New Page 5

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

Bible Quotation For Today/Anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgement, but has passed from death to life.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint John 05/24-30: "Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgement, but has passed from death to life. ‘Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; and he has given him authority to execute judgement, because he is the Son of Man. Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice. and will come out those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. ‘I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge; and my judgement is just, because I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me."

Bible Quotation For Today/Fear God and give him glory, for the hour of his judgement has come; and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water
Book of Revelation 14/01-08.13: ""Then I looked, and there was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion! And with him were one hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps, and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the one hundred forty-four thousand who have been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins; these follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They have been redeemed from humankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found; they are blameless. Then I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth to every nation and tribe and language and people. He said in a loud voice, ‘Fear God and give him glory, for the hour of his judgement has come; and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water.’ Then another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.’ And I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Write this: Blessed are the dead who from now on die in the Lord.’ ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘they will rest from their labours, for their deeds follow them."

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on October 10-11/15
The time of the assassins in the Middle East/Hisham Melhem/Al Arabiya/October 10/15
U.S.-Russian confrontation in our region/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/October 10/15
Assad, ISIS and Russia: A symbiotic relationship of destruction/Mohamed Chebarro/Al Arabiya/October 10/15
When Obama talks, Putin acts/Eyad Abu Shakra/Al Arabiya/October 10/15
How Obama Ushered in the New Age of Christian Martyrdom/Raymond Ibrahim/Gatestone Institute/October 10/15
Saudi-Russian Oil Dialogue After Syria/Middle East Briefing/October 10/15
Russia Faces Israel Deconfliction Dilemma/Middle East Briefing/October 10/15
Russia Faces Israel Deconfliction Dilemma/Middle East Briefing/October 10/15
Washington and Moscow Begin Complex Syria Talks/Middle East Briefing/October 10/15
Putin’s Plan in Syria and its Chances of Success – What Events on the Ground Tell Us/Middle East Briefing/October 10/15
What could a “harsh” Iranian reaction to Riyadh constitute?/Ali Omidi/Al-Monitor/October 10/15

Question: What is the prayer of salvation?
GotQuestions.org/Answer: Many people ask, “Is there a prayer I can pray that will guarantee my salvation?” It is important to remember that salvation is not received by reciting a prayer or uttering certain words. The Bible nowhere records a person’s receiving salvation by a prayer. Saying a prayer is not the biblical way of salvation.
The biblical method of salvation is faith in Jesus Christ. John 3:16 tells us, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Salvation is gained by faith (Ephesians 2:8), by receiving Jesus as Savior (John 1:12), and by fully trusting Jesus alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), not by reciting a prayer.
The biblical message of salvation is simple and clear and amazing at the same time. We have all committed sin against God (Romans 3:23). Other than Jesus Christ, there is no one who has lived an entire life without sinning (Ecclesiastes 7:20). Because of our sin, we have earned judgment from God (Romans 6:23), and that judgment is physical death followed by spiritual death. Because of our sin and its deserved punishment, there is nothing we can do on our own to make ourselves right with God. As a result of His love for us, God became a human being in the Person of Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a perfect life and always taught the truth. However, humanity rejected Jesus and put Him to death by crucifying Him. Through that horrible act, though, Jesus died in our place. Jesus took the burden and judgment of sin on Himself, and He died in our place (2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus was then resurrected (1 Corinthians 15), proving that His payment for sin was sufficient and that He had overcome sin and death. As a result of Jesus’ sacrifice, God offers us salvation as a gift. God calls us all to change our minds about Jesus (Acts 17:30) and to receive Him as the full payment of our sins (1 John 2:2). Salvation is gained by receiving the gift God offers us, not by praying a prayer.
Now, that does not mean prayer cannot be involved in receiving salvation. If you understand the gospel, believe it to be true, and have accepted Jesus as your salvation, it is good and appropriate to express that faith to God in prayer. Communicating with God through prayer can be a way to progress from accepting facts about Jesus to fully trusting in Him as Savior. Prayer can be connected to the act of placing your faith in Jesus alone for salvation.
Again, though, it is crucially important that you do not base your salvation on having said a prayer. Reciting a prayer cannot save you! If you want to receive the salvation that is available through Jesus, place your faith in Him. Fully trust His death as the sufficient sacrifice for your sins. Completely rely on Him alone as your Savior. That is the biblical method of salvation. If you have received Jesus as your Savior, by all means, say a prayer to God. Tell God how thankful you are for Jesus. Offer praise to God for His love and sacrifice. Thank Jesus for dying for your sins and providing salvation for you. That is the biblical connection between salvation and prayer.

Salam: Stability and Security a Red Line
Naharnet/October 10/15/Prime Minister Tammam Salam said on Friday that there are some parties trying to exploit the civil society protests for interests that do not serve the Lebanese, stressing that the stability and security of the country are a "red line." “It is clear that there are some parties trying to deviate the civil society from their goals, and are trying to take advantage of their moves for interests that do not serve the Lebanese nor the goals that triggered the civil mobilizations,” media reports quoted Salam. He was referring to Thursday's demonstrations in downtown Beirut where clashes turned into a chaotic scene during confrontations between the civil society activists and the security forces causing heavy damages to private and public properties. Salam's comments came after a meeting he held with Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq and judge Samir Hammmoud on Friday. Nevertheless, Salam gave instructions to the security forces to "commit to wisdom when dealing with the demonstrators and to preserve their right to express their points of views peacefully." owever he added that respecting the law is a must and that anyone found to be involved in assaulting the security forces or acts of sabotage will be punished.
The Premier however denounced the state of chaos that spiraled during Thursday's protest, he said: "from the beginning we said that these demonstrations are righteous and reflect the pain of the Lebanese. But what we have seen of the insane acts of sabotage in the last demonstration, went out of the framework of peaceful expression and turned to riots which raises many questions about their purpose."He concluded: "Security and stability in the country are a red line, violating the law, assaulting the security forces and public and private properties will be punished based on what the law stipulates."

Msallem: Freedom of Expression Must be Practiced Under the Law
Naharnet/October 10/15/Head of the Public Relations division of the Internal Security Forces (ISF) Lt. Col. Joseph Msallam said on Saturday that freedom of expression is a righteous demand only if it is practiced under the law.
“We believe in freedom of expression which is a constitutional right, but it should be expressed under the law, which means the protests should not be violent” said Msallam in a press conference he held against the backdrop of Thursday's downtown demonstrations that turned violent and stretchered till a late hour. “Demonstrations must first be approved and announced to the related authorities otherwise they are considered illegal,” he stated, pointing out that none of the protests that were held so far have complied to that demand. “Organizers of demonstrations must shoulder responsibility for any damages caused by the campaigners they should not disclaim the responsibility,” he said, adding “we support righteous demands that respect the law.”On accusations fired at the ISF members calling them names for carrying out their duties Msallem said: “By law, protesters have no right to curse or hurt security members or civilians. They have no right to damage public or private property. Activists who were detained are not prisoners of opinion. They have damaged public property and assaulted the security forces. “The duty of the ISF is to protect democracy, the government premises and public properties. Coordination between the ISF and the organizers of the demonstrations is crucial,” he stated. Asked about the reason that compels security members to block certain areas and use water cannons against demonstrators, Msallem said “We prevented protesters from entering Nejmeh square, which is a public property for all the Lebanese, for security reasons. “Water cannons are used in many developed countries,” he said, adding that the demonstrations have done much worse "they have hurled Molotov bombs at security members," he said showing video footage. He concluded saying: "Organizers of the civil society should have admitted the mistakes they made when they removed the cement barriers and barbed wires,” instead of disclaiming responsibility.

Jumblat: Some Civil Society Activists have Turned into Rioters
Naharnet/October 10/15/Progressive Socialist party chief Walid Jumblat stated on Saturday that although he consents the requests of the civil society activists, but it is unacceptable to drag the country to chaos. “We have expressed our support for the demands and slogans raised by the civil society activists. We even condemned ourselves. But that does not mean that we will accept to stand idle and watch the country being dragged to chaos and systematic destruction of its economy, touristic and commercial institutions,” said Jumblat to the PSP-affiliated al-Anbaa website. “Some of the civil society groups have become riotous aiming to only hamper solutions, starting with the trash crisis issue, which is unacceptable,” he added. Civil society activists gathered in downtown Beirut on Thursday protesting the government's dysfunction on an almost four months trash management crisis. The protests spiraled after the campaigners tried to remove the barricades near An Nahar building that were placed by the security forces to keep the protesters away from the parliament and government offices. Some protesters tried to break the security cordons, prompting authorities to use water cannons to disperse them. Protesters lobbed rocks and water bottles at the security forces. The clashes caused heavy damages to the nearby DT restaurant and the entrance of Hotel Le Gray in addition to damages to public property, said the Internal Security Forces. The protests against Lebanon's ruling elite came as a result of the garbage crisis that activists warn has become a menace to public health. The crisis began in July when the closure of the Naameh landfill, Lebanon's largest, caused rubbish to pile up on Beirut's roadsides, in parking lots and river beds.

Former Minister, MP Elias Skaff Dead at 67
Naharnet/October 10/15/Former Minister and MP Elias Joseph Skaff passed away on Saturday after a long battle with illness. He was 67. Skaff was first elected an MP in the eastern Bekaa Valley in 1992 following the death of his father ex-Minister Joseph Skaff and later in 1996. He was reelected for the eastern city of Zahle's Catholic seat in 2001 and 2005. He also served as minister in several governments between 2003 and 2009. Skaff was born in Cyprus on October 11, 1948 and spent his childhood in New Zealand with his mother where he received his primary eduction. He returned to Lebanon at the age of 16 and continued his education at a school in Shwaifat. He graduated in 1975 from the Faculty of Agriculture at the American University of Beirut. Skaff is survived by his wife Miriam Jebran Tawq and their two children Joseph and Jebran.

Ibrahim Visits Nasrallah, Tackle Arsal Hostages File
Naharnet/October 10/15/General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim held a meeting on Friday with Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in light of the latest “negligence” accusations fired at Ibrahim by families of the Arsal abducted servicemen. The relatives of the servicemen held a sit-in and blocked the road on Friday near the Interior Ministry demanding the resumption of efforts to free their sons which they said have been stalled lately, accusing Ibrahim and Speaker Nabih Berri of “negligence.” On the reasons stalling the negotiations to free the servicemen that have been in captivity for over 14 months now, Ibrahim said: “Secrecy in negotiations is the key to success. I can say that the responsibility here does not lie on the Lebanese state but on the kidnappers who have special circumstances and an agenda of their own.”“Similar abductions have taken much longer time to be resolved,” he noted. “The Lebanese state has accepted the principle of exchange and done everything possible to free the servicemen. But the kidnappers are not ready (to free the servicemen).” He concluded saying: “During out latest visit to Doha we have suggested a number of additional solutions that we hope would push things forward, but we are still waiting answers from al-Nusra Front through the brethren Qataris.”The servicemen were taken hostage by the al-Qaida affiliate al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State extremist group in August 2014 when they overran the northeastern border town of Arsal.
A few of them have since been released and four were executed. Al-Nusra Front has in its captivity 16 soldiers and policemen, while nine remain held by the IS. Negotiations with the jihadists have stalled over their crippling demands.

U.S. Delivers Hellfire Missiles, Precision Munitions to Lebanese Army
Naharnet/October 10/15/The United States delivered Friday a new shipment of Hellfire missiles and artillery munitions to the Lebanese army, the U.S. embassy said in a statement. “Ambassador David Hale visited Beirut Airbase this morning to inspect America’s latest delivery of 'Hellfire' missiles and artillery munitions to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF),” it said. The shipment included 50 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles and 560 artillery rounds, including some precision munitions. “This represents $8.6 million worth of U.S. security assistance to Lebanon and boosts the LAF’s ability to secure Lebanon’s borders against violent extremists,” the embassy said. The Hellfire air-to-ground missiles are used on Cessna Caravan aircraft previously delivered to the army by the U.S. The missiles “allow the LAF to strike confirmed insurgent positions without exposing themselves to return fire,” the embassy explained. “The other artillery rounds include laser guided projectiles – the first munition of its kind in the LAF’s arsenal – which will provide the LAF with a precision-strike capability at significant stand-off ranges,” it said. The embassy noted that “today’s munitions delivery demonstrates America’s sustained commitment to ensure that the Lebanese Armed Forces has the support it needs to be the sole defender of Lebanese territory and its borders, and is answerable to the state and to the Lebanese people through the state.”In August 2014, the army fought deadly battles with Syria-based extremists from the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front groups in the northeastern border town of Arsal. Several countries boosted their military aid to Lebanon in the wake of the clashes.

