's commitment to disrupt this network’s trade-based money laundering scheme and obstruct their access to the international financial system,” he said. Merhi Ali Abou Merhi owns and controls the Abou Merhi Group, a holding company in Lebanon that was also sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury. “Abou Merhi Group has multiple subsidiaries in Africa, the Middle East, and Europe including the following 10 designated companies: Abou-Merhi Lines SAL, a shipping line in Lebanon; Abou-Merhi Cruises (AMC) SAL, a travel agency in Lebanon; Le-Mall-Saida, a shopping mall in Lebanon; Queen Stations, a gas station in Lebanon; Orient Queen Homes, a real estate development in Lebanon; maritime shipping subsidiaries in Benin (Abou Merhi Cotonou), Nigeria (Abou Merhi Nigeria), and Germany (Abou Merhi Hamburg); Lebanon Center, a shopping mall in Jordan; and Abou Merhi Charity Institution in Lebanon,” said the Treasury. It noted that Abou Merhi has business dealings with “previously designated members of the Joumaa organization.” The Treasury identified three Lebanese and two German nationals designated for their “management roles” in Merhi’s various companies as Houeda Ahmad Nasreddine, Ahmad El Bezri, Wajdi Youssef Nasr, Hana Merhi Abou Merhi, and Atef Merhi Abou Merhi. Abou Merhi’s maritime vessels provide “used vehicle transportation services” to the Joumaa organization, said the Treasury. On January 26, 2011, the department designated the Joumaa organization as a “significant foreign narcotics trafficker.”According to the statement, Ayman Joumaa was indicted in the U.S. for coordinating the shipment of over 85,000 kilograms of cocaine and laundering in excess of $250 million in narcotics proceeds. Joumaa remains a fugitive.

Hale: U.S. Doubles Military Assistance to Lebanese Armed Forces
Naharnet/October 02/15/U.S. ambassador to Lebanon David Hale stated on Friday that his country is doubling the baseline amount of U.S. military assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces this year compared to last. “America believes that the army is the sole institution with the legitimacy and mandate to defend the country and its people. To fulfill its mission, it must have the necessary equipment and training,” said Hale after meeting PM Tammam Salam at the Grand Serail. “We are more than doubling the baseline amount of U.S. military assistance we are providing to the Lebanese Armed Forces this year compared to last. This means that America is committing $150 million of U.S. assistance funds to the Lebanese Armed Forces for the upcoming year,” added the ambassador. “These funds will allow the LAF to buy munitions, improve close air support, sustain vehicles and aircraft, modernize airlift capacity, provide training to its soldiers, and add to the mobility of armored units. In sum, it will help ensure the LAF is even better prepared to counter the threats facing Lebanon. This amount is in addition to the $59 million in border security equipment I announced last week for the army,” he emphasized.
On the vacuum at the presidential position, Hale said: “There is no substitute for genuine political leadership from within Lebanon. “As the International Support Group participants expressed, we hope to see determined action by Lebanon’s leaders to resolve the political stalemate through the election of a president without further delay, so the institutions of governance can respond to citizens’ needs and provide effective services.”

Report: Salam Returns to Beirut, to Hold Consultations ahead of Calling Cabinet to Session
Naharnet/October 02/15/Prime Minister Tammam Salam returned on Thursday to Lebanon following his trip to the United States where he attended the United Nations General Assembly. Government sources told al-Mustaqbal daily on Friday that the premier is unlikely to call cabinet to session. They explained that he is seeking to carry out consultations with various political powers over pending issues before calling the government to convene. Speculation has been rife this week over when Salam will hold a cabinet meeting to address various contentious issues, most notably the security appointments and promotions file.
The months-long dispute over this issue prompted ministers from the Change and Reform bloc to boycott cabinet meetings. The Change and Reform totally rejects the extension of the terms of top military and security officials, calling for the appointment of new figures instead. It is also backing the promotion of army officers to keep Commando Regiment chief Chamel Roukoz in the military and make him eligible to become army commander because differences among rival parties are hindering new appointments in the absence of a president.Roukoz is Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun's son-in-law.

The Lebanese Syndicate Coordination Committee Threatens to Resume Strikes with Start of School Year.
Naharnet/October 02/15/The Syndicate Coordination Committee vowed on Thursday to resume holding strikes and demonstrations to demand the adoption of the new wage scale, reported al-Joumhouria newspaper on Friday. It said that it will return to street action to “revive its chronic demand to adopt the wage hike.”Its sources said that it will resort to “escalation on all levels, including the obstruction of the school year after it had kept its promise to avoid interrupting the previous one.”“The SCC said that it demonstrated good will, but the authority did not reciprocate so it has decided to once again threaten to obstruct the 2015-26 academic year,” continued the sources. The SCC, which is a coalition of private and public school teachers and public sector employees, has for years been demanding the adoption of the new wage scale that was approved in 2012 by the cabinet of then Premier Najib Miqati. Several parliamentary blocs had refused to approve the draft-law over fears that it would have devastating effects on the economy.

Shehayyeb Informs Salam of Latest Developments in Trash Disposal Crisis
Naharnet/October 02/15/Prime Minister Tammam Salam held talks upon his return to Lebanon from the United States on Thursday with Agriculture Minister Akram Shehayyeb on the latest efforts to resolve the trash disposal crisis, reported al-Joumhouria newspaper on Friday. And in the presence of Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq, Salam held another meeting with Shehayyeb on Friday afternoon to discuss upcoming measures that will be taken to tackle the affair. The premier then called for a 6:00 pm broad meeting at the Grand Serail to discuss the developments and the steps that will be taken to implement Shehayyeb's emergency waste management plan. These steps include the adoption of cabinet decisions linked to the garbage crisis. Prior to his meetings with Salam, Shehayyeb had held talks with Mashnouq on the matter. He had held discussions earlier this week with numerous officials to explain to them his proposal on ending the trash crisis that has plunged Lebanon in waste since July. The minister's proposal calls for the reopening of the Naameh landfill whose closure on July 17 sparked the country's garbage crisis. Earlier in September, the municipal union of towns in the vicinity of the Naameh landfill announced its approval of Shehayyeb's proposal to reopen the facility for seven days to dump the trash that has been accumulating in Beirut and Mount Lebanon since the dumpsite's closure. The union, however, insisted that other landfills cited in the minister's plan must be also activated at the same time.
On Sunday, the residents of the town of Ain Drafil expressed the readiness of their region to support Shehayyeb's to tackle the garbage disposal crisis despite the opposition of some locals and civil society activists.

Derbas: International Support for Lebanon Should be Translated into Tangible Aid
Naharnet/October 02/15/Social Affairs Minister Rashid Derbas stressed the importance of a functioning cabinet that would be able to tackle the international aid presented to Lebanon in its efforts to support Syrian refugees, reported al-Joumhouria newspaper on Friday. He told the daily: “The international backing that Lebanon received from the International Support Group in New York should be translated into tangible aid.” “The support for Lebanon does not stem from the West's sympathy for the country, but the looming danger against Europe,” he added. “Lebanon therefore has to present tangible proposals and be ready to accept aid,” the minister stated. “This obligates cabinet to be in a constant state of readiness and session, not obstruction, which would cost us aid opportunities,” Derbas said. The International Support Group for Lebanon convened in New York on Wednesday, expressing “deep concern over the 16-month vacancy in the Presidency of the Republic,” saying it “seriously impairs Lebanon’s ability to address the security, economic, social and humanitarian challenges facing the country.” The conferees acknowledged “the extraordinary effort Lebanon continues to undertake in hosting 1.1 million registered refugees from Syria.”The Group stressed, however, that “if strong international support is to contribute effectively to sustained stability, it must be paralleled by determined action by Lebanon’s leaders to resolve the political stalemate.” The meeting was chaired by U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon and saw the participation of Salam, China, France, Russia, Britain, the U.S., Germany, Italy, the European Union, and the Arab League. Lebanon is sheltering more than 1.5 million displaced Syrians, who amount to one third of its population.

Akkar Municipal Delegation Accepts Turning Srar Dump into 'Sanitary Landfill'
Naharnet/October 02/15/A delegation from several Akkar municipalities on Thursday held talks with Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq and announced its approval of government plans to turn an existing garbage dump in the Srar area into a so-called “sanitary landfill.”“The municipalities announce their immediate approval of setting up a sanitary landfill in Akkar, because that means 33 random dumps would be shut down,” said the delegation in a statement after meeting Mashnouq in Beirut. The minister “reassured the delegation and dissipated its concerns regarding possible environmental and public safety hazards, pledging that the random Srar dump will be turned into a sanitary landfill and that cooperation with the European Union will be sought during implementation,” the statement added. It said the relevant municipalities and the civil society will be granted “the right to inspection and accountability.”
During the meeting with Mashnouq, the delegation hoped job opportunities pertaining to the implementation of the landfill project and the transfer of waste to the site will be “limited to the sons of the Akkar province.”The minister for his part promised the delegation to help Akkar obtain developmental projects, such as “rescuing the al-Ostwan river from the pollution that is threatening the fish population, executing a sewer system project in al-Dreib, establishing 5 Lebanese University branches in Akkar, expanding the Arab Highway, and lighting the road from al-Abdeh to al-Abboudiyeh.”On Wednesday, Akkar anti-trash activists organized a new sit-in to reject government plans to set up a sanitary garbage landfill Srar as part of a comprehensive waste management plan proposed by Agriculture Minister Akram Shehayyeb and a team of experts. The sit-in that was held in the Akkar town of Shir Hmayrin was organized by the “Akkar is Not a Dump” campaign and other activists amid a participation by a number of municipalities and mayors from the region. “The towns and villages in the vicinity of the Srar landfill reject the dumping of additional quantities of garbage in this site, which has caused major environmental and health hazards,” a municipal chief said at the sit-in. Speaking in the name of the “Akkar is Not a Dump” campaign, the activist Bernard Obeid stressed that “Akkar will not be a dump and Akkar's sons will stand in the way of the trucks that will transport the garbage” from other regions. He also declared an open-ended sit-in and pledged that all garbage trucks will be sent back to the areas they may come from, underlining that “it is unacceptable to put the burden of the garbage of entire Lebanon on Akkar's shoulders.”Shehayyeb's plan calls for reopening the Naameh landfill, which was closed in mid-July, for seven days to dump the garbage that accumulated in random sites in Beirut and Mount Lebanon. It also envisions converting two existing dumps, in Srar and the eastern border area of al-Masnaa, into “sanitary landfills” capable of receiving trash for more than a year. After he announced his plan earlier this month, the civil society and local residents of Akkar, Naameh, Majdal Anjar, and Bourj Hammoud protested against the step. Experts have urged the government to devise a comprehensive waste management solution that would include more recycling and composting to reduce the amount of trash going into landfills. Environmentalists fear the crisis could soon degenerate to the point where garbage as well as sewage will simply overflow into the sea from riverbeds as winter rains return. The health ministry has warned that garbage scattered by seasonal winds could also block Lebanon's drainage system. The trash crisis has sparked angry protests that initially focused on waste management but grew to encompass frustrations with water and electricity shortages and Lebanon's chronically divided political class. Campaigns like "You Stink" brought thousands of people into the streets in unprecedented non-partisan and non-sectarian demonstrations against the entire political class.

Lebanon needs a citizen bill of rights
Wissam Yafi/Now Lebanon/October 02/15
An anti-government protester waves a national flag in front of security forces during a protest on a road leading to the parliament, where leading figures of Lebanon. A couple of months ago, protests rocked Lebanon as tens of thousands of frustrated citizens hit the streets demanding that the government resolve a crisis over massive amounts of uncollected trash. Since then, and with piles spread all over the city, demands have grown and calls are now being made for the prosecution of certain ministers for gross incompetence, for transparency in the handling of public funds, for environmental rights, civil rights, election rights, economic development, provisioning of utilities, and others. Feeling their status quo under attack, entrenched interests have begun beating back, pointing to what they claim is a “cacophony of demands” by protesters who do not really know what they want and are leading the country towards a “dangerous unknown.” Instead, they are preaching a gradual approach for the country to “digest change.” The protesters have rejected this approach citing the Lebanese state’s gridlock and inability to resolve issues across the spectrum of its needs — especially those affecting the very health of its citizens. They believe that only pressuring the state will yield tangible results. Equally key in all this, of course, is what the silent majority thinks. While it appears that people generally support the calls for better governance, there is a discernible fear of chaos. With alarming sights trickling in from all over the region, the Lebanese people need to believe that the protests have a certain rationale, overarching strategy and direction. Is there a way for protesters to provide this, considering their disparate demands? The answer to that question is yes. And the mechanism that could consolidate those demands is typically referred to as a citizen bill of rights. Put simply, a bill of rights is a formal declaration of a set of assertions that aim to protect certain rights and freedoms of the common citizenry of a country. These rights could be newly-introduced demands, reasserted rights, or clarified laws pertinent to the citizen. They usually become extensions of or amendments to a constitution and can be upheld in courts of law.
This is relevant to present-day Lebanon, to its people and the protesters because in Lebanon the extant constitution has created an oligarchy that has essentially seized the state and brought it to the point of a meltdown. And while some argue that the constitution itself is not the problem but rather the lack of its implementation, the argument is in essence an admission of the shortcomings of the constitution, which has provided little recourse to the common citizen to assure its proper execution. To the Lebanese people, therefore, a bill of rights could serve as explicit legal recourse for state abuses. In the current context, it would help allay fears of any unknowns, serving as a strategy or action plan, written in black and white, and providing a clear set of demands in the interests of all citizens. A bill of rights would also appeal to the protesters at this juncture. The protester movement is composed of multiple grassroots organizations with distinct agendas and demands. While in some ways this is a strength, it is also a weakness because the disparate structure doesn’t answer to what would happen if current demands get cherry-picked by entrenched interests, potentially undermining protester unity. If the trash crisis is resolved, will the environmentalists be satisfied? What about corruption, transparency, civil rights and all the other demands? A bill of rights would solve this dilemma by helping protesters unify their ranks with one rallying cry — one bill that encompasses all the demands of the disparate groups and members under one single banner: demanding the bill be passed. Furthermore, come election time, it could serve as a clear platform for candidates of the movement. Why a bill of rights and not just constitutional amendments? The reason is simple: a bill of rights in itself typically aims to right constitutional wrongs or allay fears of common citizens of abusive fiduciary powers that the state has acquired through the constitution. While a bill of right’s clauses can technically be integrated into a constitution, it is symbolically appended so as to become a more salient document — a concise and transcendent list of rights that citizens (even children) can learn, easily grasp, and demand. But doesn’t Lebanon protect its citizens de facto through Constitutional Articles 6-15 and the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed as far back as 1949? In theory, it should. In practice, unfortunately, it doesn’t, which is why the Lebanese have had to endure incessant state abandonment, misappropriations, and abuses for decades that have taken place with almost perfect impunity and little accountability. The state of Lebanon is now barely of the people, hardly by them, and most certainly not for them. Therefore, the Lebanese Constitution has proven itself to be insufficient as a practical recourse, regardless of legal theory. As for the Universal Declaration, its deficiency is that it is not contextually specific enough — not Lebanese enough — to meet local needs and idiosyncrasies. Perhaps this explains why other nations, including the US, the UK, France, China, New Zealand and Canada — all signatories to the Universal Declaration — maintain their own bills of Rights specific to their own national contexts. Lebanon as a state has reached a dead end. It has become dysfunctional and is inattentive to the needs of its citizens. The Lebanese now have two choices: either hang onto the hopeless hope that the current system will reform itself, or consider a new approach that holds the state accountable for reasserting the rights of Lebanese citizens. If the latter is the choice of the people, a Lebanese citizen bill of rights will indeed come in handy.
***Wissam Yafi is a Lebanese-American technologist and author based in Washington, DC. His published work includes Inevitable Democracy in the Arab World and A Decade of Turmoil and Hope. He tweets @wissamyafi

Lebanon exporting refugees and its own sons
Nayla Tueni/Al Arabiya/October 02/15
A report by An-Nahar newspaper last week said Lebanon exports Syrian refugees to foreign countries via Turkey. A day before the report was published, European Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations Commissioner Johannes Hahn said: “The next big wave of illegal refugees towards Europe may be from Lebanon, the weak country [that is] witnessing a tragic situation. Developments in Lebanon worry me. The situation there is tragic to some extent.” Hahn added that the next wave of refugees could be from Lebanon, considering that it hosts some 1.2 million Syrian refugees, most of whom live in bad conditions. However, this will not be Lebanon’s first time exporting people. Before the Syrian crisis, Lebanon exported many of its young men due to bad living conditions, or because their freedoms were restrained due to the Israeli and Syrian occupations. Before that, the Ottoman occupation contributed to the immigration of thousands of Lebanese due to hunger, oppression and forced labor. Many drowned in the sea before reaching their destination.
Present difficulty
However, our current reality is more difficult. Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil was right when he said: “What’s currently happening in Lebanon is a process of replacing Lebanon’s people with other people, Syrians, Palestinians and others.”Lebanon does not belong to its people, considering the rising number of Lebanese emigrants and the increasing number of people seeking refuge in it. Bassil said there were more than 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon and around 500,000 Palestinian refugees, meaning there are 2 million refugees in total, constituting half of the population of Lebanon. He concluded: “The only solution to this problem would be the return of Syrians to their homeland.” Bassil, however, forgot about those who have no nationality, and those who have been naturalized and whose number exceeds 300,000. Those naturalized are of Syrian, Palestinian or other descent. Lebanon therefore does not belong to its people, considering the rising number of Lebanese emigrants and the increasing number of people seeking refuge in it. Our problem with the Syrians resembles our problem with the Palestinians who came to Lebanon more than 50 years ago. Although those Palestinians have not been naturalized, they impose a reality we cannot evade, a reality that pressures security, the economy, general services and infrastructure. The solution today is for many Syrians to return to safe areas in their country, or to help them emigrate to other countries - primarily Arab and then Western - that are able to contain them, provide for them and respect them. This is better than blaming Lebanon, which has been neglectful toward its own sons, leading many of them to escape their bitter reality.

