LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
September 05/15

Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com/newsbulletins05/english.september05.15.htm

Bible Quotation For Today/The judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people & The Widow
Luke 18/01-08: "Jesus told them a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart. He said, ‘In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people. In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, "Grant me justice against my opponent." For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, "Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming." ’And the Lord said, ‘Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?’"

Bible Quotation For Today/N one can tame the tongue a restless evil, full of deadly poison
Letter of James 03/01-12: ""Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle. If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies. Or look at ships: though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water? Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh."

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 04-05/15
Saudi King meets Kerry before White House summit/ Al Arabiya News/September 04/15
Armed terror drones to be part of future wars, defense analyst tells ‘Post’/YAAKOV LAPPIN/J.Post/eptember 04/15
US under new pressure to absorb Syrian refugees as Europe faces crisis/Barnini Chakraborty/FoxNews/eptember 04/15
Is the Migration Crisis Killing the European Dream/Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/September 04/15
Koran Discovery: Western Science vs. Muslim Fanaticism/By Raymond Ibrahim/FrontPage Magazine/September 04/15
Iranian Regime Celebrates Its Victory In The Nuclear Agreement/MEMRI/eptember 04/15
A King from the East approaches/Dr. John Duke Anthony/Al Arabiya/September 04/15
Renewing the decades-old strategic Saudi-U.S. partnership/Andrew Bowen/Al Arabiya/September 04/15
Why King Salman’s visit to Washington matters now/Dr. John C. Hulsman/Al Arabiya/September 04/15
Why I shared a horrific photo of a drowned Syrian child/Peter Bouckaert/Al Arabiya/September 04/15
Will the EU bolster the Iranian Revolutionary Guards/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya/September 04/15
Saudi King Comes to Washington, with His Son/Simon Henderson/Washington Institute/September 04/15
Local Elections in Morocco: A Bet on the Kingdom's Reforms/Sarah Feuer/Washington Institute/September 04/15
King Salman in Washington/Salman Aldosary/Asharq Al Awsat/September 04/15
Khamenei says sanctions must be removed, not suspended/Arash Karami/Al-Monitor/September 04/15
Still fooling us/Michael Young/Now Lebanon/September 04/15
Israeli PM, Netanyahu vows to rail against Iran deal, even after proverbial ‘fat lady’ sings/By HERB KEINON/J.Post/September 04/15
Who is to Blame for the Drowning of Alan Kurdi/Tarek Fatah/The Toronto Sun/Canada/September 04/15

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin for Lebanese Related News published on September 04-05/15
Activists in Hunger Strike for Minister Resignation as 2 Held for Disabling Parking Meters
Berri Hopes LF Would Attend Dialogue
Civil Society Activists Call for Nationwide Protests
Bassil at FPM Demo: We Want Free President Elected by People, Proportional Representation
FPM takes to the streets
EU Ambassadors Anticipate End to Paralysis
Report: Ibrahim Revives Hostages File
Lebanon's U.N. Ambassador Stresses Consensus on Lebanon Stability

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 04-05/15
Obama, Saudi King Put Warm Gloss over Differences
EU under Pressure to Agree Binding Refugee Quotas as Ministers Meet
UAE Loses 45 Troops on Black Day for Yemen Coalition
IS Blows up Famed Tower Tombs at Syria's Palmyra
4 Americans among 6 Peacekeepers Wounded in Egypt Bombings
Father Buries Drowned Syrian Boy as Europe Wrangles over Refugees
Drowned Syrian boys buried in hometown they fled
Putin: Premature to talk about Russian military action against ISIS
How Trump's chances for the White House may hinge on Hezbollah

Links From Jihad Watch Web site For Today
Islamic State destroys ancient tower tombs in Palmyra
Raymond Ibrahim: Koran’s Contents—Not Carbon Dating—Cast More Doubt on Islam
Dutch air force sergeant joins Islamic State in first such desertion
Bangladesh: Jihadis suspected as two officials at Sufi shrine have their throats slit
Pamela Geller: Muslim Stewardess Refuses to Serve Alcohol, Then Plays the Victim
ESPN pulls Curt Schilling from telecasts for remainder of season, playoffs
Robert Spencer in FrontPage: The Hijrah Into Europe
Emma Thompson: Britain is racist for not taking in more refugees

Activists in Hunger Strike for Minister Resignation as 2 Held for Disabling Parking Meters
Naharnet/September 04/15/Several anti-trash activists began a hunger strike Thursday outside the Environment Ministry in Beirut to press for Minister Mohammed al-Mashnouq's resignation as two protesters were arrested in Ain el-Mreisseh for disabling parking meters that were recently installed in the area. The hunger strike was started by the activist Waref Suleiman, who was later joined by four other activists, the You Stink campaign said on its Facebook page. The protesters erected tents on the pavement facing the ministry building. Suleiman told LBCI television later on Thursday that the number of hunger strikers had risen to eleven. "I want him to feel our pain," 25-year-old protester Salah Jbeili said. "He is responsible for the trash problem. We will fight him, like we will fight all corrupt politicians."The development comes two days after riot police forcibly cleared dozens of You Stink activists who had occupied part of the environment ministry to press the minister to resign over his perceived failure to address the unprecedented garbage crisis. Several protesters were injured in the operation. A protest movement that began with rallies against the garbage piling up in the streets of Beirut garnered much support among the many Lebanese angered by the government's failure to find a solution after the main landfill was closed in July. Protests have grown beyond the garbage issue and now target the government and entire political class.
Protesters say the minister, Mohammed al-Mashnouq, has become a symbol of the government's inefficiency and corruption. Machnouq has said he will not resign. Meanwhile, plain clothes policemen arrested two protesters from the We Want Accountability campaign who were disabling parking meters on the seaside corniche during a sit-in in Ain el-Mreisseh. The campaign identified the detained activists as Bashar al-Harakeh and Hussam al-Anan, saying the solar-operated meters deny poor residents free access to the public space. The arrests prompted the protesters to head to the Interior Ministry building in Sanayeh where they blocked the road and vowed not to reopen it until the release of their comrades. Later on Thursday, state-run National News Agency reported the release of the two activists. NNA also said that Beirut Governor Judge Ziad Shbib ordered "the suspension of the parking meters that were installed along the city's seaside corniche." Another sit-in was held Thursday outside the Labor Ministry building in the southern Beirut suburb of Msharrafiyeh.
The protest was organized by the August 29 Movement, a coalition of activists and groups that took part in the August 29 mass rally in Beirut's Martyrs Square. In a statement recited at the sit-in, the movement called for “holding authorities accountable for stealing public funds, the environment minister's resignation, accountability for those who gave the orders to use force against peaceful protesters, and releasing the funds of municipalities to allow them to play their role in managing waste.”It also called for “creating job opportunities for youths, supporting agriculture and industry, and organizing parliamentary polls to restore the role of institutions in a manner that serves the interests of people.”The growing protest movement began with frustration over rubbish collection and ballooned into anger at a stagnant and corrupt political class. The protesters gained additional popular sympathy after security forces used excessive force against them during an August 22 mass rally in downtown Beirut.

Berri Hopes LF Would Attend Dialogue
Naharnet/September 04/15/Speaker Nabih Berri has expressed hope that the Lebanese Forces would announce its support for the dialogue session that he has called for. “If (LF chief Samir) Geagea decided not to participate in the dialogue, then I would understand his stance because he hadn't participated in the previous all-party talks under the chairmanship of former President Michel Suleiman at Baabda Palace,” Berri told his visitors. “In addition, Geagea doesn't have representatives in the government,” said the speaker, whose remarks were published in several newspapers on Friday. “If he decided to attend, then I will be glad” about his decision, Berri added. Geagea is expected to announce his stance on Saturday. All other parties that were invited to the dialogue said they would attend the talks. The speaker, who also heads Amal Movement, reiterated that the presidential deadlock tops the agenda of the talks. The rival parties are expected to discuss ways to end the vacuum at Baabda Palace, the resumption of the work of parliament and the cabinet, a new electoral draft-law, legislation allowing Lebanese expats to obtain the nationality, administrative decentralization and ways to support the army and the Internal Security Forces.The speaker stressed to his visitors that the agenda of the talks is “neither the Qoran nor the Bible. The conferees can start discussing any of the items.”But he said that an agreement on the presidential crisis would facilitate discussion on the rest of the issues.

Civil Society Activists Call for Nationwide Protests
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 04/15/The civil campaigns that have organized protests against the ruling class called on Friday for a nationwide mobilization against a government they say is too corrupt to function. "The people's outrage at this corrupt system continues... The protests will go on today and tomorrow in all Lebanese regions," the "You Stink" campaign wrote on its Facebook page. The movement and other groups called for demonstrations on Friday at 6:00 pm in the coastal city of Tyre and in Zrariyeh, both in southern Lebanon. And on Saturday, activists have called on supporters to protest in the eastern city of Chtaura, the historic town of Beiteddine and Nabatiyeh and Marjayoun in the south. The protest movement began over a rubbish crisis that left pungent waste piling up in Beirut and its outskirts, but it has evolved into a broad-based movement against government impotence and corruption. Demonstrations have escalated over the past two weeks, peaking on Saturday when tens of thousands flooded Martyrs Square in central Beirut in a rare display of non-partisan mobilization. On Tuesday, dozens of young activists staged a sit-in at the environment ministry to demand the resignation of the minister, but they were forcibly ejected. On Thursday, 13 "You Stink" activists began a hunger strike that they said would not end until Mohammed al-Mashnouq resigned as environment minister. In addition to his resignation, the campaign is calling for a lasting waste management plan, parliamentary elections, and accountability for violence against protesters. Rubbish has been piling up on the streets of Beirut and in the heavily populated Mount Lebanon area since the country's largest landfill in Naameh closed on July 17. The cabinet awarded tenders to several waste management companies last week, but has since retracted them. Both the cabinet and parliament have been paralyzed by profound political disputes.

Bassil at FPM Demo: We Want Free President Elected by People, Proportional Representation
Naharnet/September 04/15/Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil announced Friday during a mass rally in Beirut's Martyrs Square that the Free Patriotic Movement wants “a free president elected by his people” and “a parliament elected through a proportional representation law.”
“We want a free president elected by his people with decisions emanating from his popular and constitutional strength. We want a parliament that does not extend its own term or violate its powers, a parliament elected through a proportional representation law, which can give youths a chance,” said Bassil. Agence France-Presse and The Associated Press said “thousands” of protesters took part in the FPM rally. The demonstrators carried the movement's trademark orange flags, as well as a few flags of Hizbullah, the FPM's main ally.
Artists, political figures, and activists took to a makeshift stage to express support for FPM chief MP Michel Aoun and Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. "At your service, General," read one of the banners, in reference to Aoun. "We want new elections emanating from a fair election law," read another. “They thought that they could force us out of political life and squares, but we returned to this square and we will return it to all Lebanese,” Bassil said, addressing a sea of supporters.“They want to deprive us of the dream and our dream is to have a state, not a farm. We are the sons of this land … We want a 'clean' president who does not cover up for corruption,” the FM, who recently won the FPM's presidency uncontested, added. “We want a state enjoying 24/24 power supply through renewable energy. We want a state that has water resources, where dam projects are not suspended under the excuse of environmental concerns,” added Bassil, who once served as Energy and Water Minister. He called for a parliament that represents all citizens and regions and a cabinet that “does not violate the Constitution and laws.” “Our dream is to have a strong army, security forces and resistance,” he said. Bassil urged a state that has “a transportation system, telecommunications and services.”“We the Lebanese should elect our president, not foreign forces. We won't accept a 'wooden president' who does not understand people's golden equation. We won't accept a former PM who told us in cabinet that this country does not digest reform,” he added. As for the garbage crisis, Bassil said it should be resolved through “setting up a large incinerator for the waste of Beirut, its suburbs and the rest of regions.” “Solutions must be decentralized and through municipalities,” he noted. Meanwhile, Aoun addressed the rally via video link from Rabieh, sending a brief message to the demonstrators.“I'm proud of you and I will remain proud because you have preserved the Free Patriotic Movement through your solidarity and loyalty … You heeded the call and I thank you for this glorious day, which will be the beginning of reform for our country,” he said. Aoun had urged a heavy turnout at the demonstration.Lebanon has been without a president for more than a year due to political disputes and electoral rivalry. Aoun, a former army commander, is bidding for presidency. Last Friday, Aoun reiterated his call for the election of a president through a popular rather than a parliamentary vote. He also invited FPM supporters to take to the streets “to ask for reform and for participation in decision-making, and to call for fighting corruption.” Aoun also called for the approval of an electoral law based on proportional representation and the formation of a government that introduces reforms. In recent months, the FPM chief has slammed what he calls the “marginalization” of Christians in state institutions, amid a dispute in cabinet over military appointments and another over the government's decision-making mechanism amid the absence of a president. The disputes prompted Aoun and his ministers to accuse Prime Minister Tammam Salam of infringing on the jurisdiction of the Christian president. Friday's protest comes amid a wave of anti-government rallies in Beirut and other regions, sparked by the government's inability to solve an ongoing trash crisis. Those rallies have been led by civil society and leftist groups who came together to protest government corruption that led to the latest gridlock.
They now seek to unseat a political class that has dominated Lebanese politics since the end of the 1975-90 civil war.

FPM takes to the streets
Now Lebanon/September 04/15
BEIRUT – The Free Patriotic Movement has rallied thousands of its supporters for in the latest protest to hit Lebanon’s capital, days before a widely anticipated national dialogue session aimed at resolving the country’s political impasse. Protesters clad in the Christian party’s iconic orange descended Friday afternoon to Downtown Beirut’s Martyrs Square, where the grassroots YouStink movement held a mass demonstration last Saturday against the government’s mishandling of the worsening trash crisis. NOW's correspondent reported that a crowd of approximately 5,000 people had gathered near the square's Martyrs Statue, far short of the tens on thousands of demonstrators that came to last weekend's YouStink rally.  FPM leader Michel Aoun on Tuesday had called for a rally “to ask for reform and for participation in decision-making, and to call for fighting corruption,” amid growing dissension within the party’s cadre over the unopposed election last week of the party chief’s son-in-law Gebran Bassil as the FPM’s new president. Aoun has used bombastic rhetoric for the protest, calling it a “historic moment” on Thursday and saying the rally would aim to “eradicate the evil that has ruled us for decades.”The FPM’s rally comes in the shadow of the growing grassroots movement against Lebanon’s political class, which has seen thousands of citizens from across the country’s sects pour out into the streets to protest not only the trash crisis but also corruption. Aoun has voiced his criticism of the movement, asking why youths upset with conditions in Lebanon haven’t supported his party, while his party’s Tayyar online outlet ran a hit piece against #YouStink organizer Assad Thebian, highlighting sarcastic posts he had made against religion on Facebook. The FPM protest comes days before Speaker Nabih Berri’s planned national dialogue session to to resolve the political crisis gripping the country, which has seen the government unable to make any substantial decisions as Aoun’s party sticks to its demands over the working mechanism of the cabinet. The party insists that the government not approve decrees without its consent, and has further called for the right to set items on the cabinet’s agenda, which constitutionally is the exclusive prerogative of the prime minister or president of the republic. Political tension over the issue has steadily mounted since late June, with the FPM staging a rally on July 9 after the government in its previous meeting passed a decree on agricultural exports when the FPM wanted to discuss the replacement of Lebanon’s top army officers as their terms near an end. Aoun has reportedly backed the appointment of his son-in-law, LAF Commando Regiment chief Chamel Roukoz, as replacement for current LAF chief Jean Qahwaji, who in turn has been touted as a consensus candidate for Lebanon’s vacant presidency, a post the PFM leader is also seeking. However, Defense Minister Samir Moqbel in early August unilaterally extended the terms of Qahwaji, LAF Chief of Staff Walid Salman and Higher Defense Council chief Mohammad Khayr for a year each, prompting the FPM to stage a second round of protests on August 12

EU Ambassadors Anticipate End to Paralysis
Naharnet/September 04/15/European Union Ambassadors underscored the EU's expectation that a new President would be elected for Lebanon and that Parliament would approve important draft laws, a press release said on Friday. “The ambassadors reiterated the EU's expectation that a new President would be elected without further delay and that Parliament would speedily advance on pressing legislation, including a new electoral law with a view to legislative elections,” the EU Ambassadors told Prime Minister Tammam Salam in a meeting held at the Grand Serail. They expressed “strong support for Salam in his efforts to keep the government stable and functioning in light of the continuing political stalemate and the Presidential vacuum.”On the latest protests that swept through the streets of Beirut over the government's paralysis, the ambassadors underscored the “EU's support for the right of the Lebanese citizens to assemble and to petition their government for the effective application of the rule of law and transparency in public policy.”They also underscored that “citizens have a right to enjoy basic services, to have an accountable government and functioning state institutions.”The Ambassadors welcomed the investigations by the Ministry of Interior to hold accountable those who used disproportionate force against the demonstrators, but also condemned violence against the security forces. "Ongoing social protests underline the need for the political leaders to exercise their collective responsibility to address the pressing issues that are at the root of the current unrest," Maciej Golubiewski, Chargé d'Affaires of the Delegation of the European Union to Lebanon said. Highlighting financial support to Lebanon, the Golubiewski said: "Lebanon – the citizens, the government and its respective ministries – is not alone in its efforts to find a solution to these pressing issues. “In 2009-2013 period only, the amount of financial support to Lebanon by the EU and the Member States reached over 1 billion euros. Still, as EU and EU Member States donors, the government can count on our technical support where it deems it necessary with regard to the delivery of services such as waste and water management, and electricity," he concluded.