Families of Arsal Captives Hold Sit-in by Interior Ministry, Lament Negligence of their Case
Naharnet/October 10/15/The relatives of the kidnapped servicemen held a sit-in on Friday in front of the Interior Ministry and blocked the road near the Central Bank in the Beirut area of Hamra, demanding the release of their sons after more than 14 months of captivity. The families also prevented the security forces from reopening the Banks Street in downtown Beirut after it was blocked during the civil society protests on Thursday.They held the “government, General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim and Speaker Nabih Berri responsible for the negligence in solving the (controversial) file.”
Voice of Lebanon radio (93.3) later said that Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq had agreed to receive the families at noon on Tuesday. The relatives later headed to the Msaitbeh area in Beirut and held a brief sit-in in front of Prime Minister Tammam Salam's residence before returning to Downtown Beirut's Riad al-Solh Square. Later on Friday, Abbas told Kuwait's al-Rai newspaper on the kidnapping ordeal: “This experience has taught us patience and the adoption of secrecy as they are the keys to success in such operations.”“Similar abductions have taken much longer time to be resolved,” he noted. Addressing alleged complications in the file, he remarked: “I can say that this is not the Lebanese state's fault, but that of the kidnappers, who are exploiting this file for their personal agenda.” The servicemen were taken hostage by the al-Qaida affiliate al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State extremist group in August 2014 when they overran the northeastern border town of Arsal. A few of them have since been released and four were executed. Al-Nusra Front has in its captivity 16 soldiers and policemen, while nine remain held by the IS.Negotiations with the jihadists have stalled over their crippling demands.

Pentagon: 'Progress' in U.S.-Russia Talks over Syria Air Safety
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 10/15/The U.S. and Russia made "progress" in discussions Saturday designed to avoid accidents between them in the increasingly crowded air space over war-torn Syria, the Pentagon said, and more talks are planned. Washington expressed alarm this week after Moscow failed to quickly answer proposals made during previous talks, even as Russia launched cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea and repeatedly violated Turkish air space. "The discussions were professional and focused narrowly on the implementation of specific safety procedures," said Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook in a statement. "Progress was made during the talks and the U.S. agreed to another discussion with Russia in the near future. The video conference lasted approximately 90 minutes." Cook disclosed few details, except to say that the talks were between U.S. defense officials and their counterparts in Moscow and focused on "steps that can be taken" by Russian and U.S.-led coalition aircraft "to promote safe flight operations over Syria."U.S. officials were furious after Russia only gave them a vague, verbal "heads-up" about an hour before Moscow launched its bombing campaign over Syria on September 30. The two countries had "deconfliction" talks the next day via video conference, aimed at ensuring Russian warplanes didn't cross paths with drones and U.S.-led coalition jets targeting the Islamic State extremist group in Syria. Russian planes have flown near a U.S. drone, officials say, and the U.S. military has had to reroute some flights to avoid any close calls.

U.N., World Bank Announce New Funds for Mideast Refugee Crisis
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 10/15/The U.N. and World Bank said Saturday they will increase financing for the Middle East and North Africa to help countries there deal with millions of refugees and rebuild after conflicts. They did not put a dollar figure on the initiative, but said it would ramp up resources to deal with the "enormous humanitarian and economic toll" that conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere are taking on the region. "The world today is witness to... the highest level of forced displacement since the Second World War," U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement. "To address the scale and the nature of the conflicts, we need new approaches. It is important that the World Bank, as a close partner to the U.N., and other international financial institutions, mainstream and actively invest in conflict-affected states." The new loans will come in two forms, said the organizations, which are also collaborating with the Islamic Development Bank on the plan. Under the first mechanism, guarantees from donor countries will be leveraged to issue special bonds, including Islamic sukuk bonds, which are specially structured to comply with the Koranic prohibition on charging interest. In the second, donor country grants will be used to extend low-interest loans to the countries hosting the bulk of the more than 15 million refugees who have fled the region's conflicts in the past four years. "Strong global partnerships and innovative financing are essential to meet the scale of the need in these hard-hit countries," said World Bank president Jim Yong Kim. "It is our collective responsibility to support the Middle East and North Africa region at this critical time, and this requires significant resources -- more than any one country or organization is able to provide on its own."The initiative was agreed on the sidelines of the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Lima, Peru this week. The organizations have set up a working group and asked it to finalize the details of the new financing mechanisms, as well as develop an implementation roadmap by February 2016, they said.

Syria Regime Advances with Russian Air Support
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 10/15/Syrian government forces captured a village from rebels in the central province of Hama Saturday as they pressed a ground operation backed by Russian air support. In the northern Aleppo province, rebels battled to reverse an advance by the Islamic State group that brought the jihadists to within a few kilometers (miles) of Syria's second city. And Washington said it would resume talks with Russia over ways to avoid military accidents in Syria's increasingly crowded airspace. In Hama, regime forces seized Atshan village from opposition fighters, including Islamists and al-Qaida affiliate al-Nusra Front, state television and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said. The Observatory, a Britain-based monitoring group, reported heavy fighting around Atshan as they sought to push northwest and take a neighboring hilltop. With support from Russian air strikes, they appear to be targeting the town of Khan Sheikhun, just across the provincial border in Idlib and on a highway connecting Aleppo and Damascus. The road is cut by rebel forces in several places north of Khan Sheikhun. Hama province has been a key target for Russian air strikes that began on September 30, along with parts of the neighboring provinces of Latakia and Idlib.
Russia hits 'terrorist' camps
The strikes appear intended to prevent any advance by the Army of Conquest alliance, which includes Al-Nusra, that holds Idlib and has sought to push into Hama and Latakia. In Moscow, Russia's defense ministry said Saturday that its forces had hit 55 IS targets in the past 24 hours. It said the latest strikes -- in Damascus, Aleppo, Hama, Raqa and Idlib provinces -- destroyed 29 training camps for "terrorists", 23 defensive positions, two command centers and an ammunition depot. Rebels and their backers say Hama, Idlib and Latakia have little or no IS presence, and accuse Russia of targeting moderate and Islamist opposition fighters more than the jihadist group. The Observatory also reported heavy fighting Saturday between government forces and rebels in northern Latakia province. Russian warplanes struck both Latakia and Idlib Friday and Saturday, including a raid in Idlib that destroyed a base belonging to a rebel group that has received U.S. weapons, it said. In Aleppo province, Islamist rebels including the powerful Ahrar al-Sham group recaptured one of several villages seized by IS in a Friday advance, the Observatory said.
The monitor added that rebels were battling to retake a second village from the jihadist group, which now has forces within 10 kilometers (six miles) of Aleppo city. The IS offensive has brought the jihadists closer than ever to Aleppo, threatening to further complicate the situation in Syria's one-time commercial capital, long divided between government and rebel control.
U.S.-Russia airspace talks -
The regime holds western Aleppo and the rebels hold the city's east.Elsewhere in the province, the Observatory said a powerful blast ripped through an explosives factory and weapons depot in the IS-held town of Al-Bab. The cause of the explosion was unclear, although unidentified warplanes were seen overhead at around the time of the blast. Russia's air campaign in Syria has angered rebels and their backers, while complicating efforts of the U.S.-led coalition that is also targeting IS in the country. On Friday, the Pentagon said it would resume talks with Moscow aimed at preventing military accidents in Syrian airspace, after it received a response to U.S. proposals. "Department leaders are reviewing the Russian response and talks are likely to take place as soon as this weekend," spokesman Peter Cook said. Also Friday, Washington acknowledged it had decided to "pause" a controversial program to train and equip Syrian rebels to fight IS.

At Least 86 Killed in Turkey's Deadliest Attack
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 10/15/At least 86 people were killed Saturday in the Turkish capital Ankara when bombs set off by two suspected suicide attackers ripped through leftist and pro-Kurdish activists gathering for an anti-government peace rally, the deadliest attack in the history of modern Turkey. The attack, near Ankara's main train station, ratcheted up tensions ahead of Turkey's November 1 snap elections which were already soaring amid the government's offensive on Kurdish militants. Bodies of the slain activists were seen strewn across the ground after the blasts, with the banners they had been holding for the "Work, Peace and Democracy" rally lying next to them. Sixty-two people died at the scene of the blasts and 24 more then succumbed to their wounds in hospital, Health Minister Mehmet Muezzinoglu told reporters in Ankara. He said another 186 people had been injured in the attack, 28 of them seriously. Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced the "heinous attack", saying it was aimed at "our unity and our country's peace."Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said there were "strong signs" that the attack had been carried out by two suicide bombers.With the country shattered by the deadliest attack in the history of modern Turkey, Davutoglu declared three days of national mourning. There were scenes of chaos after the blasts, as ambulances raced to get to the wounded and police cordoned off the area around the train station. "We heard one huge blast and then one smaller explosion and then there was a great movement and panic. Then we saw corpses around the station," said Ahmet Onen, 52. "A demonstration that was to promote peace has turned into a massacre, I don't understand this," he said, sobbing. Turkish police fired in the air to disperse demonstrators angered by the deaths of their fellow activists from the scene, an AFP correspondent reported.
'Barbaric attack'
Davutoglu said no group had claimed responsibility for the bombings. But he said groups including Islamic State (IS) jihadists, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the far-left Revolutionary People's Liberation Party–Front (DHKP-C) were capable of carrying out such an attack.Amateur footage broadcast by NTV television showed smiling activists holding hands and dancing and then suddenly falling to the ground as a huge explosion went off behind them. Reports said that hundreds of people in Ankara had rushed to hospital to donate blood for the victims. The blast was the deadliest in the history of the modern Turkish Republic, surpassing the May 2013 twin bombings in Reyhanli on the Syrian border that killed over 50 people. With international concern growing over instability in the key NATO member, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini urged Turkey to "stand united against terrorists."French President Francois Hollande condemned the "odious terrorist attack" while Russian President Vladimir Putin passed his condolences to Erdogan. National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said "the fact that this attack occurred ahead of a planned rally for peace underscores the depravity of those behind it." The pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) was to have been one of several groups that was to have taken part in the pro-peace rally. "We are faced with a huge massacre. A barbaric attack has been committed," said the HDP's leader Selahattin Demirtas. He blamed a "mafia state" and a "state mentality which acts like a serial killer" for the attack. One of those killed was Kubra Meltem Mollaoglu, an HDP member who was standing for parliament in the upcoming polls.
PKK suspends activities
The attack comes with Turkey on edge ahead of November 1 polls and a wave of unrest over the past few months. An attack in the predominantly Kurdish town of Suruc on July 20 targeting pro-HDP activists and blamed on IS jihadists killed 32 people and wounded a hundred others. The militant PKK accused Ankara of collaborating with IS and resumed attacks on the Turkish security forces after observing a two-year ceasefire. Over 140 members of the security forces have since been killed while Ankara claims to have killed over 1,700 Kurdish militants in weeks of bombardments of PKK targets in southeast Turkey and northern Iraq. With conspicuous timing, the PKK Saturday announced it would suspend all attacks -- except in self defense -- ahead of the polls. "Heeding calls from Turkey and abroad, our movement has decided on a state of inactivity by our guerillas, unless our people and our guerilla forces are attacked," Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), an umbrella movement that includes the PKK, said in a statement. The HDP performed strongly in the last election on June 7, winning 80 seats in parliament to deprive Erdogan's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of an outright majority for the first time since it came to power in 2002. The AKP then failed to form a coalition in months of talks, prompting Erdogan -- who had been hoping for a large majority to push through reforms to boost his powers -- to call another election on November 1. The office of Davutoglu said that he had cancelled election campaigning for the next three days.