Certainly a state within the state
By Ahmad Al-Assaad/Lebanese Option General Chancellor/October 02/15
Of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s TV interview, about a week ago, what caught my attention the most was him answering the first question and denying the fact that Hezbollah was “a state within the state," explaining that it is rather a Lebanese party that has an impact on regional events “due to the its alliances, relationships and friendships, as well as to its ability to be present in the fields."In fact, by what Sayyed Hassan meant to acquit his party, we sense a confirmation of the abovementioned accusation. Sayyed Hassan acknowledged that fact, even when his real intention was to rule it out. When a Lebanese party says it has certain influence on regional events that, in itself, is evidence that the said party is playing a role beyond its political powers, thus acting as a state. Sayyed Hassan, a political party must only work to influence the decisions that draft local politics and foreign policies, and that is done through the elections and via the party’s political program, not via its tools of armed intimidation. A political party shall not have foreign policies of its own. It shall not participate in wars or battles outside the framework of the state and the Lebanese decision. Sayyed Hassan, a Lebanese party must not have alliances beyond the internal political and electoral ones. In fact, what you call alliances is nothing but sheer subordination to the Iranian regime and that must not be within the jurisdiction of parties. Sayyed Hassan, what did you mean by “the party’s ability to be present in the field?” Did you mean its ability to be involved in the war in Syria, and to intervene in the affairs of Bahrain, Yemen, Iraq and perhaps other countries? Did you mean your ability to violate the sovereignty of countries of the world and spread security cells here and there? If you deem that “ultimate ability”, let me remind you then that you are present in these fields over the blood of our young Lebanese Shiites, and at the expense of the Lebanese people’s stability, particularly the Shiites who earn a living from countries that tamper with their security and interfere with their privacy. Yes, Sayyed Hassan, your party is in fact “a state within the state” [Lebanon]. Your party does prevent a de facto state in Lebanon. In this field in particular, it sure has a major influence!

Patriot missiles to be pulled from Turkey as planned
By AFP | Washington/Friday, 2 October 2015/Patriot missiles deployed in Turkey since 2013 to guard against rockets from Syria will be removed for planned upgrades in October, despite the ongoing crisis across the border, the Pentagon said Thursday. “The Patriots will be redeployed to the United States for critical modernization upgrades that will ensure our missile defense force remains capable of countering evolving global threats and protecting allies and partners -- including Turkey,” Defense Department spokeswoman Laura Seal said. The U.S. and Turkey had in August announced the withdrawal of the missiles, deployed under NATO authority in 2013.Germany has also announced its intention to withdraw its two Patriot missile batteries from Turkey. NATO can still use a Spanish missile battery that has been deployed since January in Adana in the south of Turkey. Seal said that if needed, the U.S. could send the Patriot missiles and their personnel back to Turkey “within one week.” “We will also retain a persistent presence of U.S. Navy multi-role Aegis ships in the eastern Mediterranean,” she added. The military situation in Syria is changing at a new pace, after Russia on Wednesday launched its first air strikes in the country. Patriots can shoot down tactical ballistic weapons, cruise missiles or planes.

Fight for Ramadi on ‘pause’: U.S. official
AFP /Washington/Friday, 2 October 2015/The fight to retake Ramadi from ISIS militants has been on an “operational pause” and Iraqi troops weren’t trained to deal with the group’s battlefield techniques, a U.S. official said Thursday. U.S. military spokesman Colonel Steve Warren, speaking via video from Baghdad, told reporters that the effort had been delayed in part because of record summer temperatures but also because of the way ISIS fighters had defended the city, which they seized in mid-May. Iraq had planned to quickly retake Ramadi, but Warren acknowledged the fight had been tough. “Ramadi has been a difficult fight,” he said. “I feel like we are coming out of what was essentially was an operational pause.” He said ISIS had built “defensive bands” around the city - essentially fields littered with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).They are using these IEDs almost as landmines to create these minefields, which they can then cover with (gun)fire,” Warren said. “This is not what we trained the Iraqi army back in the early and middle 2000s to fight against. We trained and built a counterinsurgency army, and this is much more of a conventional fight.”He said U.S. experts had put together some special training to deal with the challenge. “This is a specific skill and it’s not a skill the Iraqis had had to exercise before and it’s not a skill we had taught them,” he said.In order to get through these minefields, Warren said the Iraqi army was ordering bulldozers and “explosive line charges” that can be used to detonate a minefield. Warren added that U.S. advisers were encouraging Iraqi generals to complete the task of retaking the city. “We are all urging them to begin with the utmost haste to finish this fight in Ramadi,” he said. “It’s a very important fight and it needs to be finished.” ISIS seized large areas of Iraqi territory in a June 2014 offensive, and a U.S.-led coalition is carrying out daily air strikes against the militants to assist Iraqi forces, which have made little progress on the ground in recent weeks.

Obama to give address on Syria, Russia strikes
Agencies/Friday, 2 October 2015/President Barack Obama will take questions from reporters Friday, the White House said, as U.S. policy on Syria faces new challenges from an assertive Russia. Obama will make a cabinet nomination announcement at 1930 GMT, and will then take questions from the press, the White House said.
Hollande, Putin discuss Syria
Meanwhile, French President Francois Hollande and Russia’s Vladimir Putin had an in-depth discussion on Syria on Friday in which they “tried to narrow down differences on political transition,” an aide to Hollande said after the two met in Paris. French President Francois Hollande shakes hands with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin as he arrives attend a summit to discuss the conflict in Ukraine at the Elysee Palace in Paris. (Reuters) The aide did not say if they had succeeded in any way in the 1h15-minute conversation, which took place ahead of a meeting the two men will have with the leaders of Germany and Ukraine aimed at resolving the Ukraine crisis. They discussed the three conditions required by France for cooperation with Russia in Syria, the aide said. Those are: attack ISIS and Al Qaeda and no other targets, ensure the safety of civilians, and put in place a political transition that will see the departure of Russia's ally Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Both Hollande and Putin looked stern and frosty-faced as the French leader welcomed his Russian counterpart in the yard of the Elysee palace, exchanging a couple of terse handshakes in front of photographers and cameramen.
Russia bombs Syria for 3rd day
On Friday, Russia bombed Syria for a third day, mainly hitting areas held by rival insurgent groups rather than the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants it said it was targeting. Washington, which is leading its own air campaign against ISIS, says Moscow has been using its campaign as a pretext to hit other groups opposed to Russia’s ally, President Bashar al-Assad.Some of the groups that have been hit are supported by countries which oppose both Assad and Islamic State, including at least one group that received training from the CIA.However, Moscow said on Friday its latest strikes had hit 12 ISIS targets, but most of the areas it described were in parts of the country where the militant group has little or no sway.
Russian raids to last 4 months
Meanwhile, Russian air strikes in Syria will last for three to four months and will intensify, a senior Russian lawmaker said Friday as Putin was due in Paris for talks. “There is always a risk of getting bogged down but in Moscow they’re talking about three to four months of operations,” Alexei Pushkov, the head of the foreign affairs committee of Russia’s lower house of parliament, told France’s Europe 1 radio. Pushkov said more than 2,500 air strikes by the U.S.-led coalition in Syria had failed to inflict significant damage on the jihadist Islamic State group, but Russia’s campaign would be more intensive to achieve results. “I think it’s the intensity that is important. The U.S.-led coalition has pretended to bomb Daesh (another name for ISIS) for a year, without results. “If you do it in a more efficient way, I think you'll see results,” he said. Pushkov refuted suggestions from Western nations that Russian planes were mainly bombing not ISIS jihadists, but rebel groups opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “The main target are the Daesh groups situated closest to Damascus,” Pushkov said. “We need to eliminate this group or at least neutralize it and afterwards we’ll see what Syria’s future is,” he said. Putin is due to hold talks with Hollande to discuss Syria before attending a summit also involving the leaders of Ukraine and Germany aimed at consolidating the fragile peace in Ukraine.

Afghan Taliban says shot down U.S. C-130 plane
By AFP | Jalalabad/Friday, 2 October 2015/The Taliban on Friday claimed to have shot down a C-130 U.S. military transport plane in eastern Afghanistan, with NATO confirming that 11 people including six U.S. soldiers were killed in the crash. NATO did not confirm the cause of the crash but it comes as Afghan forces - backed by NATO special forces and US air support - pushed into the center of the northern city of Kunduz which was captured by the Taliban on Monday. “Our mujahideen have shot down a four-engine US aircraft in Jalalabad,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said on Twitter. “Based on credible information 15 invading forces and a number of puppet troops were killed.”The Taliban are known to make exaggerated battlefield claims, and NATO has so far not given details on the cause of the crash. The C-130 crash, which occurred at about midnight local time on Friday (1930 GMT Thursday), left six US soldiers and five civilian contractors dead, US Army Colonel Brian Tribus said. The contractors had been working for “Resolute Support”, the NATO-led training mission. Jalalabad is situated on a key route from the Pakistani border region - where many militants are based - to Kabul, and it has been the scene of repeated attacks in recent years. Its airport is home to a major military base. The C-130 Hercules is a cargo plane built by Lockheed Martin. It is powered by four turboprop engines and is used extensively by the military to ship troops and heavy gear. It can take off and land on rough, dirt strips and is widely used by the US military in hostile areas.

Syria doubts value of talks, air strikes useless without Damascus
By Reuters | United Nations/Friday, 2 October 2015/Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem on Friday questioned the value of political negotiations and said air strikes against militants in his country are useless if they are not coordinated with his government. "Terrorism cannot be fought only from the air, and all of the previous operations to combat it have only served its spread and outbreak," Moualem told the United Nations General Assembly. "Air strikes are useless unless they are conducted in cooperation with the Syrian army, the only force in Syria that is combating terrorism," he told the 193-nation assembly.

Russia’s first strikes on Syria’s Raqqa kill 12 ISIS militants
AFP, Beirut/Friday, 2 October 2015/At least 12 jihadists from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group have been killed in Russia’s first air strikes on the extremist faction’s main Syrian bastion, a monitoring group said. Russia’s defense ministry confirmed it had carried out strikes on Raqqa province on Thursday. It said Russian Su-34 planes struck “an ISIS training camp near the village of Maadan Jadid,” 70 km (45 miles) east of Raqqa city, and “a camouflaged command post at Kasrat Faraj, southwest of Raqqa.”The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the strikes had killed at least a dozen IS fighters. “Last night, Russian strikes on the western edges of Raqqa city, and near the Tabqa military airport, killed 12 ISIS jihadists,” Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman said on Friday. He said their bodies were transported to a hospital in the province. Moscow’s defence ministry said Friday that its war planes had “conducted 18 sorties on 12 positions held by the Islamic State terrorist group in Syria” since Thursday. The statement said Russian raids destroyed “a command post and communications center” held by ISIS in Daret Ezza in northern Aleppo province, as well as bunkers and weapons depots in Maaret al-Numan and Habeet in northwest Idlib province. Raids also struck “an ISIS command post” in Kafr Zeita in central Hama province. According to the Observatory, none of these areas are controlled by ISIS, though most are held by Al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate Al-Nusra Front. And according to a Syrian military source, Russian strikes on Friday also targeted an ancient Christian town in Homs province seized by ISIS on August 5. “Russian warplanes struck Al-Qaryatain this morning,” the source said.

Syrian Christians react against Russia’s ‘Holy War’ comment
By Staff Writer | Al Arabiya News/Friday, 2 October 2015/Syrian Christians, and others worldwide, came out strongly against the Russian Orthodox Church's comments their intervention in Syria as a “holy war.”The reactions on social media came out through accounts by both public figures and activists,
A recurring line that was shared by many on Twitter and Facebook was that “there is no such thing as a Holy War in Christianity,”“The fight with terrorism is a holy battle and today our country is perhaps the most active force in the world fighting it,” said the head of the Church’s public affairs department, Vsevolod Chaplin, on Thursday.

Russia defends its military action in Syria
By The Associated Press | Moscow/Friday, 2 October 2015/As Russian warplanes carried out a second wave of airstrikes on Thursday in Syria, Moscow has come out in defense of its military involvement against Western criticism of its intentions, saying it sees “eye-to-eye” with the U.S.-led coalition campaign on its targets in the country. The claim of agreement with Washington came amid conflicting reports about Russia’s intentions in Syria and whether it is targeting only ISIS and al-Qaeda-linked militants. Speaking on Thursday at the United Nations, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov rejected suggestions that the airstrikes were meant to shore up support for Moscow’s main ally in the Middle East.
IN OPINION: Did Russia just 'invade' Syria?
He insisted Russia was targeting the same militant groups as the U.S.-led coalition, which is conducting its own airstrikes in Syria: the ISIS, Nusra Front and other groups. “I would recall that we always were saying that we are going to fight ISIL and other terrorist groups,” he said. “This is the same position which the Americans are taking. The representatives of the coalition command have always been saying that their targets are ISIL, al-Nusra and other terrorist groups. This is basically our position as well. We see eye-to-eye with the coalition on this one.” The U.S. and its allies fear that Russia, which has backed the family of President Bashar Assad since the current leader’s father was in power, is using the air campaign as a pretext to go after anti-Assad rebels that include CIA-backed groups. Russian jets appeared to be primarily bombing central and northwestern Syria, strategic regions that are the gateway to Assad’s strongholds in the capital of Damascus and the coast.
IN OPINION: Putin enters Syria’s quagmire
Warplanes hit locations of a U.S.-backed rebel group, Tajamu Alezzah, in the central province of Hama, said the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. It added that Tajamu Alezzah also was targeted a day earlier.Idlib province appeared to bear the brunt of the attacks, activists said. The province is controlled by a coalition of rebel groups that includes the Qaeda-linked Nusra Front. On Wednesday, French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said Russian warplanes “didn’t hit Islamic State,” and U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter had also said the Russians appeared to have targeted areas that did not include ISIS militants.

Netanyahu in Berlin Next Week for Talks with Merkel
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 02/15/German Chancellor Angela Merkel will host Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu next Thursday for talks, as part of a regular annual meeting of the two countries' cabinets. The two leaders will hold bilateral talks before joining a plenary with ministers from both sides, in what would be the sixth such meeting. Such "government consultations" is a format Germany has with only a handful of countries, including India and China. Germany is widely seen as Israel's strongest European ally but their ties have been strained in recent years. Netanyahu strongly opposes a deal hammered out between six world powers including Germany and Iran ending a 13-year standoff over the Islamic republic's nuclear program. And Merkel has frequently joined Western leaders in criticizing Israel's settlements in the West Bank.

Russia Strikes IS Stronghold in Syria as Putin Meets Hollande, Merkel
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 02/15/Russia said Friday it had bombed the Islamic State stronghold of Raqa for the first time as President Vladimir Putin faced mounting criticism from Western and Gulf leaders over his military campaign in support of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Moscow countered that it had hit "an IS training camp" and a command post in air strikes on Thursday near the jihadist bastion as the U.S.-led coalition urged Russia to stop attacking Syrian opposition forces, saying it risked escalating the four-year civil war. "These military actions constitute a further escalation and will only fuel more extremism and radicalization," seven countries including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United States said in a statement. "We call on the Russian Federation to immediately cease its attacks on the Syrian opposition and civilians," it added. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday Moscow had targeted IS, the al-Qaida affiliate al-Nusra Front and "other terrorist groups."But Turkey and several of its Western allies have claimed that they instead hit moderate groups fighting Assad's regime. Russia's defense ministry said its latest air strikes had put an "IS command point out of action. The infrastructure used to train terrorists was completely destroyed," the ministry said. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group, said at least 12 IS jihadists from the Islamic State group were killed in the Raqa attack. Putin held talks in Paris on Friday with the leaders of France and Germany, the first time he has met Western leaders since Russia began its dramatic intervention in the Syrian conflict. Western nations including France say they are prepared to discuss a political solution with elements of the Syrian regime, but insist Assad must leave power. Putin, on the other hand, says Assad -- Russia's long term ally -- should stay. As many as 250,000 people have been killed in the multi-sided conflict, with four million more forced to flee the country. A French diplomatic source said Putin and French President Francois Hollande had "tried to find common ground on their opinions on the political transition."
'Four-month Russian campaign'
Ahead of the talks, a Putin ally and senior lawmaker said the campaign of Russian air strikes will last for three to four months and will increase in intensity. "There is always a risk of getting bogged down but in Moscow they're talking about three to four months of operations," Alexei Pushkov, the head of the foreign affairs committee of Russia's lower house of parliament, told France's Europe 1 radio. Pushkov said more than 2,500 air strikes by the U.S.-led coalition in Syria had failed to inflict significant damage on IS, but Russia's campaign would be more intensive. "I think it's the intensity that is important. The U.S.-led coalition has pretended to bomb Daesh (an Arabic acronym for Islamic State) for a year, without results. "If you do it in a more efficient way, I think you'll see results," he said. Pushkov refuted suggestions from Western nations that Russian planes were mainly bombing rebel groups opposed to Assad. "The main target are the Daesh groups situated closest to Damascus," Pushkov insisted. Russia's defense ministry said its second day of bombing had hit five IS targets, including a command post in northwest Idlib province. But a Syrian security source said Thursday the strikes had targeted Islamist rebels that fiercely oppose IS, and U.S.-backed rebel group Suqur al-Jabal said Russian warplanes attacked its training camp in Idlib.
'It's a terrorist, right?'
Lavrov insisted Moscow was targeting the same terror groups as the U.S.-led coalition, including IS and al-Qaida's Syrian affiliate the al-Nusra Front. "If it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it's a terrorist, right?" he said at the U.N. on Thursday. With the danger growing that Russian and U.S. planes could collide or even engage militarily in the skies above Syria, the Pentagon and Russian officials held what the Americans said were "cordial and professional" discussions on Thursday in a bid to avoid mishaps.The U.S.-led coalition has been targeting IS for about a year and is carrying out near-daily air strikes in Syria. IS has taken advantage of the chaos to seize territory across Syria and Iraq, which it rules under its own brutal interpretation of Islamic law, and has recruited thousands of foreign jihadists to its cause.