Report: Ibrahim Revives Hostages File
Naharnet/September 04/15/General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim has resumed contacts with mediators to press for the release of Lebanese servicemen taken hostage by jihadists in August last year, al-Joumhouria newspaper reported on Friday. Ibrahim asked the involved parties to swiftly resolve the case, it said. The General Security leader visited Prime Minister Tammam Salam on Thursday to discuss with him the case of the soldiers and policemen who were taken hostage by al-Qaida-linked al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State group when they overran the northeastern border town of Arsal. While the negotiations with al-Nusra Front through a mediator from Qatar have made progress, talks with the IS have reached a standstill. Despite hints by several officials that the release of the servicemen in al-Nusra Front's captivity was imminent, nothing has materialized so far. Its fighters are allegedly calling for a swap with Islamists jailed in Roumieh Prison. Ibrahim was quoted as saying on Monday that an agreement with the group had been reached for the release of the captives. But its leaders backed off from the deal the last minute. He said he is carrying out his duties and that his mission would be complete when the hostages are back to their families. “I haven't heard of new demands from al-Nusra,” he said, adding “I am ready to discuss any new development in the case.”

Lebanon's U.N. Ambassador Stresses Consensus on Lebanon Stability
Naharnet/September 04/15/Lebanon's permanent representative to the U.N. Nawaf Salam has said that there is consensus among the world's major policy-makers to support Lebanon's stability. “The importance of the meeting of the International Support Group for Lebanon (later this month) lies in having international consensus on the support of Lebanon and its political and security stability,” Salam told As Safir newspaper in remarks published Friday. There is also consensus “to regulate the work of constitutional institutions through the election of a president,” he said. Lebanon has been without a head of state since the end of President Michel Suleiman's tenure in May last year over a sharp dispute between the March 8 and 14 coalitions on his successor. The meeting of the International Support Group for Lebanon is scheduled to be held on September 30 on the sidelines of the General Assembly. It will be attended by Prime Minister Tammam Salam, Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil, the foreign ministers of five major powers, Arab League chief Nabil al-Arabi, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and other personalities. The group was inaugurated in New York in September 2013, on the sidelines of the 68th session of the General Assembly. It was formed to tackle efforts by the international community to share the burden of the displaced Syrians in Lebanon.

Obama, Saudi King Put Warm Gloss over Differences
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 04/15/U.S. President Barack Obama welcomed Saudi Arabia's King Salman for a first and long-delayed White House summit Friday, marked by warm public words amid clashing views on Middle Eastern crises.
Obama made the rare move of greeting the 79-year-old monarch at the doors of the White House, as he hailed the "longstanding friendship" between the two countries. Salman's inaugural visit as king -- originally scheduled for May and cancelled by Riyadh -- has been billed as a way of putting relations back on a more stable footing. In the Oval Office, Obama was effusive, saying he wanted to "once again reaffirm not only our personal friendship, but the deep and abiding friendship between our two people."
For his part Salman said his visit was a "symbol of the deep and strong relationship that we have with the United States." These meetings normally end in "some kind of public statement that puts as positive a spin as possible on the meeting," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies."Both nations are close strategic partners in spite of their differences, and both states need each other."
Deep disagreements
But behind the warm public statements, there are deep disagreements on Syria and Yemen as well as lingering Saudi doubts about the nuclear deal with Iran. Saudi Arabia publicly voiced tepid support for the Iran deal, but privately expressed grave misgivings that the nuclear agreement may legitimize their arch-foe Iran. Obama acknowledged only that the two sides would have much to discuss.
"This is obviously a challenging time in world affairs, particularly in the Middle East," Obama said, saying the pair would discuss a "wide range of issues."Obama said the two sides "share concerns" about the need to restore a functioning government in Yemen and relieve an urgent humanitarian crisis. Saudi Arabia began a bombing campaign in Yemen to oust Iranian-backed rebels soon after Salman and his son and defense minister, Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad, came to power. The United States has supported that effort, but has repeatedly warned about the impact the fighting has had on civilians.
Obama also said that the pair "share concerns about the crisis in Syria and will have the opportunity to discuss how we can arrive at a political transition process within Syria that can... end the horrific conflict there."
But Saudi Arabia's backing for opposition groups like Jaysh al-Islam, an amalgam of factions that include hardline Islamists, has concerned the White House. Riyadh views Sunni fighters as a counterbalance to the Iranian-backed Shia militias helping prop up Bashar Assad.
"The kingdom sees the conflict against the Iranian-supported Assad regime as an extension of the wider Persian-Arab rivalry" said Simon Henderson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Ahead of the meeting senior Obama foreign policy aide Ben Rhodes said the White House wants to make sure both countries "have a common view" on which Syrian opposition groups get support. "We are looking to isolate more extremist elements of the opposition, that's been an ongoing conversation with Saudi Arabia," he said.

EU under Pressure to Agree Binding Refugee Quotas as Ministers Meet
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 04/15/EU countries were set to try to bridge differences on Europe's escalating migrant crisis at a foreign ministers' meeting Friday, with the shocking image of a dead Syrian toddler washed up on a beach driving calls for binding refugee quotas. The heartbreaking images of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi lying dead in the surf -- and his father's emotional account of how the little boy and his four-year-old brother "slipped through my hands" -- have ramped up pressure on political leaders to address Europe's worst refugee crisis since World War II. Under-fire British Prime Minister David Cameron, whose country has been accused of failing to help shoulder the burden, is expected to announce a plan later Friday to take in more Syrian refugees.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande on Thursday urged EU members to accept "binding" refugee quotas.
In Hungary, meanwhile, a tense standoff continued between police and hundreds of refugees blocked by police from carrying on their journey west towards Germany. On Thursday, the police allowed the refugees board a train in Budapest bound for the Austrian border. But their journey ended just west of the capital in Bicske, where police tried to disembark them and take them to a refugee processing camp. An estimated 200 to 300 people, angry at what they saw as Hungary's trickery, refused to get off the train, where they spent the night.
EU foreign ministers were to meet later in Luxembourg to discuss the crisis, which has split the bloc between countries like Germany advocating greater solidarity with the refugees and nations such as Hungary that have taken a hardline approach. In a statement Friday, U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres said the EU faced "a defining moment".Referring to the pictures of little Aylan which have dominated newspaper front pages this week, he said: "Europe cannot go on responding to this crisis with a piecemeal or incremental approach." "No country can do it alone, and no country can refuse to do its part," he added, calling for a "mass relocation program, with the mandatory participation of all EU member states" that would take up to 200,000 refugees.
'Moral responsibilities' -
Europe is facing a huge influx on all sides, with more than 350,000 people crossing the Mediterranean in flimsy boats this year alone, according to the International Organisation for Migration. In London, British media reported that Cameron was drawing up a plan to accept "thousands" of refugees, with the option of directly accepting refugees from U.N. camps on the Syrian border under consideration. Cameron earlier promised the country would fulfill its "moral responsibilities", after having only accepted 216 Syrian refugees over the past year. He said the numbers allowed would be kept "under review".Merkel and Hollande said Thursday they had agreed the EU members should take in a minimum number of migrants. "We agree that... we need binding quotas within the European Union to share the burden. That is the principle of solidarity," Merkel told reporters during a visit to the Swiss capital. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker will next week unveil a plan for the relocation of at least 120,000 more refugees to ease the burden on frontline EU nations Greece, Italy and Hungary, a European source told AFP. EU president Donald Tusk called on member states to resettle at least 100,000 refugees -- far above the current agreement for 32,000.
'Everyone was screaming'
The human cost of the migrant crisis has been brought into sharp focus by Aylan's drowning. His father Abdullah Kurdi, who also lost his wife in Wednesday's tragedy, has told of the horrific moments when the family of four was tipped into the Mediterranean off Turkey's coast. "I was holding my wife's hand. But my children slipped through my hands," he told Turkey's Dogan news agency on Thursday. Reports said the child -- one of at least 12 Syrians who died when their boats sank trying to reach Greece -- and his family were trying to get to Canada from the Syrian flashpoint of Kobane after fleeing to Turkey last year to escape Islamic State extremists. Canada denied it had received an asylum request from the boy's family. The picture of the child's lifeless body sent shock waves across social media and prompted a furious reaction from, among others, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Migrant cemetery' -
"European countries, which turned the Mediterranean Sea -- the cradle of ancient civilizations -- into a migrant cemetery are party to the crime that takes place when each refugee loses their life," he said in a speech. Turkey is host to 1.8 million refugees from the conflict in neighboring Syria. On a visit to Greece, which has seen the largest number of migrant arrivals in the EU, European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans said Europe was facing an "unprecedented humanitarian and political crisis".EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said the EU's new naval mission could step up action against people smugglers in the Mediterranean within weeks, seizing and destroying smugglers' boats.

UAE Loses 45 Troops on Black Day for Yemen Coalition
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/The UAE said 45 of its soldiers engaged in a Saudi-led campaign against Shiite rebels in Yemen were killed in an accidental explosion that the insurgents claimed was caused by rocket fire. In what was the deadliest day for the coalition since it was formed in March, Bahrain said five of its soldiers guarding the Saudi border with Yemen were also killed. The Yemeni government said an "accidental explosion" at an arms depot at a military base in the eastern province of Marib killed the Emiratis, but the rebels said their fighters fired a rocket that caused the blast. Coalition ally Bahrain said five of its soldiers were killed in southern Saudi Arabia where they had been posted to help defend the border with war-wracked Yemen. It did not give a precise location. However, Yemen's exiled presidency said the Bahrainis died in the same blast that killed the Emiratis. The Arab coalition has battled Iran-backed Huthi rebels to restore the rule of President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi, exiled in Riyadh. Around 60 people, mainly military personnel, have died in cross-border rebel attacks in the south of the Saudi kingdom since the coalition began air strikes on the Huthis and their allies. The campaign began as the Huthis advanced on the southern port of Aden, after they took control of the capital Sanaa last September.
Obama-Salman talks
The UAE armed forces, in a statement carried by state news agency WAM, did not disclose the circumstances of what was its highest casualty toll of the six-month-old air war. The Emirati army had previously announced at least eight deaths in Yemen among its ranks.
Before the Emirati toll rose, the pro-Hadi army command said a total of 33 Yemeni soldiers and coalition forces were killed and dozens wounded in the blast at Safer, 250 kilometers (150 miles) from Sanaa. A thick plume of black smoke was still billowing from the base several hours later. Friday's coalition losses came as Saudi King Salman was in Washington for talks with U.S. President Barack Obama at which Yemen figured high on the agenda. Obama said the two sides "share concerns" about the need to restore a functioning government in Yemen and relieve an urgent humanitarian crisis. The United States has supported the coalition effort, but repeatedly warned about the effect the fighting has had on civilians. More than 4,500 people have been killed in the conflict, including hundreds of children, according to the United Nations, which has warned that the impoverished country is on the brink of famine.
Reinforcements sent
According to military sources, the coalition sent reinforcements to the Safer base this week, including tanks, armored vehicles, troop carriers, rocket launchers and Apache helicopters. The extra hardware and troop reinforcements aim to boost "the counter-offensive launched by loyalist forces and the coalition to advance on Sanaa", one military official in Yemen said. The Huthis, meanwhile, said their forces had killed "dozens of officers and soldiers of the mercenaries in the Saudi aggression" when they fired a Tochka ballistic missile at the camp. The strike was "revenge for the crimes and the war of extermination being carried out by the Saudi aggressor and its mercenaries," they said. The government denied the Huthi account, saying the explosion near an Emirati encampment in Safer was caused by "badly stored munitions." However, one Yemeni military source told AFP an initial investigation found that the blast was caused by a surface-to-surface missile fired by the rebels. The Huthis, who advanced from Sanaa to overrun large chunks of the country, were driven out of Aden in July. They have since been on the defensive in southern Yemen, losing control of several provinces. The Arab coalition has also sent in troops, with Saudi media reporting that roughly 1,500 soldiers, most from the UAE, had entered Aden.The UAE only confirmed last month that its troops were on the ground there. The blast in Safer came as loyalist forces kept up their drive to claw back territory lost to the Huthis over the past year. Coalition warplanes later on Friday carried out air strikes on the rebel-held defense ministry complex in Sanaa and also targeted arms depots in the north of the capital, witnesses said.

IS Blows up Famed Tower Tombs at Syria's Palmyra
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 04/15/Islamic State group jihadists have blown up several of ancient Palmyra's famed tower tombs as they press their demolition of the UNESCO-listed world heritage site, Syria's antiquities chief said Friday. IS has carried out a sustained campaign of destruction against heritage sites in areas under its control in Syria and Iraq, and in mid-August beheaded the 82-year-old former antiquities chief in Palmyra. News of the demolition of the tower tombs which date back to the first century AD comes after the jihadists' destruction of the ancient shrine of Baal Shamin and the 2,000-year-old Temple of Bel, regarded as Palmyra's masterpiece. Antiquities director Maamun Abdulkarim told AFP that among at least seven tombs destroyed were the three best preserved and most treasured funerary towers, including the famed Tower of Elahbel. "We received reports 10 days ago but we've just confirmed the news," he said. "We obtained satellite images from the U.S.-based Syrian Heritage Initiative, taken on September 2."
The whole of Palmyra, including the four cemeteries outside the walls of the ancient city, has been listed as a world heritage site by UNESCO since 1980. In its listing, the U.N. agency singles out the tower tombs as the "oldest and most distinctive" of Palmyra's funerary monuments -- "tall multi-storey sandstone buildings belonging to the richest families". "On the fronts of those that survive, foremost among them the Tower of Elahbel, there is an arch with sarcophagus halfway up, which in ancient times supported a reclining statue," it says. "Corridors and rooms were subdivided by vertical bays of loculi (niches for the dead) closed by slabs of stone carved with the image of the deceased and painted in lively colors." Abdulkarim said the Tower of Jambalik, built in 83 AD was also destroyed, along with the Tower of Ketout, built in 44 AD and famed for the vivid scenes etched into its walls. He said the tower tombs were symbols of the economic boom of Palmyra in the first century AD, when it dominated the caravan trade between east and west from its oasis in the desert. Some of Palmyra's monuments still remain intact, including its grand amphitheater and the Temple of Nabu. The amphitheater has instead been exploited by IS as a venue to parade its brutal version of Islamic justice to Palmyra residents since its capture of the city in May. In one macabre display, child recruits executed 25 Syrian soldiers on the stage. Gruesome violence and the destruction of priceless artifacts have become hallmarks of IS as it has expanded its so-called caliphate straddling Iraq and Syria.
The Sunni extremist group considers pre-Islamic monuments, tombs and statues to be idolatrous and worthy of destruction. But experts say that while the jihadists prize the shock value of demolishing ancient sites, they are also keen to preserve some artefacts to sell on the black market to fund their "caliphate." According to Cheikhmous Ali of the Association for Protection of Syrian Archeology, more than 900 monuments and archaeological sites have been damaged or destroyed during more than four years of civil war. The destruction of the tower tombs "is an indication of the failure of the international community and global institutions to intervene and solve the situation in Syria," he said. In addition to damaging sites in Syria, IS has also carried out widespread destruction in neighboring Iraq, demolishing statues, shrines and manuscripts in second city Mosul, and razing the ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud.