Death Toll Climbs as Palestinian Unrest Spirals
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 10/15/Violence between Israelis and Palestinians threatened to spiral out of control Saturday with two more Palestinians killed in Gaza, two stabbings outside Jerusalem's Old City and more West Bank clashes. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Mahmoud Abbas have sought to avoid an escalation, frustrated Palestinian youths have defied efforts to restore calm and a wave of stabbings has spread fear in Israel. A rocket fired by Gaza militants hit southern Israel on Saturday hours after clashes along the border saw Israeli forces kill seven Palestinians.More clashes on Saturday killed another two Palestinians. The rocket, for which there was no immediate claim of responsibility, caused no casualties. Israel regularly responds to rocket fire with air strikes, but had not done so by Saturday evening. Rioting has shaken annexed east Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank, with Palestinians throwing stones and firebombs at Israeli security forces, who have responded with live fire, rubber bullets, tear gas and stun grenades. A 22-year-old Palestinian Israeli police said they shot late Friday after he opened fire at them in east Jerusalem's Shuafat refugee camp died on Saturday. Clashes erupted after his funeral, and one Palestinian who tried to throw a firebomb at security forces was shot in the leg, police said.
New Gaza clashes
The Gaza Strip had been mainly calm amid the week's unrest elsewhere, but clashes on Friday and Saturday exacerbated fears that a wider Palestinian uprising, or intifada, could erupt. On Friday, the army said there had been repeated attempts to storm the border fence between Gaza and Israel and that 1,000 rioters had infiltrated the buffer zone, throwing a grenade, rocks and rolling burning tyres at troops. After warning shots, troops fired "towards main instigators in order to prevent their advance and disperse the riot", a statement said. Seven Palestinians were killed, including a 15-year-old, and 145 wounded, medics said. Following Saturday's funeral of one of those killed, hundreds of young Palestinians approached the border with Israel and began demonstrating. At one point, unarmed Hamas security forces in civilian clothes dispersed demonstrators peacefully, witnesses said. However, clashes also broke out east of the southern city of Khan Yunis along the border fence, with a 13-year-old and a 15-year-old killed and 10 wounded by Israeli fire. Friday was the worst day of violence in the Palestinian enclave since the 2014 summer war with Israel, which killed more than 2,200 and left 100,000 homeless. The clashes came as Hamas's chief in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, called the overall violence an intifada and urged further unrest. Hamas, which rules Gaza, remains deeply divided from Abbas's West Bank-based Fatah. On Saturday, Jordan's parliament condemned "the crimes committed by Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza", accusing Israel of "state terrorism".Jordan and Egypt are the only two Arab countries to have peace treaties with Israel. Rioting hit various parts of the West Bank on Saturday, including Hebron, where youths clashed with Israeli forces after funerals of two residents killed while carrying out separate attacks earlier this week.
Two more stabbings
Stabbing attacks that have spread fear among Israelis also continued. On Saturday morning, a Palestinian teenager stabbed and wounded two ultra-Orthodox Jews, aged 62 and 65, outside the Old City's Damascus Gate in east Jerusalem, police and medics said. Police said they shot and killed the 16-year-old identified as Ishak Badran of Kafr Aqeb in east Jerusalem. Hours later in the same area, a 19-year-old Palestinian also from Kafr Aqeb stabbed two police officers before himself being shot dead. The stabbing victims were in moderate condition, medics said, with a third seriously wounded after being shot by another officer trying to target the assailant. Fourteen stabbing attacks have targeted Jews since October 3, when a Palestinian murdered two Israelis in Jerusalem's Old City, sparking a security crackdown. One revenge stabbing has occurred, with a 17-year-old Jew in the southern Israeli city of Dimona wounding two Palestinians and two Arab Israelis on Friday. Netanyahu quickly condemned that attack, a sign of concerns that it could trigger further violence. Abbas has spoken out against violence and in favor of "peaceful, popular resistance", but many Palestinian youths are frustrated with his leadership. Israeli police have struggled to prevent demonstrations among the country's Arab population from deteriorating into violence. About 1,500 people reportedly demonstrated in northern city Nazareth on Saturday. Police said dozens of youths set alight rubbish bins and threw stones at security forces. Police also detained five Jews from the northern coastal city of Netanya who chanted "Death to Arabs" during a clash with Arabs from nearby town of Taibe on Thursday.

Egypt, France Sign Warships Deal as PM Starts Arab Tour
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 10/15/Egypt signed a deal with France Saturday to buy two Mistral warships originally ordered by Russia as French Prime Minister Manuel Valls began an Arab tour. Valls arrived in Cairo at the start of visits to three Arab nations aimed at boosting economic ties and holding talks on regional conflicts. On September 23, French President Francois Hollande announced he had agreed the sale of the warships with his Egyptian counterpart, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. After Valls and Sisi met in Cairo Saturday, a member of the French premier's delegation told Agence France Presse the deal had now been signed. France originally built the Mistrals for Russia before scrapping their sale over the Ukraine crisis. The vessels, which can each carry 16 helicopters, four landing craft and 13 tanks, were ordered by Russia in 2011 in a 1.2-billion-euro ($1.4 billion) deal. However, France found itself in an awkward situation in 2014 as ties between Russia and the West deteriorated over Moscow's annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine. Paris decided to cancel the delivery in an expensive decision, as it had to foot a bill of more than one billion euros for the ships' upkeep and the cost of training 400 Russian sailors to crew them.After months of intense talks, Paris and Moscow agreed on the reimbursement of the original deal in August, with Paris returning 949.7 million euros that Russia had already paid. According to French government sources, Egypt is to pay 950 million euros for the warships, with "significant" financing from Saudi Arabia. In February, Egypt became the first foreign buyer of France's Rafale fighters, in a 5.2-billion-euro deal for 24 of the multi-role combat jets and a frigate.
'Egypt's essential role'
The Mistrals will be delivered in early March, and the contract provides for four months training in France for some 400 Egyptian sailors, the defence ministry in Paris said in September. The contract illustrates the rapprochement Paris has had with the regime of former army chief Sisi, who ousted elected Islamist president Mohamed Morsi in 2013 and has since cracked down on his supporters and on all opposition. Hollande has invoked what he called Cairo's essential role in the fight against extremism in the Middle East, particularly against the Islamic State group, whose local branch has staged many deadly attacks in Egypt since 2013. Apart from arms deals, Egypt has also expressed interest in extending the Cairo metro, which was largely built by French companies, and in satellite communications deals. The conflict in Syria and Russia's dramatic military intervention, as well as escalating Israeli-Palestinian violence, are also set to figure high in Valls' talks in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. On Sunday, the premier is due to meet Sheikh Ahmad al-Tayeb, the grand imam of Cairo's Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam. Travelling on to Jordan, where France has deployed fighter bombers used to strike the IS in Iraq and Syria, Valls will meet Iraqi Christian refugees in the country, which has taken in 650,000 Syrians fleeing war. Accompanied by Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and a high-ranking business delegation, he is to travel on to Saudi Arabia late Monday.
On Tuesday he is due to have talks with King Salman, in a meeting during which the premier's office said he will request "a gesture of pardon, humanity and clemency" for a young Shiite, Ali al-Nimr, sentenced to death for taking part in 2012 demonstrations. He will also attend a Franco-Saudi business forum in Riyadh in which 200 companies are taking part.

Jordan Parliament Accuses Israel of 'State Terrorism'
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 10/15/The Jordanian parliament Saturday accused Israel of "state terrorism" against the Palestinian people after its forces shot dead seven Gazans and wounded more than 140 others in the coastal strip. "The Israeli enemy, sapping the rights of the Palestinians on their own lands... and over their holy places, is exercising state terrorism before the eyes of the whole world," parliament charged in a statement carried by state news agency Petra. The legislators in Jordan, one of only two Arab countries along with Egypt to have a peace treaty with Israel, condemned "the crimes committed by Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza". After several days of deadly clashes in the West Bank and Israel, violence spread Friday to the Gaza Strip, where seven Palestinians were killed and 145 wounded in border clashes with the army. The Palestinian casualties were the result of "barbaric and racist" Israeli military actions that violated international and humanitarian laws, the MPs charged. They accused the international community of "not lifting a finger to halt these racist and detestable policies that are pushing the region and world towards more violence and instability". Jordan's Information Minister Mohammed Momani, for his part, warned that the Israeli actions could "destroy all peace efforts in the region".

Limited Options for West after Russia Escalation in Syria
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 10/15/Blind-sided by Russia's sudden escalation in Syria, Western powers must abandon hopes of toppling the regime and instead make do with steering Moscow away from actions that deepen the conflict, analysts say. The strategy of the United States and its allies looked uncertain long before Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to dramatically increase his military involvement in Syria in recent weeks. The West's strategic shortcomings were demonstrated by the disastrous $500-million (440-million-euro) U.S. program to train and arm moderate rebels, which generated only a handful of fighters, many of whom surrendered or were captured almost immediately. The scheme was finally scrapped on Friday. The confusion has looked all the greater since the start of Russia's far more clear-eyed engagement in support of its old ally, President Bashar al-Assad. "The Russian mission is tight and focused around the aim of preserving Assad while the West has had a muddled approach, trying to remove Assad, prevent the rise of extremists and preserve state institutions at the same time," said Julien Barnes-Dacey, Middle East fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Russia has flexed its muscles with repeated air strikes and the launching this week of 26 cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea. "The Russians have shown a naval capacity that was not expected," said Thomas Gomart, head of the French Institute for Foreign Relations. "They are in the process of creating a bubble over Syria and challenging the West's aerial supremacy."The message goes beyond the immediate concerns of the Syrian conflict, he said. Since the Gulf War in 1991, the West has prioritised control of the skies -- a fact that Russia is trying to challenge.
Long-shot hopes
Russia's moves have severely limited the West's options about what to do next in the war-torn country. With Russia's planes in Syrian airspace and its advisors surrounding Assad, any remaining Western hopes of toppling his regime are effectively over for the time being. "There's no desire in the West to go to war with Russia over Syria, and there is a legitimate fear that counter-escalation will only lead to more violence, state breakdown, extremism and refugees," Barnes-Dacey said. "There is no win to be had from making things more difficult for the Russians, when Europe will pay the cost as well."
At the same time, many are worried that Russia's dramatic intervention will boost the strength of the Islamic State group by fuelling jihadist recruitment and decimating other rebel groups that compete with it for dominance.
The West's primary task, then, could be to steer Moscow towards a more constructive involvement in the conflict. "The West must convince the Russians of the complexity of the crisis, the risks of their moves," said Camille Grand, head of the Strategic Research Foundation in Paris. She counts herself among the analysts who feel Putin has bitten off more than he can chew in Syria, and may soon realise that the best move is to rein in Assad's excesses and make an accommodation with the West.
De facto partition
"The long-shot hope is that having secured Assad's position and recognising that total victory is impossible, Moscow will put pressure on the regime to end its barrel bombing of civilians and open up a governance and humanitarian space in outlying areas that can act as an alternative to the jihadist groups," said Barnes-Dacey. Another scenario is that the different powers end up dividing Syria between themselves, with Russia responsible for Assad's "core Syria", while Western countries focus on disrupting the Islamic State group in outlying areas. "Russia has shown no meaningful desire to take on IS and the West will feel compelled to continue its military action against the group, which in many circles is still seen as the main threat to the wider region and world," said Barnes-Dacey. "In a sense Moscow's action may end up clarifying the de facto soft partition of the country that had already been emerging," he added.
With no obvious solution in sight, the West may have to resort to the international grouping that helped seal the deal over Iran's nuclear programme, said Eugene Rumer, head of the Russia and Eurasia Program at Carnegie. "The P5+1 -- the US, Russia, France, Great Britain, China, all UN Security Council permanent members joined by Germany -- is a unique forum where the key parties can come together to seek a way to solve the Syrian crisis. "For the US, the P5+1 format would bring some advantages as well as a measure of compromise. It would insulate the US from the charge of unilateralism and create a real coalition to deal with the crisis whose legitimacy under the UN umbrella would be unassailable."