Leaders Meet to Consolidate Ukraine's Fragile Peace
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 02/15/The leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine met in Paris on Friday to consolidate a fragile peace in Ukraine, as President Vladimir Putin eyes relief from punishing sanctions over Moscow's role in the conflict. Fighting has all but stopped in separatist eastern Ukraine but with peace closer than ever, the 17-month conflict risks being overshadowed by Russia's dramatic intervention in the Syrian war. Putin arrived at the Elysee Palace for talks with Hollande who, while smiling, appeared to give him a more restrained greeting than German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Ukraine's leader Petro Poroshenko who the French president warmly embraced. The French and Russian leaders discussed the Syrian conflict in a one-on-one meeting before focus shifted to the long-planned talks on Ukraine's conflict which has left more than 8,000 dead.
The four leaders began by taking coffee together on a sunny terrace to discuss a conflict that sent relations between Moscow and the West plunging to their lowest level since the Cold War. Hollande -- who also held a brief one-on-one with Poroshenko in which he accepted an invitation to visit Ukraine -- underlined that the talks were taking place in a "different context" than previous meetings. After repeated violations of previous truces, the latest ceasefire, called last month, has been largely observed by pro-Russian rebels and Ukrainian forces. "I guarantee we won't be spending the night here," Hollande told his Ukrainian counterpart, referring to the 17-hour talks between the four leaders in February which produced a peace deal known as Minsk II. While the fighting in Ukraine has largely stopped and the warring sides this week agreed to withdraw light weapons from a buffer zone between their forces, they are still far from agreeing on a lasting political solution to the crisis.
Rebel elections
"I am counting on the fact that the Minsk accords will be carried out, which unfortunately today is not the case," Putin said Thursday. "We are far from a resolution, but there are elements that boost our confidence that the crisis can be overcome and the most important point is that there is currently no shooting."
The main points of contention are the holding of local elections in eastern Ukraine, ensuring access for international observers to pro-Russian rebel zones, and the removal of heavy weapons from the frontline. Under the Minsk agreement, pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine are supposed to hold local elections by the end of the year and hand back control of the Russian border to the government in Kiev. The separatist rebels launched an uprising in March 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea, seeking to similarly break away from Kiev after a pro-EU government took power there. Ukraine and the West accuse Russia of covertly supporting the rebels with troops and weapons, a claim Moscow denies. The rebels, who now seek greater autonomy within a united Ukraine, want to hold local elections on their own terms, which include barring all pro-Kiev candidates and holding the polls on separate days to those planned in the rest of Ukraine. Ukraine wants the "fake" rebel elections to be canceled immediately. Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko have said the rebel-planned elections would be a "red line" as the EU evaluates lifting sanctions against Russia at the end of the year, an official told AFP.
'We are going to need Russia'
While Russia's direct intervention in Syria this week further grated Western leaders who have criticized his military targets, it also increases his importance as a potential ally in the devastating four-year Syrian conflict. Ukrainian officials fear that by making himself an important player in Syria, Putin is hoping to leverage a better deal on Ukraine -- particularly an easing of painful economic sanctions. And some in Europe, which is overwhelmed by the refugee crisis sparked by Syria's conflict, appear keen to smooth things over with Russia to make cooperation easier. "Of course the Minsk accords must be fully implemented, but step-by-step we must also lift sanctions," said German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel in an interview with Spiegel Online. "We are going to need Moscow, not only in Syria but also to resolve numerous other conflicts in the world. And Russia needs us."

U.S., allies urge Russia to halt its Syria strikes
By Tom Perry and Lidia Kelly /Reuters/Beirut/Moscow
Friday, 2 October 2015
Russia bombed Syria for a third day on Friday, mainly hitting areas held by rival insurgent groups rather than the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters it said it was targeting and drawing an increasingly angry response from the West. The U.S.-led coalition that is waging its own air war against ISIS called on the Russians to halt strikes on targets other than ISIS. “We call on the Russian Federation to immediately cease its attacks on the Syrian opposition and civilians and to focus its efforts on fighting ISIL,” said the coalition, which includes the United States, major European powers, Arab states and Turkey. “We express our deep concern with regard to the Russian military build-up in Syria and especially the attacks by the Russian Air Force on Hama, Homs and Idlib since yesterday which led to civilian casualties and did not target Daesh,” it said. ISIL and Daesh are both acronyms for ISIS, which has set up a caliphate across a swathe of eastern Syria and northern Iraq. In Syria, the group is one of many fighting against Russia’s ally, President Bashar al-Assad. Washington and its Western and regional allies say Russia is using it as a pretext to bomb other groups that oppose Assad. Some of these groups have received training and weapons from Assad's foreign enemies, including the United States.President Vladimir Putin held frosty talks with France’s Francois Hollande in Paris, Putin’s first meeting with a Western leader since launching the strikes two days after he gave an address to the United Nations making the case to back Assad.
Prayers cancelled
Friday prayers were cancelled in insurgent-held areas of Homs province that were hit by Russian warplanes this week, with residents concerned that mosques could be targeted, said one person from the area. “The streets are almost completely empty and there is an unannounced curfew,” said the resident, speaking from the town of Rastan which was hit in the first day of Russian air strikes. Warplanes were seen flying high above the area, which is held by anti-Assad rebels but has no significant presence of ISIS fighters. ISIS also cancelled prayers in areas it controls, according to activists from its de facto capital Raqqa. A Russian air strike on Thursday destroyed a mosque in the town of Jisr al-Shughour, captured from government forces by an alliance of Islamist insurgents earlier this year, activists said. Moscow said on Friday its latest strikes had hit 12 ISIS targets, but most of the areas it described were in western and northern parts of the country, while ISIS is mostly present in the east. The Russian Defense Ministry said its Sukhoi-34, Sukhoi-24M and Sukhoi-25 warplanes had flown 18 sorties hitting targets that included a command post and a communications center in the province of Aleppo, a militant field camp in Idlib and a command post in Hama. The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict with a network of sources on the ground, said there was no ISIS presence at any of those areas. Russia has however also struck ISIS areas in a small number of other attacks further east. The Observatory said 12 ISIS fighters were killed near Raqqa on Thursday, and planes believed to be Russian had also struck the ISIS-held city of Qarytayn. Russia has said it is using its most advanced plane, the Sukhoi-34, near Raqqa, the area where it is most likely to encounter U.S. and coalition aircraft targeting ISIS.
Frosty handshakes
As Hollande hosted Putin in Paris, both men looked stern and frosty-faced in the yard of the Elysee palace, exchanging terse handshakes for the cameras. An aide to Hollande said they "tried to narrow differences" over Syria during talks that lasted more than an hour. Hollande laid out France's conditions for supporting Russian intervention, which include a halt to strikes on groups other than ISIS and al-Qaeda, protections for civilians and a commitment to a political transition that would remove Assad. Putin’s decision to launch strikes on Syria marks a dramatic escalation of foreign involvement in a 4-year-old civil war in which every major country in the region has a stake. Lebanese sources have told Reuters that hundreds of Iranian troops have also arrived in recent days in Syria to participate in a major ground offensive alongside government troops and their Lebanese and Iraqi Shi'ite militia allies.
Common enemy, different friends
Western countries and Russia say they have a common enemy in ISIS. But they also have very different friends and opposing views of how to resolve a war that has killed at least 250,000 people and driven more than 10 million from their homes. Washington and its allies oppose both ISIS and Assad, blaming him for attacks on civilians that have radicalized the opposition and insisting that he has no place in a post-war settlement. Russia says Assad’s government should be the centerpiece of international efforts to fight militants. The campaign is the first time Moscow has sent forces into combat beyond the frontiers of the former Soviet Union since the disastrous Afghanistan campaign of the 1980s, a bold move by Putin to extend Russia's influence beyond its neighborhoods. It comes at a low point in Russia’s relations with the West, a year after the United States and EU imposed financial sanctions on Moscow for annexing territory from Ukraine. Assad and his father before him were Moscow’s close allies in the Middle East since the Cold War, and Russia maintains its only Mediterranean naval base on the Syrian coast. Moscow’s intervention comes at a time when insurgents had been scoring major battlefield gains against government forces after years of stalemate in the war. Putin appears to be betting that by defending Assad he can increase Russia's influence in any post-war settlement, safeguard the naval base and counter the influence of regional rivals like NATO member Turkey. He may also intend to reinforce his image at home as a strong leader willing to challenge global rivals, first and foremost the United States.

Russia may be salvaging the ‘Axis of Resistance’
Manuel Almeida/Al Arabiya/October 02/15
Defined by its anti-Western and anti-Israeli stance, the so-called “Axis of Resistance” has over the last decade gone through an up-and-down trajectory. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq provided a boost to the Iranian-led block, with the rise to power in Iraq of pro-Iranian Shiite politicians such as Nouri al-Maliki and the gradual growth of various Shiite militias in Iraq. After Hezbollah’s display of resilience in the war against Israel in the summer of 2006, the leader of the Iranian-sponsored militia, Hassan Nasrallah, was hailed as a hero by many in the Muslim world, despite the loss of hundreds of experienced fighters and the conflict’s devastating consequences for Lebanon. However, the eruption of the Syrian conflict and the prospect of seeing President Bashar al-Assad fall represented a life-threatening development for the axis. Thus, Iran and Hezbollah intervened to protect a leader slaughtering his own population and willing to burn Syria to the ground.
Backlash
This intervention shattered the image the Iranian regime had been seeking for itself as protector of Muslims in distress. Palestine’s Hamas, the only Sunni member of the axis, closed its main office in Damascus and broke away in 2012. Beyond Hezbollah’s need to preserve key supply routes and strategic lines, in the eyes of many in the region it also revealed the militia’s darkest side and its loyalty to Iran’s supreme leader above all else, while neglecting its obligation to shield Lebanon from the mess next door. It would be both a strategic straightjacket and a display of insecurity from President Vladimir Putin to tie Russia so closely to the Iranian-led axis. Former Hezbollah Secretary-General Subhi al-Tufayli, who had split from the movement after criticizing it as “too moderate,” accused it of no longer being the party that defends the Umma (Islamic Nation). “Instead it plagues the Umma,” he said in an interview.
Despite the Iranian-led efforts to prop up Assad, government forces lost control of much of the territory, and the Sunni opposition grew increasingly radicalized. The various opposition groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), have built up the pressure on the regime, to the point that Assad himself recognized bluntly this summer that his army was severely struggling. The current Russian military build-up in Syria is inescapably linked to that recognition, although Russian intentions are complex. With Assad, Iran and Hezbollah under pressure, is the ongoing Russian intervention just what the axis needs to eventually regain the upper hand in Syria?
New coalition?
With Moscow already conducting aerial strikes in Syria following approval from Russia’s parliament, according to Iraqi military officials there is an effort under way to intensify intelligence and security cooperation between Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria to confront ISIS. Going far beyond intelligence and security cooperation, the editor-in-chief of the pro-Hezbollah daily newspaper Al-Akbhar recently claimed that secret talks between the four countries have given birth to a new alliance, “the most important in the region and the world for many years.” Wishful thinking? Yes, says the president of Iran. Just a few days ago in New York, Hassan Rouhani dismissed the claims about an Iranian-Russian coalition. All there is between Iran and Russia, he claimed, is intelligence-sharing. Yet Rouhani still recognized that the Iranian and Russian views of the Syrian crisis are like “a mirror” of one another. It would be both a strategic straightjacket and a display of insecurity from President Vladimir Putin, who aspires to beef up his country’s global and Middle Eastern roles, to tie Russia so closely to the Iranian-led axis. The debate about Russia’s intentions will go on, but at least a few aspects of its Syria strategy seem relatively consensual among pundits: protect and strengthen the Syrian regime, degrade ISIS, and ensure a key role for Russia in any future political settlement. The axis has cornered millions of Syrians between Assad’s forces, Shiite militias and ISIS. Russia may be on the way to giving it a major hand. Moreover, it is possible Moscow will eventually realize that Iran’s cynical position on Syria - serious negotiations on a political settlement and regime reform only when and if ISIS is defeated - is a disaster for Syria and the region, and thus contrary to Russian interests. The main doubt until the airstrikes began was whether or not Moscow was being honest about the only military target being ISIS, and not every opposition group threatening Assad’s regime. Soon after the first sorties by Russian airplanes, the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) claimed the strikes did not hit ISIS but other opposition groups as well as civilians. On Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov admitted that “the aim is really to help the armed forces of Syria in their weak spots.”Even if Russian airstrikes target mainly ISIS - something quite complicated to achieve - then the big problem with Russia’s new assertiveness on Syria lies with the unintended consequences. Without a push for a political settlement, the effort to beef up the Syrian regime’s military strength and protect it from the most radical groups can have an impact on the conflict beyond the fight against ISIS. If that happens, Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, will be contributing to the further weakening of the moderate opposition groups and the irreversible fragmentation of Syria. In 2012, Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior advisor to Iran’s supreme leader and former foreign minister, described the importance of Syria to the axis: “The chain of resistance against Israel by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, the new Iraqi government and Hamas passes through the Syrian highway… Syria is the golden ring of the chain of resistance against Israel.” Today, the axis has cornered millions of Syrians between Assad’s forces, Shiite militias and ISIS. Russia may be on the way to giving it a major hand.

Obama and Sisi: Whose cold shoulder?
Abdallah Schleifer/Al Arabiya/October 02/15
As significant as everything Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said when he addressed the U.N. General Assembly this week is what he did not do. That was to travel to Washington to meet with U.S. President Barack Obama, who could alternatively have found time, as he did last year, for a private meeting with Sisi in New York. Obama did find time to meet privately with Russian President Vladimir Putin and talk about Sisi, because when that meeting was over it was announced that Egypt should participate in the international contact group on Syria, which meets later this month. Egypt’s Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry would not agree with me. According to him, a trip to Washington was scheduled, but had to be called off because Sisi had to return to Egypt given the recent cabinet reshuffle. However, both Sisi and Obama were in New York, and both found time to meet with other heads of state. For all America’s continuous harping on about Egypt’s human rights abuses, Sisi’s importance and accomplishments have been honored by the rest of the world. Sisi was particularly active. He met with French President Francois Hollande, and thanked him for facilitating Egypt’s purchase of two aircraft carriers for helicopters. Sisi also met with Jordan’s King Abdullah, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abaidi, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn, Senegalese President Macky Sall, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, and Italy’s Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Libya was reportedly the main topic of the meeting with Renzi, who was asked to support lifting the arms embargo against the Libyan army, which is fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  So Shoukry’s denial that there was anything significant about Obama and Sisi not meeting does not really hold up. How could a cabinet reshuffle take precedence over a meeting with the U.S. president? Who decided not to meet? In his interviews, Sisi went out of his way not to be openly critical of U.S. policy toward Egypt, as he has been previously. Not only did he declare that relations with the United States were “strategic and stable,” but said Washington had never let Egypt down. Sisi sounded almost wistful or melancholic rather than upset when he told CNN: “The last two years were a real test of endurance and strength of the U.S.-Egyptian strategic relationship.”
Regional issues
In his U.N. General Assembly speech, Sisi talked about the problem of Palestine. He said the creation of a Palestinian state would eliminate one of the most dangerous pretexts for extremism and terrorism. “The recent events at Al-Aqsa [mosque] emphasize the need for a comprehensive solution,” he added. In an implicit reference to the peace plan endorsed by the Arab League, Sisi said he hoped other Arab states would be able to follow Egypt in making peace with Israel. The most controversial part of Sisi’s speech dealt with Syria. He warned that the civil war must not end with the collapse of the Syrian army and state, as this would lead to the regime’s weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. Both Obama and Sisi are opposed to ISIS, and both believe in a political solution in which President Bashar al-Assad could initially play a role in a transitional government. However, Sisi does not denounce Assad, while Obama stresses the Syrian president’s culpability.
If Washington has restored all its commitments to supply Egypt’s armed forces, and if Obama’s secretary of state was in Cairo to revive strategic talks, why would Obama not find time for Sisi? It is possible that Obama cannot get over the fact that, for all America’s continuous harping on about Egypt’s human rights abuses, Sisi’s importance and accomplishments have been honored by the rest of the world, except for Turkey and to a lesser degree Qatar. Sisi threw into disarray Obama’s strategic plan, dating back to 2009, to cultivate the Muslim Brotherhood because it allegedly would play a vital and effective role against Al-Qaeda once in power. Although it violates foreign policy realism, heads of state can hold grudges.