4 Americans among 6 Peacekeepers Wounded in Egypt Bombings
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 04/15/Six international peacekeepers, including four Americans, were wounded Thursday in two roadside bombings in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula where Islamic State group militants are active, Egyptian and U.S. security officials said. The peacekeepers, part of a force that monitors a 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, are based in the north of the peninsula, where IS militants have killed scores of soldiers in attacks. "We are aware that four U.S. and two Multinational Force and Observer (MFO) peacekeepers were injured today (Thursday) in two IED explosions in northeast Sinai," U.S. Defense Department spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said in a statement. "The MFO evacuated the soldiers by air to a medical facility where all are receiving treatment for non-life-threatening injuries." There was no immediate word on the nationalities of the other two peacekeepers. Twelve countries contribute troops to the mission, including Australia, Britain and Canada, as well as the United States. Egyptian security officials said the peacekeepers were hit by a roadside bomb planted on a road leading from their base. The officials said IS militants had placed bombs there aimed at passing Egyptian troops. Egypt has been struggling to quell an Islamist insurgency in the peninsula since the military overthrew Islamist president Mohammed Morsi in 2013. Davis said the United States was "committed to taking the necessary steps" to protect its forces and "supporting the treaty of peace between Israel and Egypt."

Father Buries Drowned Syrian Boy as Europe Wrangles over Refugees
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 04/15/The father of a drowned Syrian toddler whose fate shocked the world returned home Friday to bury his family as European ministers tried to thrash out differences on binding refugee quotas to ease the crisis.
Britain said it would take thousands more from refugee camps on the Syrian border as the heartbreaking images of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi's lifeless body on a Turkish beach ramped up pressure on political leaders to act.
His father Abdullah Kurdi -- who has told how Aylan and his other young son Ghaleb "slipped through my hands" when their boat sank in the Aegean Sea -- arrived in the Syrian flashpoint border town of Kobane with the funeral caskets of his sons and wife, who also died.
"As a father who lost his children, I want nothing for myself from this world. All I want is that this tragedy in Syria immediately ends," he said on his way to Kobane, which was devastated in clashes between Islamic State militants and Kurdish fighters. A divided Europe faces growing international criticism over its response to Europe's worst refugee crisis since World War II, during which more than 350,00 migrants have crossed the Mediterranean, and around 2,600 people have died. U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres warned that the EU faced a "defining moment" after little Aylan's death and called for the mandatory resettlement of 200,000 refugees by EU states. With tensions growing, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande said Thursday they had agreed the EU should now require member states to take in a fixed number of migrants. EU foreign ministers were to meet later in Luxembourg to discuss the crisis, which has split the bloc between countries like Germany advocating greater solidarity and mainly eastern nations such as Hungary that have taken a hardline approach. Under-fire British Prime Minister David Cameron, whose country has been accused of failing to help shoulder the burden, said he would set out plans next week for his country to take "thousands more" refugees. "I can announce that we will do more, providing resettlement for thousands more Syrian refugees," Cameron said in Lisbon.
However he insisted that Britain would take refugees direct from camps on the border with Syria and not those already in other EU member states, saying that would just encourage more people to make the journey to Europe. Disagreements are rife over Europe's piecemeal migration system and its passport-free Schengen area. EU rules that asylum claims must be dealt with in the country they first arrive were thrown into turmoil by Germany, which said it will refrain from deporting Syrians. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has proposed quotas for resettling a total of 160,000 refugees across the EU to take the pressure off the overstretched frontline states of Greece, Italy and Hungary. In Budapest, a tense standoff continued between police and hundreds of refugees blocked by police from carrying on their train journey west towards Germany, Europe's main destination. On Thursday, the police allowed the refugees board a train in Budapest bound for the Austrian border. But their journey ended just west of the capital in Bicske, where police tried to disembark them and take them to a refugee processing camp. An estimated 200 to 300 people, angry at what they saw as Hungary's trickery, refused to get off the train, where they spent the night. The European tensions erupted into the open on Thursday when Hungary's right-wing Prime Minister Viktor Orban lashed out at Germany, the EU's biggest economy, for aggravating the crisis. Orban, whose government has built a fence on the border with Serbia to keep out migrants, also sparked anger by warning that Europe's Christian roots were at risk and saying Hungary did not want Muslim migrants. The human cost of the migrant crisis has been brought into sharp focus by Aylan's drowning, and the images of the child's lifeless body, in a t-shirt, shorts and shoes, lying on the beach. His father Abdullah has told of the horrific moments when the family of four was tipped into the Mediterranean off Turkey's coast. Reports said the family were trying to get to Canada but Ottawa denied it had received an asylum request from the boy's family. The picture sent shock waves across social media and prompted a furious reaction from, among others, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who accused European leaders of turning the Mediterranean into a "cemetery". Turkey is host to 1.8 million refugees from the conflict in neighboring Syria. Russian President Vladimir Putin, a long standing ally of Syrian leader Bashar Assad, said Europe's migrant crisis was an "absolutely expected" result of the West's policies in the Middle East and that he had personally warned of the consequences. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott meanwhile said the images of Aylan showed the need to stop the "evil trade" of people smuggling boats, defending Canberrra's own hardline immigration policies. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said the bloc's new naval mission could step up action against people smugglers in the Mediterranean within weeks, seizing and destroying their boats.

Drowned Syrian boys buried in hometown they fled
By Associated Press | Kucuk Kendirli, Turkey/September 04/15/The Syrian father who had survived a capsizing during a desperate voyage from Turkey to Greece has taken the bodies of his wife and two sons back to the Syrian Kurdish region they had fled from, to bury them in their hometown of Kobane, and they were buried Friday in their hometown of Kobani, returning to the conflict-torn Syrian Kurdish region they had fled. With the burial of his family, Abdullah Kurdi abandoned any thought of leaving his homeland again. "He only wanted to go to Europe for the sake of his children," said Suleiman Kurdi, an uncle of the grieving father. "Now that they're dead, he wants to stay here in Kobani next to them." The bodies of the mother and the two boys were flown to a city near Turkey's border with Syria, from where police-protected funeral vehicles made their way to the border town of Suruc and crossed into Kobani. Legislators from Turkey accompanied Abdullah Kurdi to Kobani. Journalists and well-wishers were stopped at a checkpoint some 3 kilometers (2 miles) from the border. Scores of casually dressed mourners clustered around as the bodies were laid in the dry, bare earth of the Martyrs Cemetery. Clouds of dust rose as dirt was shoveled over the graves. Some graves in the cemetery were haphazardly marked out with borders of concrete blocks. The haunting image of the man's 3-year-old son, Aylan Kurdi, washed up on Turkish beach focused the world's attention on the wave of migration fueled by war and deprivation. Legislators from Turkey accompanied Abdullah Kurdi to Kobane. Journalists and well-wishers were stopped at a check-point some 3 kms from the border. Aylan drowned along with his 5-year-old brother Galip and his mother, Rehan while trying to reach the island of Kos.

Putin: Premature to talk about Russian military action against ISIS
By AFP | Moscow/Friday, 4 September 2015/Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday it was premature to talk about Russia taking part in military operations against ISIS, as the U.S. said it was checking reports of Russian troops in Syria.
Asked whether Russia could take part in operations against ISIS, Putin said: “We are looking at various options but so far what you are talking about is not on the agenda.”“To say we’re ready to do this today – so far it’s premature to talk about this. But we are already giving Syria quite serious help with equipment and training soldiers, with our weapons,” RIA Novosti state news agency quoted Putin as saying. The White House on Thursday said it was closely monitoring reports that Russia is carrying out military operations in Syria, warning such actions, if confirmed, would be “destabilizing and counter-productive.” The comments come after images appeared on a social media account linked to Syrian fighters purporting to show Russian aircraft and drones near Idlib province. Putin, speaking at an international economic forum in the far eastern city of Vladivostok, criticized U.S. air strikes on ISIS as ineffective. “So far the effectiveness of these air strikes is low,” he said. Putin said that military supplies to Syria were fulfilling contracts dating back five to seven years.

How Trump's chances for the White House may hinge on Hezbollah
REUTERS/J.Post/09/04/2015 /Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump did not take kindly in a radio interview on Thursday to being asked to identify the affiliations of various militant leaders in the Middle East, saying the host was asking "a gotcha question."Discussing Islamist extremism, conservative talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt told Trump he was looking for the next president to know who the leaders of major militant groups were, naming the heads of Islamic State, Hezbollah, al-Qaida and its Nusra Front wing in Syria. "Do you know the players without a scorecard, yet, Donald Trump?" asked Hewitt, who will co-moderate the next official Republican presidential debate on Sept. 16 in California. "No, you know, I'll tell you honestly, I think by the time we get to office, they'll all be changed. They'll be all gone," Trump replied. "You know, those are like history questions. 'Do you know this one, do you know that one?'" added the billionaire real estate mogul, who has risen to the top of the polls in a crowded Republican field more than a year before the November 2016 election. When Hewitt said it was not meant as a "gotcha" question, Trump responded: "Well, it sounded like gotcha. You're asking me names that, I think it's somewhat ridiculous, but that's OK. Go ahead, let's go."Trump added that when it came to individual players: "Of course I don't know them. I've never met them. I haven't been, you know, in a position to meet them. If, if they're still there, which is unlikely in many cases, but if they're still there, I will know them better than I know you."Earlier in the interview, Trump brought up the Kurds after being asked about the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Quds forces, before adding: "Oh, I thought you said Kurds, Kurds."

Saudi King meets Kerry before White House summit
By Staff Writer | Al Arabiya News/September 04/15
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/special-reports/king-salman-visit/2015/09/03/Saudi-U-S-summit-to-discuss-regional-issues.html
Saudi Arabia’s King Salman met on Thursday with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry ahead of his meeting with President Barack Obama later today. The two met at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, adjacent to Washington. Obama is due to host King Salman in their first White House summit on Friday. The focus of the summit-level talks will be on Iran’s nuclear deal, international involvement in Syria, Yemen, terrorism and bilateral cooperation, officials and analysts have indicated. It will be King Salman’s first visit to the United States since ascending the throne in January this year.  The Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Adel Al-Jubeir met with United States Secretary of State John Kerry at the headquarters of the U.S. State Department in Washington on the eve of the visit.
The meeting came within the framework of continuing consultation and coordination between the two countries on bilateral relations. They discussed the latest developments at regional and international arenas, according to the state-run Saudi News Agency.
Speaking to Al Arabiya News channel, Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Advisor, said: “This is an important visit at an important time with the many developments in the region where we have a shared interest with Saudi Arabia and with the recent conclusion of the Iran deal.”
Iran and Syria
He added: "The nuclear deal is one specific issue. I think that what we’ve always acknowledged is a country like Saudi Arabia, or other Gulf States, other countries in the region, are concerned about what Iran might do with additional sanctions relief. If Iran’s economy improves, are they going to be more belligerent in their activity’s in the neighborhood? And we want assure these countries that even as we are implementing the nuclear deal, we’re going to be able to work cooperatively, to address what we are very concerned about.”
VIEW MORE: U.S. spokesperson: Iran nuclear deal tops agenda as King Salman visits U.S. When you look at a situation like Yemen, you’ve had Iranian support for the Houthis. If you look in Iraq, we want make sure that any Iranian influence in Iraq does not contribute to splitting the country apart. But rather, we are all pushing in support of the Abadi government and holding the country together.
Ben Rhodes, U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor
On Syria, Rhodes told Al Arabiya News Channel that the continuous support for the Assad regime is an "obstacle to the peace and stability the people Syria deserve." “So, what we’re signaling very strongly is just because we’re doing this nuclear deal does not mean there’s a broader alignment with Iran. The nuclear deal is meant to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. At the same time, we’re going to continue to have differences with many aspects of Iranian policies in the region,” he said. Al Arabiya’s contributor Patrick W. Ryan said the importance of the symposium is exemplified by the opening panel lineup: Ministers of Finance, Commerce and Industry, and Health and the Governor of the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority. Both sides are clearly open for business and working hard to expand trade and investment.
Top-level attention
The top-level attention to business ties comes at a time of increasing pressure on economies as the global energy market remains in the doldrums amid over-production and key consumers’ slowdowns. Ben Rhodes said “I wouldn’t suggest that it was going to be foremost on the agenda it will be a routine matter, as it frequently is in these meetings.”Al Arabiya’s contributor Sigurd Neubauer said the leaders will discuss “steps to counter Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said last Thursday. As well as “ways to further strengthen the bilateral relationship, including our joint security and counterterrorism efforts.”

Armed terror drones to be part of future wars, defense analyst tells ‘Post’
YAAKOV LAPPIN/J.Post/09/04/2015
The prospect of Israel having to deal with armed, hostile, attack drones capable of firing rockets or small missiles at Israeli targets while flying over Lebanon or even Gaza is growing. Despite the rising prominence of terrorist drones, Tal Inbar, head of the Space Research Center at the Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies in Herzliya, told The Jerusalem Post this week that the threat remains manageable. Many reports that focus on the firepower capabilities of Hezbollah or Hamas list rocket and missile stockpiles and briefly mention the well-known fact that both of these highly armed semi-state terrorist organizations have their own drone fleets. What is less known, perhaps, is that the drones in the service of Israel’s enemies have become more advanced. Today, they pose a bigger challenge to the Israel Air Force’s air defense systems, Inbar said. Inbar listed Iran’s defense industry as the primary engine driving this change. “We have seen armed Iranian drones. Some belong to the tin and paint division,” he said, referring to Iranian propaganda images that make false claims about advanced unmanned aerial platforms. “But on the sidelines, there are real, more advanced drones. The most advanced of these is the Shahed-129,” Inbar said, referring to a platform that bears superficial resemblance to Elbit’s Hermes-450 UAV.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps boasted in 2013 that the Shahed-129 can carry eight missiles, and that its range is 1,700 km., apparently enabling it to reach Israel. In addition to its armed attack capabilities, the Shahed-129 can also reportedly carry out some visual intelligence activities. If Hezbollah’s claims are to be believed, Iran has been successful in smuggling its flagship drone to Lebanon through its regional arms-trafficking networks, which are run by the IRGC’s Quds Force. “Hezbollah announced that it has this UAV,” Inbar said. “Several months ago, Hezbollah’s television channel broadcast images showing an experimental attack flight in Lebanon. I can’t tell whether the images were really filmed in Lebanon, or elsewhere. However, without a doubt, the ability to launch precise missiles from drones can be a disturbing [enemy] capability,” Inbar said. Such a platform could “fly over Lebanon, fire a missile, and strike an Israeli bus on our side of the border,” he cautioned.
The missiles on board the Iranian drones appear to belong to the antitank missile family. It would take them approximately 30 seconds to cross from Lebanese airspace into Israel and strike an Israeli vehicle in the North, Inbar estimated. This would represent a step up from past Hezbollah drone uses, which included attempts to send suicide bomb-laden UAVs into Israel during the 2006 Second Lebanon War, and attempts to send intelligence gathering spy drones deep into Israel in the years that followed. Inbar declined to discuss classified countermeasures, other than to confirm that they exist, and hinted that shooting down the hostile vehicle, and detecting it early, before it has the opportunity to fire, will be a key part of any effective defense approach. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas produces its own drones, including some that have rockets on their wings. “They are using knowledge, likely from Iran, to self-manufacture,” Inbar said. Hezbollah, by contrast, relies on weapons smuggling from Iran exclusively for its drone fleet. In 2012, an IAF F-16 fighter jet shot down a Hezbollah spy drone that succeeded in infiltrating southern Israel. In June 2015, a Hamas drone crash-landed in Israel, right near the Gazan border. “I can clearly say that our enemies in the north and in the south have understood the value of drones,” Inbar said.
“It’s one thing for the IAF to intercept one, two, or three drones. But if we take a scenario in which a conflict has begun, and many jets and helicopters are in the air, where Iron Dome air defense batteries are responding to large enemy rocket barrages, here we could find the IAF challenged by drone threats,” he said.
He stressed, however, that the threat to Israel is not a strategic one. The UAVs carry small missiles, and their ability to deploy firepower against Israel is limited. Even a successful drone attack on Israel would not be “a disaster,” Inbar said. “In terms of perception, striking a target is certainly an achievement [for the enemy]. I am sure the media would amplify this matter further,” he said. Despite some outward resemblances, the actual difference in capabilities and operations between Iranian and Israeli drones “is enormous,” Inbar stressed. “But Iran is investing in very large funds in this industry, and it is getting results. No one has a monopoly on UAVs,” he added. Inbar spoke ahead of the AUS&R (Autonomous, Unmanned Systems & Robotics) drone exhibition in Rishon Lezion, scheduled for September 7, which will see several types of UAVs take to the skies over central Israel for exhibition flights, and the arrival of senior drone industry figures. Elsewhere around Israel’s vicinity, the Assad regime in Syria has deployed Russian drones against rebel organizations, and, according to reports, Egypt has purchased China’s Wing Loong medium-altitude long-endurance drone. “We are seeing the whole area become flooded with UAVs, from small to complex systems. Certainly, the skies are filling up with them, and they are becoming more challenging,” he said. Still, on a more reassuring note, Inbar reiterated, “This is not a heavy threat.”