The time of the assassins in the Middle East
Hisham Melhem/Al Arabiya/October 10/15
This is the time of the assassins in the Middle East. This is the time of the great disruption and the epic unwinding of Syria and Iraq; and for some this is the time that precedes the apocalypse. This is the time of the sectarian avengers who sprouted from a land soaked in the blood of generations of true and fake Sunni and Shiite believers. This is the time of reluctant warriors from the West, and new Crusaders coming this time, from the East, and their potential violent encounter could doom the region and beyond. This is the time of ultraviolence and swift death meted out by the barrel bombs and field artillery of the usurpers of power in the once glorious cities of Damascus and Baghdad, and by the swords of the ‘Islamic State’, ISIS, and by the bombs and missiles fired by the warplanes of foreign powers in the crowded skies of Syria and Iraq. The unraveling of the state system in some parts of the Middle East, the rise of violent non-state actors beholden to no legitimate authority, the deepening of sectarian schisms, the absence of legitimate accountable institutions, and the desertification of cultural life are made worse by autocratic and despotic local and regional rulers, and a dearth of leadership in nearby Europe.
President Obama’s habit of harping on about America’s limits of power gives the clear impression that his America is no longer willing to be bold. In recent years, American leadership in the Middle East and beyond had oscillated between hubris, overreach and the naïve optimism of George W. Bush and the pretend realism, ineptitude and haplessness of the Barack Obama years. On Syria and to a lesser extent Iraq, Obama’s leadership and pronouncements have been characterized by contradictory approaches, moral vacuity, weakness and downright mendacity. Russia’s military intervention in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime brought to the fore the leadership style of President Vladimir Putin; intelligent, bold and deceitful. Niccoló Machiavelli would be proud. A great prince or ruler, Machiavelli tells us, is cold and unsentimental, who understands the limits of power and its effective and often ruthless application. President Obama’s habit of harping on about America’s limits of power – even when there is no reason for such confessions – gives the clear impression that his America is no longer capable of achieving great successes on its own, or is no longer willing to be bold, and yes, occasionally pay the price of strong leadership if the objectives warrant it.
Doomed to perdition?
Russia’s brazen military expedition in Syria, and the stunning passivity of the Obama administration could only lead to prolonging the agony of the Syrian people and widening the circle of violence. More Syrians will perish in the conflict. Regional powers like Iran are providing arms, advisors and members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps to support the Assad regime on the battlefield, along with auxiliary Shiite militias from Lebanon and Iraq. Other regional powers, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are actively supporting myriad Syrian opposition groups. The marauders of ISIS continue their killings and destruction. The genocide is consuming the people of Syria and their cultural heritage. The terrorists of ISIS pillage villages and towns raping young girls and destroying exquisite pre-Islamic temples and the first Christian churches and monasteries. Syria is dying slowly, and it seems as if the whole world is participating in its ritualistic killing.
No sooner was the first Russian bombardment over, the world realized what many skeptics have feared: The majority of Russia’s attacks were carried out against forces fighting the Assad regime, and not against ISIS. No sooner was the first Russian bombardment over, the world realized what many skeptics have feared: Putin’s real objectives in Syria include attacking the Islamist and nationalist groups in the Idlib region, which had forced Assad’s military to withdraw. The majority of Russia’s attacks were carried out against forces fighting the Assad regime, and not against ISIS. In fact one could see an unwritten collusion between the Russians and ISIS. While the Russian air force was bombing anti-Assad units in the north, ISIS intensified its attacks against the anti-Assad opposition groups in the environs of Aleppo. This was surely one of Putin’s tactical intended consequences.
Machiavelli for beginners
Watching the president and his advisors reacting lackadaisically to Putin’s calculated moves, one is tempted to sending them free copies of Machiavelli’s books, particularly The Prince, in the hope that they would learn something about power, cunning and leadership. From the moment the Russian military buildup started in early September, the Obama administration began to engage in wishful thinking and delusions – and the guessing game commenced. The Obama administration wanted to learn about Russia’s “real intentions” from the Russian themselves, as if Putin did not deceive them throughout last summer when he “assured” Secretary of State John Kerry that Russia was “tired of Assad” and was willing to revive the peace negotiations. It was during those days that the Russian and Iranian high commands were coordinating their military moves in Syria.
Faced with Putin’s new facts on the ground and his humiliating dismissiveness of the ‘deep concerns’ of the Obama administration, the President’s advisors sharpened their pleas with the Russians not to willfully violate Turkey’s airspace, and urging Moscow to seriously discuss with the U.S. technical means to avoid military incidents in the Syrian skies. The President and his men were in denial when they tried to minimize the buildup by saying Russia has had a long military relationship with Syria, that the naval base at Tartus was built during the Soviet era, and that Putin’s move reflected the military weakness of his ally Assad. Then we were told that the Russian intervention will backfire, that it will amount to a “tragic mistake” that will galvanize domestic and international resentment, or that very soon Russia “will begin to suffer from casualties.” All along the U.S. administration kept assuring the Russians that they have a place in the anti-ISIS international coalition.
Embarrassing failure
Once again the Obama administration found itself forced to review and amend its policies and programs regarding the Syrian opposition. The embarrassing failure of the train-and-equip program, which produced a handful of fighters in almost a year and a budget of $500 million, was on Friday put on “operational pause”. A new, less ambitious plan will focus on training leaders of opposition units, arming them and providing them with communications gear so that they can identify ISIS targets that the U.S. Air Force will destroy. This is the third such adjustment, and there is no serious indication that the new program will fare better than the previous ones.Clearly the U.S. administration is flailing in its attempts to respond to Putin’s challenge, and over the collapse of its train-and-equip program. The new program will likely fail, because there is no genuine commitment on the part of President Obama to see the Syrian opposition develop into a serious threat to the Assad regime. Clearly the U.S. administration is flailing in its attempts to respond to Putin’s challenge, and over the collapse of its train-and-equip program. It was reported that the President’s men are reviving the idea of local ceasefires as a way to de-escalate the violence and suffering, in the absence of a political process. These ceasefires have been tried with very limited success, and their adoption means a resignation to Assad remaining in power indefinitely. Every combatant has a strategy – with the exception of the United States. A lot has been written about Russia’s real goals in Syria. Putin is reasserting Russia’s influence in the Middle East in collaboration with Syria, Iran and Iraq – and doing so at the expense of Washington. He is already a political and military player in Syria and will be crucial for any outcome to the conflict. Iraq is thinking of inviting the Russian Air Force to help in the war against ISIS. Egypt, another erstwhile ally of the United States, has supported Russia’s military intervention in Syria wholeheartedly. Iran has a clear strategy: It wants to protect its extensive interests in Syria and by extension Lebanon. Iran will continue to invest in the Shiite communities in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, and is willing to participate directly and through its proxies to defend these interests. Even a weak Assad has a strategy: to remain in power regardless of his status as a vassal. Russia’s higher profile could help Assad tactically, since it could lessen his total dependence on the Iranians. And of course, the pretend Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a strategy: To wallow in so much nihilistic violence, to draw more foreign fighters and usher in the apocalyptic battle of end times in the town of Dabiq, northern Syria. Last week President Obama was dismissive of all those former senior officials who worked with him in his first term, and of the Syrian scholars and opposition leaders who over the years proposed options that differ from his own policy, as “half-baked ideas” and “mumbo-jumbo”. The tragic reality is that everything President Obama pursued in Syria was “half-baked” and sounded like “mumbo-jumbo”. Denigrating his critics, who proposed realistic plans for safe zones or no-fly zones, and working with opposition groups already battling ISIS, will not alter the fact that the price of his dithering and inaction will be borne by the peoples of the region.
The immovable object
Syria will continue to bleed and die slowly, in a region bereft of hope and salvation, while hurtling itself with breakneck speed towards the abyss.
During the presidency of Barack Obama, the Middle East has undergone a great unraveling of epic proportions. The leaders of countries like Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen led their societies to mass slaughter, and the once-great powers either fanned the flames, or were unwilling or unable to stop the conflagration. In the case of President Obama, it shall be written that he failed to honor his promises to the Syrians, or to act on his threats. President Obama endured setbacks in Syria, was subjected to fierce criticism because of his inaction which contributed to that country’s torment, and he is still suffering from Putin’s humiliations. But Obama has developed an impenetrable immune system against any moral appeal to his higher angels. On Syria Obama is like an immovable object. His willful blindness is there to see in all of its scarred nakedness. Syria will continue to bleed and die slowly, in a region bereft of hope and salvation, while hurtling itself with breakneck speed towards the abyss. This is indeed the time of the assassins.

U.S.-Russian confrontation in our region
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/October 10/15
During last Thursday’s U.S. Senate hearing tackling military and political affairs, experts unanimously agreed that by interfering in Syria, Russia has become a growing danger to the United States in terms of influence and interests. They also agreed that Russia is posing a threat to the security of the Middle East. One of the experts described what is happening as “dangerous”, recalling that Russia has never fought outside its areas of influence, not even during the Cold War. Washington’s problem lies in the terrible deal it signed with Tehran and that has turned into a Trojan horse for the Russians. In fact, the U.S. losses are much greater than that. The current U.S. policy has pushed its allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Kuwait to sign military agreements with Moscow, which showcases an unprecedented downgrade in the relations with Washington. The reason behind this downgrade is that these countries were forced to reconcile with Moscow when Washington showed no interest in them, not to mention that the U.S. got into an alliance that is against the Gulf states – namely the nuclear program deal with Iran. The hearing revealed that the military activity of Russia repeatedly violated European airspace last year, and is now violating the airspace of Turkey, which is a member state of NATO.
Just the beginning
The Russian military intervention in the Middle East, after the Crimea occupation, might not be the end of the alarming scenario for the West; it is probably just the beginning. It is clear that Moscow strives for deployment and expansion, imposing its position and growing its relations at the expense of the United States. During the past six years, the U.S. has deliberately distanced itself from the region, especially in Iraq, the Gulf and Egypt. Washington has taken further negative steps in refusing all appeals from Arab allies to cooperate against the massacres committed by the Assad regime in Syria. What made things even worse was when Washington did nothing when Iran and Hezbollah sent thousands of fighters to Syria. The Arab allies of the United States are clearly seeing now how the U.S. is begging the Iraqi government not to reduce its security in Baghdad’s green zone, thus revealing an American weakness for the first time since the 1960s. The Americans are military stronger than the Russians, but the politics of the current American administration have been established on avoiding wars and staying away from regional conflicts. It has also rejected all calls urging it to take part in the conflicts in Syria, Libya and Yemen, as well as in Sub-Saharan Africa after the kidnapping of the Nigerian schoolgirls by Boko Haram. The U.S. took all its time and was really late in participating in the Iraqi war against ISIS.
The biggest mistake
With the Russian expansion, the Americans have suddenly raised their voices to condemn these regressive politics and are asking to reconsider the strategy of confrontation with the Kremlin. In my opinion, Washington has committed its biggest mistake in Iran, not in Syria. The thought of reaching a nuclear deal has put constraints on the U.S. and not Iran. Indeed, Americans have avoided confronting Iranians whom have dared to militarily expand in Iraq and Syria; an expansion that served the Russians at the expense of American interests, as we can see it today.
The U.S. will not be able to militarily confront Russia because the legal justifications of such a confrontation are missing in the absence of a decision from the Security Council. Moreover, the U.S. has not established a group that can take its defense or protect its legitimacy, and the Iraqi government is no longer listening to Washington’s objections and will surely refuse to grant the U.S. legitimacy with regards to the Russians on its soil. Therefore, Washington’s problem lies in the terrible deal it signed with Tehran and that has turned into a Trojan horse for the Russians since they are on the same team as Iran in Iraq and Syria, in addition to cooperating together in different regions in Afghanistan against American interests and their traditional allies.