Signs of further cooperation between the U.S. and Iran
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya/October 02/15
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani contradicted Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s remarks about their country’s potential rapprochement with the United States. Although Khamenei continues to reject any additional detente, Iran’s latest tactical shift in its foreign policies and priorities, as well as Rouhani’s message at the U.N. General Assembly, suggest a different landscape.Although Iranian leaders’ speeches are just a collection of words rather than actions, if we analyze Rouhani’s speech meticulously, the broader tone of his remarks suggest two major and intriguing issues. Firstly, the general tone was of Tehran’s willingness to further engage with the West and the United States. The engagement appears to be on two levels: economic and geopolitical. Rouhani said Iran is prepared to be a regional business hub by increasing economic deals with the West and other nations. This shows that Rouhani, under Khamenei’s supervision, is putting economic and national interests ahead of ideological interests. Washington will continue to indirectly ratchet up Iran’s global legitimacy and projection of power due to U.S. unwillingness to act decisively. Secondly, Rouhani depicted Iran as a country fighting terrorism and willing to cooperate with the international community to resolve conflicts in the region. In other words, he is attempting to ratchet up Iran’s global and regional legitimacy without mentioning its role in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, and without attracting attention to the role of Al-Quds force - a branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that operates in foreign countries - in fueling conflicts in the region.
Economy and ideology
Tehran’s increased geopolitical legitimacy on the global stage - which is orchestrated by Iranian leaders and indirectly facilitated by U.S. foreign policy toward Tehran - can have significant impacts on Iran’s embattled economy, causing it to revive more quickly. Western countries are more willing to do business with Iran when its legitimacy is viewed as being restored. This legitimacy is validated by Washington’s view of Iran as a significant player with a constructive role in resolving conflicts and fighting terrorism. However, since Washington does not have clear and detailed policies toward Middle East conflicts, it is more willing to delegate the task of fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and resolving the crises in Syria and Yemen, to Tehran and Moscow or other nations. This suggests that Washington will continue to indirectly ratchet up Iran’s global legitimacy and projection of power due to U.S. unwillingness to act decisively.
Continued hostility?
Some might argue that Rouhani is not sending signals of further bilateral cooperation, since he slammed Washington over the conflicts in the region. The argument goes that the supreme leader made clear that there would be no further rapprochement. However, Khamenei previously drew several red lines regarding the nuclear deal, only for most of them to be crossed. Khamenei’s public statements do not genuinely reflect the way he instructs his president and senior cadre of the IRGC in private. In public, he has to reiterate Iran’s anti-American policies due to his need to satisfy his social base’s revolutionary principles. In addition, Rouhani needs to satisfy his critics at home by criticizing the United States and certain countries in the region. Tactical cooperation between Tehran and Washington, and between Tehran and the West, is likely to increase. However, this will not resolve regional crises because Tehran will not alter its foreign policy fundamentally.
Khamenei is instructing the president’s team to prioritize national and economic interests over revolutionary ones. This is due to the fact that the nuclear deal and Iran’s change of tone on the global stage would not have been possible without a green light from the supreme leader. Every crucial foreign policy issue enacted by the president has to be approved by the supreme leader. Although Iran is prioritizing its economic and national interests, this does not necessarily mean that Tehran is abandoning its revolutionary norms. It cannot afford to do so because they are the deep-rooted character of the government and how it gains its legitimacy. This revolutionary establishment is even out of Khamenei’s control. Prioritizing economic and national interests is a short-term tactical shift. Such prioritization, the indirect American facilitation of Iran’s global legitimacy, and the U.S. wait-and-see foreign policy in the Middle East, suggest that tactical cooperation between Tehran and Washington, and between Tehran and the West, is likely to increase. However, this will not resolve regional crises because Tehran will not alter its foreign policy or revolutionary norms fundamentally.

Normal ties between Iran and US unlikely despite nuclear deal
By REUTERS/J.Post/10/02/2015
UNITED NATIONS- Iran is unlikely to normalize relations with the United States despite a landmark nuclear deal reached with America and other major powers and the first handshake between a US president and a high-ranking Iranian official in more than 30 years. Pragmatist President Hassan Rouhani, whose 2013 election paved the way for Iran's diplomatic thaw with the West, has signaled his willingness to improve ties with "the Great Satan" and to discuss the regional crisis with the United States. But analysts and officials say this improvement will go no further than an exchange of intelligence between the two nations through back-channels and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has no intention of restoring diplomatic ties. In a dramatic shift in tone between Iran and the United States, President Barack Obama and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif shook hands at the United Nations on Monday. An Iranian official said it "was not preplanned." But Iran's most powerful authority who has the last say on all state matters, including relations with Washington, is Khamenei and not Rouhani. Khamenei has continued to denounce the United States publicly, suggesting that antagonism prevailing between Iran and the United States since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Tehran will not abate because of the nuclear deal. Iran and the United States severed diplomatic ties shortly after the revolution.
"How can you trust your long-time enemy? How can you do business with a partner you don't trust? We trust American people but not their government. And the deal has not changed it," said a senior, hard-line security official in Tehran. "Real believers in Iran's revolution and its pillars and followers of our late leader (Ayatollah Ruhollah) Khomeini will never accept it." Khamenei has backed Rouhani's efforts to reach the deal, under which Iran will curb its nuclear work in return for the lifting of sanctions which have severely damaged the economy. "But he will never accept normalization of ties with America," a senior Iranian diplomat, who declined to be named, said. "For the leader it is just a non-negotiable red line." Khamenei's hard-line loyalists, drawn from among Islamists and Revolutionary Guards, fear that normalization of ties with the United States might weaken their position."Restoring ties with the United States, which Rouhani and his camp are in favor of, poses an existential threat to hard-liners. If it happens, Rouhani's power and popularity will surpass Khamenei's," said political analyst Hamid Farahvashian.
PRESERVING BALANCE
But Khamenei, since taking over in 1989 from Khomeini, has been adept at ensuring that no group, even hard-liners, gain enough momentum to challenge the power of the Islamic Republic's second supreme leader. "The leader strongly believes in America's devilish intentions. He will never approve normalization of ties with America," said a Khamenei relative, who asked not to be named. Easing economic sanctions and ending Iran's isolation will bolster Rouhani's position within Iran's complex power structure, analysts said. Iranians could reward pro-Rouhani candidates at the ballot box in February elections for parliament and for the Assembly of Experts, a clerical body with nominal power over the supreme leader, analysts say. A senior US official said that Khamenei was "very savvy" about holding on to the power that he has. "Iran has politics ... I think he lets those politics play out. The revolution is still very present in that country and the tenets of that revolution," US lead nuclear negotiator and under-secretary of state, Wendy Sherman, said. Some analysts argued that Rouhani was not seeking normalization of ties. "At best, it amounts to détente," said senior Iran analyst Ali Vaez from International Crisis Group. "For Ayatollah Khamenei the nuclear accord was purely transactional, not transformational ... Neither President Rouhani nor any other actor in the Islamic Republic will be able to successfully challenge this vision."
EXCHANGE OF INTELLIGENCE
However, Iran and the United States will continue to cooperate through back-channels on regional issues aimed at reducing conflict in the Middle East, officials and analysts say. "We cannot expect embassies to be reopened in Tehran and Washington ... but we will continue to share information about Iraq, Syria and other regional common interests. We have done it in the past," said an Iranian official, who asked not to be named. Tehran and Washington have common interests and threats across the Middle East and they have cooperated tactically in the past, including when Iran helped the United States to counter al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Islamic State in Iraq. Ali Ansari, director of the Institute of Iranian Studies at the University of St. Andrews, said, "There will be more informal exploration of collaboration on a case-by-case basis before normalizing relations is given serious consideration." Iran continues to support Islamist militant groups such as Hezbollah, a close ally -- like Iran -- of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his war with rebels trying to overthrow him. "One of those issues where we disagree very strongly with Iran where it may make sense to have some kind of discussions is Syria," Sherman said, adding that issues in Syria were "staggeringly complex, difficult and can't be reduced to a simple answer." Sherman doubted that relations will improve any time soon. The Iranian official agreed. "Normalization of ties seems impossible at least in the near future. But who knows what will happen in 10 years," he said.

The Israeli military option Against Iran is back on the table
Yaron Brener/Ynetnews/Published: 10.02.15
Analysis: Netanyahu's message directed to President Obama and the Security Council is to enforce the Iran nuclear deal to the letter otherwise Israel retains its right to defend itself at all cost.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech Thursday at the General Assembly was mainly directed to President Barack Obama and to the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Netanyahu's message focused on how Israel intends to deal with the threat of Iran's nuclear program, terrorism and subversion.
Regarding the Iranian nuclear issue Netanyahu's message is clear. You signed an agreement? At least make sure the Iranians respect it to the letter. If you do not, says Netanyahu, we will not let you off so easily. In other words, you, President Obama, David Cameron and Angela Merkel, shirked your responsibility. The agreement is bad, but if you do not enforce it, we shall force you to enforce it.
Netanyahu also explained that he intends to do this through close monitoring and continuous dialogue with the US leadership. In addition, Netanyahu issued an implied threat that Israel will do whatever is necessary to defend itself.
This statement is designed to bring back the Israeli military option - that is attacking nuclear facilities and missiles in Iran - to the international arena. After the nuclear deal was signed with Iran, many commentators and many Western diplomats actually determined that the Israeli military option was no longer on the table, as Israel would not dare attack Iran after it had signed an agreement limiting its military nuclear project and agreeing to tighter controls on its nuclear program.
Netanyahu told all those commentators from the UN's podium that the Israeli military option is alive and well, and if necessary will be used. Netanyahu was vague and did not explain under what conditions he intends to use the option, but his message that Israel would not shy away from action under certain conditions was clear.
Netanyahu issued a similar message regarding Iranian terrorism and subversion directed specifically against Israel and the region in general. Netanyahu said that Israel would know how to deal with this matter on its own and he even added a clear indication that he expected the US to help Israel in this matter. Just as he mentioned enforcing the agreement with Iran, Netanyahu was saying that Israel will give reminders and will not allow them to avoid their responsibilities.
He even said it, "to sweep Iran’s aggression and violations under the Persian rug." We will bother and nag you and if necessary we will act on our own so it is best that you act first. This is the threat which led to the imposition of sanctions on Iran four years ago and Netanyahu used it again Thursday at the UN General Assembly to incentivize the West not to make concessions to the Iranians in any area, whether it be terrorism or their nuclear program.
The rest of the speech contained no novelties. It was rhetoric a la Bibi at its best. He knows the job. The UN is an ideal platform for him as a man of words. It was there where he started his career, and where he gave speeches perhaps only equal the speeches of Abba Eban, our legendary foreign minister.
Yesterday Abbas said in his speech that the Palestinian Authority is no longer committed to its agreements with Israel. Netanyahu replied, but without excessive aggression, probably because he did not want to create additional interest for the Abbas's speech.
At this UN General Assembly most world leaders preferred pushing the Palestinian issue to the side and Netanyahu, rightly, did not want to emphasize again Abbas's message on Wednesday, regarding the possibility the PA will suspend its obligations towards Israel. Netanyahu, justifiably, prefers to let Abbas's words evaporate into the New York air and not undermine his message about Iran.
One can argue that the speech Netanyahu delivered was a sober one from an Israeli statesman, pragmatic and not ideological, which reminded the world of its moral duty towards Israel in connection with the Iranian nuclear threat.

After Iran deal, can P5+1 tackle Syria civil war?
Laura Rozen/Al-Monitor/ October 02/15
NEW YORK — Even as Russia’s entry this week into an air campaign in Syria cast a shadow over diplomatic proceedings at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly, some global players — boosted by the rare diplomatic success of the Iran nuclear deal reached in July — are looking to the international group that negotiated it as a possible format to ramp up diplomacy to try to find a way out of the Syrian civil war. The possibility of using the P5+1 format or a variation to tackle the Syrian crisis and other regional issues was discussed at a meeting of the P5+1 — the permanent five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany — and Iran foreign ministers in New York on Sept. 29, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini told journalists. “We have had some discussion on Syria … especially on the fact that we managed to achieve something … so important for the world through dialogue and diplomacy in this format,” Mogherini told journalists at the UN in New York following the P5+1 Iran ministerial meeting. “This could be also a useful format for other things,” Mogherini said. “And obviously we will explore [this more] in the next days.”“The answer to the Syrian civil war cannot be found in a military alliance with [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad,” Secretary of State John Kerry told a UN meeting on peace and security Sept. 30. “But I am convinced that it can be found. It can be found through a broadly supported diplomatic initiative aimed at a negotiated political transition — a transition that has been accepted by the Security Council.”
“I call on all concerned governments — including Russia, including Syria — to support a UN initiative to broker a political transition,” Kerry said. “Further delay is unconscionable. The opportunity is before us. “US officials said they remain focused on working with a group of partner nations that have been supporting the Syrian opposition on finding a way forward, as well as on “de-conflicting” the actions of the US-led coalition fighting the Islamic State (IS) with the new Russian air campaign in Syria. Kerry held another Syria meeting with counterparts from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in New York on Oct. 1, as he did a few days over the preceding weekend. “Right now, we are focused on working with key allies and partners on how we can de-conflict and find a way forward on a political transition,” a State Department official, speaking not for attribution, told Al-Monitor on Oct. 1.
“We are not pushing” for using the P5+1 to tackle the Syrian crisis, the US official added. But former US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said an international Syria contact group could be valuable to advancing a political process on Syria and agreeing on humanitarian measures. “I think some people at State think there might be a utility in some kind of [Syria] contact group that would … include Iran, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United States,” Ford, now a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Al-Monitor in an interview Oct. 1. “My guess is the Europeans would want to be included in such a contact group.” “I don’t think it quickly solves the problems on Syria, [but there could be] utility in the countries that have interests [in Syria] laying [them] out in a frank way behind closed doors … and to identify some short-term steps that could be taken that everyone agrees upon, [such as] humanitarian access,” Ford said. “Or to lay out a framework for political progress, with the understanding that you can’t impose it, ultimately the Syrians have to implement it.”“The trick of it might be less in getting American buy-in, but that of the Saudis and the Iranians,” Ford added. “I think you’d have a hard time getting anyone serious from the Syrian opposition to such a meeting. … Part of it depends on what countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia do in the coming days to reassure the opposition that they are not being abandoned to the Russians and Iranians.”Ford said he thought it could be potentially useful to have an international Syria contact group process, even before getting the buy-in of the Syrian parties. But he said, he would not be in a huge rush, with Russian confidence in its new air campaign in Syria likely to face the reality of limited results in a few weeks. “I wouldn’t rush because [it is] not going to produce quick results, especially if the Russians feel like they are having a great victory by their bombing of lesser FSA [Free Syrian Army] units,” Ford said. “It could be they will not be in a mood to make compromises. And I don’t think they will get very far in the discussions, in a closed room with five countries, if countries are not prepared to make compromises.”
European officials say they are not hung up on whether it is the P5+1 (or “E3+3” as the Europeans call it), or some variation of UN-backed international body that works to advance a Syria diplomatic track.
“The important thing is to try to bring together all the international, regional actors that have an influence on the situation in Syria, to discuss,” Mogherini said Sept. 29.
“I guess we will have to do a little more shuttle diplomacy,” Mogherini added, to get consensus on a Syria diplomatic process that “should start on these two tracks: the fight against Daesh [IS], and [bringing] an end to the civil war and work on the transitional political process.”“The EU is ready to put all its political weight to try and facilitate a solution to the [Syrian] conflict,” an EU official, speaking not for attribution, said Oct. 1. Russian-US military-to-military conversations on de-conflicting their respective air campaigns in Syria got underway by videoconference on Oct. 1, the White House and Pentagon said.
Amid concerns over Russia’s intentions as it entered in its Syria air campaign this week, the United States, Russia, Europe and some Syrian neighbors may still recognize they have a mutual interest in not having the Syrian state collapse, even if they disagree on who could lead a future united Syria, said Paul Saunders. “The Russians don’t want the Syrian government to collapse. But Russian officials over the years … have made clear at a lot of different points, that they are not wedded to Assad,” Saunders, a Russian expert at the Center for the National Interest, told Al-Monitor Oct. 1. “They want the Syrian state to survive. At the present moment, they think Assad is the only viable option in terms of holding it together, the threat is that dire, and that if you take Assad out of the equation, it could just collapse.”US officials have likewise indicated they too do not want the Syrian state to collapse. Kerry has also recently reiterated that Assad’s departure does not have to come early on in any negotiated political transition, but that he could not stay as leader of a united Syria at the end. “What [US officials] are saying, as I understand it, is, he doesn’t have to leave right away,” but “everybody should understand … from the beginning,” he will eventually have to go, Saunders said. “What the Russians are saying is, he probably has to go, but that should really be up to the Syrians,” Saunders added. “And those two things are different. And the problem is, if you are Moscow and you are trying to bring the Syrians along … why is he going to agree to a process that guarantees that he is going to leave?”
Former State Department policy planning official Jeremy Shapiro said while the major international parties may like to get to the Syrian negotiating table, they may still be convinced that their negotiating positions are strengthened by developments on the ground over time. “Let’s at least say that the Russians and Americans both want negotiations: Can they get the rest of the people to sit in the room?” Shapiro, now a fellow at the Brookings Institution, told Al-Monitor Oct. 1. “I wouldn’t be that optimistic about it.” “I think both the Russians and the Americans have a strategy … to negotiate from a position of strength, by changing the facts on the ground and [trying to force] the other side to negotiate from a position of weakness,” Shapiro said. “That is both the American and Russian strategies. They can’t both work. Together they stalemate each other. We see that this time, … every time, instead of responding to the demonstration of strength by one side, the other side counter-escalates.”**Laura Rozen reports on foreign policy from Washington, DC, for Al-Monitor's Back Channel. She has written for Yahoo! News, Politico and Foreign Policy.