US under new pressure to absorb Syrian refugees as Europe faces crisis
Barnini Chakraborty/September 03, 2015/FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON – The surge of refugees fleeing Syria and other war-torn regions is putting immense pressure not only on Europe but also the United States, as the Obama administration faces calls to take a more active role in the humanitarian crisis.
At the same time, some lawmakers on Capitol Hill are warning that loosening immigration rules to take them in would pose a serious security risk. For the Obama administration – and the one that succeeds it – there are no easy answers.
To be sure, many of the millions fleeing civil war and terror come from countries with a strong Islamic State presence, and lawmakers have warned that applicants must be properly vetted for terror ties. But the images emerging from Europe over the past several weeks underscore the humanitarian imperative -- photos of a drowned boy's body washing up on a Turkish beach, of clashes in Hungary over shuttered train routes to Western Europe, of an abandoned truck filled with refugees' corpses in Austria.
The pace and scale of displacement, and the extreme measures refugees are taking to escape their own battered homeland, has quickly made Syria’s problem everyone’s problem.
“Not only are Syrians resorting to desperate measures to seek a better life for themselves and their families in Europe, but they are dying in the process,” International Rescue Committee President David Miliband said in a statement Wednesday. IRC, a global humanitarian aid group helping with refugee relocation, also renewed its calls for America to open its borders to refugees.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday that the images surfacing from Europe are a “stark reminder” of the “tragic" toll from the Syrian civil war. Asked what the U.S. might be doing to respond, he stressed the U.S. has given $4 billion toward humanitarian assistance and is supporting U.N. refugee efforts but -- on the question of bringing more Syrian refugees to the U.S. -- said, "At this point, I don't have any announcements along those lines."
As it stands, Syria's neighbors are in danger of buckling under the burden of housing, feeding and caring for millions of Syrian refugees. Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Iraq have absorbed an estimated 4 million refugees so far. The others are mostly heading for Europe.
But in the U.S., the Obama administration has been criticized by lawmakers and humanitarian groups for not doing enough, particularly for Christians and other religious minorities stuck inside blood-soaked Syria.
“The United States has a moral obligation to assist countries that are hosting Syrian refugees, but we also have a national security interest in maintaining stability in this critical region,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., argued in a letter earlier this year to Obama. “Moreover, at this delicate moment in relations between the United States and the Arab world, offering safe haven to more Syrians refugees will send a positive signal about our concern for the suffering of innocent Syrian civilians.”
Nina Shea, a fellow with the Hudson Institute and director of the Center for Religious Freedom, told FoxNews.com that immediate measures need to be implemented to help Christians in the region looking for ways to escape and places to go. While Shea says Christians are in greater danger in Iraq, the situation in Syria is growing graver by the day.
“The men are killed and the women and children are enslaved,” she said.
The Obama administration recently indicated it might consider the use of “parole” for some Syrian nationals to supplement existing refugee resettlement efforts.
Parole is an emergency move the government can take for “urgent” humanitarian relief for foreigners who would otherwise be ineligible for entry or put on a lengthy waiting list. The temporary passes come with an expiration date though many argue the U.S. immigration system already is so bloated and dysfunctional, any type of enforcement would be difficult.
In a recent letter to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, a USCIS official said the agency decided in 2013 "that establishing such a program was not warranted” for Syrians. But the official added: “However, as the situation continues to evolve and USCIS continues to engage with stakeholders, USCIS may reconsider the use of parole for certain Syrian nationals.”
The USCIS did not return a request for comment from FoxNews.com. If the agency did opt to use "parole" for Syrians, that would be on top of other ways refugees already are being processed, albeit at relatively low levels. In the U.S., 1,500 Syrians have been granted asylum as of March. And nearly 1,000 refugees were resettled in the U.S. this year, according to the State Department. The Obama administration indicates it plans to bring in more, and external pressure is growing.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees announced in December that Western nations had pledged to accept 100,000 Syrian refugees in 2015 and is calling for 130,000 Syrians to be resettled by the end of 2016.
The IRC has repeatedly urged the U.S. to allow in at least 65,000.
“By historical standards, the United States should be committing to take around 65,000 – or 50 percent -- of those identified by the United Nations for resettlement by the end of 2016,” Miliband wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post.
But not everyone is on board with the idea, warning there’s potential for the Islamic State and other militant fighters to infiltrate the resettlement process.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who chairs the House Homeland Security Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee, said at a hearing while he believes “the vast majority of Syrian refugees do not have ties to terror groups” he does have “a number of concerns, not the least of which is the lack of on-the-ground intelligence necessary to identify terror links."
Rep. Michael McCaul, House Homeland Security Committee chairman, wrote President Obama a letter citing concerns over plans to resettle Syrians in the U.S.
“Despite all evidence towards our homeland’s vulnerability to foreign fighters, the administration still plans to resettle Syrian refugees into the United States,” McCaul, R-Texas, said. He later added, “America has a proud tradition of welcoming refugees from around the world, but in this special situation the Obama administration’s Syrian refugee plan is very dangerous.”
Anne Richard, U.S. assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration, disagrees. She recently insisted on NPR that "these cases are the most carefully vetted of any travelers to the United States, and nobody comes in without having a Department of Homeland Security interviewer agree that they are, in fact, bona fide refugees."
To date, 250,000 Syrians have died and 11 million more have been displaced, making Syria the largest single source of refugees in the world, according to Antonio Guterres, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.
In Europe, leaders remain divided over how to handle the surge of refugee-seekers. British Prime Minister David Cameron argued the best solution is to bring peace to the Middle East.
“I don’t think there is an answer that can be achieved simply by taking more and more refugees,” he said.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has come under fire for urging caution, said Europe’s focus needs to be on protecting its borders, not opening them up.

Is the Migration Crisis Killing the European Dream?
Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/September 04/14
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6448/migration-crisis-europe
These threats hardly align with the EU's stated ambition of "ever-closer union" between member states. They are a gun to the head of EU integration.
he question of "what to do" remains politically toxic for any mainstream Western European politician. During the summer, British Prime Minister David Cameron passingly referred to the "swarm" of migrants at Calais. His political opponents immediately jumped on this and denounced his "offensive" language. What chance is there, however, of proposing the kind of bold thinking we will need to consider in Europe if we keep reducing our response to this crisis to a language game?
Professor Paul Collier recently suggested setting up EU-sponsored work-havens in Jordan to ensure Syrian refugees (who comprise 40% of recent EU arrivals) have an incentive to stay in the region.
It would make far more sense for EU countries to keep migrants out of Europe while sorting out who they are (most arrivals come without papers) and then assessing the legitimacy of their claim. The EU might consider paying North African countries to provide such holding centres. Tunisia is an obvious possibility, as is Morocco.
The breaking-down of borders and the free movement of people were central visions of the European Union project. But look anywhere across the continent today and that vision is becoming a nightmare. The flood of refugees and migrants across the Mediterranean is affecting every country in Europe and creating troubling new realities.
Along its border with Serbia, the Hungarian government has ordered the construction of a fence to try to keep out the flow of migrants. A temporary structure consists of vast rolls of razor wire. At the Italian-Austrian border, there are unprecedented backlogs of people, as the Austrian authorities refuse to allow migrants to cross. At Calais, there is pandemonium as migrants at the French port attempt to break into the Channel Tunnel or otherwise find a way to cross to Britain. And in the Eastern German town of Heidenau, there have been nights of rioting as locals protested an asylum seekers' shelter, burned down a migrant reception hall and booed Chancellor Merkel when she arrived in the area. Her government has just announced that it expects 800,000 migrants to enter Germany this year.
Migrants from the Middle East enter Hungary from Serbia, on August 26, by crawling under a temporary razor wire fence erected by the Hungarian government. (Image source: WSJ video screenshot)
Everywhere the political climate is turning. Sweden has taken more than its fair share of migrants to Europe in recent years. Its government boasts proudly of the example it believes it is setting. Just one result is that the latest opinion polls have the anti-immigration "Sweden Democrats" showing above any other party. Until recently, the Sweden Democrats were featured in single digits in the polls.
Elsewhere things are, if not breaking apart, then certainly ceasing to hold together. Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia all announced in recent days that they will not take any more Muslim migrants. This may contravene the EU's migration and asylum policies, but all three countries insist that they will from now on only accept Christian refugees from Syria.
And these are, it must be said, the countries that are "suffering" the problem least. The terms of the Dublin Treaty mean refugees claim asylum in the first EU country in which they arrive, so it is Italy and Greece that are now bearing the most responsibility. It is starting to show. In March, the Greek Defence Minister threatened other EU member states that he would flood the rest of Europe with migrants, including ISIS fighters, if they did not do more to help Greece's finances. In June, the Italian government threatened to issue migrants visas allowing them legally to travel anywhere in the EU. These threats hardly align with the EU's stated ambition of "ever-closer union" between member states. They are a gun to the head of EU integration.
Of course, migration via the soft underbelly of Europe is not a new story. What is new is the scale of the movement and the inadequacy of the response. This year has already seen the largest influx of migrants to date, with no end in sight.
It is not only the terrible humanitarian situation in Syria and Eritrea that is causing the crisis, it is also people from sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere looking for a better life to support their families. The chaos in Libya obviously makes the problem of the chosen exit points hard to address. But there is little likelihood that the situation in those home countries will change any time soon.
It is hardly within Europe's power to stabilize the situation in Syria and Eritrea (to name just two) and raise living standards across sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the region. Anyone who does think that Europe can sort out the problems in those countries, as well as in their own, is as naïve as those who think the problem starts at Calais. The challenge does, however, require the type of full-spectrum response that is far from being considered.
There are reasons for this paralysis. To date, the question of "what to do" remains politically toxic for any mainstream Western European politician. During the summer, British Prime Minister David Cameron passingly referred to the "swarm" of migrants at Calais. His political opponents immediately jumped on this and denounced his "offensive" language. What chance is there, however, of proposing the kind of bold thinking we will need to consider in Europe if we keep reducing our response to this crisis to a language game?
The first challenge might be to try to encourage migrants to stay nearer the countries they are fleeing. Professor Paul Collier recently suggested setting-up EU-sponsored work-havens in Jordan to ensure Syrian refugees (who comprise 40% of recent EU arrivals) have an incentive to stay in the region. This not only allows them a better chance of integration, but also makes it easier to return home if and when the situation improves. Similar projects might be considered in other areas.
There is also an urgent need to improve the process of sorting out genuine refugees from economic migrants. The current process is not fit for purpose -- something made worse by the fact that once people are inside Europe, it is exceedingly difficult to send them away, whoever they are. It would make far more sense for EU countries to keep migrants out of Europe while sorting out who they are (most arrivals come without papers) and then assessing the legitimacy of their claim. The EU might consider paying North African countries to provide such holding centres. Tunisia is an obvious possibility, as is Morocco. Perhaps the French government could negotiate with the Algerians. Unless anyone has a desire to go back into Libya, these are the partners with whom we might work.
Once legitimate refugee arrivals are in Europe, it will also be crucial to create a more nuanced tier-system of residencies rather than a one-size fits all system. So apart from permanent right to remain there, should be a use of temporary visas, strictly held to where they are issued and the dates they expire.
These few suggestions may at some point need to be adopted. In private, many lawmakers realize this. But as Europe's leaders keep waiting for such ideas to become politically acceptable, they push the problem around the continent. It is time instead for them to lead. If they fail, then the fences will go up across Europe and at least one part of the European dream, if not more, may die with it.

Koran Discovery: Western Science vs. Muslim Fanaticism
By Raymond Ibrahim/FrontPage Magazine/September04/15
The media is abuzz with news that a portion of the Koran, which Muslims believe was first recited by their prophet, Muhammad, may actually predate Muhammad himself. Many seem to think that such news will have a large impact on the Muslim world and make Muslims rethink the veracity of their faith.
Threat to Islam? Not likely.
Thus Tom Holland, a British historian, asserts, “It destabilizes, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged. And that, in turn, has implications for the historicity of Mohammed and his followers.”
A Koranic manuscript consultant at Oxford’s Bodleian Library, Dr. Keith Small, is more emphatic and “told the Times that if the dating is confirmed, as he believed would happen, it could raise serious problems for Islam,” since “This would radically alter the edifice of Islamic tradition. The history of the rise of Islam in late Near Eastern antiquity would have to be completely revised.” Nonsense. This recent discovery, far from threatening “the edifice of Islamic tradition” or “rais[ing] problems for Islam” is currently being used all around the Muslim world in support of Islam, for a number of reasons. First, the carbon dating is not radically incongruous with Islamic dating. It indicates that the text was written sometime between 568 and 645. Muslim tradition holds that Muhammad lived between lived 570 and 632, and that the Koran was collated and finalized around 650.
In other words, if the text was written anytime from 610-645—a full 35 years that fall within the range of the carbon testing—it poses no problems for Islam, for Muslims believe that Muhammad began receiving “revelations” or the ayat that became the verses of the Koran when he was forty. All it would mean is that, instead of believing that the Koran was collated in 650, portions of it were written down a few years earlier. Hardly a thing to rock the faith of most Muslims. In fact, there is very little that Western scholars and scientists can do or say about Islam that would have much influence on the Islamic mindset. The fact is, over centuries, lots of things have emerged that should put the veracity of the Koran and Islam to the test—whether the plausible suggestion that Muhammad never existed, certainly not the Muhammad of Islamic tradition, or whether the fact that the Koran, which says of itself that it is written in “pure Arabic” (see 12:2, 13: 37), has several Syro-Aramaic words in it. Or perhaps that the Koran says, very literally, that the sun sets in a pool of dark mud (18:86).
Science doesn’t hold much weight with the modern Islamic mindset—not when it contradicts the Koran. The earth is round? So say the lying infidels, responded the late Saudi grand mufti, Bin Baz: if the Koran says the earth is flat (88:20), the earth is flat!
Interestingly, even in the West, if people come to believe that the Koran predates Muhammad, it won’t matter much: we will still be told to respect Islam since Muslims believe it. Whether one rejects the prophethood of Muhammad—the definition of a non-Muslim—or whether one rejects traditional Islamic chronology it’s the same conclusion: Islam is a false religion.
The problem here is that we are dealing with reciprocal projection—the Western mentality projecting its onetime appreciation for reason onto Muslims, and the Muslim mentality projecting its own subversive methods onto the Other, the Infidel, the sworn enemy. Westerners may think this will have an impact on Muslim faith because they know it would have an impact on their own. Conversely, Muslims, who from the start have built their faith on casting doubt and aspersions on the faiths of others, are convinced that any Western claim, scientific or otherwise, that casts doubts on the origins of Islam is merely the latest infidel conspiracy. After all, was it not Muhammad himself who taught that the texts of Judaism and Christianity—the Bible—are corrupt and fraudulent. Is it not obvious, Muslims are thinking, that the infidels will turn this argument on us by saying the Koran is of dubious authenticity? If reason was a cornerstone of Islamic thinking—it was laid in its grave by the ulema in the 10th century—Muslims would have lost faith in Islam a long time ago (many have and do but remain nominal Muslims due to fears of the apostasy penalty). Meanwhile, it’s not the age of the Koran but its contents that speak against its veracity. A book that calls for savagely killing all who do not submit to its authority; that calls for beheadings, crucifixions, and mutilations; that justifies theft, extortion, and the sexual enslavement of “infidel’ women and children; a book that calls for everything ungodly but claims to have been written by God is false on principle. Carbon dating is irrelevant. But of course, while Western academics, politicians, and media can openly discuss this issue of the Koran’s dating—after all, it’s “scientific”—criticizing the Koran from a moral point of view, which is what’s needed here, remains unthinkable (remember: morality is relative in the West).
And so, when all is said and done, the mantra that “Islam is peace” will continue to be chanted mindlessly in the West.