Assad, ISIS and Russia: A symbiotic relationship of destruction
Mohamed Chebarro/Al Arabiya/October 10/15
The continued destruction in Palmyra by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is further proof of its barbarity. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s latest interview with an Iranian TV channel falls into the same category, as he warned that the Middle East would be destroyed if Russian military intervention in his country failed. ISIS’s destruction of historic monuments, and Assad’s killing his own people, are two sides of the same coin. He told Iranian TV that the world should accept Russia's involvement in Syria because the “stupid” Western intervention has failed to defeat ISIS. The interview coincided with the destruction of the iconic arch in Palmyra. Unlike his previous recent interviews, Assad looked like he had just won another lifeline. For him, Russian bombing is a necessity, and is likely to succeed where the U.S.-led coalition has failed. This has led to a sense by some that the Assad regime should be rehabilitated, despite it having killed more than 250,000 Syrians and displacing more than 11 million. Throughout the conflict, Syrians - most of whom are Sunni Muslim - have been victims of both ISIS and the regime’s many killing machines, be it the army or domestic and foreign militias.
So Assad, in his interview, did not shy away from calling on Washington to walk away from the Middle East, adding that the region would best be secured by a Syrian, Russian, Iranian and Iraqi alliance.
Grim choice
The regime has been killing Syrians for more than four years, and Assad’s repeated message is that they will either face his barrel bombs, ISIS, refugees camps, or the turbulent waters of the Mediterranean. ISIS has been filling the void left in Syria by the regime, and further punishing the population. The destruction in Palmyra is another example of ISIS’s barbarity, yet it should be noted that Assad’s troops withdrew from Palmyra, leaving it and its countryside wide open for ISIS militants. There is nothing better than ISIS to promote indirectly what the regime has been preaching since the start of the Syrian uprising: either the regime, or terror in Syria and the region. Throughout the conflict, Syrians - most of whom are Sunni Muslim - have been victims of both ISIS and the regime’s many killing machines, be it the army or domestic and foreign militias. Observing the conflict closely, and the rhetoric accompanying the arrival of the Russian military, one cannot but notice a symbiotic relationship between Assad and his allies on one hand, and ISIS on the other, to further kill, maim and displace mainly Syrian Sunni Arabs opposed to 40 years of Alawite minority rule. The United States and European Union are mere spectators.

When Obama talks, Putin acts
Eyad Abu Shakra/Al Arabiya/October 10/15
Like many, I listened the other day to Barack Obama talking about the Russian military intervention in Syria. In his talk the American president criticized Vladimir Putin’s refusal to distinguish between the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Syria’s moderate opposition, regarding the Russian president’s escalation a “recipe for disaster”. Truly interesting was the way Obama was speaking, and his cold analytical expose which was more like a lecture in a post-graduate seminar at Harvard than a speech made by the leader of a “superpower”, who is supposed to have a proper strategy in one of the world’s most dangerous hotspots. Obama sounded like an academic analyst who is quite good at diagnosis but astoundingly disinterested in suggesting a treatment; and faced with Russian military presence in an acute and multi-faceted crisis like the Syrian crisis, he looked as if he was not preparing any practical reaction.
A presidential tale
Obama’s lengthy and pointless expose reminded me of an anecdote I had heard from my late grandfather (May God bless his soul) about an incident that took place in pre-independence Lebanon. Then, there was an intense presidential election campaign between the two foremost Maronite Christian leaders: “Sheikh” Bechara El-Khoury of the Constitutional Bloc, and Emile Edde of the National Bloc; both of whom served as president at different times. In the past few days, as president Obama was busy diagnosing, lecturing and analyzing, official sources in Moscow were talking about a four-month campaign in Syria! In those good old days, unlike today, Lebanon actually had a president and presidential elections. Politicians and chieftains of those bygone days used to cooperate, socialize and respect one another. The late prime minister Riad Al-Solh, one of Lebanon’s most capable, charismatic and wittiest leaders, took charge of the campaign of “Sheikh” Bechara, his ally and friend; and when he realized that the outcome could be decided by one or two votes in the Parliament, he mobilized his team and tried to secure any potentially winnable vote. Soon enough Al-Solh was told that Elias T. Skaf, popular leader and MP of Zahle (Lebanon’s largest Christian town) was still uncommitted, so he dispatched to him one of his assistants who was both a fellow MP and a personal friend of Skaf. The emissary, whose name was Amine, immediately left for Zahle to meet with Skaf; and after a sojourn of a few hours returned to Beirut to report back to Solh. At Solh’s house all the Constitutional Bloc’s campaign machine was anxiously waiting, led by the host who rushed to meet and ask him about the outcome. “Yes, I met Elias Bey” Amine replied. “I told him how great and patriotic ‘Sheikh’ Bechara is, and how much we need him as president. I added that he is also a reliable friend and a magnanimous leader, who knows no fear in defense of what he believes to be right”.
Solh interjected “Bless you, Amine Bey, and then what?”
Amine returned to his “Obamaesque” narrative and continued: “I told him too that ‘Sheikh’ Bechara also enjoys great respect in the Arab countries and with the great international powers; in addition to his vast popularity within Lebanon, its every region and religious community.” Again Solh had to stop him, by thanking him and gently prodding him to come up with the much hoped for reply. Unperturbed, Amine went on: “I then told Elias Bey that ‘Sheikh’ Bechara is loyal and never forgets those who stand with him. And he is also a man of experience, as well as a legal authority …”Highly frustrated, Solh could take no more, so he cut him short by saying: “My dear Amine Bey all this is fine, but what I really want to know is what Elias Bey said.” To this the emissary replied: “Well, he said that he had already given a pledge to Edde that he would support him, and he won’t break his pledge!”
With a bitter smile Solh looked at those present and said “Well, that’s it then. Let’s go and congratulate Emile Edde!”
‘Know nothing, do nothing’
This is exactly what is happening to Syria now between Obama’s eloquent speeches and impressive analysis for more than four years; and Putin’s actions including, Security Council’s vetoes, arms supplies to Bashar Al-Assad’s regime, a nuclear alliance with Iran, and now an active involvement of the Russian air force in supporting Assad’s regime and Iran’s militias against Syria’s moderate opposition. Even Michael Fallon, the British defense secretary, said in an interview that “initial Ministry of Defense intelligence suggested only one in 20 Russian airstrikes (in Syria) so far were targeting ISIS”.
He added “We’re analyzing where the strikes are going every morning…the vast majority are not against ISIS at all”, and talked of civilian casualties. Furthermore, Moscow has said openly it is liaising with the “legitimate” regime’s army, and exchanging operational data with it. This comes, of course, after Putin’s saying that “there is no difference between ISIS and any armed Syrian opposition groups”.In the past few days, as president Obama was busy diagnosing, lecturing and analyzing, official sources in Moscow were talking about a four-month campaign in Syria!
Sure there are those who continue to insist that Washington indeed has a strategy but is still waiting for the right time to announce and implement it. I have also heard that Washington is actually intentionally pushing Moscow into a quagmire in the Middle East which will be a “second Afghanistan” this time round for Putin. Both points may be true, simply because the current “know nothing, do nothing” policy is too ludicrous to believe. If an example is ever needed, go no further than what Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, commander of U.S. Central Command, told the U.S. Senate armed services committee that the $500 million effort to train Syrian forces against ISIS has resulted in only “four or five” fighters actively battling the terrorist group. Not far behind, in terms of “incredulity,” is president Obama’s “discovery” that had it not been for Iranian and Russian support, Assad would have been toppled. After more than four and a half years of bloodshed in Syria, it is sad that Obama feels he has to say this, more so, after just agreeing a nuclear deal with Iran.
As for the alleged “quagmire” Washington has in store for Putin in the shape of a “second Afghanistan”, let us only recall what the “first Afghanistan” produced for America and the world!

How Obama Ushered in the New Age of Christian Martyrdom
Raymond Ibrahim/Gatestone Institute/October 10/15
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6661/obama-christian-martyrdom
"Do you realize what you have done?" — Vladimir Putin, President of Russia
Everywhere that U.S. leadership helped Islamic jihadis topple secular autocrats in the name of "democracy and freedom," indigenous Christian minorities are forced either to convert to Islam or die.
Many are accepting death.
Most recently, on August 28 near Aleppo, the Islamic State (IS or ISIS) tortured, mutilated, publicly raped, beheaded and crucified 12 Christians for saying they "would never renounce Christ" for Muhammad.
The jihadis took one group in front of a large crowd. They cut off the fingertips of a 12-year-old boy, who steadfastly refused to submit to Islam. They "severely beat him, telling his father they would stop the torture only if he, the father, returned to Islam." He refused, so they "also tortured and beat him and the two other ministry workers. The three men and the boy then met their deaths in crucifixion."
According to a Christian leader associated with the martyrs, "They were left on their crosses for two days. No one was allowed to remove them." A sign saying "INFIDELS" was placed next to their crosses.
The other eight Christians, including two women, aged 29 and 33, were also ordered to renounce Christ and embrace Islam before a large crowd. When they refused,
"The Islamic extremists then publicly raped the women, who continued to pray during the ordeal, leading the ISIS militants to beat them all the more furiously.
"As the two women and the six men knelt before they were beheaded, they were all praying.
"'Villagers said some were praying in the name of Jesus, others said some were praying the Lord's prayer, and others said some of them lifted their heads to commend their spirits to Jesus,' the ministry director said. "One of the women looked up and seemed to be almost smiling as she said, 'Jesus!'"
"After they were beheaded, their bodies were hung on crosses, the ministry director said."
The same is happening in the two other Arab nations where the U.S., under the pretext of "freedom and democracy," overthrew the secular dictators who had long kept a lid on the jihadis: Libya and Iraq.
Late last year, Andrew White, an Anglican priest known as the "Vicar of Baghdad," recounted the horrific atrocities against Christians in Iraq -- including seeing their children chopped in half for refusing to embrace Islam:
"ISIS turned up and they said to the [Christian] children, 'You say the words [shehada, convert to Islam], that you will follow Muhammad.' And the children, all under 15, four of them, they said, 'No, we love Jesus [Yesua]. We have always loved Jesus. We have always followed Jesus. Jesus has always been with us." They [ISIS] said, 'Say the words!' They [children] said, 'No, we can't.' [White starts sobbing] They chopped all their heads off. How do you respond to that? You just cry. They are my children. That is what we have been going through. That is what we are going through."
Targeting Christian children in Iraq goes back to soon after the ousting of Saddam Hussein. In June 2008, a Canadian parliamentary committee heard about how "militant Muslims" were crucifying Christian children: "Since the war began in 2003, about 12 children, many as young as 10, have been kidnapped and killed, then nailed to makeshift crosses near their homes to terrify and torment their parents."
In one of his Facebook postings, White, who regularly posted pictures of Christian martyrs, wrote:
"The photo I was sent today was the most awful I have ever seen. A family of 8 all shot through the face lying in a pool of blood, with their Bible open on the couch. They would not convert. It cost them their life."
White also told of how ISIS members came to a Christian man and said, "Either you convert to Islam or we kill all your children." The father, in desperation, declared the shehada: "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah," thus becoming a Muslim. He then phoned White:
"Abouna, abouna [father, father] I said the words! Does that mean Jesus doesn't love me anymore? I have always loved Jesus but I said those words because I couldn't see my children being killed!"
"No Elias," White said. "Jesus still loves you -- he will always love you."
There are many historic accounts of Christians slaughtered for refusing to renounce Christ for Muhammad -- whether 100,000 Georgians beheaded or burned alive, or a "mere" 813 Italians decapitated, or else "converting out of fear. A report, for instance, from Medieval Egypt states:
In 1389, a great procession of Copts who had accepted Muhammad under fear of death, marched through Cairo. Repenting of their apostasy, they now wished to atone for it by...returning to Christianity. So as they marched, they announced that they believed in Christ and renounced Muhammad. They were seized and all the men were beheaded one after another in an open square before the women. But this did not terrify the women; so they, too, were all martyred (Crucified Again, pgs. 113-114).
In Libya, earlier this year, the Islamic State released a video depicting 21 Coptic Christians being decapitated in the North African nation. While holding their victims' bodies down, Islamic State members shoved their fingers in the Christians' eyes, craned their heads back, and sliced away at their throats with knives. As with the recent public rape, beheading, and crucifixion of the 12 Christians near Aleppo, some of the Egyptian Christians were also seen praying to Christ. One Coptic priest later described the scene:
"The name of Jesus was their last word... With that name, whispered at the very last, their martyrdom was sealed.
ISIS terrorists prepare to murder 21 Egyptian Christians in Libya, February 2015.
Over one month before the video appeared, the BBC had falsely reported that the majority of those now slaughtered Copts were "released." Sadly, such downplaying of Muslim persecution of Christians is standard for the BBC.
When the Islamic State released another video in April of more Christians in Libya being massacred, a masked IS spokesman addressed "Christians everywhere":
"We say to Christians everywhere, the Islamic State will expand, with Allah's permission. And it will reach you even if you are in fortified strongholds. So whoever enters Islam will have security... But whoever refuses will see nothing from us but the edge of a spear. The men will be killed and the children will be enslaved, and their wealth will be taken as booty. This is the judgment of Allah and His Messenger."
The next scene portrays the captive Ethiopian Christians being shot in the back of the head or having their heads carved off.
The ongoing slaughter of Christians by the Islamic State, and the destruction of churches and antiquities, must be laid at the feet of those Western nations that, intentionally or unintentionally, paved the way for the Islamic State.
As Russian President Vladimir Putin recently said before the United Nations, while addressing those nations that supported the "Arab Spring" -- chief among them America:
Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster -- and nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life. I cannot help asking those who have forced that situation: Do you realize what you have done?
Whether they realize it or not, they continue to do it in Syria -- with Christians often paying the highest price.[1]
Raymond Ibrahim, author of "Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians," is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum
[1] Aside from the Islamic State's slaughter of Christians who refuse to convert to Islam, Muslim individuals, mobs, terrorists, and governments all around the world have been known to try to force Christians to convert, sometimes on pain of death:
Gaza Strip: Christians in Gaza protested over the "kidnappings and forced conversions of some former believers to Islam." The ever-dwindling Christian community banged on a church bell while chanting, "With our spirit, with our blood we will sacrifice ourselves for you, Jesus."
Pakistan: In 2004, a two-year-old child was raped because her Christian father "refused to convert to Islam." Another "devoted Christian" was butchered by Muslim men "with multiple axe blows [24, according to the autopsy] for refusing to convert to Islam." In April 2014, a Muslim security guard murdered a Christian worker who refused to convert to Islam.
Uganda: After a gang of Muslims brandishing machetes stormed a church during service. They hacked one 18-year-old woman to death and left three others, including a one-year-old baby, injured. The pastor explained that the attackers belong to a local "group of Muslims" who seek "to transform [Christian-majority] Uganda into an Islamic nation and would kill anyone who refused to convert."
Nigeria: A Christian teenage girl told how Boko Haram came to her household and slaughtered her father and brother because they refused to convert to Islam. After abusing her, they tied her up and left her in a state of shock between the two corpses.
Bangladesh: After shutting down the construction of a church, a local government official threatened Christians with eviction from their village unless they renounced their faith and embraced Islam. Said one of the Christians: "Their threats chilled me to the bone. That is why I pretended to accept Islam, but faith in Christ is the wellspring of my life." Another said: "The chairman is clipping the wings of our faith. I do not know how long we can grin and bear it. We want religious freedom. We want to practice our religion freely."
Russia: In Tatarstan, a Muslim-majority republic in Russia, seven churches were burned and "increased pressure on Christians to convert to Islam" was widespread.
Uzbekistan: A 26-year-old Christian woman, partially paralyzed from youth, and her elderly mother were violently attacked by invaders who ransacked their home, confiscating "icons, Bibles, religious calendars, and prayer books." At the police department, the paralyzed woman was "offered to convert to Islam." She refused and was accordingly fined almost two years' worth of her wages.