Power cut
Michael Young/Now Lebanon/October 02/15
Too often the notion of political realism is simply reduced to amorality, deriving from a notion that states pursue their interests irrespective of what this says about moral values. Even before he became president, Barack Obama made clear that he would act as a political realist in America’s foreign affairs. His aim would not be to pursue chimeras such as democratization, as George W. Bush had. He would reorient American priorities to regions of the world that mattered to America, pragmatically accept the country’s limitations overseas, and stray away from situations that might entangle America in costly involvement bringing few tangible benefits.But even the most hardened neoconservative would not profoundly disagree with much of this. After all, which administration has not sought to advance American interests? Where the two visions differ, however, is in the use of power, particularly military power. Obama has been a reluctant warrior, even if he has not hesitated to use other military means, such as drones, that do not risk American lives.
But for all that, has Obama been a successful realist? Today in Syria the president is in a position to put his ideas to the test. For almost five years he has been a realist only in his readiness to ignore the widespread suffering in the country, to depict the conflict there in dishonest ways in order to justify American inaction, and to mislead repeatedly about his intentions. Other than that, Obama has been an absolutely abysmal realist. A classic formulation of realism in international affairs is found in the first sentence of Hans J. Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations, a realist bible for generations of college students. “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power,” wrote Morgenthau, before going on to define power as “man’s control over the minds and actions of other men.”
To Morgenthau, power is not military power, but rather a “psychological relation” between those exercising power and those over whom it is exercised. “It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the influence which the former exert over the latter’s minds.”Today, Russia is doing a full-court press in the Middle East to fill the large empty spaces left by the United States. In the regional struggle for power Obama is nowhere to be seen. Russia is intervening in Syria, it is now coordinating with Iran, Iraq and Syria through a “security center” established in Baghdad, and it has strengthened its ties with the Egyptian regime. That is not to say the Russians will ultimately succeed. Their plans are full of potential minefields, but they are acting as old-line realists in pursuing power at the expense of their main global adversary. Should this matter? Many a US official will say that the Middle East no longer has the same importance to America that it once did. If the Russians want to play a major role there, let them. Perhaps, but that is the language of retrenchment, not realism.
And it’s not as if doing nothing has no political cost. The refugee crisis in Europe, the rising terrorism threat, the fate of old American allies such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, not to mention Israel, have all been affected by regional developments. What happens in the region cannot simply be tossed off as irrelevant. Under Obama, America’s regional alliance system in the past seven years has virtually collapsed, with two countries, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, having largely lost faith in the United States and embarking on independent paths. So much for Obama’s ability to exert influence over their leaders’ minds.
Nor can this situation be, persuasively, depicted as being in America’s interests. Surrendering, through lack of commitment, what the United States had spent decades building up in the region, cannot be justified by changing circumstances. The Middle East is too complex and volatile a place for one to seriously believe that the situation prevailing today will remain static; or to assume that what Obama has abandoned may not one day provoke a backlash that decisively harms America. The fact is that Obama’s publicists have often deployed mediocre explanations to explain his disengagement from foreign relations. There is a difference between realism and non-intervention, and on too many issues Obama has allowed lethargy to rule. In countries such as Syria, Egypt and Iraq, the Russians, realizing this, have rushed in to fill the void.
Today, Obama is playing catch-up, making statements about Syria that were perfectly evident years ago, but which the president refused to acknowledge at the time. The most notable of these was his remark on Tuesday that countries would not be able to defeat ISIS in Syria if Bashar Assad remained in office. That’s true, but last year, when the United States began bombing ISIS in Iraq, the president was completely unwilling to accept this logic and develop a cohesive strategy for Syria. He still hasn’t. American criticism of Russian actions in Syria is justified. Russia has opened a Pandora’s box, one that it will not be able to soon close. Yet when Obama said before the UN General Assembly that Assad’s brutality had made a return to the status quo in Syria impossible, he was not really speaking as a realist. He was effectively making a moral observation that the Syrian leader, “after so much bloodshed, so much carnage,” was now so far beyond the pale that he could not remain in office.It’s only when Obama happens to forget his political realist pretensions, it seems, that he begins to make sense.**Michael Young is opinion editor of The Daily Star newspaper. He tweets @BeirutCalling

Where Are We on the UN’s 70th Anniversary?
Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/October 02/15
Many were looking forward to the meeting between US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin at the United Nations earlier this week, as the UN celebrates its 70th anniversary. There are many topics that deserve discussion, most of which are extremely serious and have dangerous repercussions. Definitely the UN itself is now in need of rejuvenation after its obvious failure to deal with several cases of international impasse caused primarily by spite, intentional obstruction, and the abject disregard for the “international legitimacy” practiced by major powers through the power of their vetoes. This is ironic, as the UN is supposed to embody this “international legitimacy” and entrench it. While there may have been several problems on the agenda during the Obama–Putin meetings, the Syrian crisis was at the forefront as it has generated other contentious and urgent problems including encouraging the new “Kremlin Tsar” to annex Crimea and interfere in Eastern Ukraine the moment he realized the White House was basically “all talk no action.” Another urgent problem has been the suffering of millions of displaced Syrians, tens of thousands of whom have been driven by despair to take to the seas in the hope of finding refuge in Europe.
As time has proven, the Syrian problem has been inextricably linked to Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers, the “sudden” emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and the much-touted “New Middle East” project with all its ethnic, religious, and sectarian traps and minefields. However, any observer monitoring Washington’s reactions is left confused as to whether this derives from excessive stupidity or some kind of malignant conspiracy.
Throughout the UN’s history, the absence of mutual deterrence among the great powers frequently led to war and immense human suffering. In fact, the UN was created at the end of the Second World War which broke out basically because aggression was not deterred. The now infamous paper waved by then-British prime minister Neville Chamberlain, after returning from a meeting with the Nazi führer Adolf Hitler, has become a symbol of the futility of trusting despots, megalomaniacs, and totalitarian and imperialist dictators. Then, the policy of appeasement adopted by some Western powers in the face of the militarism of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperialist Japan was a perfect recipe for war.
Eventually, 70 years ago, the international community decided to establish a “new world order” represented by a replacement to the defunct League of Nations brought down by the Second World War. After that, mutual deterrence between East and West managed for decades to prevent devastating nuclear confrontations, and gave rise to the Cold War policy of Containment as well as limited regional wars. Thus, just as US President John Kennedy was able to deter the USSR on the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Communist camp succeeded through People’s Liberation Wars in scoring historical victories in Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia).
Later, however, balance of terror and deterrence was shaken twice.
First, in the late 1970s when then-US President Jimmy Carter failed to deal decisively with Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, which strengthened both Muslim and Christian radicalism. Khomeini’s rhetoric, slogans, and attempts to “export” his Shi’ite revolution provoked unease and hostility in the Sunni Muslim world, and revolutionary Iran’s sponsored hostage-taking caused bitter rage and ultra-conservative political reactions that gifted Ronald Reagan, the most hawkish Republican leader, a landslide electoral victory in the 1980 US presidential election against incumbent Jimmy Carter. Subsequently, Reagan occupied the White House for eight years throughout which his aggressive policies changed the world.
The second time the balance was shaken came a few years later when USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev decided to play Chamberlain’s role with Hitler; so Gorbachev embarked on an appeasement policy with Reagan, who in 1983 described the USSR as the “Evil Empire.” The outcome of Gorbachev’s policy was catastrophic for the Soviet state and its institutions, which collapsed and gave rise to a new “unipolar” world led by America, in which extremist rightwing and religious parties became the main beneficiaries from the demise of the global Left.
Today, many—rightly or wrongly—believe that Barack Obama represents nothing but an extension of Chamberlain’s naïveté, Carter’s utopianism, and Gorbachev’s mindlessness; while Putin combines the aggressiveness of Khomeini, Hitler, and Reagan, as well as the decisiveness of JFK.
The Russian leader, a former KGB official, is a pragmatic and serious man who knows exactly what he wants, finds his opponents’ weak points and wastes no time in exploiting them. He is now confident that he has a unique opportunity to blackmail an aloof, out of touch, and insincere US president, who has chosen to place all his eggs in the basket of his strategic agreement with Iran, which is an armed, aggressive, and theocratic regional power. Indeed, President Obama, so preoccupied with the US’s long-term relations with Iran, seems uninterested in the geopolitical and humanitarian repercussions of the near future.
Given the above, what Vladimir Putin is doing in Syria today is the logical result of what Barack Obama has refused to do for more than four and a half years. It is the natural outcome of Washington’s meaningless “redlines” that never stopped Bashar Al-Assad’s massacres, the ridiculous promises to arm and train Syrian opposition fighters, and the stubborn and repeated refusal to enforce “safe havens” which are the only means capable of saving the Syrian people and encouraging defections from the regime’s army and security agencies.
Furthermore, following Washington’s inaction against Iran’s blatant military intervention and enforced population exchanges in Syria, unperturbed Russia has now joined the battle on the ground to save the Assad regime after it has lost control of most of the country despite Iranian and Russian support.
Back to New York. I reckon it would be silly to expect any serious shift in Obama’s policy toward Syria, and subsequently Iraq and Lebanon, especially, after Washington’s endorsement of Moscow’s approach that makes “fighting ISIS terror” the top priority there.
Finally, as far as the Friends of Syria are concerned—namely those among them who are rushing to drop the precondition of Assad’s removal for any political settlement—one hopes they do not discover too late that keeping Assad and cooperating with his regional backers were the main sources of despair, spite, and extremism.

Russia’s Role in Syria
Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Al Awsat/October 02/15
It must be admitted that the Russian President Vladimir Putin has managed to put Moscow on the world’s political map once again after almost three decades of marginalization by the new world order established after the collapse of the former Soviet Union.
It is natural that Monday’s meeting between Putin and the US President Barack Obama, held on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, dominated the world’s attention as the two powers markedly differ on several issues, particularly the crises in Syria and Ukraine.
On the eve before the two leaders’ meeting, Moscow boosted its bargaining position by signing an agreement with Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus to exchange intelligence about Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS,) and announcing that a meeting of the major regional actors, as well as Russia and US, will be held next month about Syria. For his part, US president has confirmed his readiness to work with Russia and Iran about Syria.
Clearly, Russia has found in the Syrian crisis a chance to make a forceful return to the region, a battlefield for the former Soviet Union and US during the 1960s and 1970s.
Are we to witness the return of the Cold War? It is a mistake to be under this delusion. It is true that Moscow sent attack aircraft and weapons to Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad— creating its first military presence in the region since Egypt’s former President Anwar Sadat ejected Soviet military advisers before the October War—but Putin’s televised remarks on Monday that no Russian troops would be deployed to Syria signal his intention not to be directly involved there.
In fact, the worst scenario the region may face would be to be at the center stage of a new world conflict. The best thing those participating in next month’s meeting on Syria can do is solidify a vision regarding a solution to the Syrian crisis and be prepared to send forces in case they were needed to protect or impose peace. Military presence in Syria should not be limited to Iran and Turkey only.
It should be admitted that politics is the art of the possible. This is precisely the reason behind the stark shift in the West’s stance on Syria. With most Western powers making the elimination of extremist groups rather than toppling the Syrian government a priority, they have announced that Assad can have a role in a transitional government, contradicting previous statements that he can have no role in a future Syria.
Who facilitated the spread of extremist militants in Syria, triggering the largest displacement of people since World War Two? This question is a thing of the past. What is important now is how to get those militants out of Syria before they destroy everything with their nihilist ideology. Practically speaking, when the war there stops and the search for a political solution begins, Assad will be in a weaker position than the one he is in now and will not be able to shirk his responsibility for what has befallen Syria in the past four years.
Moscow can help to find a way out of the Syrian crisis if it cooperates with Washington to impose a transition process there. It seems that there are parties in Washington who are already preparing for such a transition. It is unreasonable that US-trained fighters have surrendered their weapons to Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda’s affiliate, only two days after Washington announced their entry to Syria. Making public this supposedly confidential information is a strange thing to do in the first place.
That Moscow wants to play a positive role in the Syrian crisis and fears that extremists from former Soviet Union republics will travel to fight in Syria should not harm the Arab sides seeking to protect Syria. In fact, the Russian-proposed meeting will be an opportunity to achieve just that.

Initial Russian Strikes in Syria Are Not Targeting ISIS
Fabrice Balanche/The Washington Institute./October 02/15
The first wave of Russian airstrikes seemed to focus on rebel areas that threaten the Assad regime's Alawite heartland, showing that Moscow is more focused on seizing the mantle in Syria's war than fighting terrorists.
Earlier today, the Russian air force, in cooperation with the Syrian army, led its first bombing runs in three of the country's provinces. According to a Syrian security source who spoke with Agence France-Presse, "The Russian and Syrian planes have conducted several raids today against terrorist positions in Hama, Homs, and Latakia, in the northwest and center of the country."
Although the AFP source did not specify the exact points that were struck, one of the "terrorist" targets has nevertheless been clearly identified: Talbisah, a village ten kilometers north of Homs, in the rebel pocket of Rastan. There are no Daesh (a.k.a. "Islamic State"/ISIS) fighters in this area -- local brigades have pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra or rebel group Ahrar al-Sham, or remained independent. The strategic goal of the Russian strikes is to help the Syrian army and Hezbollah eliminate this rebel enclave and better protect Homs. The action could also push the 1,500 rebels still occupying the Waar district on the outskirts of Homs to seriously negotiate their departure, as they did when leaving the city center in April 2014.

Meanwhile, Russian strikes in Latakia province have hit Jabal al-Akrad, the mountainous area around Salma held by rebels since 2012. After the fall of Jisr al-Shughour last April, Jabal al-Akrad was directly connected to the large northwestern territory occupied by the rebel umbrella group "The Army of Conquest" (Jaish al-Fatah). The stronghold constitutes a direct threat to Latakia city, located less than thirty kilometers away and within range of occasional rebel rocket fire from the mountains. Russia will need to erase this rebel area if it hopes to secure the northern edge of the Assad regime's Alawite heartland -- which Moscow hopes will be the headquarters of its present and future military bases in Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Another target struck today was located near Mehardeh, a small Christian city in Hama province that is under threat from Jabhat al-Nusra. Mehardeh is loyal to Assad because its Christian population is surrounded by large Sunni-majority communities. The city is also a key point in the Hama frontline near the Aleppo highway, which the Syrian army has been trying to reopen for three years without success. More broadly, a robust Russian military intervention in the Aleppo area could place Moscow at the center of the Syrian chessboard.
In short, the first wave of Russian airstrikes was aimed at securing territory controlled by the Syrian army. Yet this goes far beyond the simple bunkerization of the Alawite heartland. Russian strikes have been coordinated not only with regime forces, but also with Hezbollah and, by extension, Iran. The Shiite militia has a heavy presence around Homs due to the many Shiite villages in the area and its proximity to Lebanon's Beqa Valley. For those who oppose the Assad regime, the message is clear: the new "antiterrorist" coalition of Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Damascus has just swung into action. Moscow has entered Syria to hit not just Daesh, but all groups it regards as terrorists, including those supported by the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.
Fabrice Balanche, an associate professor and research director at the University of Lyon 2, is a visiting fellow at The Washington Institute.

Chinese warplanes to join Russian air strikes in Syria. Russia gains Iraqi air base
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report October 2, 2015
Russia’s military intervention in Syria has expanded radically in two directions. debkafile’s military and intelligence sources report that China sent word to Moscow Friday, Oct. 2, that J-15 fighter bombers would shortly join the Russian air campaign that was launched Wednesday, Sept. 30. Baghdad has moreover offered Moscow an air base for targeting the Islamic State now occupying large swathes of Iraqi territory
Russia’s military intervention in Syria has five additional participants: China, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hizballah.
The J-15 warplanes will take off from the Chinese Liaoning-CV-16 aircraft carrier, which reached Syrian shores on Sept. 26 (as debkafile exclusively reported at the time). This will be a landmark event for Beijing: its first military operation in the Middle East as well the carrier’s first taste of action in conditions of real combat.
Thursday night, China’s foreign minister Wang Yi, made this comment on the Syrian crisis at a UN Security Council session in New York: “The world cannot afford to stand by and look on with folded arms, but must also not arbitrarily interfere (in the crisis).”
A no less significant development occurred at about the same time when Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, speaking to the US PBS NewsHour, said he would welcome a deployment of Russian troops to Iraq to fight ISIS forces in his country too. As an added incentive, he noted that this would also give Moscow the chance to deal with the 2,500 Chechen Muslims whom, he said, are fighting with ISIS in Iraq.
debkafile’s military sources add that Al-Abadi’s words came against the backdrop of two events closely related to Russia’s expanding role in the war arena:
1. A joint Russian-Iranian-Syrian-Iraqi war room has been working since last week out of the Iraqi Defense Ministry and military staff headquarters in Baghdad to coordinate the passage of Russian and Iranian airlifts to Syria and also Russian air raids. This command center is also organizing the transfer of Iranian and pro-Iranian Shiite forces into Syria.
2. Baghdad and Moscow have just concluded a deal for the Russian air force to start using the Al Taqaddum Air Base at Habbaniyah, 74 km west of Baghdad, both as a way station for the Russian air corridor to Syria and as a launching-pad for bombing missions against ISIS forces and infrastructure in northern Iraq and northern Syria.
Russia has thus gained a military enclave in Iraq, just as it has in Syria, where it has taken over a base outside Latakia on the western coast of Syria. At the same time, the Habbaniyah air base also serves US forces operating in Iraq, which number an estimated 5,000.