Iranian Regime Celebrates Its Victory In The Nuclear Agreement
MEMRI/September 4, 2015 Special Dispatch No.6150
After Iran and the P5+1 announced the JCPOA on July 14, 2015, top Iranian officials, headed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said that the country was a superpower with standing equal to that of the U.S., and that this status would become even stronger because of the agreement. They boasted of Iran's might and said that it had forced the superpowers to surrender to it and its demands.
Following are highlights from these statements:
Iranian Defense Minister: The Superpowers Surrendered To Iran And "Obeyed The Iranian Rights"
At an armed forces general command ceremony on August 30, 2015, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan said: "Today, Iran has attained such status that the superpowers have surrendered to it, because of its majesty, its steadfastness, its resistance, and its unity. Despite their great pride, the regime of the arrogance [the West, led by the U.S.] sat humbly behind the negotiating table and obeyed the rights of the Iranian nation."[1]
Leader Khamenei: "Those Who Levelled Sanctions Against Us Yesterday Are Dying Today – Because Iran Has Become The Region's Foremost Military Power"
On August 24, 2015, the website of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei published a poster titled "The Iron Fist," symbolizing Iran's might following the agreement. The text on the poster states: "Those who levelled sanctions against us yesterday are dying today, because Iran has become the region's foremost military power. The Islamic Republic of Iran has proven that it works diligently to defend itself. The entire nation unites as a solid fist, standing fast against the aggressors who lack all reason." The poster features a fist adorned with Iranian flags breaking through clouds; the fist is made up of military equipment, including missiles, jets, ships, tanks, and so on.[2]
IRGC Website Javan: "Iran Is Becoming A Power... Equal To America In The World"
On July 15, 2015 the Javan website, which is affiliated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), claimed that Iran has become a superpower with standing equal to that of the U.S., and that this is why the U.S. agreed to conduct a dialogue with Iran in nuclear talks: "In his speech following the agreement between Iran and the P5+1, Obama stated: 'This deal is also in line with a tradition of American leadership. It's now more than 50 years since President Kennedy stood before the American people and said, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." He was speaking then about the need for discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union.'[3]
"This speech clearly shows the sunset of American power and that [the U.S.] has been downgraded from a superpower to an ordinary power. First, Obama considers diplomacy and negotiations to be America's leadership tradition, while its record indicates that since it emerged in the international arena during World War I, it has chosen no path but military force. The wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the dozens of other crimes in Latin America show that America's leadership tradition has never been diplomacy. Superpowers see themselves as too big to waste their time in negotiations and diplomacy with third-world or smaller countries. They are used to determining how others should behave by waving their finger, and fulfilling their interests by way of military assault. America's diplomatic record includes several rounds of talks with the former Soviet Union. Therefore, we can say that from World War II to 1990, America's leadership tradition championed diplomacy or negotiations only vis-à-vis powers of equal standing...
"Obama's statements defending negotiating with Iran can lead to one of two conclusions: Either America views Iran and its deterrence as equal to those of the former Soviet Union... or America does not have the status it once did...
"What has happened now is that the U.S. Secretary of State [John Kerry] has abandoned all his duties and his life to negotiate with Iran – to haggle, to capitulate, to call on the Europeans to help in the talks, and he does not consider Iran to be like Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq. So what really happened here?
"In his televised speech on April 5, 2015, following the Lausanne agreement, Obama said that of the three options – attack, sanctions, and negotiations – he saw no other option but negotiations, and even before that he said, 'If I could have, I would have dismantled Iran's entire nuclear [project].' The other side of the 'if I could have' coin is 'I can't.' How can we understand this 'I can't?' After all, America has a military presence in 50 places around the globe, including in the Persian Gulf...
"America's conduct in the absence of the Soviet Union shows that Iran is becoming a power that is second to, or even equal to America in the world. [Therefore,] America does not have the courage to attack it militarily or even to conduct bilateral talks [with it], so it is being helped by three European countries [France, Britain, and Germany].
"It is not unreasonable that America believes that our military capabilities do not surpass its own, but it fears [Iran's] soft power, which is stronger than military bombardment... This soft power has two main avenues: an covenant between the nation and the Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini]... and an alliance with the countries of the region [that is based on] emotion and faith. The Iraqi nation is an example of this alliance; there, America sacrificed 4,400 troops and ousted Saddam [Hussein], but the friends of the Islamic Revolution [of Iran] sat on Saddam's throne and did not in any way allow [the Americans] to seize power there. This soft power cannot carry out a military assault, which is why the Islamic Revolution's increasing might has caused America to transform itself, due to fear, from a stupid enemy into a relatively clever one."[4]
Senior Khamenei Advisor In IRGC: Nuclear Agreement Will Improve Iran's Status And Might
Yadollah Javani, senior advisor to Khamenei in the IRGC, wrote in the July 27, 2015 editorial of the IRGC weekly Sobh-e Sadeq: "Will war break out between Iran and America? This cannot be decisively answered with a yes or no. But we can prove that in past years, the U.S. was incapable of carrying out, and could not work up the courage to carry out, a military assault on Iran. In the past decade, the Americans and Zionists have repeatedly threatened to attack Iran, but due to their deep concerns regarding the implications of a possible war against [Iran], they have not followed through with their threats... Therefore, American officials announced that Iran's nuclear dossier would only be resolved by diplomatic means.
"After the [April 2, 2015] Lausanne statement, U.S. President Obama announced that war or increased sanctions would not subdue Iran or destroy its nuclear industry. Throughout all these years the Americans threatened to attack Iran militarily, but both they and others, including the Iranian nation, knew full well that this threat was mainly psychological warfare, and that America could not start another war in West Asia.
"With its record of empty military threats, the Americans once again began to boast about the issue of a military assault on Iran, after the conclusion of the Vienna talks and the signs of an emerging nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1. The military threat has come from Obama, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and other American officials in recent days; they have all stressed the option of military force against Iran in the future...
"So far the Americans have not attacked, because of Iran's deterrence, which is steadily increasing. A decade ago, the Americans were stronger than they are today, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was weaker. In the past decade, the power of America and its allies in the region has eroded, while the power of the Islamic Republic and its allies has only increased. Therefore, the regional upheavals during the past decade have worked in Iran's favor, and to the detriment of the U.S.. Thanks to the nuclear agreement, this process will not take a turn for the worse for Iran, but could only add special might to it.
"This is precisely the cause of the concern regarding the nuclear agreement that has been expressed by officials of the Zionist regime and of America's other allies in the region, such as the Al-Saud regime. Therefore, the boasting by America, following the acknowledgement of a nuclear Iran by the agreement between Iran and the P5+1, comes from necessity, and reflects America's attempt to maintain the façade of its status as a world superpower.
"However, the truth is that the time of this superpower has passed, and America must accept the facts of the new world. The world's balance of power is shifting, and a new international political order is being shaped. [This new world order] includes the acknowledgement of a nuclear-fuel-cycle-Iran with decisive deterrent capabilities in the region by the world's six main powers..."[5]
Endnotes:
[1] Tasnimnews.com (Iran), August 30, 2015.
[2] Farsi.khamenei.ir, August 24, 2015.
[3] Whitehouse.gov, July 14, 2015.
[4] Javan (Iran), July 15, 2015.
[5] Sobh-e Sadeq (Iran), July 27, 2015.

A King from the East approaches
Dr. John Duke Anthony/Al Arabiya/September 04/15
King Salman’s visit to Washington comes at a unique time in the U.S.-Saudi relationship, which is fundamentally strong. It is, however, characterized by a lack of adequate mutual understanding – there are different motives and goals, misattributions of intent, and stress on its underpinnings. It is human nature to accept the positive aspects of a situation as a given and to focus – in some cases obsess – on the negative. So the following is warranted: the relationship will not only endure, it is more likely to strengthen than weaken over time.
The disagreements and trends outlined below will not significantly disrupt it. Even if the meeting between King Salman and President Barack Obama contains moments that a freewheeling media may contend are contentious, the fact that they are meeting at all is a sign of the relationship’s strength. For example, the United States and Britain meet to resolve differences; the Koreas do not. Of these two relationships, one is strong and vital, the other is at best dysfunctional.
Undeniably, the media, members of Congress and lobbyists of all stripes will and have already begun to parrot and highlight elements of mistrust and misapprehension in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. This is in many ways to be expected. Jousting between friends, allies, partners and adversaries is part of the essence of two non-identical countries being regional and international leaders.
The Iran deal has caused significant angst in the United States and Saudi Arabia. In both countries, it has surfaced differences that had seemingly been submerged in the interests of political and geostrategic expediency. King Salman arrives in Washington in 2015 not without leverage in discussing how Saudis understand geography, and that their interests in the Iran deal are more significant than those of the United States. Significant numbers of Americans continue to second-guess Saudi Arabia’s commitment to fighting Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and similar extremist groups. Significant numbers of Saudis continue to question the efficacy of U.S. policies vis-à-vis its invasion and occupation of Iraq, not to mention Washington’s contributions to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The nature, extent and consequences of U.S. commitment to Israel understandably remain a point of contention. At the same time, some have questioned one of the traditional underpinnings of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, namely Riyadh’s role as the “swing” if not dominant international oil producer. Underlying these and other issues is Saudi concern about succession after Obama, and U.S. concern about succession after King Salman.
Yemen
One of the strongest aspects of the U.S.-Saudi relationship currently is cooperation in the defense and security fields. This is now at its zenith. For the first time, both countries are jointly prosecuting two conflicts simultaneously.
Riyadh’s superior knowledge and understanding of the internecine dynamics of Yemen’s governmental structures and systems of political dynamics, as well as with its Special Forces’ expertise, is unparalleled. This is combined with U.S. military equipment, expertise, and logistic and intelligence support. The efforts of both sides are proving essential to the campaign to restore Yemen's legitimate government.
Simultaneously, the Saudi air force’s support and participation in the international coalition against ISIS constitute an invaluable military contribution. Neither the Yemen nor the anti-ISIS campaigns are likely to achieve their political aims in the near future.
That is because they are marked by a reliance on airpower more suited to limited operations aimed at inducing a political outcome, rather than the tactics employed by the Houthis and ISIS, neither of which has shown any inclination toward surrender. As such, the campaigns may be approaching the point where airpower will have run the length of its utility.
King Salman and his American interlocutors, Obama included, cannot help but acknowledge that the Saudi air force has performed well over Yemen. However, both remain aware that reliance upon airpower alone against a determined enemy is unlikely to prevail. As NATO learned in Kosovo, airpower has its limits. The king and the president can be expected to discuss how the Saudi-led coalition, together with U.S. assistance, can help bring operations in Yemen to a satisfactory conclusion.
Syria, Iraq
Obama can be expected to seek support from King Salman regarding Iraq and Syria. Likewise, the king can count on meeting a U.S. president willing to listen and benefit from what he and his officialdom have to offer in this regard.
No one outside the White House can claim to know exactly what questions will be put to the king or vice versa. Even so, it is fair to assume that Obama will seek to learn to what extent Riyadh would be willing to support this or that Syrian opposition movement, and the efforts of the Iraqi government against ISIS. Obama will be understood if, in his quest to prevent an open Sunni-Shiite war in Iraq, he were to view cooperation of the strongest Sunni state as an important if not vital key.
Defense sales, purchases
In the big scheme of things, whether a significant weapons sale is a result of the meeting ought to be insignificant. In this regard, and contrary to popular media-anchored belief, the dynamics of arms sales are not synonymous with the success or failure of Washington pitching the purchase of its weapons to a client.
Americans ought to be aware, though the evidence is that the number who know is very low, that whenever a country asks to buy U.S. defense equipment, Washington is required by law to enter into a prolonged review as to whether the item in question ought to be released for purchase by other countries.
In the United States, albeit not in other countries, such a review includes an analysis of the effect that a proposed sale of armaments to another country might have on Israel’s qualitative military edge toward all 22 Arab states combined.
Yet this meeting could still see announcement of the sale of the U.S.-manufactured Theater High Altitude Air Defense system to enhance the kingdom’s Patriot Air Defense System. A joint declaration on missile defense, an increasingly preferred avenue for joint U.S.-Gulf defense cooperation, is also possible.
Iran nuclear deal
The success or failure of the meeting is unlikely to turn on arms purchases and sales, but rather the Iran nuclear deal. Riyadh and its fellow members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have questions about the deal. However, due to an extraordinary number of meetings, visits and briefings in the past year, the questions are far fewer of late. The GCC is on record as supporting the deal.
Even so, just as the U.S. executive branch of government has to contend with a public that is relatively ill-informed on international issues of importance to its perceived interests, the same is true for Saudi Arabia and many another countries. Hence, just as many in the American private sector claim the Obama administration has done less than it could to reach an agreement likely to advance regional and global peace, security and prosperity, so too is there a similar element at work within Saudi Arabia and the other GCC societies.
Obama and his staff will have to explain how the deal will enhance Gulf peace and security.
A grace note in underscoring the extent of common understanding and interests would be for both to highlight that this year marks two U.S.-Saudi 70th anniversaries.
First meet
In one, on Feb. 14, 1945, Saudi King Abdulaziz and U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt met aboard the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal. In so doing, they signalled their strong national and personal bonds that have well-served their peoples – and arguably the world too – ever since.
Regarding the second event, the two countries’ leaders stood side by side as their foreign ministers co-founded in the United States the world’s highest political body, the United Nations, also in 1945.
King Salman arrives in Washington in 2015 not without leverage in discussing how Saudis understand geography, and that their interests in the Iran deal are more significant than those of the United States. Nor will he be without a voluminous file of evidence of Iran’s persistent meddling in what he and his fellow Arab heads of state regard as quintessential Arab affairs.
The king’s foreign minister, the exceptionally politically savvy Adel al-Jubeir, was until recently ambassador in Washington. More than many others, he is well placed to indicate the implications of the domestic U.S. argument over the Iran deal. He is also well situated to place in context how various American observers of international politics have been hoodwinked into believing Saudi Arabia and Israel are joined at the hip in opposing the Iran deal.
Despite the obstacles, to envision that Obama will be unable to summon all his formidable charm and powers of argument to continue to persuade Saudi Arabia of the value of the deal would be to underestimate him.
Strained budgets
An additional stress on the analytics of the U.S.-Saudi relationship is the financial challenges confronting both sides. Saudis are rightly concerned that the U.S. commitment to Gulf stability may wane in the wake of diminished U.S. defense budgets. Americans are concerned about the impact of low oil prices on Saudi Arabia.
The U.S. defense budget will likely continue to be cut disproportionately to other budget items. That the United States no longer has an aircraft carrier constantly in the Gulf has been noted throughout the region, together with the implications for regional needs and policies of possible further U.S. defense budget shrinkage.
Obama’s burden will be to show how the U.S. commitment will remain constant even if the American “big-ticket” defense presence, if measured in terms of sheer physical military might, is not. Conversely, Americans might have concerns about the future of Saudi finances if oil prices continue at their current lows. Riyadh is heavily reliant on oil to fund its extensive defense and security structures and systems, as well as its social welfare programs.
The kingdom’s private non-oil industry, while booming and likely to continue to be robust, is yet to be developed to a level that can be sustained in the absence of a strong oil economy. In this context, Obama will welcome insight as to how the kingdom plans to manage this period of low oil prices, especially as there is every indication that it will be extended and deepened once Iranian oil hits the global market.
Future leadership
Both leaders might reasonably be concerned about what will come after they are gone. King Salman may be worried that a new U.S. president will choose not to honor commitments made by his or her predecessors. U.S. election season rarely brings much comfort to Saudi Arabia. This is understandable. The kingdom’s concerns are generally not viewed with the same sympathy as American voters view those of Canada, Mexico, Israel, Europe or Japan.
Obama must do what he can to reassure King Salman that his existing undertakings, in addition to whatever understandings the two may agree to this week, will be honored by his successor.
Conversely, Obama may be concerned about the future of Saudi leadership in light of recent changes made to the line of succession that put King Salman’s son in the position of deputy crown prince, and thus may have raised questions among other branches of the family.
The robustness of the Saudi royal family, however, is generally underestimated in the West. In my lifetime, one Saudi monarch was deposed or disposed to abdicate, and another was murdered. In both instances, no chaos ensued. Nevertheless, mutual considerations of future leaders will be in the background.
Don’t believe the hype
The U.S.-Saudi relationship is strong. That the leaders of both nations are meeting at a time of regional turmoil is indicative of this strength. Both nations have roughly the same objectives in this meeting.
The challenges will be to go beyond understanding each other’s perceptions – this, to a degree, they already do – and find policy courses most likely to achieve mutually beneficial aims. The public announcements after the meeting will be parsed and analyzed, yet from the perspective of analysts they are but trees in the forest.
The greater message is that the king and the president are meeting as peers to resolve issues of mutual concern. The partnership between the two countries – as with any other two countries – can be strengthened only in this way. The relationship is one for the long term.