Saudi-Russian Oil Dialogue After Syria
Middle East Briefing/October 10/15
http://mebriefing.com/?p=1968&utm_source=MEB+VOL+-+III_+Issue+98+September+2015&utm_campaign=VOL+III+-+Issue+98&utm_medium=email
The main question now in the oil market is if tension between Saudi Arabia and Russia will restrain talks on coordinated production policies. The answer to this question may be available only in the short term. In a longer term, however, there are no clear answers available. What is available there is more questions.
According to information obtained from main investment firms in the region, Riyadh liquidated at least $50 bn. of its investment portfolios abroad during the last 6 months in order to fill the gap of its budget and to finance military operations in Yemen. Saudi financial reserves, invested in several forms and funds, declined by around 10% during the year ending last August. These reserves are estimated currently at $660 bn.
The structural rigidity of the Saudi economy leaves little room to compensate for the reduced oil revenues if the Kingdom’s social welfare expenses are to be preserved. On the other hand, reducing these expenses in the current regional environment would be a risky proposition. Expenses related to security cannot be reduced neither in view of the challenges facing the Kingdom in the current regional turmoil.
Nonetheless, the Kingdom’s finances are far from being threatened. It has enough to carry on for few years. Yet, the decline in reserves is causing an understandable degree of concern in Riyadh. This degree of concern, though not acute, paves the road towards a serious consideration of the current production policy and puts pressure in order to coordinate with other producers, namely Russia.
This coordination faces serious challenges. There is, first, the Iranian and Iraqi output which is expected to increase steadily in the very short term. Second, estimates of increased demand next year seems to regional producers as optimistic and they are not significant enough to cope with the potential increase in production. Third, the bitter rivalry between Iran, hence Iraq, and Saudi Arabia reached a too high level to allow rational coordination between the two countries. Fourth, there is the recent Russian involvement in the Syrian crisis. This involvement is causing a substantial surge in anti-Russian sentiments in Saudi Arabia which in turn maybe reflected on the current talks between the two powers or in calls to reach an arrangement with them.
Chances of any success in the current Saudi-Russian talks depend mainly on the extent of self-motivation in Riyadh. If this factor is to balance the current electrified atmosphere in the relation of the two countries due to Syria, there might be a positive conclusion for the ongoing negotiations between the oil ministries in the two countries.
Riyadh has, at this critical moment, different views on the table of discussions within the oil official circles:
There has been a view that Russia should be given membership in OPEC. According to the head of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, the idea was discussed during the months of August and September of this year.
Another idea is that relations with Russia should be limited to coordinating production for a specific period of time. There is concern that Saudi Arabia may lose its usual role as a swing producer if Russia is allowed into OPEC. Opponents of the idea go as far as warning that such a step will dilute the role of the Cartel and will force it later into a fragmentation between clusters of producers. They claim that allowing Russia into OPEC makes the organization irrelevant.
A third view warns that in any case prices will recover slowly and the benefits of coordinating with the Russians would gradually be reduced. This view does not oppose coordination, but opposes taking this coordination beyond the limits previously explored during other periods of low prices.
The fourth view goes as far as rejecting coordination with the Russians at this moment. The impact on shale oil producers needs a little more time, as they say, and the Kingdom is in a good place financially to bear the consequences of an additional period of low prices.
The debate will be settled by a complex set of factors. Although the kingdom succeeded in relatively separating economic policies and strategic political considerations, the two sides are not totally separated. The effects of concerns about using the from reserves, the level of strategic polarization, the prospects of an impact on prices of coordinating with the Russians, the resilience of the shale energy sector in the US and the extent of the effect of the regional tension within the Kingdom are among the factors that will determine the next Saudi step.
The two proposals that made it to the final line was to talk to the Russians or to postpone this step until the regional intentions of Moscow becomes clearer. Those who call for talks with the Russians support their argument with a history of separation between political considerations and oil policies. They emphasize that it is mainly in the interest of the kingdom that such a dialogue take place.
The opposing view base its argument on the fact that any improvement in prices will be slow anyway. They describe worries about the Kingdom’s reserves as exaggerated and suggest a slow pace in approaching Moscow.
And it is this second camp that is gaining momentum, at least in the short term.

Russia Faces Israel Deconfliction Dilemma
Middle East Briefing/October 10/15
http://mebriefing.com/?p=1967&utm_source=MEB+VOL+-+III_+Issue+98+September+2015&utm_campaign=VOL+III+-+Issue+98&utm_medium=email
The Netanyahu government in Israel is deeply disturbed by the unfolding situation in Syria and the lack of a solid understanding with Russia over how to deal with the ongoing threat from Hezbollah and Hamas. On Tuesday, Oct. 6, a Russian military delegation, led by Deputy Chief of Staff Nikolai Bogdanovsky, arrived in Israel to continue talks that began last month in Moscow, when Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot visited the Russian capital to confer with President Vladimir Putin and Valery Gerasimov.
While the Russians and Israelis announced they would establish a working group at the general staff level, significant disagreements remained after the Moscow talks, and there is skepticism that the issues have been resolved during the Russian delegation’s visit to Israel.
In the Moscow talks, Netanyahu sought Russian approval for Israel to continue military operations inside Syrian territory, whenever Israel got intelligence on weapons convoys moving towards the Lebanese border. The Syrian route is one of the primary channels for the smuggling of Iranian weapons into Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. Putin outright rejected Israel’s blanket authorization to continue air operations against Hezbollah inside Syrian territory. He pledged, instead, that Russia would not permit Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel from inside Syria and would not permit Russian weapons to be turned over to Hezbollah. This left an enormous gap between the Israeli demands and the Russian promises. Most of the weapons obtained by Hezbollah and Hamas come from Iran, not Russia. Syria is known to be the storage depot for components of advanced rockets, which are smuggled into Lebanon and Gaza and are then assembled.
In the second round of negotiations in Israel, Netanyahu and the IDF leadership made clear that they consider it a high national security priority to have a free hand to block weapons smuggling into Lebanon and Gaza from Syria. Israel will not accept any deal that falls short of ironclad promises that the smuggling routes will be verifiably shut down.
Israel has already conducted reconnaissance sorties into airspace along the Syrian-Lebanese border, profiling for weak spots that can be penetrated. In one instance, Russian MIGs chased Israeli F-16s out.
Pentagon planners in Washington know that the deconfliction deal between Russia and Israel is a vital element of the overall conflict-avoidance architecture now being put in place, and they are deeply worried that the Israel-Russia dispute can blow apart the entire situation, regardless of the level of cooperation achieved between the US and Russian militaries. There is no doubt among Washington national security planners that Israel will take whatever actions it deems necessary to prevent the expansion of Hezbollah and Hamas capabilities to attack Israel with devastating rocket and missile assaults.
Among the proposals on the table when the Russian delegation sat down with IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Yair Golan and top officials from Israeli military intelligence and the IDF Air Force: Israel would provide Russia with actionable intelligence against rebel forces in Syria, in return for permission for the IDF to carry out bombing runs against Hezbollah arms caravans crossing Syrian territory into Lebanon. Israel would provide advance warning to Russian military officials before launching any such actions.
From Israel’s standpoint, such a deal would be a win-win proposition. It would give Israel a leg up on Iran, as a source of intelligence for Russia’s military operations inside Syria, and it would put pressure on Russia to block Hezbollah from conducting any actions against Israel for the duration of the Russian military operations inside Syria. Israel would be a de facto stakeholder in the future of Syria, whatever the outcome of the new phase of combat and diplomacy.
From the Russian standpoint, such a deal would mean that Israel is neutralized as a border factor. In order to combat what all Israeli factions view as the greatest threat—Iran and Hezbollah—Israel had been providing limited support to some Syrian rebel factions, including some units affiliated with the Nusra Front, to keep Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps forces out of the border region. Israel could move to take control over larger portions of the Golan Heights as part of an enhanced security buffer zone.
Russian-Israeli relations have always been close (historically, the Soviet Union was the first country to recognize the State of Israel). But in their Moscow talks, Putin made clear to Netanyahu that the one million-plus Israeli citizens of Russian descent are a voting bloc that he can influence. Avigdor Lieberman, who was once a close Netanyahu ally, serving as his chief of staff and later as his foreign minister, has broken from the Likud leader and could, at some point, help bring Netanyahu down.