Toward a Realistic Assessment of the Gulf States Taking in Syrians
Lori Plotkin Boghardt/The Washington Institute./October 02/15/
Since 2011, the Arab Gulf monarchies have likely absorbed several hundred thousand Syrians under temporary circumstances.
Much confusion surrounds the extent to which Arab Gulf states have taken in Syrians fleeing the country's war. Figures cited in recent weeks range from zero to the millions. Understanding the Gulf's absorption of Syrians thus far is important when considering how to maximize support for Syrian refugees from these wealthy, politically invested countries. The discussion is most relevant for Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, and Kuwait. These countries have been key players in the war effort by providing major support to the Syrian opposition -- directly and indirectly -- and also leaders in providing humanitarian aid to refugees.
ESTIMATES
The number of Syrians now living in the Gulf who arrived after the start of the Syrian war in 2011 is likely several hundred thousand. The majority are in Saudi Arabia and the UAE -- the two most populous Gulf states. The kingdom's population is about 30 million, of which approximately one-third is non-Saudi, while the UAE's population is about 9.5 million, of which nearly 90 percent is non-Emirati. Like all other foreigners, the "new" Syrians live in the Gulf monarchies on a conditional basis with temporary permits.
In Saudi Arabia, a reasonable estimate for the number of new Syrians is in the low hundreds of thousands. About 500,000 Syrians currently reside in the kingdom, according to a regional representative of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and a majority are understood to have lived there before the war. A Saudi Foreign Ministry statement on September 11 claimed simply that "some hundreds of thousands" of Syrians had been given legal residency status since the outbreak of the Syrian conflict.
The kingdom stated in the same September 11 release that it has "received" 2.5 million Syrians since 2011. This could be an estimate of all entries by Syrian nationals arriving from any country for any purpose during the period, including businesspeople, religious pilgrims, and the like. The vast majority would have since departed. Yet even by that definition, the figure seems unusually high. Also, to put the 2.5 million figure in perspective, about 4 million Syrians in total are estimated to have fled their country since 2011, primarily to neighboring states such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.
The UAE has provided more than 100,000 Syrians with residency permits since 2011, according to Emirati statements. Like in Saudi Arabia, this represents a significant increase from before the war, when the Syrian community numbered some 140,000, again according to Emirati statements. This would make the 240,000-plus Syrians now living in the UAE equal to about 20-25 percent of the Emirati national population.
The smaller states of Qatar (population 2.3 million, of which nearly 90 percent is non-Qatari) and Kuwait (population 4.1 million, of which almost 70 percent is non-Kuwaiti) have taken in far fewer Syrians since 2011. For Qatar, the most reliable figures range from 19,000 to 25,000, with the opposition Syrian National Coalition's ambassador in Qatar citing the lower figure, most recently in an interview published September 15, and Qatar's foreign minister citing the higher figure in an interview published September 29. Qatar has admitted some new Syrians -- this number is also disputed -- on visitor visas, prohibiting them from legal work.
Kuwait has taken the most restrictive position toward Syrians seeking work or refuge. In 2011, Kuwait banned entry to new Syrians along with members of five other nationalities whose countries were marred by crisis. The new rule was intended to stem the flow of Syrian and other refugees joining resident family members in Kuwait. Over time, Kuwait has eased this policy slightly. Also, earlier this month, Kuwait said it would not deport Syrian nationals whose visas had expired. For some years, Syrians have formed the second-largest Arab migrant community in Kuwait, with a total population of about 120,000 today.
Alongside the hundreds of thousands of Syrians who have found temporary refuge in the Gulf since the war began, many others have been unable to stay because they could not find work; others were denied entry in the first place, and still others did not try to enter because of a general sense that the Gulf's doors were not open to them. Many of the Syrians who have been allowed to live in the Gulf since 2011 are family members of existing residents, businesspeople, or other well-connected individuals.
DRIVERS
Pressures that cut to the core of Gulf state stability will push the monarchies to continue limiting absorption of Syrians fleeing war. One such pressure involves decreasing the high percentage of noncitizens in their populations. Falling oil prices, high youth unemployment rates among nationals in some of the countries, and an increased sense of vulnerability have contributed to accelerated campaigns to nationalize the workforce and reduce dependence on foreigners.
Concern about security and stability in relation to Syrian nationals is another issue. This includes anxiety about the impact on Gulf societies of politicized Syrians, as well as the potential for infiltration by individuals intent on perpetrating violence against the state. These kinds of concerns are not limited to Syrians. They form part of a decades-long history of perceptions of Arab migrants as potential importers of destabilizing political trends and radicalism. This has contributed to the huge growth in Asian over Arab migrants in the Gulf states overall.
Finally, the practice of not accepting most immigrants on a permanent basis will preclude the kinds of long-term resettlement options for Syrians that are expected from Europe and the United States. All foreign residents in the Gulf are required to work, study, or engage in another legally sanctioned activity on a temporary basis -- or to be a family dependent of someone who does. Few exceptions have been granted in recent years. It is for this reason that many Syrians living in the Gulf feel insecure about their status there, and hope to settle in Europe.
A driving force behind most of these issues is the exclusive relationship Gulf rulers cultivate with their citizens. Traditionally, this has included extensive welfare benefits for most Gulf citizens paid for by oil and gas revenues -- though allowances have been eroded in recent years due to budgetary pressures. Expanding this kind of relationship to numerous migrants naturalized as Gulf citizens is judged to be economically unfeasible. It is also considered politically risky: would nonlocals who lack historical ties to the Gulf ruling families and who bring different political and social experiences be more apt to oppose the rulers?
LOOKING AHEAD
News of Syrians risking their lives to reach Europe has made some Gulf citizens question their governments' policies. Gulf leaderships are highly sensitive to the criticism. They may provide visas to more family members of Syrian residents, and expand support to Syrians already in the Gulf. Still, serious obstacles remain to a wider opening for new Syrian economic migrants. Indeed, such opportunities are reported to be contracting.
At the same time, Gulf financial aid for Syrian refugees is an area that holds strong potential for growth. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have been some of the largest humanitarian aid donors to Syrians until now, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars in food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and educational programs inside and outside Syria. Gulf donation rankings generally follow much larger economies such as the United States, Britain, and Germany.
The current spotlight on the Gulf countries will probably lead to announcements of new campaigns to support Syrian refugees. This is an important opportunity for states whose political system does allow for permanent incorporation of immigrants into their body politic to widen and deepen refugee support from the Gulf.
**Lori Plotkin Boghardt is the Barbara Kay Family Fellow at The Washington Institute.

Egypt's Elections (Part 2): Salafis Use Education to Campaign
Jacob Olidort/The Washington Institute/October 02/15
Amid growing public concern about their ideological associations with ISIS, Salafist political parties and their 'quietist' critics have been using students and educational institutions as a pulpit for questioning each other's legitimacy.
Read Part 1 of this article, which discussed the Nour Party's political efforts to defend itself from recent attacks and maximize its electoral prospects.
As Egypt's political parties prepare to enter the first phase of the elections schedule on October 17, Salafi parties are turning to the educational sphere to promote their platforms and reshape their image as catalysts of "building and development." This strategy is being carried out against the backdrop of an August 26 Ministry of Religious Endowments statement in support of the "No to Religious Parties" campaign (for more on this campaign, see Part 1). Another impetus is the simultaneous initiative by the religious establishment at al-Azhar to marginalize the Salafi ideology promulgated by the "Islamic State"/ISIS, mainly through publications and partnerships with national ministries and educational institutes.
CRITICISM FROM "QUIETISTS"
The Salafi parties' tactic of focusing on education is a clear response to increasing hostility in the political sphere. Yet it may also be a way to win back their "quietist" Salafi critics at a time when parties such as al-Nour could be losing potential non-Salafi voters.
These quietists, who oppose any entry into parliamentary politics, have repeatedly attacked al-Nour and other factions for neglecting education in their bid for power. For example, vocal critic Ahmad al-Naqib has dismissed al-Nour members as "Democratic Salafis," and in the first issue of his monthly journal following President Mohamed Morsi's ouster, he advocated an "activist role for the youth during the current crises" by cultivating their knowledge of Islamic law through "purification and education."
Another vocal critic is Khalid Said, spokesperson for the Salafi Front, a group that broke off from al-Nour's parent organization (the "Salafi Call") in 2012 and has since been outspoken against President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, even hosting a demonstration last November. Said has described al-Nour as a party with "two sources of support: Gulf money and government appointments." And in an August 30 web article titled "The Concessions al-Nour Has Made for the Sake of Parliament," he argued that the party "does not pay attention to the Islamic sources, but instead to whatever rulers and funders dictate," claiming that its positions "have no connection to Islamic principles."
Other, more hardline voices have also condemned al-Nour for siding with Sisi's government at the expense of Salafi principles. Wagdy Ghoneim, an Egyptian Salafi with jihadist leanings who resides in Qatar, dismissed political parties as "not truly Salafi" in an August 28 lecture titled "Sisi, the Unbeliever and the Son of a Jewess, Fights Islam"; he specifically denounced "the party of tyranny" (hizb al-zulm), likely referring to al-Nour.
THE POLITICS OF EDUCATION
To show their commitment to their grassroots supporters while convincing the wider public that they are steering Egypt away from ISIS-inspired violence, Salafi and Islamist parties have gone to various lengths to educate students about the need to cultivate proper values, contribute to modern society, and maintain law and order. On August 28, al-Nour vice chair for educational affairs Ahmad Khalil Khayr Allah addressed high school students in al-Manufiyya on technology, emphasizing that they should use it "to increase knowledge, not to take [themselves] far from reality." He explained further that "the youth today suffer from many dangerous problems, chief of which is the problem of technology and social media, to which they have become prisoners."
Likewise, al-Nour leader Younes Makhyoun recently lectured an audience of high school students and Quran memorization pupils on the need to have both knowledge and good ethics. He also told them that they should "work to protect the state and keep it unified," adding that the West is trying to divide Egypt and is betting on its demise.
Other Salafi parties have used the educational sphere to lecture about how to govern, as distinct from participating in politics. One aspect of this is the decoupling of the modern Arabic usage of the word "siyasah" as "politics" from its meaning in traditional Islamic law, namely "governance." On August 27, the Facebook page of the Salafist Watan Party posted messages about "the art of governance," emphasizing that "while some view the study of governance as limited to only practitioners and those who study it, in fact it is a social need that we must all know about."
Meanwhile, publications by groups affiliated with al-Nour have mirrored the party's concern with promoting a "proper understanding" of its ideology. For example, in an August 26 article on the Salafi Call's website (Anasalafy.com) titled "Salafism Disavows Excommunication," author Muhammad al-Qadi emphasized that "Salafism disavows the Daeshi [i.e., ISIS] methodology that has unfortunately spread these days among the sons of the awakening -- a result of lack of knowledge and the spread of ignorance about legal texts."
CONCLUSION
While "purification and education" have been a hallmark of the Salafi movement for decades, the recent focus on education by Salafi political parties may have more to do with steering their public image away from ideological associations with ISIS, which political opponents and government religious ministries have continually used against them. These parties are well equipped to promote an alternative impression of their commitment to originalist Islamic teachings, mainly by invoking the concept of governance and placing greater emphasis on rule of law rather than instituting Islamic law.
Although al-Nour's itinerary may change in the coming weeks, thus far it has focused its educational campaign in Alexandria, its home base. This suggests that the party's first priority may be preventing grassroots followers from shifting their allegiance to either ISIS or domestic Salafi rivals.
Finally, it is important to note that al-Nour's moves on the educational front are complementary to rather than a substitute for its political postures, the details of which will become clearer in the coming weeks. On September 3, Makhyoun convened a preliminary meeting to discuss candidates, and in a recent issue of the Salafi outlet Fath News, he declared that his party would secure 60 percent of the parliamentary seats.
**Jacob Olidort is a Soref Fellow at The Washington Institute. All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the U.S. government.

Muslim History vs Western Fantasy: The ‘Refugee Crisis’ in Context
Raymond Ibrahim/PJ Media/October 02/15
One of the primary reasons Islamic and Western nations are “worlds apart” is because the way they understand the world is worlds apart. Whereas Muslims see the world through the lens of history, the West has jettisoned or rewritten history to suit its ideologies.
A painting by Bertalan Székely commemorates a 1552 Hungarian victory against Muslim Turks besieging Eger.
This dichotomy of Muslim and Western thinking is evident everywhere. When the Islamic State declared that it will “conquer Rome” and “break its crosses,” few in the West realized that those are the verbatim words and goals of Islam’s founder and his companions as recorded in Muslim sources—words and goals that prompted over a thousand years of jihad on Europe.
Most recently, the Islamic State released a map of the areas it plans on expanding into over the next five years. The map includes European nations such as Portugal, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, and parts of Russia.
The reason these European nations are included in the Islamic State’s map is simple. According to Islamic law, once a country has been conquered (or “opened,” as it’s called in the euphemistic Arabic), it becomes Islamic in perpetuity.
This, incidentally, is the real reason Muslims despise Israel. It’s not due to sympathy for the Palestinians—if so, neighboring Arab nations would’ve absorbed them long ago (just as they would be absorbing all of today’s Muslim refugees).
No, Israel is hated because the descendants of “apes and pigs”—to use the Koran’s terminology—dare to rule land that was once “opened” by jihad and therefore must be returned to Islam. (Read more about Islam’s “How Dare You?!” phenomenon to understand the source of Islamic rage, especially toward Israel.)
All the aforementioned European nations are also seen as being currently “occupied” by Christian “infidels” and in need of “liberation.” This is why jihadi organizations refer to terrorist attacks on such countries as “defensive jihads.”
One rarely heard about Islamic designs on European nations because they are large and blocked together, altogether distant from the Muslim world. Conversely, tiny Israel is right in the heart of the Islamic world—hence why most jihadi aspirations were traditionally geared toward the Jewish state: it was more of a realistic conquest.
Now, however, that the “caliphate” has been reborn and is expanding before a paralytic West, dreams of reconquering portions of Europe—if not through jihad, then through migration—are becoming more plausible, perhaps even more so than conquering Israel.
Because of their historical experiences with Islam, some central and east European nations are aware of Muslim aspirations. Hungary’s prime minister even cited his nation’s unpleasant past under Islamic rule (in the guise of the Ottoman Empire) as reason to disallow Muslim refugees from entering.
But for more “enlightened” Western nations—that is, for idealistic nations that reject or rewrite history according to their subjective fantasies—Hungary’s reasoning is unjust, unhumanitarian, and racist.
To be sure, most of Europe has experience with Islamic depredations. As late as the seventeenth century, even distant Iceland was being invaded by Muslim slave traders. Roughly 800 years earlier, in 846, Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim raiders.
Some of the Muslims migrating to Italy vow to do the same today, and Pope Francis acknowledges it. Yet, all the same, he suggests that “you can take precautions, and put these people to work.” (We’ve seen this sort of thinking before: the U.S. State Department cites a lack of “job opportunities” as reason for the existence of the Islamic State).
Perhaps because the U.K., Scandinavia, and North America were never conquered and occupied by the sword of Islam—unlike those southeast European nations that are resisting Muslim refugees—they feel free to rewrite history according to their subjective ideals, specifically, that historic Christianity is bad and all other religions and people are good (the darker and/or more foreign the better).
Indeed, countless are the books and courses on the “sins” of Christian Europe, from the Crusades to colonialism. (Most recently, a book traces the rise of Islamic supremacism in Egypt to the disciplining of a rude Muslim girl by a European nun.)
This “new history”—particularly that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians—has metastasized everywhere, from high school to college and from Hollywood to the news media (which are becoming increasingly harder to distinguish from one another).
When U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama condemned medieval Christians as a way to relativize Islamic State atrocities—or at best to claim that religion, any religion, is never the driving force of violence—he was merely being representative of the mainstream way history is taught in the West.
Even otherwise sound books of history contribute to this distorted thinking. While such works may mention “Ottoman expansion” into Europe, the Islamic element is omitted. Thus Turks are portrayed as just another competitive people, out to carve a niche for themselves in Europe, no differently than rival Christian empires. That the “Ottomans” (or “Saracens,” or “Arabs,” or “Moors,” or “Tatars”) were operating under the distinctly Islamic banner of jihad—just like the Islamic State is today—that connection is never made.
Generations of pseudo history have led the West to think that, far from being suspicious or judgmental of them, Muslims must be accommodated—say, by allowing them to migrate into the West in mass. Perhaps then they’ll “like us”?
Such is progressive wisdom.
Meanwhile, back in the school rooms of much of the Muslim world, children continue to be indoctrinated in glorifying and reminiscing over the jihadi conquests of yore—conquests by the sword and in the name of Allah. While the progressive West demonizes European/Christian history—when I was in elementary school, Christopher Columbus was a hero, when I got into college, he became a villain—Mehmet the Conqueror, whose atrocities against Christian Europeans make the Islamic State look like a bunch of boy scouts, is praised every year in “secular” Turkey on the anniversary of the savage sack Constantinople.
The result of Western fantasies and Islamic history is that Muslims are now entering the West, unfettered, in the guise of refugees who refuse to assimilate with the “infidels” and who form enclaves, or in Islamic terminology, ribats—frontier posts where the jihad is waged on the infidel, one way or the other.
Nor is this mere conjecture. The Islamic State is intentionally driving the refugee phenomenon and has promised to send half a million people—mostly Muslim—into Europe. It claims that 4,000 of these refugees are its own operatives: “Just wait…. It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah [Allah willing].”
It is often said that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. What does one say of those who rewrite history in a way that demonizes their ancestors while whitewashing the crimes of their forebears’ enemies?
The result is before us. History is not repeating itself; sword waving Muslims are not militarily conquering Europe. Rather, they are being allowed to walk right in.
Perhaps a new aphorism needs to be coined for our times: Those who forget or ignore history are destined to be conquered by those who remember and praise it.