Renewing the decades-old strategic Saudi-U.S. partnership
Andrew Bowen/Al Arabiya/September 04/15
King Salman’s first visit to Washington since his ascension marks an important moment to renew the decades-old strategic partnership between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In the wake of the reaching of the P5 +1 agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, this visit comes at a critical period in both states relations with one another. While the partnership between these two countries has helped underwrite global security and stability and the stability of international energy markets, Washington’s perceived draw back from the region at a time of regional tensions with Iran, the surge of ISIS, a war in Yemen, and a civil war in Syria has created both uncertainty and tension at a time when both states need one another to secure the future of the Middle East and their respective interests.
A renewal of trust and cooperation after
The upcoming meeting between President Obama and King Salman as well is a crucial moment to build on the achievements made at the GCC summit at Camp David earlier this spring. Importantly, as well, in his last fifteen months, this White House meeting is an opportunity for Obama to build a stronger personal working relationship with the new Saudi King. With the number of critical issues both states are confronting, a renewal of trust is needed. This is an opportunity for the President to assure King Salman that Washington is as committed to fighting ISIS as bringing an end to President Assad’s reign of terror. However, it would be a mistake though to assume rhetorical commitments made at Camp David and a meeting at the White House alone would revive this new partnership and ensure that its on better footing since the nuclear agreement was reached. Better cooperation is needed between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to solidify the commitments made at Camp David.
At the same time, in this changing energy landscape and the volatility of global energy prices, Washington and Riyadh have an important opportunity to build deeper and more diversified economic ties. The U.S.-Saudi investment Forum being held in Washington this week is an important avenue to further renew this partnership.
Delivering an important message
While the meeting between President Obama and King Salman isn’t expected to be one marked by significant new commitments made by Washington, President Obama has the opportunity to deliver an important message. Despite the reaching of an Iranian nuclear agreement, it would be premature to see such an agreement as a shift from the U.S.'s partnership with Saudi Arabia. Washington's decades old relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a pillar of the U.S.'s long-term relationship with the region and that engagement with Iran will be conducted cautiously and judiciously and in consultation with Washington’s regional partners despite how the negotiations were previously conducted. President Obama also has an opportunity to more substantively discuss how the U.S. plans to build off of the commitments made at Camp David. Importantly, the President has an opportunity to detail his vision for the U.S.’s long-term position both in terms of security and economic commitments in the region after a nuclear agreement. The perceived growing U.S. energy independence and the rhetorical “tilt to Asia” has led many to speculate that the U.S. will not be in a position in the coming decades to support its Gulf allies and its regional partners as they face growing challenges and potentially future Iranian aggression. Washington’s response to Syria and its slow response to ISIS’ surge are indicative of this.
Strengthening security cooperation
The most pressing issues that will feature on the agenda of the leaders’ upcoming meeting will be: Iran, Yemen, Syria, and ISIS. While Riyadh has publicly supported the signing of the Iranian nuclear agreement, this meeting is an opportunity to further discuss how Washington and Riyadh can work together to ensure that Iran’s aggressive behavior is contained after the nuclear agreement and the associated lifting of sanctions. President Obama has the opportunity to assure King Salman that he’s not purely giving Ayatollah Khamenei a $160 billion dollar check to wage war on Saudi and U.S. interests in the region. Instead, Washington would be prepared to ensure the security of the Gulf States, the continued security of the Arabian Gulf, and will work with Saudi Arabia in countering Iran’s expansionary behavior in the region. President Obama may also seek to discourage his Saudi counterpart from pursuing a nuclear program. President Obama and King Salman will have an opportunity to discuss the current operation in Yemen and the Saudi efforts to secure Yemen’s long-term security, including the potential campaign to retake Sana’a and efforts to secure a peace settlement. This meeting is an opportunity both to assure Riyadh of Washington’s commitment to the operation and to bridge differences over the nature of the operation. Finally, this meeting is an opportunity to discuss Syria, an issue Riyadh views as Washington not taking that seriously. President Obama has an opportunity to use this meeting to assure King Salman that his administration will more seriously pursue a political settlement of Syria’s civil war and provide more substantive support to Syria’s opposition.
This is an opportunity for the President to assure King Salman that Washington is as committed to fighting ISIS as bringing an end to President Assad’s reign of terror. While Washington may view ISIS and Syria as related but distinct issues that can be addressed separately, Riyadh views these issues as inseparable and both have significant impact on Riyadh’s long-term security. Washington also can do more to assure Riyadh that they won’t seek a solution to the Syrian civil war, which favors Iran.
A note of caution
While this meeting is the beginning of a renewed U.S.-Saudi partnership, the coming months as both leaders grapple with regional challenges and the changing regional environment post-the nuclear deal will be the real indicator to see whether this renewal leads to more substantive cooperation. President Obama will need to substantively translate his words into actions. At the same time, both Washington and Riyadh will need to find more common ground on issues where they have differences in order for this partnership to further deepen. Entering the last fifteen months of his presidency, Obama has a new moment to chart a new course.

Why King Salman’s visit to Washington matters now
Dr. John C. Hulsman/Al Arabiya/September 04/15
“Darling, this thing is bigger than the both of us”
Keith Richards to Mick Jagger, on the need to resolve their differences within the Rolling Stones
While Israelis are habitually seen as having the edge when it comes to understanding the ways of Washington, it seems to me that King Salman’s astute response to the nuclear deal with Iran has proven far more practically productive than the hapless petulance of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Whereas the Israeli Premier has foolishly spent his political capital futilely rallying American congressional opposition to the deal (and thus incurring the Obama administration’s enmity), the King’s administration has shown itself to be the better political risk analysts. Rather than publicly indulging in a temper tantrum about the nuclear deal, Riyadh seems to have quietly (and tepidly) accepted the inevitable; that Congress will not stop the deal. As such, making the best of it has become the kingdom’s watchword. The reward for such a grown-up response will be the King handing the White House its bill for this valuable diplomatic support during his upcoming visit to Washington this week. For much like Keith Richards’ insight about his fraught ties with Mick Jagger during the Rolling Stones heyday, Riyadh might have come to understand that it is fundamentally in its interests to move on from the nuclear deal, that U.S. -Saudi ties must transcend present tensions as almost nothing can be achieved without the two powers working together in rough concert. Diplomatically, the relationship is truly bigger than the both of them.
The particulars of the bill
There are likely to be three basic questions that are likely to be presented before the Obama White House. First, what the U.S, intends to offer the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states in terms of military hardware, a promise the White House made last Spring. Specifically, the Saudis will seek upgrades for their F-15s, even though Israel worries this might lessen their military edge in the region. Look for the Saudis to also press this issue as a litmus test of how far the White House is prepared to go to retain Saudi favour, given possible congressional opposition to the upgrade. Rather than publicly indulging in a temper tantrum about the nuclear deal, Riyadh seems to have quietly (and tepidly) accepted the inevitable; that Congress will not stop the deal. Riyadh is also an enthusiastic supporter of establishing a GCC rapid reaction force to deal with unanticipated military crises that may emerge in the Gulf State region. Up until now, Washington has merely paid lip service to such a possibility. The Saudi visit will allow the King to probe and see if America will provide more enthusiastic diplomatic support in the near term.
Second, and beyond strategic concerns, look for the Saudis to seek broad America backing for their foreign policy. Since King Salman ascended the throne in January 2015, Saudi Arabia has departed to an extent from Riyadh’s traditional behind-the-scenes foreign policy, instead forthrightly championing measures that explicitly attempt to articulate and further specific Saudi national interests. In particular, the King is likely to press the Obama team to do more in Yemen. Up until now, the U.S. has provided limited logistical and intelligence support for the Saudi-led coalition there. Recently, Riyadh has been pleased that the Pentagon has more than doubled the number of military advisers it has on the ground in Yemen, who provide the kingdom with targeting intelligence for Saudi air strikes against the Iranian-backed Houthi militias. Given the recent coalition advances in the country, look for the Saudis to press the Americans to do even more.
The elephant in the room
Curiously, I believe discussions about the elephant in the corner of the room—the Iran nuclear deal—will only amount to the Saudis’ third priority during the Washington visit. However, with King Salman’s September 4th trip occurring just days before the proposed congressional vote on the Iran deal, everyone will watch his presence. Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic posture has been to endorse the deal, all the while expressing concern over its details. This lukewarm but vital diplomatic support—as is often the case in the rough and tumble world of international relations—has come with strings attached. The Saudis will be seeking concrete assurances from the White House regarding America persevering in establishing a toughened inspections regime over Iran’s nuclear sites, allowing for easier snapback sanctions to be put in place should Iran cheat on the terms of the accord. Rather, than wasting capital coming out against the compact, King Salman will use Saudi diplomatic leverage to make sure the impending deal is in practice as strong as it can be made.
Given both his shrewd reading of the American political facts on the ground over the Iran accord and Keith Richards’ insight that the Saudi-American relationship is truly bigger than the both of them, it is highly likely that King Salman’s diplomatic bill for his support for the administration will be honored. If it is, U.S. -Saudi relations will truly have been re-set.

Why I shared a horrific photo of a drowned Syrian child
Peter Bouckaert/Al Arabiya/September 04/15
I thought long and hard before I retweeted the photo of 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi. It shows the lifeless toddler, lying face down on a popular Turkish beach, one of eleven Syrians who have almost certainly died as they tried to reach safety in Europe by boarding a smuggler’s boat. Instead they ended up as the latest victims of Europe’s paltry response in the face of a growing crisis. What struck me the most were his little sneakers, certainly lovingly put on by his parents that morning as they dressed him for their dangerous journey. One of my favorite moments of the morning is dressing my kids and helping them put on their shoes. They always seem to manage to put something on backwards, to our mutual amusement. Staring at the image, I couldn’t help imagine that it was one of my own sons lying there drowned on the beach. I am currently in Hungary, documenting the journeys of Syrian refugees, the very journey that today took another young life. It’s easy to blame the parents for exposing their son to such deadly danger, but only if you forget the barrel bombs and Islamic State (also known as ISIS) beheadings that they are fleeing. All morning yesterday at the Serbian-Hungarian border, I saw Syrian parents determinedly walking with their children – trying to remove them from the horrors of the slaughter in Syria, which have been allowed to continue for four years, and to the promise of security in Europe. Those parents are heroes; I admire their sheer determination to bring their children to a better life.
Notebooks full of tragedy
Sadly, all along the journey, they are faced with hurdles and hostility. Some smugglers are so organized they even give receipts for their criminal business, but they care little for the lives of those they transport and make fortunes from. Their brutality may be expected, but what is inexcusable is the indifference and obstacles placed in their path by Europe’s leaders. Almost every Syrian I have interviewed has had a close brush with death on their journey, often involving sinking boats. Almost every Syrian I have interviewed has had a close brush with death on their journey, often involving sinking boats. Now, in Hungary, they find their path blocked again, with thousands made to sleep in the streets without any help from the Hungarian authorities. My notebooks are full of tragedy. Ali Pintar, a Syrian Kurd, fled with his three children after ISIS tried to take control of his hometown of Qamishli by sending suicide car bombs into the town. He has his train tickets to Munich, but police are preventing him from even entering the train station, so he has been sleeping rough for the last three nights with his children. He is utterly dejected, telling me of the humiliation he has faced: “It would have been better to stay in Syria. There, you only die once when there is an explosion or something. Here, I feel like I die a thousand deaths each day.”
Some say the picture is too offensive to share online or print in our newspapers. But what I find offensive is that drowned children are washing up on our shorelines, when more could have been done to prevent their deaths.
It was not an easy decision to share a brutal image of a drowned child. But I care about these children as much as my own. Maybe if Europe’s leaders did too, they would try to stem this ghastly spectacle.

Will the EU bolster the Iranian Revolutionary Guards?
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya/September 04/15
There is a noticeable surge in the number of foreign companies desiring to conduct business with the Islamic Republic. This surge comes primarily from many European countries and EU companies. Russia and China have already been conducting business with Iran. However when it comes to the United States it is less likely to initiate any business deals with Iran anytime soon due to domestic political opposition, the lifting of embargo, and the Congressional efforts to reject the deal. Nevertheless, after the nuclear agreement was struck between the six world powers (known as P5+1) and Iran, EU countries and companies are in a clear rush to conduct business with the Islamic Republic without, I believe, contemplating the repercussions of these actions.
Three crucial avenues that will be used to elevate the economic status of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) will be indirectly provided by the EU governments and companies. These avenues are Iran’s access to over $100 billion which gives financial freedom, removal of sanctions on oil and gas industries which increases their profit, regional and global influence, and relations with companies tied to the IRGC. These short-sighted and business-driven moves by European countries and companies might bring short-term benefit and profit for them, however, I believe they may lead to severe economic and geopolitical consequences that will impact not only other countries and citizens in the region but also have a grave affect on EU economic, national, and geopolitical interests in the long-term.
Lifting sanctions on the IRGC and connected companies
The IRGC is the most powerful industrial and business empire in Iran controlling all variations of conglomerates and industries ranging from transportation, mobile, arms, as well as engineering, and financial. European governments and companies were cognizant of the fact that if they would like to reap business benefits from Iran’s nuclear deal, they have to go through Iran’s Guards to get the deals signed. Aware of this desire, Iranian leaders were politically shrewd enough to capitalize on the EU’s economic ambitions. As a result, they put the plan of removing sanctions on IRGC senior officials, financial institutions and affiliated companies on the table. Iranian leaders were confident that EU members would agree with the condition for the purpose of benefiting their economy.
The EU ought to be cautious of its business-driven policies.
Secondly, EU countries were most likely attempting to appease Iran’s hardliners (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior guard of IRGC) so that IRGC would not hinder the signing of the nuclear deal. The lifting of sanctions on IRGC officials will have significant impact by strengthening the IRGC stranglehold in the region. According to Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araqchi, in the first phase- which can occur as early as October of this year- “In the initial step, 800 Iranian institutions, organizations and individuals will be taken off the list on the day the agreement is put into practice.”
Since the lifting of sanctions occurs “on the day the agreement is put into practice”, then the removal of these institutions and individuals who are mostly tied to IRGC, does not need to be contingent on whether Iran is complying with the nuclear deal or not.
The European Union and United Nations’ sanctions on some of IRGC officials will be lifted as part of the nuclear pact. One of these figures is General Qassem Soleimani, the head of IRGC elite branch, the Quds Force. He is believed to be the mastermind behind managing Shiite proxies in the region and implementing Iran’s foreign policy in foreign countries through hard power. He oversees the training, financing, and arming of Tehran’s proxies. The sanctions will be lifted on various industries including engineering, transportations and arms which are directly controlled by the IRGC business empire. Except for three Iranian banks, the sanctions on all other banks and financial institutions will be lifted on the day of implementation. Sanctions of the three banks will reportedly be lifted in the second phase.
In the second phase, sanctions on IRGC three main arms will be lifted, although this is dependent on whether the IAEA reaches a conclusion that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful or not.
The threat and vicious circle
Although the United States was the major influence behind the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran - by diplomatically pushing for the nuclear deal - I believe it is the EU that is now assisting the Islamic Republic and IRGC in enjoying and harvesting the economic fruit.
In order to immediately profit from conducting business with Iran, at the expense of the regional stability and citizens’ life and security in the Middle East, EU countries and companies are prepared to remove sanctions on Iranian individuals and companies linked to Iran’s Islamic Guards without concern for the fallout. These types of policies are short sighted as they focus only on the immediate financial benefits. The EU ought to be cautious of its business-driven policies. The same IRGC institutions and individuals that the EU is attempting to lift the sanctions against will be conducting the same interventionist activities or repressive domestic policies that they are fulfilling now in Iran and throughout the region.