Russia Faces Israel Deconfliction Dilemma
Middle East Briefing/October 10/15
http://mebriefing.com/?p=1967&utm_source=MEB+VOL+-+III_+Issue+98+September+2015&utm_campaign=VOL+III+-+Issue+98&utm_medium=email
The Netanyahu government in Israel is deeply disturbed by the unfolding situation in Syria and the lack of a solid understanding with Russia over how to deal with the ongoing threat from Hezbollah and Hamas. On Tuesday, Oct. 6, a Russian military delegation, led by Deputy Chief of Staff Nikolai Bogdanovsky, arrived in Israel to continue talks that began last month in Moscow, when Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot visited the Russian capital to confer with President Vladimir Putin and Valery Gerasimov.
While the Russians and Israelis announced they would establish a working group at the general staff level, significant disagreements remained after the Moscow talks, and there is skepticism that the issues have been resolved during the Russian delegation’s visit to Israel.
In the Moscow talks, Netanyahu sought Russian approval for Israel to continue military operations inside Syrian territory, whenever Israel got intelligence on weapons convoys moving towards the Lebanese border. The Syrian route is one of the primary channels for the smuggling of Iranian weapons into Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. Putin outright rejected Israel’s blanket authorization to continue air operations against Hezbollah inside Syrian territory. He pledged, instead, that Russia would not permit Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel from inside Syria and would not permit Russian weapons to be turned over to Hezbollah. This left an enormous gap between the Israeli demands and the Russian promises. Most of the weapons obtained by Hezbollah and Hamas come from Iran, not Russia. Syria is known to be the storage depot for components of advanced rockets, which are smuggled into Lebanon and Gaza and are then assembled.
In the second round of negotiations in Israel, Netanyahu and the IDF leadership made clear that they consider it a high national security priority to have a free hand to block weapons smuggling into Lebanon and Gaza from Syria. Israel will not accept any deal that falls short of ironclad promises that the smuggling routes will be verifiably shut down.
Israel has already conducted reconnaissance sorties into airspace along the Syrian-Lebanese border, profiling for weak spots that can be penetrated. In one instance, Russian MIGs chased Israeli F-16s out.
Pentagon planners in Washington know that the deconfliction deal between Russia and Israel is a vital element of the overall conflict-avoidance architecture now being put in place, and they are deeply worried that the Israel-Russia dispute can blow apart the entire situation, regardless of the level of cooperation achieved between the US and Russian militaries. There is no doubt among Washington national security planners that Israel will take whatever actions it deems necessary to prevent the expansion of Hezbollah and Hamas capabilities to attack Israel with devastating rocket and missile assaults.
Among the proposals on the table when the Russian delegation sat down with IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Yair Golan and top officials from Israeli military intelligence and the IDF Air Force: Israel would provide Russia with actionable intelligence against rebel forces in Syria, in return for permission for the IDF to carry out bombing runs against Hezbollah arms caravans crossing Syrian territory into Lebanon. Israel would provide advance warning to Russian military officials before launching any such actions.
From Israel’s standpoint, such a deal would be a win-win proposition. It would give Israel a leg up on Iran, as a source of intelligence for Russia’s military operations inside Syria, and it would put pressure on Russia to block Hezbollah from conducting any actions against Israel for the duration of the Russian military operations inside Syria. Israel would be a de facto stakeholder in the future of Syria, whatever the outcome of the new phase of combat and diplomacy.
From the Russian standpoint, such a deal would mean that Israel is neutralized as a border factor. In order to combat what all Israeli factions view as the greatest threat—Iran and Hezbollah—Israel had been providing limited support to some Syrian rebel factions, including some units affiliated with the Nusra Front, to keep Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps forces out of the border region. Israel could move to take control over larger portions of the Golan Heights as part of an enhanced security buffer zone.
Russian-Israeli relations have always been close (historically, the Soviet Union was the first country to recognize the State of Israel). But in their Moscow talks, Putin made clear to Netanyahu that the one million-plus Israeli citizens of Russian descent are a voting bloc that he can influence. Avigdor Lieberman, who was once a close Netanyahu ally, serving as his chief of staff and later as his foreign minister, has broken from the Likud leader and could, at some point, help bring Netanyahu down.

Washington and Moscow Begin Complex Syria Talks
Middle East Briefing/October 10/15
http://mebriefing.com/?p=1966&utm_source=MEB+VOL+-+III_+Issue+98+September+2015&utm_campaign=VOL+III+-+Issue+98&utm_medium=email
The United States and Russia have begun complex negotiations on the future of Syria, with no clear indication at this time where they will lead. The talks are being conducted on three tracks.
have initiated talks with Russian counterparts on “deconfliction.” The objectives are to work out rules of engagement to avoid a direct clash between Russian and American forces operating inside Syrian territory. The talks, on the surface, are technical: establishing hot line communications, providing advanced information on planned combat operations to avoid any incidents, and, at a future point, potentially working out plans for joint combat operations against the Islamic State. The latter possibility is for the future.
Secretary of State John Kerry is pursuing a second, diplomatic track with his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. The two men have established a strong working relationship over years of negotiating the P5+1 deal with Iran and the effort to de-escalate the Ukraine crisis. The depth of their personal relationship is a potentially useful platform for working on a political solution to the four-and-a-half year Syrian conflict. This is, however, as complex as the deconfliction efforts underway between the Pentagon and the Russian Ministry of Defense. The United States and Russia share some objectives, including the idea of maintaining Syria as a unified state, with strong institutions and a secular orientation. But those goals may already be impossible, given the degree to which Syria has broken apart into sectarian enclaves of Kurds, Alawites, Sunnis, Shia and some few remaining Christians.
Furthermore, the US allies in the region have a different agenda than Washington and Moscow, and hold many powerful cards in the ongoing conflict. Nevertheless, Kerry and Lavrov are actively pursuing a Moscow-3 negotiating track, which in fact offers the only option for a settlement.
Russian leaders were taken aback by the sharp reaction by Saudi Arabia and Turkey to the deployment of Russian forces and advanced weaponry into Syria. Given the long Turkish-Syrian border, the US-Russian deconfliction negotiations are but one track. Russia must also negotiate rules of conduct with an angry Turkey and an angry Israel. While the US and Russia have so far avoided any incidents in the skies over Syria, there have been already incidents between Russian and Turkish fighter planes near the border, and at least one incident has been reported involving Israeli Air Force fighter planes that engaged with Russian Su-34s and were chased out of Syrian-Lebanese air space. Pentagon analysts have concluded that the greatest danger of an incident between Russian and Coalition forces is on the Turkish border, where Turkish pilots are known for their aggressive actions, and where Russian fighter jets may begin providing air cover for Kurdish militias fighting the Islamic State.
The third track of negotiations are the most sensitive of all. Various Obama Administration officials are trying to get a full picture of Russian intentions in Syria. If Russian President Vladimir Putin’s primary objective is to prop up the Bashar Assad regime, Russian forces will likely target Western-backed rebel groups, including the Free Syrian Army, largely made up of defectors from the Syrian Army who are Syrian nationals and do not subscribe to the Salafist ideology.
The Pentagon and the CIA are assessing reports that as many as 2-3,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah ground troops are coming into Syria to boost the exhausted Syrian Army and to take advantage of the new Russian air support. If these reports prove accurate, it could confirm that Russia is out to bolster Assad’s grip on power by taking back territory now in the hands of rebel forces.
The Pentagon is also demanding clarification from both Moscow and Baghdad about the newly formed information center in the Iraqi capital, which involves Syria, Russia, Iran and Iraq. Will Russia begin combat operations in Iraq? So far, Lavrov has insisted to Kerry that Russia will not set foot in Iraq. Furthermore, the information center could further enhance Iran’s grip on Iraq, and this is exactly what the Obama Administration intends to prevent. Washington is keenly aware that Iran is insisting that ex-Prime Minister Maliki remains in a key position of power in the Abadi government.
The other concern for the Pentagon about the newly established information center is that most of the intelligence provided to the Iraqi Army comes from US intelligence. While it is possible that Russia will conduct intelligence operations in Iraq and even share that intelligence with the United States, for now, the US DOD sees the intelligence center as one more problem, adding to the complexity of the operations.
Adding to the complexities of the situation since the arrival of the Russian forces, the Obama Administration is facing demands from a bipartisan grouping in Washington to create a no-fly zone in northern Syria, explicitly to block Russian air operations in the area. Among the active proponents of such a no-fly zone are Gen. David Petraeus, who put forward the demand in recent Congressional hearings; Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who is possibly the next Speaker of the House of Representatives; presidential candidates John Kasich, Carly Fiorina and Hillary Clinton.
While the Republicans are pushing a heavily armed no-fly zone that could serve as a staging ground for Western-backed rebels, Clinton is promoting a “safe zone,” where refugees could be housed inside Syrian territory, slowing down the refugee flows into Europe.
Under stern warning from the JCS, President Obama has made clear that he will not support a no-fly zone or even a safe zone; however, if the level of combat increases, and another million Syrians flee the country, Europe will weigh in for any option, no matter how foolish, to curb the refugee stampede. European leaders are aware that the Erdogan government in Turkey facilitated the refugee flow into Europe to press European leaders to get more involved in the drive to overthrow Assad. The net effect, however, was to create a new rift between Ankara and the main European capitals.