Abbas's Trap: The Big Bluff
Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/October 02/15
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6620/abbas-bluff
Those who rushed to declare the death of the Oslo Accords fell into Abbas's trap.
Abbas's threats are mainly designed to scare the international community into pressuring Israel to offer Abbas more concessions. He is hoping that inaccurate headlines concerning the purported abrogation of the Oslo Accords will cause panic in Washington and European capitals, prompting world leaders to demand that Israel give Abbas everything he asks for.
Abbas knows that cancelling the agreements with Israel would mean dissolving his Palestinian Authority, and the end of his political career.
The tens of thousands of Arab refugees now seeking asylum in Europe could not care less about the "occupation" and settlements.
Ironically, Abbas declared that, "We are working on spreading the culture of peace and coexistence between our people and in our region." But his harsh words against Israel, in addition to continued anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian media, prove that he is moving in the opposite direction. This form of incitement destroys any chance of peace.
After weeks of threatening to drop a bombshell during his speech before the UN General Assembly, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas on September 30 proved once again that he is an expert in the art of bluffing.
In the end, the bombshell he and his aides promised to detonate at the UN turned out to be a collection of old threats to abrogate signed agreements and a smear campaign against Israel.
There was nothing dramatic or new in Abbas's speech. During the past few years, he and some of his aides have been openly talking about the possibility of cancelling the Oslo Accords if Israel does not fulfill its obligations towards the peace process.
In his speech, Abbas repeated the same threat, although some Western political analysts and journalists misinterpreted it as an announcement that he was abrogating signed agreements with Israel.
As one of Abbas's advisors, Mahmoud Habbash, later clarified, "President Abbas did not cancel any agreements. He only made a threat, which is not going to be carried out tomorrow."
Now, it is obvious that the talk about a bombshell was mainly intended to create tension and suspense ahead of Abbas's speech. This is a practice that Abbas and his aides have become accustomed to using during the past few years in order to draw as much attention as possible.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addresses the UN General Assembly, on September 26, 2014. (Image source: UN)
The threat to cancel the Oslo Accords with Israel is not different from other threats that Abbas and his aides have made over the past few years. How many times has Abbas threatened in the past to resign from his post or suspend security coordination with Israel? In the end, he did not carry out any of these threats. Abbas is unlikely, also this time, to carry out his latest threat to cancel the agreements with Israel. He knows that such a move would mean dissolving his Palestinian Authority and the end of his political career. But Abbas would like the world to believe that he has already cancelled the Oslo Accords. Judging from the inaccurate headlines in the international media, he seems to have achieved his goal. Now, many in the international community are falsely convinced that Abbas has annulled all signed agreements with Israel. Those who rushed to declare the death of the Oslo Accords fell into Abbas's trap.
Abbas's threats are mainly designed to scare the international community into pressuring Israel to offer Abbas more concessions. He is hoping that the inaccurate headlines concerning the purported abrogation of the Oslo Accords will cause panic in Washington and European capitals, prompting world leaders to demand that Israel give Abbas everything he is asking for.Abbas is also hoping that his recurring threats will put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back at the world's center stage. Abbas and the Palestinians feel that the world has lost interest in the conflict, largely due to the ongoing turmoil in the Arab world, the refugee crisis in Europe and the growing threat of the Islamic State terror group.
This concern was voiced by the PLO's Saeb Erekat immediately after President Barack Obama's speech at the UN General Assembly, which did not include any reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Expressing "disappointment" over Obama's speech, Erekat asked, "Does President Obama believe he can defeat ISIS and terrorism, or achieve security and stability in the Middle East, by ignoring the continued Israeli occupation, settlement expansion and the continued attacks on al-Aqsa Mosque?" Of course, there is no direct link between Israeli "occupation" and settlements and the growing threat of radical Islam or the turmoil in the Arab world. The Islamic State is not beheading Muslims and non-Muslims because of the settlements or "occupation." The Islamic State is not committing all these atrocities because it wants to "liberate Palestine." Its main objective is to conquer the world after killing all the "infidels" in order to establish a sharia-ruled caliphate. The Islamic State would kill Erekat and Abbas -- and many other Muslims -- on its way to achieve its goal. In the eyes of the Islamic State, folks like Erekat and Abbas are a fifth column and traitors.
But instead of supporting the world's war against the Islamic State and radical Islam, Abbas and Erekat want the international community to look the other way and devote all its energies and attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The tens of thousands of Arab refugees who are now seeking asylum in several European countries could not care less about the "occupation" and settlements. These people have lost everything they used to possess and their only dream is to either return to their homes and lands safely or start a new life in Europe and the US.Abbas wanted worldwide attention in wake of the international community's preoccupation with the refugee crisis and the radical Islam threat. For now, he appears to have achieved his goal, largely thanks to the international community's misreading of his speech at the United Nations. But while everyone is busy talking about Abbas's bombshell, only a few have noticed that his speech consisted mostly of anti-Israel rhetoric that is likely to aggravate tensions between the Palestinians and Israel. Abbas used the UN General Assembly podium to make grave charges against Israel concerning "apartheid," settlements and tensions on the Temple Mount. His fiery rhetoric, which has been partially welcomed by Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups, is likely to exacerbate tensions between Israelis and Palestinians and encourage more Palestinians to engage in violence.
It is this form of incitement that destroys any chance of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This is the kind of rhetoric that prompts Palestinian youths to take to the streets and throw rocks and firebombs at Israeli civilians and policemen. Still, the international media, by and large, chose to ignore this destructive part of Abbas's speech. Ironically, Abbas declared in his speech that, "We are working on spreading the culture of peace and coexistence between our people and in our region." But his harsh words agains Israel, in addition to continued anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian media, prove that he is moving in the opposite direction. As Abbas was addressing the UN General Assembly, some of his loyalists in Ramallah threatened and expelled Israeli Jewish journalists who came to interview Palestinians. This is certainly not a way to spread a "culture of peace and coexistence."