Saudi King Comes to Washington, with His Son
Simon Henderson/Washington Institute/September 04/15
The royals will likely try to smooth relations that have been strained by the Iran nuclear deal and differences over Syria and Yemen. On September 4, King Salman is scheduled to visit the White House for the first time since succeeding to the throne in January. His inaugural visit to Washington was originally supposed to occur during the May summit of Gulf leaders at Camp David, but he cancelled at the last moment in what was widely perceived as a snub to President Obama's then pending nuclear agreement with Iran. The upcoming visit is expected to focus on repairing the diplomatic damage. At seventy-nine years old, the king has limited physical and mental capacity for diplomacy. He is flying in from Morocco, where he has spent the past month on vacation after curtailing a planned sojourn in southern France on a whim. His formal discussion with President Obama is expected to be short and tightly scripted -- the more crucial character in the room will probably be his favorite son, the thirtyish Muhammad bin Salman (a.k.a. MbS), who serves as defense minister and deputy crown prince. The king's notional heir apparent -- fifty-six-year-old nephew Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef (MbN) -- will remain in the kingdom.
MbS is now the closest aide to his father, who has encouraged the young man's ambition and meteoric rise in the past few months. In addition to being seen as the architect of the war to reinstall Yemeni president Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi, who was pushed out by pro-Iranian Houthi rebels, MbS has been used as a top diplomatic envoy, visiting Egypt, Russia, and Jordan. Whereas the late King Abdullah was categorical in his loathing of the Muslim Brotherhood, Salman -- or in reality perhaps MbS -- distinguishes between extreme and less extreme parts of the group. This approach is in line with his more general vision of bringing the Arab world closer together, in large part to counter Iran. Hence the wide coalition that Riyadh has put together in Yemen, as well as its efforts in Syria, where the kingdom sees the conflict against the Iranian-supported Assad regime as an extension of the wider Persian/Arab rivalry.
As for the nuclear agreement, despite a public statement of conditional support for the deal, Riyadh remains very concerned, believing that sanctions relief will be used to finance Iranian troublemaking in the region. The kingdom regards the Obama administration's defense of the deal as naive and therefore views it with extreme skepticism. King Salman's visit also coincides with a U.S.-Saudi investment conference, so his delegation is expected to include senior financial and economic figures. As president of the newly established Council of Economic and Development Affairs, a crucial decisionmaking body, MbS is a key personality on this side of the visit as well. While the bilateral relationship remains strong at a business level, there is concern about how the kingdom is being affected by the weak price of oil, which is partially a consequence of continuing high Saudi production -- a strategy intended to retain market share and force U.S. shale oil firms to shut down. Already, ambitious construction projects started during the reign of King Abdullah are being delayed and budgets are being cut, including in defense spending. The high production policy has been unsuccessful in raising prices thus far, but there is no indication of it changing -- in fact, the Saudis are apparently willing to let prices weaken further.
Finally, although MbS will be careful not to upstage King Salman, his presence alongside the king will likely further benefit his position, which could mean that he will eventually succeed his father rather than MbN. Therefore, despite the range of disagreements between Washington and Riyadh, the visit is another opportunity for U.S. officials to develop a relationship with MbS, with whom they already interacted at the Camp David summit. And regardless of what happens inside the meeting, any post-visit statement will no doubt try to paper over these differences.
**Simon Henderson is the Baker Fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at The Washington Institute.

Local Elections in Morocco: A Bet on the Kingdom's Reforms
Sarah Feuer/Washington Institute/September 04/15
Three upcoming rounds of local and upper house elections will test the reform process launched in the wake of Morocco's Arab Spring.
On September 4, Moroccans will go to the polls for regional and municipal council elections. On September 17, the new municipal councils will convene to select members of provincial councils. And on October 2, electoral colleges representing the regions and professional associations will vote for the House of Councilors (Majlis al-Mustasharin), the upper chamber of parliament. These rounds of voting mark the first elections since 2011, when the political upheaval of the so-called Arab Spring prompted the monarchy to launch a series of reforms, including constitutional revisions and legislative elections that brought the Islamist Justice and Development Party (PJD) to power.
One often-overlooked component of these reforms was a proposed devolution of state authority to substate territories -- what Moroccan policymakers call "advanced regionalization" (al-jihawiyya al-mutaqaddima). This strategy would presumably grant greater autonomy to locally elected bodies and increase public accountability by better connecting citizens and local officials. Insofar as the upcoming elections will determine the makeup of these local governments and pave the way for their representation in parliament, they constitute an important test of the ongoing reform process.
ASSESSING 'ADVANCED REGIONALIZATION'
The idea of dividing Morocco into substate territories dates back to the era of French and Spanish rule (1912-1956), when authorities in both protectorates created administrative regions to more easily manage the population. In the postcolonial period, the idea reappeared in 1971, when the late King Hassan II created seven "economic regions" with assigned councils that remained largely consultative and devoid of legislative authority. Constitutional revisions in 1992 and 1996 granted legal recognition to regions, provinces, and municipalities as distinct administrative units, and a 1997 decree increased the number of regions from seven to sixteen. Yet these regions still had only limited political autonomy.
In January 2010, a decade into his reign, King Mohammed VI announced an ostensibly more robust decentralization plan with the creation of the Consultative Committee on Regionalization (CCR). Over the next fourteen months, political parties, trade unions, professional associations, and government agencies held debates and seminars examining decentralization, and the CCR received 150 formal proposals from various sectors. Some of these proposals made their way into the committee's final recommendations, which were issued in early 2011 just as protests were gathering momentum against the backdrop of uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.
Although the ensuing constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections diverted attention from the issue, Morocco's new charter committed the state to implementing advanced regionalization. Section IX called for the direct election of regional and municipal councils, broadly outlined the role of local governance structures, announced a process whereby citizens could petition their local councils, and stipulated that the central government be represented by regional and provincial governors.
Since then, the parliament has adopted a series of laws laying the groundwork for the upcoming elections and detailing the functions of local councils, the state's financial commitment to localities, the procedures for citizen petitions, and the powers of locally elected officials vis-a-vis the state. While it is too soon to issue a verdict on these reforms, three initial observations are warranted.
First, the reforms have emphasized local government promotion of private enterprise and public investments in areas such as environmental improvements, water and energy management, infrastructure, education, health, and transportation. This focus on development suggests that the central government views advanced regionalization principally as a tool of economic growth. Morocco's economy has fared better than most in the region, but policymakers know the country faces serious structural impediments to long-term growth, not least an overreliance on agriculture and labor market deficiencies that continue to produce more university graduates than available jobs. The extent to which regionalization alleviates such strains will affect not only Morocco's stability, but also other states in the region (e.g., Tunisia) looking to develop neglected localities and create jobs.
Second, the decentralization effort has implications for the ongoing dispute between Morocco and the Algerian-backed Polisario Front over the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara. As a result of the latest reforms, the kingdom's sixteen regions were consolidated into twelve, and Western Sahara now falls within three of these newly designated regions. Although this is not inconsistent with the state's 2007 proposal to grant inhabitants of the territory additional autonomy within the framework of Moroccan sovereignty, the new map will likely draw ire from the Polisario, its Algerian supporters, and international advocates of Sahrawi independence.
Third, the relevant constitutional provisions and derivative laws suggest that Morocco has opted for a middle way between full political autonomy for substate territories and complete central control. For example, the reforms give greater managerial responsibility and budgetary discretion to local council presidents, but they also condition implementation of most local initiatives on final approval from the relevant central government ministry. Such an approach is consistent with Rabat's longstanding preference for gradual, controlled political openings.
RAISING THE ELECTORAL STAKES
Across Morocco's twelve regions and 1,503 municipalities, thirty parties are fielding 138,000 candidates for 32,000 open council seats. Notably, one-third of all regional and municipal council seats are reserved for women candidates. The campaigns are focusing on advanced regionalization, rural development, participatory management of local affairs, amelioration of public services, and environmental protection. A moral discourse has permeated some of the campaigns, addressing matters such as corruption and the political dominance of certain families. Yet religion is largely absent from the campaign rhetoric, including that of the PJD.
In the 2009 municipal elections, the top two vote-getters were the Party of Authenticity and Modernity (founded that year by a close friend of the king's and enjoying strong support in rural areas) and the Istiqlal Party (a largely urban-based faction with roots in the struggle for independence from the French). Both will likely compete for first and second place this year, with the PJD expected to come in third. This would be a major boost for the Islamist party, which came in sixth place in 2009 but scored important gains in this summer's professional association elections. Given that the House of Councilors will now include representatives from regions and professional associations, the stakes in the local elections have become national.
Winners and losers aside, arguably the more important outcome of these elections will be voter turnout, which will indicate whether the public is buying into the regionalization process and the reform trajectory more generally. Participation reached 52 percent in 2009, but independent observers reported numerous instances of vote buying, especially in rural constituencies. Since then, civil society groups have voiced concerns about apathy among the middle class and youths, while the nation's largest Islamist movement, al-Adl wal-Ihsan (Justice and Benevolence), has urged members to boycott the elections in keeping with its antimonarchist stance and aversion to political participation.
IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY
While the elections may well devolve greater economic authority to local regions, critics will label them (with some justification) as a diversion from true democratization. Indeed, the upcoming votes are not about diluting the king's power, strengthening elected representatives, or enhancing personal liberties. Rather, the monarchy and its allies are hoping that the elections and reforms go far enough in responding to popular demands while sparing Morocco the chaos seen elsewhere in the region.
Whether this turns out to be a winning bet remains to be seen, but thus far the kingdom has weathered the post-Arab Spring storms relatively well and emerged as a valued U.S. counterterrorism ally. For example, the Moroccan air force deployed jets to Iraq and Syria to fight the "Islamic State"/ISIS, and the country has co-chaired the Global Counterterrorism Forum's Foreign Terrorist Fighters Working Group. Morocco's ability to conduct fair and peaceful elections will matter not only to its own long-term prospects, but also to U.S. policymakers keen on retaining a relatively stable ally in an increasingly volatile region.
**Sarah Feuer is a Soref Fellow at The Washington Institute.

King Salman in Washington
Salman Aldosary/Asharq Al Awsat/September 04/15
By choosing the United States to be the destination of his first visit since acceding to the Saudi throne, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman Bin Abdulaziz has dismissed speculation that the honeymoon between Washington and Riyadh was coming to an end. Both countries have changed their stances on several key issues. Nevertheless, the strategic, historic alliance between them never appeared to be threatened by the winds of change. It is true that their relations chilled and their stances differed in the last few years, but their 70-year alliance that started with the famous 1945 meeting between the late King Abdulaziz Al Saud and the then US President Franklin D. Roosevelt has managed to contain all those differences. In fact, all information points towards continuing this alliance for decades to come. The visit, which has been described by US officials as reflective of the significance of the strategic alliance between Riyadh and Washington, represents an opportunity for both countries to develop bilateral relations under King Salman who is fully familiar with the weaknesses and strengths of the US-Saudi relations and to whose consolidation and continuity he has greatly contributed. When King Salman meets with President Barack Obama on Friday, his message will be undoubtedly clear that Riyadh is committed to the continuity of the strong and historic relations between the two countries and will strive to consolidate and deepen them to serve their mutual interests. Remarkably, the differences between Riyadh and Washington are not about objectives as much as methods. The Saudis cannot be denied the right to exercise pressure by whatever means they see fit in order to influence the US policy in the region. The official circles in Washington presumably understand that and do not object to it.
The current US administration has taken a different line on three main issues, which are perhaps the reason behind the recent tensions between Riyadh and Washington.
First, no progress has been achieved over the past seven years to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict which remains in a state of deadlock. Second, the Obama administration’s reluctance to deal with the Syrian crisis has raised questions about Washington’s credibility and commitment. Third, Iran’s regional ambitions, which began shyly at first, have taken the shape of a hostile policy, something which has been admitted by senior US officials. Later, Iran surprised the world by signing with world powers a nuclear deal that is likely to give Tehran more protection as long as there is no way the international community can ensure that Iran will not violate the terms of the agreement.
It would be a mistake to envision that the Saudi-US relations are based on complete consensus. In fact, relations between the two countries are based on fundamental, mutual interests pertaining to maintaining the security of the Gulf and ensuring the delivery of oil supplies. Officials in both countries have always stressed their mutual security interests while at the same time acknowledging the presence of political differences. One thing to add, the US-Saudi alliance cannot be reduced to the mere import and export of oil.
The magical equation that could bring back warmth to the US-Saudi relations can be summarized in two words: mutual interests. Saudi Arabia has major interests in the US just like Washington has in the region. King Salman’s visit to Washington drives home the message that the winds of change have not affected the US-Saudi relations.

Khamenei says sanctions must be removed, not suspended
Arash Karami/Al-Monitor/September 04/15
In his most detailed speech regarding the final nuclear agreement, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei discussed the need for sanctions removal, rather than suspension. “If the framework of sanctions is to be preserved, then why did we negotiate?” asked Khamenei during his meeting with the Assembly of Experts. He said if sanctions are not removed, “It is completely opposed to the reason the Islamic Republic has a presence in the negotiations because the goal of the negotiations was to remove the sanctions.” The meeting took place after former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and current negotiator Abbas Araghchi testified before the Assembly of Experts. Khamenei said, “If on certain matters we compromised and gave concessions on certain issues, it was primarily to remove sanctions. Otherwise what need was there to negotiate? We would have continued our work and the 19,000 centrifuges that we have. In a short time we could have reached 50,000 or 60,000 centrifuges, and continue 20% enrichment and speed up development and research.”
Khamenei added, “If the sanctions are not to be removed, then there was to be no deal; therefore, the obligation of this matter needs to be clarified.” He added, “This was our issue from the beginning; we stressed that the sanctions must be removed, not suspended.”
On his personal views versus what the Iranian negotiators were able to achieve in the nuclear talks, Khamenei said, “Our view was the immediate removal of sanctions, but friends here defined it in another way and we did not oppose. But the sanctions must be removed.” On the nuclear facilities and components that are to be dismantled or removed in Iran, Khamenei said, “If the sanctions are to be suspended, then the actions we are to take will be at the level of suspension, not structural actions on the ground.”
On the country-specific sanctions — versus the UN Security Council resolutions — Khamenei said, “The opposing side says some of the sanctions are not in the hands of the US government. We say those sanctions that are in the hands of the US government and the European governments must be removed.”
On the issue of whether or not parliament needs to approve the final comprehensive nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Khamenei said, “I do not have any recommendations to parliament on how it s members will review [the deal] or whether they will ratify the deal or reject it. It is the representatives who have to make a decision.”
Arash Bahmani wrote in Al-Monitor about some of the arguments over parliament’s role, with the Iranian negotiators preferring that an approval be made through the Supreme National Security Council while Principlists in parliament want the approval of the deal to go through them. A special committee has also been convened through parliament that will take testimony from former and current negotiators, though according to Etemaad newspaper the committee will have little authority other than to issue a report.
Khamenei also criticized the language used by US officials against Iran and the Iranian officials who justify those comments, saying, “Don’t say that the Americans make these speeches to satisfy domestic opponents. Of course, I believe the domestic fight in America is real and they have differences and the reason for this difference is clear to us. But what is officially said needs a response, and if it is not answered the words of the opposing side will take hold.”