Putin’s Plan in Syria and its Chances of Success – What Events on the Ground Tell Us
Middle East Briefing/October 10/15
http://mebriefing.com/?p=1965&utm_source=MEB+VOL+-+III_+Issue+98+September+2015&utm_campaign=VOL+III+-+Issue+98&utm_medium=email
Russia’s intentions in Syria seem to be finally getting clearer thanks to Moscow’s current diplomatic and military moves on the ground.
Russia, understandably, left all options opened within a specific space of movement. The limits of this space extends from the minimum default objective of carving out a mini Syria for Assad and his regime, to the maximum objective of reaching a political deal and waging a multi-party war against the opposition including the non-ISIL non-Nusra groups. The minimum here is similar to the current situation in Ukraine-Freezing the conflict in a way that gives Moscow the utmost leverage for a minimum investment. The problem of Assad is that he is short in boots. And in this, the Russians can’t help. The Iranians and Hezbollah sent several thousand of ground forces to be stationed on the north and south of the Assad-Alawi mini-Syria in the western part of the country. They may be involved in clearing a buffer zone around the Assad mini-Syria if the Russian project of keeping Syria in whole under a friendly government is not fulfilled.
The current Russian moves and contacts tell us that Mr. Putin is aiming at this “comprehensive” solution while bombing the road into the future of Syria.
There are reports that Moscow has reactivated its contacts with the moderate opposition figure Mouaz Al Khatib (Former head of the Syrian Coalition) in an attempt to put together pieces for a political solution. There are also speculations among Syrian opposition leaders that Russia is moving on the political track along specific lines:
* The formation of a Syrian transitional government based on a combination of moderate opposition (will get back in a minute to the Russian definition of that term) and regime figures (Like Manaf Tlas). Tlas, who belongs to a prominent Sunni family, was a Brigadier General in Assad’s elite Republican Guard and a trusted member of Assad’s inner circle. His father was the defense minister of former President Hafez Al Assad, the father of Bashar. Tlas defected in 2012 and has been living quietly in Paris ever since. He did not join any opposition group.
* Offering a cease fire around Aleppo and in some other hot spots along the war lines in parallel with the UN conference called for by Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura
* Reaching a deal in the proposed Geneva-3 with some groups of Syria’s opposition. (The alternative to Geneva-3 would be talks hosted by Putin in the Russian capital)
* Telling opposition groups that Assad intends to leave Damascus either conditional on holding elections or as a “concession” from the Syrian President to “save the country”. (The second is mostly what is on the table now).
* Demanding a participation in the transitional government and a declaration, by cooperative opposition, that the crisis is over and that it is time to cleanse Syrian territories of “all terrorists”.
This is how President Putin will appear to the world as the champion of both, the war track and the political solution track. How will that make President Obama looks in the eyes of a watching world does not need any comment. It is not even important in this context.
If this solution would not work, the Syrian army backed by around 10,000 Iranian and Iraqi Shia soldiers, and Hezbollah fighters, the Assad militias and Russia’s air force will start a fight of multiple phases to end the armed opposition existence where relevant and force the population into submission.
The Russian definition of “moderate” opposition will be attached generally to the acceptance of this political initiative. Sorting out the opposition will be presented through a specific narrative: If you are opposed to Assad, now he is gone (or will certainly go). Come on and join in. If you want the rule of Sharia or if your cause is dictated by countries other than Syria, you would be radical and deserve to be bombed.
The timing of Assad’s departure is left undetermined. But President Putin hinted to the Turkish President and to some opposition leaders in unambiguous terms that a deal of that kind will definitely include the departure of Assad at a point to be agreed upon, and that if things go as planned he guarantees personally the departure of Assad.
Furthermore, First Deputy of General Staff of the Russian armed forces General Nikolai Bogdanovsky met October 6 with Israel Deputy CGS General Yair Golan. Israeli media predicted that the issues of arms supplies to Hezbollah through Syria and the freedom of movement for the Israeli air forces to attack hostile moves in Syria topped the talks. Also assurances that no attacks will be allowed against any Israeli location from Syrian territories while the Russians are there.
The general logic of Putin’s approach is clear. He aims at splitting the opposition along the line of accepting his political plan. That will guarantee to Moscow a wide international support, particularly if Assad steps down or announces his intentions to do so. A refusal by any party, Syrian or non-Syrian, will be presented as a manifestation of the existence of hidden agendas. If these agendas are Jihadist, therefore the world will side with Putin. If they are strategic, like for example driving the Iranians out of the east Mediterranean, the Syrians will be told that foreign (regional) powers are trying to achieve their own goals at the expense of Syria, and that Assad will be leaving, therefore all should back the transitional government and turn their back to regional powers who want to fight the Iranians until the last Syrian.
While Putin tries to improve his options, he already has guaranteed the minimum of his objectives through stationing his forces in the west of Syria.
Two questions remain: What are the forces that will stand against Putin’s plan? And to which extent they may succeed?
To answer these two questions, we have to go back to what is actually happening on the ground.
Fifty five Saudi Ulamas (religious scholars) in the General Authority of Muslim Ulamas (AMU) issued a communique October 4 condemning both Russia and the US. “How similar Today is to Yesterday. Thirty six years ago the USSR invaded Muslim Afghanistan to support the communist party and prevent its collapse. And today, its inheritor, the Christian Orthodox Russia invades Syria to support its Nasiry (a branch of Shia) regime and prevent its collapse. The West claims that Bashar (Assad) is illegitimate but none buys that. It was them who prevented the Syrian people from having anti-aircraft defenses to protect themselves, and it was them who blocked declaring a safe haven in the north (of Syria). And without their approval neither Assad could remain nor could the Russians interfere. They wanted to deceive the people by saying they fight Daesh (ISIL), but Daesh was hurt a little by them”.
The communique called for all Syrians to fight. “All able men should join Jihad. This is your day. All Muslims are behind you with all they can and victory is close with the will of God”.
While the communique stopped short from calling upon “all Muslims” to join Jihad, a veiled invitation for mobilization is illicit in the language. The first paragraph of the communique was a plea for the unification of all opposition groups in Syria “under the flag of Jihad”. The Muslim Brotherhood-Syria branch issued a separate communique calling Jihad in Syria “an Islamic duty for all Muslim adults”. Many leaders of Islamic trends and groups said the same.
The impact of these important statements in the “operational” sense is not only related to the Syrian opposition. Those who know the weight of the names which appear on the communiques understand that the real impact will be evident soon. It will come on the form of a mobilization of Islamists on the ground in Saudi Arabia and other countries to join the “Holy War” against the new “Crusaders”. The unwise declaration of Russia’s Church that the military effort in Syria is a “Holy War” is widely echoed in the Islamic world. It is obvious that the Church was trying to garner public support to Putin’s otherwise unpopular decision to go to Syria.
In the meantime, Arab countries and Turkey are moving ahead with a plan to supply the opposition with qualitative arms, including anti air craft and anti-armor weapon systems. The Obama administration made itself too irrelevant to be able to have any final say about this plan. Putin is taking care of what is left of the US ability to shape anything in the crisis. He, under sanctions, moved forces to Syria and is currently preparing for another surprise-the political solution.
Following the current debate among the opposition and its backers we may detect a specific narrative emerging slowly. This narrative is significant inasmuch as it reflects the real intentions of the “other side”.
The argument says that Russia considered all Islamic groups, even those that have never got involved in terrorism, and even those who fought ISIL and lost hundreds of men in that fight, as terrorists. They believe that Russia’s real intentions are indeed anti-Islamic per se, and has nothing to do with ISIL. They provide the examples of Moscow’s attacks against non-ISIL opposition as a clear evidence of their assertions.
Furthermore, Iranian presence on Syrian territories, according to the “other side” narrative, is not refused only by the Arab backers of the opposition, but also by the vast majority of Syrians who suffered on the hands of Iranians, Hezbollah and Assad forces. The question asked by one opposition figure is: How does anyone expect us to accept the presence of Assad or Iran-Hezbollah forces on our land? Even if Assad goes, who gave the Iranians and Hezbollah that right to remain in Syria? The Russians?!
It is obvious, regardless of the extent of coherences of the opposition’s argument, that in most part they are determined to carry on their fight. Now, they will be fighting Assad, Iran, Hezbollah and the Russians. The regional backers of these groups seem to be determined as well to carry on, regardless of Moscow’s political games.
A chain of meetings took place last week in regional capitals ended with a decision to go ahead and fight. Every side of the confrontation has his own narrative. But in reality it is not a war of narratives.
When we step backward and examine Mr. Putin’s approach thoroughly we find out that in fact it does not change the dynamic of the Syrian crisis. This dynamics is defined by two specific dimension-the Syrian political-military stalemate and the regional conflict between the Arabs and the Iranians. Mr. Putin addressed the Syrian dimension in a limited manner and not only neglected the second, but is heading to using the first in order to preserve and deepen the second.
The manner in which the Russians will deal with the Syrian dimension of the crisis will definitely lead to the radicalization of the opposition. Russia’s expected impact of the solution will not materialize in any significant way if the Iranian and Hezbollah forces remain in Syria.
The problem of Mr. Putin’s approach is that it address certain sides of how the crisis appears to us or how it is described by the warring parties in the world of narratives and speeches. The Russian leader did not deal with the real essence of the crisis, not because he does not understand it, but because his strategic calculus takes him where he is heading right now.
Two questions deserve to be raised here:
* From where will Mr. Putin get the necessary ground forces to fight ISIL?
If we do not assume that ISIL could suddenly raise the olive branch, it will continue to expand until it comes face to face with the Russian troops in the west of Syria and the allies of these forces. Is that a solution at all?
* How does Mr. Putin see the impact of a political solution signed between Assad and some irrelevant and ineffective opposition on the actual configuration of the crisis? In other words, if the pressing aspect of the manifestation of this crisis is military, how is it possible that some urban intellectuals in Syrian cities can really make a difference on this acute aspect of this crisis?
Mr. Putin will bleed in Syria. Badly. And the world will end up with a bigger Jihadi problem. Can anyone please tell us who is winning in this mad mess? It would not work Mr. Putin. Handling the crisis should be collective and international, and it should deal with the two tracks-the Syrian and the regional. If you do not, you are simply creating a bigger problem, not only to yourself, but to everyone else. Everyone.

What could a “harsh” Iranian reaction to Riyadh constitute?
Ali Omidi/Al-Monitor/October 10/15
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/10/iran-saudi-tension.html
TEHRAN, Iran — Hundreds of Iranian pilgrims were killed in the Sept. 24 stampede in Mina, near Mecca. The incident was followed by Saudi negligence in reporting the situation on time, and failure to collaborate with Iranian authorities. This prompted Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to call on Saudi Arabia to apologize to the “Muslim world” and Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei also accused Riyadh of not fulfilling its obligations in returning the bodies of the Iranian pilgrims, and behaving “maliciously.” He further warned, “The slightest disrespect to tens of thousands of Iranian pilgrims in Mecca and Medina as well as the Saudi government’s refusal to fulfill its duties with regard to the transfer of the pure corpses [of those killed during the hajj] will elicit a harsh and tough reaction from Iran.”
Meanwhile, upon the Oct. 3 return of the bodies of 104 Iranian pilgrims, President Hassan Rouhani issued an additional warning. He said, “So far, our language has been one of brotherhood. When necessary, we have used the language of diplomacy; however, if needed, the language of authority will be used as well.”
Indeed, on the very same day, Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said, “The IRGC has prepared all its possible potentials in order to fulfill the will of the great leader of the Islamic Revolution and make the Saudi dynasty answer for the crimes it committed in Mina and restore the rights of the victims. We are ready and are awaiting orders.” Jafari added, “The Muslim World is tired of the Saudis’ betrayals and ignorance, which reminds us of Abu Lahab, including the massacre of the people of Yemen, displacement of the poor people of Syria, repression of the people of Bahrain, ethnic massacres in Iraq, creation of ethnic tension and support of terrorism. The Saudis shall melt in the anger of the Muslims.”
Lastly, former IRGC Cmdr. Mohsen Rezaei, who is also adviser to Ayatollah Khamenei, warned Riyadh, “Don’t play with fire, because the fire will burn you … don’t follow the example of Saddam [Hussein], who in the middle of the Iraq-Iran War had no way out.”
In response, Saudi Arabia has accused Iran of playing politics with the stampede. “I think the Iranians should think of more productive activities than to play politics with a tragedy that has befallen those people who were performing their most sacred religious duty,” Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told the UN General Assembly. Mindful of the increasingly hostile rhetoric, the question arises of what the “harsh and tough reaction” that Iran has warned of could potentially constitute.
In general, harsh reaction translates into military action. Iran has just finished its negotiations with the six world powers over its nuclear program, and thus considers itself to be in a stronger position. Separately, Iran also assesses that Saudi Arabia is in a desperate situation in Yemen. Therefore, in the case of a possible military confrontation with Saudi Arabia, there are several scenarios that Tehran could consider:
A ground campaign. For this kind of campaign to be possible, Iran would need to cross both Iraq and Kuwait. Neither of these countries will allow Iran to enter their territory in order to attack Saudi Arabia. Therefore, this option is not on the table. In addition, such a military campaign requires a large and well-equipped army as well as logistical, financial and economic abilities enjoyed by a superpower. Iran is only considered a mid-level power in the region. There is also the historical example of the US reaction to Iraq’s 1991 invasion of Kuwait for Iran to consider.
A naval campaign. This would mean that Iran has to travel a distance of 200 miles to reach the eastern coast of Saudi Arabia. Such a campaign is impossible considering the Iranian armed forces’ lack of strategic depth vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia, as the latter has the advantage of controlling the sea from land.
Supporting allies in proxy wars. This would mean that Iran will, more determinedly than ever, support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his fight against opposition forces. Tehran would also support Hezbollah against pro-Saudi elements of the Lebanese government, as well as in Israel, and the Houthis in Yemen. Of course, while supporting Hezbollah and Assad is possible and easy, it is more difficult to give military support to the Houthis since Yemen is under naval blockade. Moreover, UN Resolution 2216 forbids provision of military support to the Houthis. Iran can, however, achieve this goal via smugglers and private contractors.
Restricting Saudi access to the Strait of Hormuz. Considering Iran’s familiarity with the Strait of Hormuz and the military advantages that it enjoys in this regard, this option is possible. The problem, however, is that this scenario can lead to a battle of tankers, as it did toward the end of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. Indeed, Saudi ships could be prompted to raise a third party flag. In addition, this scenario will give an excuse to world powers to increase their military presence in the Persian Gulf, which runs counter to Iran’s objectives.
Destroying the bridge that connects Saudi Arabia to Bahrain. The King Fahd Causeway, which is 25 kilometer (15.5 miles) long, was used for the first time in December 1986. If the bridge is destroyed by high-explosives missiles from the air, the Saudi military support for Bahrain is likely to decrease, which will in turn weaken the Bahraini regime. If such an attack is carried out, and Iran at the same time manages to provide opposition groups in Bahrain with logistic and military support, the Bahraini regime is likely to collapse. However, considering that the United States maintains a military presence in Bahrain, it is not possible for Iran to conduct a direct military campaign against Bahrain.
Supporting the Shiite population of Qatif, in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, with the condition that in case of receiving military and logistic support, the Shiites of Saudi Arabia will rebel with the aim of toppling the Saudi government. Considering that Saudi Arabia has built a very long wall on its border with Iraq, and also considering the distance between the Shiite-inhabited region of Saudi Arabia and Iran, this is hardly a probable option. In addition, there are doubts about whether Saudi Shiites will in fact rebel against their government if provided with such support.
Firing missiles at Saudi Arabia. As Iran is equipped with multiple types of missiles, it can hit a variety of targets inside Saudi Arabia. Since Saudi Arabia does not have the necessary infrastructure for an effective air defense, such as an Iron Dome, an Iranian missile attack will be effective. The problem, however, is that in such a scenario, Saudi Arabia and its allies will destroy Iran's oil infrastructure in retaliation.
Considering the options above, and existing limitations, any “harsh” response on the part of Iran will likely be limited to options three through six above. Of course, in case of any kind of confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, all the Arab states of the Persian Gulf — minus Oman — and more than likely the United States and Israel, will offer their complete support to Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, as history has shown, a country’s desire to start a military campaign is not always logical. Iran might decide that no matter what, it must launch a military campaign against Riyadh in order to punish Saudi Arabia. It is therefore more beneficial, for both Iran and Saudi Arabia, to solve their problems via diplomatic means. However, the current exchange of harsh words between Saudi and Iranian officials shows that the situation will either get critical, or the current cold war will continue.

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

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