The Brookings Essay: The Prince of Counterterrorism
Reuters/Bruce Riedel/September 29, 2015
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia, America’s oldest ally in the Middle East, is on the verge of a historic generational change in leadership. King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, 79, who ascended to the throne in January, following the death of King Abdullah, will be the last of the generation of leaders who built the modern kingdom, transforming it from a poor desert backwater into a prosperous, ultra-conservative regional power with enormous oil wealth.
What the future has in store for the kingdom is of great concern to Washington. Within months of becoming king, Salman plunged into what appears to be a quagmire war in Yemen, snubbed President Obama, and endorsed hardline clerics who are opposed to reforms that Obama argues are necessary if Saudi Arabia is to remain a stable partner for the United States. Not a promising start from the American point of view. However, one of the king’s first moves was greeted very enthusiastically: he changed the order of succession, pushing aside his half-brother Muqrin bin Abdul-Aziz as next in line to the throne and making one of his nephews, Muhammad bin Nayef, 56, the new crown prince and heir.
MBN, as he is known, will be the first of his generation to rule the kingdom—unless, of course, the king reshuffles the deck again. U.S. officials are keeping their fingers crossed, since MBN is the darling of America’s counterterrorism and intelligence services, having performed several critical services for the U.S. in his capacity as deputy minister of the interior and then minister of the interior—the office that oversees all domestic security matters. Unlike his father, who preceded him in those positions, he is pro-American, almost certainly more so than any other member of the Saudi leadership.
Line of Succession
In the Saudi monarchy bloodlines are all-important. Who your father is in the royal pecking order is the major factor in determining your fate. If your father is a direct descendant of the king, you may become king. Since Saudis have many wives and concubines, the mother’s bloodline is less important but not irrelevant.
The founding patriarch of modern day Saudi Arabia, and father of all the kings who have followed him, was King Abdul-Aziz bin Saud, known in the West as Ibn Saud. He led his tribal army into power in Riyadh early in the 20th century, and by the 1930s he was the undisputed master of the Arabian Peninsula from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf, including the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
Ibn Saud had at least 22 wives and 44 acknowledged sons. Since his death in 1953, six of those sons have ruled the kingdom in succession. His 23rd son, Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz (Nayef)—MBN’s father—was second in line to the throne, but died in 2012, just a few years before he would have succeeded King Abdullah.
King Ibn Saud and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt near Cairo in 1945. The alliance – between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia goes back decades.
King Ibn Saud and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt near Cairo in 1945. The alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia goes back decades. Wikimedia Commons
Born in 1934 near Taif, Nayef was educated in Riyadh at what was called “the princes’ school,” where his teachers were clerics of the Wahhabi faith, the brand of Sunni Islam that runs the kingdom. The alliance between the House of Saud and the Wahhabis dates back nearly three centuries, to the very beginning of the rule of the Saudis. In 1744 an itinerant preacher and cleric named Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab joined forces with the then head of the Saudi family, Muhammad al-Saud, to create the first Saudi kingdom. While the Saudis provided political and military leadership, Wahhab and his descendants provided religious leadership and legitimacy. Wahhab and his disciples preached a puritanical and sectarian version of Islam that called for a return to literal fundamentalism and an intolerance of any deviation from their hard line views on what constituted the original faith of the Prophet Muhammad.
Early in the 19th century, at a time when the Ottoman Empire was preoccupied with fighting off Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt and Palestine, the Saudis mounted a land grab against the empire. Their tribal armies conducted raids into today’s Iraq and pillaged the Shiite holy city of Karbala, then turned west and conquered the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, purging them of any symbols of Ottoman rule and anything that struck the Wahhabi faithful as deviationist. Most of the Islamic world at the time viewed the Saudis and their clerical allies as fanatics and usurpers, similar in some ways to how the Islamic State is regarded by mainstream Muslims today. This first Saudi state was larger in territory at its peak than today’s but their reign was brief. Once the French were defeated, the Ottomans sent armies into Arabia to recover the holy cities and then destroy the Saudi capital at Diriyah, just outside of today’s Riyadh. Later the Saudis were exiled to Kuwait, not to resume power over the Arabian Peninsula until Ibn Saud led his tribal army out of exile, re-captured Riyadh, and established the third Saudi kingdom, which has lasted until the present day—as has the power of the Wahhabis.
In the 19th century, most of the Islamic world considered the Saudis fanatics and usurpers—much like mainstream Muslims today regard the Islamic State.
The Wahhabis’ alliance with the royal family allows them to oversee Saudi society and enforce Islamic law and customs, which they do in part by working closely with the Ministry of the Interior, their most important ally in the government. In 1970, when Nayef’s full brother Fahd was the minister, he made Nayef his deputy minister. In 1975 when Fahd became crown prince, after their older brother King Faisal was assassinated by a disgruntled prince angry at the introduction of television in the kingdom, Nayef succeeded Fahd as the minister.
As interior minister, Nayef had a reputation as an arch-reactionary. He aligned himself very closely with the most puritanical elements of the clergy, opposed reform and change, rejected demands for more freedom of expression, continued the treatment of the kingdom’s Shiite minority—around 10 percent of the population, located mostly in the oil rich Eastern Province—as second-class citizens, and only reluctantly tolerated any kind of development. When asked why he opposed reforms that would start the kingdom on the path to becoming a constitutional monarchy, Nayef, who clearly had his eye on the throne, replied, “I don’t want to be Queen Elizabeth.” His policies were so extreme that Nayef was known as the Black Prince among the large expatriate Western worker population in the kingdom.
Saudi Arabia is 85–90% Sunni and 10–15% Shia. The minority is mostly concentrated in the oil-rich Eastern Province and near the border with Yemen.
Saudi Arabia is 85–90% Sunni and 10–15% Shia. The minority is mostly concentrated in the oil-rich Eastern Province and near the border with Yemen. Gulf/2000 Project, Columbia University
In November 1979, the kingdom experienced a major challenge to the Saudi royal family’s legitimacy and governance. A band of Islamic extremists who believed the apocalyptic End Times had arrived took control of the Great Mosque in Mecca. The largest in the world, it houses the Kaaba, the holiest site in Islam, which is believed to be the first house of worship.
Only after weeks of hard fighting by troops from the Interior Ministry and the Saudi National Guard, aided by French commandos whom the royal family secretly recruited, and by lethal chemicals that the family persuaded the Wahhabi clergy to allow them to use in the Grand Mosque, was the government able to rout the extremists. Much to the embarrassment of the government, however, when the culprits were interrogated it became clear that many of them had been known to the Interior Ministry. Some had even been detained prior to the attack on the mosque, but had been let go at the recommendation of senior clerics close to Nayef.
Saudi royalty was friendly with Osama bin Laden during the Russian-Afghan war and slow to realize that al-Qaida posed a threat to the kingdom.
However, the Black Prince escaped blame for the attack. Instead, the governor of Mecca, one of the most liberal Saudi princes, was made the scapegoat in yet another instance of the familiar royal pattern of appeasing the clerics and their close allies at the expense of reformers.
The episode frightened the royal family into moving even closer to the Wahhabi establishment, slowing reform, and stepping up support for militant Islamic causes in other countries. In particular, the Saudis—with much help from the United States—armed and otherwise supported the Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviet invasion of their homeland during the years 1979-89.
The current King Salman, who was then governor of Riyadh, was put in charge of raising private funds for the mujahedeen from the royal family and other wealthy Saudis. He funneled tens of millions of dollars to the mujahedeen, and later did the same for Muslim causes in Bosnia and Palestine. Later, when Osama bin Laden founded al-Qaida, Nayef was conspicuously slow to recognize that al-Qaida posed a threat to the kingdom. He had become friendly with bin Laden during the Russian-Afghan war when bin Laden was allied with the mujahedeen, and viewed him as being exclusively focused on defeating the Soviets. Nayef believed al-Qaida’s reputation as a terrorist organization was a product of American propaganda and was sure that al-Qaida posed no real threat to the kingdom—a delusion he had in common with much of the royal family.
When George Tenet, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and other senior American intelligence officials warned Nayef that al-Qaida had created an extensive underground infrastructure inside the kingdom, he was skeptical, largely because he had long been suspicious of the United States’ motives in the region. As President Clinton’s Middle East advisor I dealt extensively with Nayef during this period. He was cordial but often uncooperative. When Shiite terrorists bombed the U.S. Air Force base at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran in 1996, killing 19 airmen, Nayef was reluctant to share with the Americans information on the perpetrators and their links to Iran. He claimed to fear that Washington would use the information to justify military action against Iran, which would drag the kingdom into a war. But I felt the deeper reason was that he was, essentially, anti-American.
Nayef continued to ignore warnings about al-Qaida for years. But the threat would eventually become impossible to ignore, and it would be none other than Nayef’s own son, MBN, who would lead the battle against it.
Like many of his generation of Saudi royals, MBN went to school in the United States, attending classes at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, though he did not get a degree. To prepare him to succeed his father at the Ministry of the Interior he studied at the FBI in the late 1980s, and at Scotland Yard’s antiterrorism institute between 1992 and 1994. It was around that time, in my capacity as a senior CIA officer dealing with the Middle East, that MBN began to register on my horizon as an up and comer.
Later, as special assistant to President Clinton for Near East and South Asia affairs in the National Security Council, I accompanied Vice President Al Gore to the kingdom during a tour we took through the Middle East in May 1998. We met with both father Nayef and son MBN during our calls in Riyadh. Only afterward did we learn that the Interior Ministry had disrupted a plot by al-Qaida to attack the United States Consulate in Jiddah while the vice president was there to meet with then-Crown Prince Abdullah.
The plot against Gore was the exception to what had been bin Laden’s general rule of avoiding violent operations inside the kingdom. Since al-Qaida’s infrastructure inside Saudi Arabia provided him a large number of recruits and much financial support, he preferred to keep it off the Interior Ministry’s radar, and thanks in part to Nayef’s blindness was largely successful at doing so.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi citizens.
Then came 9/11, and the news that 15 of the hijackers aboard the planes that were downed in the U.S. were Saudis. But minds were slow to change even then. As late as December 2002 Nayef, like many in the royal family, was still not convinced that al-Qaida had a base within the kingdom’s borders, insisting that the Saudi hijackers were “dupes in a Zionist plot”—despite the fact that, according to Saudi sources, two of them had earlier been involved in the plot to attack Gore.
Nayef’s son was a different matter. By 2001, MBN was already a major—and respected—figure in the war on terrorism. He had become assistant minister of the interior two years earlier. In that capacity, much to the relief of U.S. officials, he had taken over most of the day-to-day management from his father. This would prove fortunate for the Saudis, because bin Laden was about to turn his attention to his native land. After 9/11 and the subsequent American overthrow of the Taliban, al-Qaida’s hosts in Afghanistan, he ordered al-Qaida’s underground cells inside Saudi Arabia to begin operations against the monarchy and its American ally.
On February 14, 2003—the Muslim holy day of Eid al-Adha—bin Laden’s intentions in Saudi Arabia became unmistakably clear. He issued an audio message titled “Among a Band of Knights,” accusing the House of Saud of betraying the Ottoman Empire in the First World War to the British and Zionists. And now the royal family, he said, was turning over the mosques and other holy places to the American Crusaders and secretly colluding in a plot with “Jews and Americans” to betray Palestine and create a “Greater Israel” in the region. Predicting that American air bases in the kingdom would be used to launch part of the invasion of Iraq that he said was imminent, he called the Saudi royals and their allies in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar “quislings.”
The first major attack in the kingdom came on May 12, 2003, at a compound in Riyadh that housed foreign military experts working for the Saudi armed forces. Over a dozen al-Qaida terrorists attacked the compound with car bombs and small arms. At least eight Americans, two Australians, and several other westerners were killed along with Saudi security guards. It was the first volley in what became a campaign of terror against foreign workers in the kingdom and their Saudi hosts. Robert Jordan, then the U.S. ambassador in Riyadh, had been pressing the Saudis to take al-Qaida more seriously for months; now he called the May attacks Saudi Arabia’s Pearl Harbor.
Immediately after the May attack, George Tenet, the director of the CIA at the end of President Clinton’s administration and in the first years of President George W. Bush’s, flew to the kingdom to see Crown Prince Abdullah, who had been serving as de facto regent for almost eight years, after King Fahd suffered a stroke. According to Tenet’s memoir, At the Center of the Storm, he told the Crown Prince, “Your Royal Highness, your family and the end of its rule is al-Qaida’s objective now. Al-Qaida operatives are prepared to assassinate members of the royal family and attack key economic targets.” Tenet warned the Saudis that, “we have great specificity with regard to the planning. It is directed against your family.” Tenet convinced Abdullah and MBN that the danger was acute.
Tenet regarded MBN as the CIA’s closest partner in fighting al-Qaida and the key to the defeat of the al-Qaida threat to the House of Saud between 2003 and 2006. “My most important interlocutor,” he wrote. “A relatively young man, he is someone in whom we developed a great deal of trust and respect.” It was during that period that MBN came into his own.
For the next three years the kingdom was a battlefield as al-Qaida attacked targets that included even the Interior Ministry’s own headquarters in Riyadh. Other compounds for foreign nationals were attacked and an American was kidnapped and then beheaded. Shootouts between al-Qaida terrorists and the police took place in virtually every major Saudi city and many towns. More attacks followed on foreign targets, including a major assault on the United States consulate in Jiddah on December 6, 2004, in which a young female American diplomat was almost captured by the terrorists. Hundreds died and many more were wounded during these battles. It was the longest sustained campaign of violent unrest Saudi Arabia had endured in 50 years, and the most serious internal challenge to the House of Saud since the establishment of the modern state in 1902. Before it was over, the war would cost the government well over $30 billion.
MBN led the counteroffensive. The Interior Ministry issued lists of the most wanted al-Qaida terrorists and then proceeded to hunt them down ruthlessly. Whenever any of the men on a list were eliminated in firefights or ambushes, the ministry would update the list with the names of the next most wanted al-Qaida fighters. It was a tough and dangerous time—most foreigners who could leave the kingdom did so, or at least sent their families away. MBN was the face of the Saudi war on al-Qaida, appearing on television and in the newspapers to explain the threat the kingdom was facing.
The CIA viewed MBN as its closest partner in fighting al-Qaida and the key to defeating the threat to the House of Saud.
Efficient and deadly as MBN’s strategy was, he was careful not to engage in the kind of massive and disruptive search-and-destroy operations that would have entailed collateral damage, and created an impression that the kingdom was in flames. His manhunts were targeted and selective, avoiding civilian casualties and the violence that characterized counterterrorism operations in Algeria in the 1990s and in Iraq today. Thus his Interior Ministry commandos were able to hunt terrorists without causing blowback among the population. The prince understood the need for proportionality and discretion in fighting a terror underground.
By 2007 it was apparent that MBN and the Interior Ministry had gained the upper hand on al-Qaida and the threat was dissipating. The jihadists lost the battle for hearts and minds in the country. While many Saudis sympathized with bin Laden’s battle against America, they were disillusioned when innocent Saudis died in al-Qaida attacks and the war was brought to their own homes. The terrorists failed to gain popular support for their cause, which doomed them to defeat.
The Great Mosque in Mecca receives millions of Muslim worshippers each year.
It took three years to beat back al-Qaida inside Saudi Arabia, but it has not gone away. Instead, the organization has metastasized throughout much of the Middle East and into Africa. In 2009 al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the successor to the group MBN defeated at home, surfaced in Yemen. In December 2009 it sent Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day as it was descending over southern Ontario to Detroit. But the explosives Abdulmutallab had hidden in his underwear failed to detonate properly and he was subdued by a fellow passenger and members of the airplane crew.
Muhammad Bin Nayef CV
Ever vigilant against the danger al-Qaida continues to pose to the kingdom, MBN has cultivated a network of informants, and has foiled more than one plot against the U.S. When al-Qaida planted bombs on UPS and FedEx planes headed from Yemen to Chicago on the eve of the 2010 U.S. congressional elections, MBN called the White House and gave President Obama’s terrorism advisor, John Brennan, the tracking numbers for the deadly containers. The planes were then detained at stopovers in Dubai and East Midland in the United Kingdom and the bombs were removed.
In addition to his international reputation as a resourceful spymaster, MBN is a hero in his own country as the result of an incident in which he nearly lost his life six years ago. He agreed to meet Abdallah Asiri, an al-Qaida terrorist, who said he would turn himself in if he could surrender directly to the Saudi deputy minister of the interior. Asiri promised that if he could meet the minister face-to-face, he would then be able to convince his comrades—including his own brother, Ibrahim Asiri, al-Qaida’s premier bomb maker, the very man who would later build the bombs that were on the planes to Detroit and Chicago—to surrender as well. When the meeting took place on August 27, 2009, Asiri triggered a bomb, blowing himself up but only lightly wounding the prince. Hours later MBN appeared on Saudi television to tell the story to the kingdom, without getting into the details.
A few days later, Leon Panetta, then the director of central intelligence, who was visiting Riyadh, got a fuller account. After Abdallah Asiri entered his office, MBN said, the two men sat on the floor on a set of pillows. Suddenly Asiri began to shake and cry. He produced a cell phone from his robes, saying he wanted to call his family. After talking intensely on the phone with his brother, Ibrahim, he passed the phone to MBN, who opened the conversation with the traditional Arab greeting, salaam alaykum (God’s peace be with you). At that moment, Asiri blew himself into a thousand pieces. The explosives, hidden in Asiri’s rectum, blasted downward and left a crater where he had been sitting, but spared MBN.
This was at least the third major attempt on the prince’s life. But these near misses only reinforced MBN’s determination to lead Saudi Arabia’s counteroffensive against al-Qaida. He has always been characterized by an intense sense of duty, something he inherited from his father, who was minister of the interior for 37 years.
In 2011, MBN’s father, Nayef, moved up to become crown prince, much to the worry of American officials, who did not want him on the throne. That same year saw the blossoming of the Arab Spring. Many in the West welcomed what seemed to be the peaceful overthrow of authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, accompanied by protests elsewhere in the region, including in Saudi Arabia’s neighbor, the island emirate of Bahrain. Nayef, however, like many people in power in the area, was horrified by what was happening—and irate when President Obama pressed Hosni Mubarak to quit the presidency of Egypt. Nayef pushed for Saudi intervention in Bahrain to shore up its Sunni royal family, which was facing unrest among its Shiite majority. A brutal crackdown ensued, crushing the reform movement there. Despite muted American protests Saudi troops remain on the island today.
MBN is the public face of repression in the kingdom. Dissidents across the Gulf States accuse him of promoting a “Pax Saudiana” and treating all dissent in the kingdom as terrorism.
At home Nayef urged his half-brother King Abdullah to respond to demands for change without compromising. But Abdullah took a more flexible line. For years he had been cautiously, incrementally, introducing limited reforms. Under his rule many more Saudi women had access to higher education and to at least a few mid-level government jobs. There were even hints from his court that someday Saudi women might be allowed to drive cars. He also appointed representative councils that had a voice in municipal affairs. And he appropriated over a hundred billion dollars in new spending to improve the conditions of the Saudi lower and middle classes.
But Abdullah’s reforms never challenged the fundamentals of the Saudi system. The Interior Ministry, now being run by MBN, cracked down mercilessly on dissenters, imprisoning anyone who advocated reform. MBN was savvy about terrorist threats to the kingdom, but less so about the dangers of refusing to allow its citizens to express themselves freely. Abdullah’s reforms gradually got reversed or stalemated. The reactionaries had again thwarted the reformer.
Nayef’s health failed him in 2012. When he died at 78 in June of that year in Geneva, there were quiet sighs of relief down the official corridors of Washington—and a spirit of optimism about working with his son MBN, who by then had already taken on the mantle of the Prince of Counterterrorism.
MBN has been at the forefront of innovative new tactics in fighting terrorism, especially in the effort to rehabilitate terrorists who were either captured by the police or defected from the terror apparatus because of disillusionment with the jihadist cause. The Ministry of the Interior today runs five special high security prisons with some 3,500 prisoners, almost all former al-Qaida operatives, where the goal is not incarceration but rehabilitation. The prisoners are showered with perks, can receive visits from their relatives and are even allowed to go to weddings and funerals with supervision; their families get special allowances from the government for better housing, medical care, and education. The objective is to make the former terrorists’ families take responsibility for their sons’ future. The theory is that if the family feels it has a stake in the rehabilitation of their wayward children, it will take on the job of convincing them of the error of their ways.
At one of Saudi Arabia’s high-security prisons for terrorists, the goal is not incarceration but rehabilitation—a controversial strategy promoted by MBN. Reuters
The Interior Ministry acknowledges that 20 percent of the “graduates” of its rehabilitation prisons return to terrorism, but that’s a rate of recidivism considerably below that of prisons in the U.S. and Europe.
Still, the system MBN, now crown prince, has put in place has significant drawbacks. As the head of the feared Interior Ministry—he was made minister in 2012—MBN, like his father before him, is the public face of repression in the kingdom. Dissidents across the Gulf States accuse him of promoting a “Pax Saudiana” of repression, for the monarchy continues to treat all dissent in the kingdom as terrorism.
The extent of government repression of all forms of dissent has rightly raised new questions about the wisdom of close relations between the House of Saud and the U.S. and other Western democracies. The Economist has called for an end to business as usual with the kingdom and a more robust approach to encouraging transparency and accountability in Saudi politics. In an editorial just after Salman became King entitled “An Unholy Pact,” The Economist wrote that “the Wahhabism they [the Saudis] nurture endangers not just the outside world, but the dynasty itself” by encouraging extremism.
President Obama has been a strong supporter of the kingdom; it was the first place in the Middle East he visited as president. But he has said that while the Saudis face real external threats, including from Iran, it is the internal threat that is most serious. The kingdom’s population is “in some cases alienated, youth are underemployed, (with) an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances.” The president has promised “tough conversations” with the leadership about liberalizing some of its policies.
King Salman has instead moved the kingdom even closer to the Wahhabi establishment. He fired the only female cabinet level minister shortly after coming to the throne; she had been an advocate of physical education for girls and a target for hardliners. Salman has met often with notoriously reactionary members of the clerical elite. He built close ties to them during the 50 years he was governor of Riyadh, a period when the city went from a population of about 200,000 to over 7 million, but retained its status as the most conservative city in Islam.
The late King Abdullah (right) and the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh. The Saudi royal family has always been close with the country’s Wahhabi establishment. Today, thanks to King Salman, that relationship is closer than ever. Getty
Enter the Islamic State and Yemen
The kingdom’s Wahhabi Islam is the most fundamentalist Sunni branch of the religion. But it has now been outflanked by religious radicals who are even more intolerant, xenophobic, and far more violent. The blood-curdling appearance of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria in 2014 represents a new challenge to the world and, in particular, to MBN and his counterterrorism program. Heir to al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, which went deep underground during the American surge in Iraq in 2007 only to resurface after the withdrawal of foreign forces, the Islamic State has staged a multipronged comeback campaign. In 2012-13, it began targeting Iraqi prisons where al-Qaida terrorists were incarcerated and creating an infrastructure in neighboring Syria to assist in its revival. In the summer of 2014 it waged a blitzkrieg-like offensive across Sunni populated Iraq, took command of the country’s second city, Mosul, and declared the creation of a caliphate to rule all of Islam.
In November 2014 the Islamic State announced that its goal is to take control of the mosques in Mecca and Medina and oust the “serpent’s head”—the Saudi royal family. Its English language magazine published a cover story with a photo of the Kaaba with the Islamic State’s black flag flying over it. Islamic State militants have attacked Saudi security posts along the Iraqi border and sent suicide bombers to attack Shiite mosques inside the kingdom in order to fuel sectarian enmity. In response to the threat the Interior Ministry has arrested hundreds of Islamic State operatives and is constructing a 600 mile long security fence or wall along the Saudi-Iraqi border, similar to a 1,000 mile long wall it built along the Saudi-Yemeni border to defeat al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
The Islamic State announced that its goal is to take control of the mosques in Mecca and Medina and oust the Saudi royal family.
Abdullah died in January this year after almost 20 years of ruling the kingdom, first as crown prince filling in for an incapacitated King Fahd, then as king in his own right. Having outlived two crown princes, Sultan and Nayef, Abdullah had tried to prepare for an orderly succession. In July 2012 he made his half-brother Prince Muqrin the deputy prime minister, second in line to the throne after Crown Prince Salman, now king, also a half-brother. Muqrin was very close to Abdullah and his reforms.
Abdullah’s passing marks a major milestone in the kingdom’s history. A reformer by Saudi standards, he ruled longer than any of his brothers and through perilous times. His designated successor was Salman, 13 years younger. Once Salman ascended the throne, he made Muqrin crown prince, as was expected, and moved MBN up to second in line as deputy prime minister. It was assumed that Muqrin, who was born in 1945, the 35th son of Ibn Saud, would become king some day, and that MBN would then have some years to prepare for his own ascension, and to get the country ready for the generational transition from the sons of Ibn Saud to his grandsons.
A Saudi government-issued photo celebrating Operation Decisive Storm reflects the new order of royal succession: MBN (left), who’s next in line for the throne; King Salman (center); and the second-in-line, MBS.
Then came a stunning and unprecedented family reshuffle. At four o’clock in the morning on April 29, Salman sacked Muqrin and made MBN crown prince in his stead. Salman’s son Muhammad bin Salman (MBS) became the new number two. No explanation for the unprecedented ouster of a crown prince was given then or since. There is intense speculation that Salman made this change because MBN has no sons of his own (only two daughters), which means that MBS—who some sources say is not yet 30—will have a better chance of one day succeeding to the throne. Some speculate that MBN will sooner or later get the boot himself to ensure MBS makes it to the top.
MBS’s unbridled ambition has alienated many of his fellow princes. He has a reputation for arrogance and ruthlessness. He controls oil policy, but his complete lack of experience in the energy industry is all too evident. However, his principal vulnerability is his prominence, in his role as minister of defense, as the driving force and public advocate of Saudi policy toward its desperately poor, politically unstable neighbor on the peninsula: Yemen.
Yemen has always been a thorn in Saudi Arabia’s side. Ibn Saud went to war with Yemen in 1934. His armies captured much of the low-lying coastal plain along the Red Sea but could not conquer the mountainous interior of the country. A peace treaty ceded several border provinces to the kingdom, thus ensuring a long-standing irredentist movement in Yemen. In the 1960s the Saudis backed the Zaydi Shiite monarchs who traditionally ruled Yemen against an Egyptian backed republican movement that threatened to topple all the monarchies in the peninsula.
But in March of this year the Saudis launched air strikes against the Houthis, the Zaydi Shiite rebels who had deposed the pro-Saudi government in Sanaa last fall and taken control of much of the country. The Saudis were particularly alarmed by the Zaydi decision to open direct air flights to Tehran (a first), offer Iran use of Hudaydah port, and negotiate a cheap oil deal with Iran. Riyadh got support for its air war from all the other Arab states of the Gulf region except Oman. Jordan, Morocco, and Egypt have also joined Saudi Arabia in the war effort but Pakistan, a longtime Saudi ally, refused.
Backed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia’s coalition against Yemen comprises fellow Gulf nations as well as Egypt and Sudan.
Backed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia’s coalition against Yemen comprises fellow Gulf nations as well as Egypt and Sudan.
The United States is providing intelligence and logistical help, despite getting only a few hours’ notice from Riyadh about the first strikes. The Saudis initially called the campaign Operation Decisive Storm, a deliberate echo of the United States’ pummeling of Saddam Hussein’s regime and the eviction of his forces from Kuwait in 1991. It is by far the most assertive foreign policy move in the kingdom’s recent history. Previous Saudi interventions in Yemen were clandestine, covert affairs. King Salman is projecting Saudi military might in an aggressive manner unprecedented since the days of his father Ibn Saud in the 1930s. The stakes are high.
So far the Yemeni adventure has not gone well, however. The war seems to be bogged down in a stalemate. Saudi Arabia and its allies control Yemen’s airspace and coastal waters and the southern port of Aden, but the Zaydi Houthis and their allies control most of northern Yemen.
Meanwhile, the Saudi blockade is creating a humanitarian catastrophe for the 25 million Yemenis, and the war has been a net gain for al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. With the Saudis fighting the Houthis, much of eastern Yemen has become even more lawless than usual, allowing al-Qaida to take control of large parts of the Hadramawt province in the southeast, where bin Laden’s father and family had lived before emigrating to the kingdom in the 1930s.
The Yemen war, which is King Salman’s first major foreign test, has profound implications for the stability of Saudi Arabia, the Arabian Peninsula, and the region as a whole. The war has a Sunni-Shia sectarian dimension, and it’s also an arena of the broader Saudi-Iranian struggle for regional hegemony. Moreover, because the war is partly about Yemeni aspirations for a more inclusive government, it represents, in effect, the unfinished business of the Arab Spring, which the Saudis have resisted so vigorously.
The conflict is likely to draw in more players as it goes on and to spill out of Yemen to other countries. Already it has sparked violent clashes between MBN’s Interior Ministry forces and Shiite militants in the Saudis’ Eastern Province.
In short, Yemen could end up being a black mark on King Salman’s reign, and fatal to the ambitions of both MBN and MBS. Given how much he has identified himself with the war effort as minister of defense, MBS has the most to lose. So far he still has his father’s ear, and has represented him in visits to Russia and France. When King Salman abruptly canceled plans to meet President Obama at Camp David to show his pique at the president’s plan to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, he sent the two princes, MBN and MBS, in his stead. Obama pressed them on reform but backed their war. When King Salman finally did travel to Washington the talks were brief and the focus for the Saudi audience was more on MBS than his father.
MBN may be the most pro-American prince ever to be in line to the throne. He is probably the most successful intelligence officer in the Arab world of today. Panetta, like Tenet, praises him, calling MBN the “smartest and most accomplished of his generation.” Only King Fahd, another former minister of the interior, may have been so instinctively inclined to support American interests. Unlike his father, MBN seems altogether comfortable working closely with Americans. He seemed to get on fine with President Obama at Camp David. His agents just captured the mastermind of the 1996 Saudi Hezbollah attack on U.S. military barracks in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, that killed 19 American service members. MBN has already had more responsibility than any Saudi of his generation, and his burden is likely to become all the heavier given the chaos in the post-Arab Spring Middle East. He knows he needs allies.
But Washington should have no illusions that MBN will take Western advice to reform the kingdom. Saudi Arabia makes no bones about being the leading opponent of everything the Arab Spring stood for when it began in 2011 and everything that so many in the West were cheering for. The Saudis helped engineer the 2013 coup in Egypt that restored military rule to the largest Arab country and dealt the Arab Spring a fatal blow. They are skilled counterterrorists, but they are also accomplished and unabashed counterrevolutionaries.
Saudi Arabia is the world’s last significant absolute monarchy. It will not have a Gorbachev moment, because the royal family will not give up their control of the nation, nor will they loosen their ties with the Wahhabis and their faith. King Salman, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, and virtually all of the rest of the Saudi establishment believe they have survived more than two and a half centuries in the rough politics of the Middle East not just because of their ruthless determination to stay absolute monarchs, but because of their alliance with the Wahhabi clerics.
The House of Saud has outlasted the Ottomans, Nasserism, Communism, Baathism, and most other royal families. In 1979 many thought they would go the way of the Shah of Iran. As a young analyst at the CIA charged with the Saudi portfolio I predicted then that they would survive for many decades to come. It is too soon to write their epitaph, but I suspect it is too late to expect them to change.
Now read “The Believer,” a profile of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State (ISIS). In this essay, Brookings Fellow William McCants details how Baghdadi became radicalized, found his path to power, and declared himself the head of a reborn Islamic empire bent on world conquest.
**Bruce Riedel bio pic
Bruce Riedel is a senior fellow and director of the Brookings Intelligence Project, part of the Brookings Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence. In addition, Riedel serves as a senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy. He retired in 2006 after 30 years of service at the Central Intelligence Agency, including postings overseas. He was a senior advisor on South Asia and the Middle East to the last four presidents of the United States in the staff of the National Security Council at the White House. He was also deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Near East and South Asia at the Pentagon and a senior advisor at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Brussels.
قراءة المقال باللغة العربية
http://www.brookings.edu/ar/research/essays/2015/the-prince-of-counterterrorism
http://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2015/the-prince-of-counterterrorism?utm_campaign=brookings-essay&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=22457252&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9s0brr6mgZ9ROHG8b6ZnKFPkdLk7I4TJZ_j_2RQiWKW69FCCMLvHi2a4cuQs7d8OgP4j9a1zG7nnL2fefEQnmXlEvPTZ3ALhTiq2gDA9hi0PLqFjc&_hsmi=22457252