Still fooling us
Michael Young/Now Lebanon/September 04/15
To get a sense of how confusing the Obama administration’s policy in Syria remains, recall that about a year ago the United States was preparing to assist the Iraqi government in fighting ISIS. Yet critics of the administration warned that doing so in Iraq and not in Syria was a fool’s errand. ISIS would just shift forces between the two countries and in that way protect itself. At the time, the administration had not completely ruled out attacking ISIS in Syria. Indeed, in a nationally televised address President Barack Obama had declared: “I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against [ISIS] in Syria, as well as Iraq.”
However, the real question was whether Obama would apply the same logic in Syria as in Iraq. Whereas in Iraq he had argued that a fundamental aspect of the anti-ISIS strategy was to integrate Sunnis into the political system, in that way ensuring ISIS could not exploit Sunni discontent, in Syria there was no such motiviation. Obama continued to reject involving the United States in the Syrian conflict (“somebody else’s civil war,” as he infamously described it in 2013), and completely avoided addressing how to reduce Sunni discontent in Syria. The Obama administration’s attitude toward President Bashar Assad remains profoundly ambiguous. The Americans want him, ultimately, to leave office, but fear that his sudden collapse today might represent a boon for ISIS and other extremists. Yet the United States has also accepted the idea, with Turkey, of setting up a “safety zone” in northern Syria, from which ISIS would be expelled. Much about the zone remains unclear, but it does create options that may affect the Syrian endgame.
Washington’s and Ankara’s approval of the zone facilitated an agreement allowing American warplanes to launch strikes in Syria from Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base. But an ISIS-free zone would also mean securing an area through which the rebels could transfer large quantities of weapons into Syria. This could precipitate the collapse of regime forces in Aleppo. And if the Turks move Syrian refugees into the area, it would provide a vast reservoir of fresh combatants for Assad’s foes.
Given all this, is Washington truly happy with all the implications of a safety zone? Or does it worry that it might help precipitate Assad’s downfall at a moment when Washington is not eager for this to happen? That the safety zone has yet to be established a month and a half after the idea was first leaked to the media may tell usa great deal.
The imperative of finding a solution to the war in Syria has been made more urgent by the growing migrant crisis affecting Europe. While the United States has not been affected by this, the pressure is building fast to find a resolution after four years of disgraceful American and international lethargy.
However, that has not made the American strategy any more cohesive. As Russia and Iran have engaged in diplomacy over Syria, they have made it apparent that they will not accept Assad’s departure as the starting point of a political process. Can you blame them? They see that the Obama administration is equivocal about Assad’s fate and have no reason to concede the point. That’s why Russia and Iran insist that what happens to Assad can only be decided by the Syrians themselves.
At the heart of the problem is the fact that the Obama administration still regards Syria as important principally due to ISIS. There is little consideration of the war on its own demerits — a legacy of Obama’s persistent refusal to take on another Arab headache. He can’t see that this has ensured the Americans will be unable to resolve their own dilemma in Syria: they accept that Assad will remain in power, even momentarily, as an enemy of ISIS, while they are also trying to enroll Syria’s Sunnis in an anti-ISIS campaign that they will have little impetus to join while Assad remains in power.
Meanwhile America is implementing the adage, ‘when it doubt, kill.’ Absent a broad, coherent policy toward the country, the administration has engaged in an effort to assassinate ISIS leaders in Syria using drones and special operations forces. This won’t do much harm, but it allows the administration to say it is acting, without posing a major risk to American personnel. The American program to train ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels is ongoing and American commentators friendly to the administration have been trying to reinforce the idea that Obama is serious about it. Perhaps, but until now we have not seen a sustained effort to remove ISIS from the prospective safety zone in northern Syria, nor the kind of American military commitment we saw last year in defense of Kobane.
Nearly five years after the start of the conflict in Syria the United States is still prevaricating. Barack Obama is a prisoner of his own inconsistencies, not least a promise made to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last year that American operations in Syria would not target Assad’s forces. With Obama now certain of passing the nuclear deal with Iran, we are likely to see more of the same. Every American move suggesting change in Syria during the past four years has proven to be a mirage. Obama can keep up this game until he leaves office. Not a few Syrians will be happy to see his back.
Michael Young is opinion editor of The Daily Star newspaper. He tweets @BeirutCalling

Israeli PM, Netanyahu vows to rail against Iran deal, even after proverbial ‘fat lady’ sings
By HERB KEINON/J.Post/September 04/15
Despite the media drama, US President Barack Obama’s victory on Wednesday in securing the 34th vote in the Senate to sustain a presidential veto if Congress votes down the Iran deal was expected.
The real shock would have been if a sitting president would not have been able to muster the support of one-third plus-one of the Senate – a chamber in which there are 44 members of his own party – for something being defined as his signature foreign policy achievement.
If anything, the surprise was not that Maryland Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski said she would vote for the deal, thus giving Obama his “magic number,” but, rather, the response emanating a few hours later from Jerusalem.
“The prime minister has a responsibility to speak out against the deal that threatens this country, the region and the world,” one government official said soon after Mikulski announced which way she was voting. “And he will continue to do so.”
Despite what Obama has been arguing for months, despite US Secretary of State John Kerry’s assertion on Wednesday evening that “the people of Israel will be safer with this deal,” the official said that the accord “remains a dangerous deal, and it remains important to continue to point that out.”
That’s the surprise: that the Israeli opposition to the agreement will continue – apparently unabated – even though it looks like a done deal. Why continue bashing the deal, standing out publicly alone in the international arena in doing so, if it is now clear that it will go through anyhow? ARKANSAS FRESHMAN Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, who was in Israel for five days this week, gave an indication of the thinking in the Prime Minister’s Office when he told The Jerusalem Post after meeting with Netanyahu that the premier, like himself, “knows that this is not the end of the story with Iran, just the end of one chapter. Whatever happens with this deal, we will still have to confront Iranian aggression for years to come, as long as it remains in the grips of the radical ayatollahs.”
In other words, by continuing to rail against the accord – which Netanyahu is expected to do – he is trying to impact on other yet unwritten chapters in which Iran will be the main antagonist.
Seen in this light, Israel’s argument now will be less about Iran’s nuclear threat and more about its enhanced conventional threat, which Jerusalem fears will become much more pronounced as a result of the deal. And that is something Israel feels it needs to continue shouting about.
Or, as Foreign Ministry director-general Dore Gold told the Post, “part of the subtext” during the negotiations over the Iran agreement was the idea that “Iran is on the cusp of becoming a more moderate country, that it is ready to join the community of nations and jettison its revolutionary past.”
The problem, he said, is that there is “no shred of evidence” that the Iranians are moving in that direction, and that – if anything – Tehran is moving the opposite way.
Iran, Gold said, is trying to set up a new Hezbollah front against Israel on the Golan Heights, and is trying to transfer some of its most advanced weaponry to Hezbollah, including “kits that have been supplied to Hezbollah to take their large force of ballistic missiles and rockets and dramatically increase their accuracy with GPS units.”
And all that, he said, was happening during the year when the nuclear deal, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was being signed.
In Gold’s telling, to continue to bash the agreement, to continue to warn that it will give Iran more funds and legitimacy for its subversive efforts in the region, is a way to preempt what will likely be the next Iran-related argument: “that Iran should have a role in the regional order of the Middle East as a result of the deal.”
Reminded, however, that this is not the US argument, and that both Obama and Kerry repeatedly say they recognize full well Iran’s bad behavior in the region, and will work together with Israel and the Gulf countries against it, Gold said that a “part of good diplomatic analysis is seeing trend lines,” and the trend line is that there are experts out there saying Iran should have a positive regional role to play.
Israel’s rhetoric, therefore, will keep the focus on Iran as an unrepentant, pernicious regime whose ultimate anti-Israel, anti-American goals have not changed.
But there are other elements as well at work behind Netanyahu’s decision to continue fighting against the agreement. For instance, though the polling data is not unequivocal, most recent polls do show the American public strongly against the accord.
And Israel has an interest in seeing that the public opinion remains negative, one reason being that US public sentiment against the deal will have ramifications in the upcoming political campaign.
That the major Republican presidential candidates have come out clearly against the accord, and some have even pledged to undo it if elected, is surely not detached from the polling data that they are seeing.
The candidates’ anti-deal rhetoric, meanwhile, will not be dismissed either by Iranian leaders, who have to wonder whether the agreement has a shelf life beyond the term of the current president, or by business leaders who – as a result of this rhetoric – may be unlikely to rush headlong back into Iran, not knowing quite yet whether to do so might jeopardize business ties with the US if moves to unravel the deal are initiated by the next president.
Though many businesses may now make initial moves toward Iran, they are likely to wait until after January 2017, when the new president is inaugurated, before signing lucrative contracts.
And a lot can happen in the intervening months to get them to change their mind.
Or, as sources close to Netanyahu said, “The American people get it. They understand the dangers to Israel. They understand the dangers to the United States. That’s why a clear majority believe the deal should be rejected, which is also reflected in Congress, where a clear majority seems prepared to reject the deal. The stronger the opposition in Congress to the deal, the stronger the message to Iran and to America’s allies in the region, and the greater the likelihood that that message will be reflected in US policy moving forward.”
MOREOVER, NETANYAHU seems convinced that he can continue to fight against the deal – to “influence US policy moving forward” – with a feeling that to do so is now relatively risk-free.
There was speculation in July – after the deal was first announced – that Israel would “miss the boat” in receiving a generous “compensation package” from the US if it did not recognize the accord was a done deal and begin to sit down immediately with the US and discuss the package.
Netanyahu refused to do so, not wanting to be seen as waving a white flag before the process of congressional review ran its course. But instead of having missed an opportunity, in recent days both Obama and Kerry have articulated a commitment to work together with Israel in enhancing its security capabilities in the wake of the deal.
Obama, in an interview with The Forward last week directed at the American Jewish community, said, “Once we have completed the congressional debate and the deal is in the process of being implemented, it will be important for my administration and the Israeli government to move forward on what I’ve been calling for since April... to sit down and ask the question, what are the major security challenges that we together face in the region, and how can we build on the already robust, unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation that we have to make our security arrangements even stronger.”
Or, as Kerry said on Wednesday night during a speech in Philadelphia, “We are determined to help our ally [Israel] address new and complex security threats and to ensure its qualitative military edge.”
There was also concern throughout Netanyahu’s long, very public battle with Obama over the deal that once it was signed, the US would, through other channels, vent its frustration with Israel’s attempt to block it, specifically by applying pressure on the Palestinian track and removing American diplomatic cover for Israel in various international bodies.
But both Obama and Kerry sought to dispel that notion as well in their recent comments.
“There are always going to be arguments within families and among friends. And Israel isn’t just an ally, it’s not just a friend – it’s family,” Obama said, in his appeal to Jewish Americans. “But I think a testament to how sturdy the relationship is, is that despite this very significant policy disagreement, all the military, security, commercial, cultural cooperation that existed before this debate came up has continued unabated and will continue unabated.”
Or as Kerry put it, “Diplomatically our support for Israel also remains rock solid, as we continue to oppose every effort to delegitimize the Jewish state or to pass biased resolutions against it in international bodies.”
While some may say that these are mere words designed to win support for the accord, Netanyahu – by making the decision to continue to resist the deal – has made clear he believes those words, and is not unduly concerned that Israel will pay a steep price for his continued opposition.
Especially as most of the American public seems to agree with him, and especially during an election year when US lawmakers in both the Senate and the House will want to appear in their home constituencies – where support for Israel remains high – as compensating Israel for a dangerous deal, not punishing it for its opposition.

Who is to Blame for the Drowning of Alan Kurdi?
Tarek Fatah/The Toronto Sun/Canada/September 04/15
Alan Kurdi, 3, drowned in a failed attempt to sail from Turkey to the Greek island of Kos. A single photograph of a three-year old boy named Alan Kurdi, lying dead on a Turkish beach, has rocked the conscience of the world. The picture will remain seared in our collective memory forever, just as the image of a nine-year-old girl running naked on a road after being severely burned on her back in a napalm bomb attack shook us up on June 8, 1972. That was Phan Thi Kim Phuc, who later settled down in Canada.
Despite what was initially reported by Canadian media, Alan Kurdi was never headed to Canada.
His aunt in Vancouver, Tima Kurdi, tried to sponsor Alan's uncle and family under what is known as a "G5 privately sponsored application for asylum." Citizenship Minister Chris Alexander personally took up her application after receiving it from Fin Donnelly, the MP for Port Moody-Coquitlam. However, because the UN in its wisdom wouldn't register the Kurdi family as refugees, and because the Turkish government wouldn't grant them exit visas (as they didn't have passports), the application for asylum in Canada couldn't proceed any further. Instead of targeting the real villains in this drama, Canada's Liberals have gone after their political opponents.With no legal options, the family did what tens of thousands of refugees in Turkey have done — they took a risky boat ride from Bodrum in a flotilla of dinghies headed for the Greek island of Kos. The boat capsized about 30 minutes after it set off. Alan, his brother Ghalib, 5, their mother Rehan, and many others drowned. It's a tragedy that should have brought out the best in all of us. Unfortunately, the New Democrats and Liberals tried to use it to attack Chris Alexander and the Conservatives and depict them as heartless and cruel, in the most unethical and immoral manner.
To understand the calamity unfolding in the Mediterranean, illustrated by the photograph of Kurdi, we need to step back a century, but even a year is helpful. Canadian Citizenship Minister Chris Alexander. In essence, it's the story of a Kurdish family that fled an Arab country after an Islamist attack and took refuge across the border in Turkey, a country known for its hostility towards its own Kurdish population. In the words of the boy's aunt in Vancouver, the treatment of her family in Turkey was "horrible."Instead of targeting the most visible and apparent villains in this drama — the Assad regime in Syria, the Turks, ISIS, Saudi Arabia and Qatar — the Liberals and the NDP sharpened their knives and went after Alexander, the very man who has been quietly helping people escape tyranny and settle down in Canada.
We cannot lose sight of the Syrian Revolution that began as protests in the early spring of 2011 as part of the Arab Spring. Instead of paying heed to his people, President Bashar al-Assad unleashed his military forces in violent crackdowns that forced 3.2 million people to flee the country and internally displaced 6.5 million others. Alan was just the latest victim. Hadi Elis, spokesman for the Kurdish Community Centre of Toronto, told me he was shocked how Trudeau and an NDP MP from British Columbia used Alan's tragic death to attack Alexander. "Minister Alexander has been one of the strongest allies of the Kurdish community and stood by the Syrian Kurds in their darkest hour in Kobani from where the boy and his family fled in the face of attacks on them by Islamist ISIS and their Turkish allies," Elis wrote in an e-mail."It is despicable for Liberal and NDP politicians to use the dead boy as a political tool to score partisan political points. Shame on them. They want Canada to stop attacking ISIS, and then shed crocodile tears when a victim of ISIS drowns on a Turkish beach," he continued.
"If there is anyone who is guilty of this crime, it is Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UN, all those who have refused to embrace hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing war, not Minister Chris Alexander who needs no lectures on compassion by politicians who are catering to the Islamists inside Canada."Neither the NDP nor the Liberals dare say a single word against Turkey, Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan for fear of losing the imagined Muslim vote in Canada's large riding-rich cities. Instead, by depicting the Conservatives and Alexander as anti-refugee and anti-Muslim, they hope to harvest a supposed rich crop of pro-Islamist voters.Refugees fleeing war zones in the Arab World could easily be accommodated in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
It's possible they might even succeed in this venture given the way many mainstream media outlets have formed a lynch mob targeting the Conservatives with disdain and shameless partisanship.Canadian voters, on the other hand, must recognize the stories they're reading or watching also reflect an illiteracy and ignorance among Canada's chattering heads on matters of the Middle East and South Asia — ignorance they cover up by ensuring no one with a background in the area is given the opportunity to challenge what wrongly passes for objective and balanced discourse.
The fact is all these refugees fleeing war zones in the Arab World could very easily be accommodated in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Instead, while Turkey wants to dump them in the sea and hope bleeding-heart, guilt-ridden liberal Europeans embrace them and pay for their resettlement, the Saudis have an even simpler solution: Shut down the border and seal it so not a single Alan Kurdi dare walk across from Iraq or the new "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" into its territory. Period. Strictly from a management perspective and common sense, Saudi Arabia has the land, the resources and lies in the vicinity of the crisis. The refugees and the Saudis speak the same language and settlement and integration could happen sooner and at a fraction of the cost. But it's far easier to call for the head of Chris Alexander than to be honest and admit the villain in the drama is Saudi Arabia and criticising the Saudis might upset the Islamist vote bank both the Liberals and the NDP covet.
**Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress and columnist at the Toronto Sun, is a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum.