New Page 5

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

Bible Quotation for today/the days will come upon you, Jerusalem when your enemies will set up ramparts around you and surround you, and hem you in on every side
Luke 19/41-44: "As Jesus came near and saw the Jerusalem city, he wept over it, saying, ‘If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. Indeed, the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up ramparts around you and surround you, and hem you in on every side. They will crush you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave within you one stone upon another; because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.’"

Bible Quotation for today/Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them
Letter of James 05/13-20: "Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise.Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest. My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and is brought back by another, you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins."

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 11-12/15
What we have learned since 9/11/Robert Spencer/Jihad Watch/September 11/15
Some of Our Tweets For Today/Elias Bejjani/September 11/15
Winter of our discontent/MICHAEL YOUNG/Now Lebanon/September 11/15
Lebanon’s game of streets and display of power/Nayla Tueni/Al Arabiya/September 11/15
The killing of Sheikh Wahid Bal’ous/MAKRAM RABAH & RAMI NAKHLA/Now Lebanon/September 11/15
What 9/11 has wrought for U.S. Mideast policy/Dr. John C. Hulsman//Al Arabiya/September 11/15
Will money and openness change Iranians/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/September 11/15
Sinai struggle: Egypt’s army is not Iraq’s/Abdallah Schleifer/Al Arabiya/September 11/15
Iran’s marriage with Assad and the Alawite state/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya/September 11/15
Protesters destroy Hafez al-Assad statue in Suwayda/Mustafa al-Haj /Al-Monitor/September 11/15
Should Hamas recognize Israel/Author Shlomi Eldar/Al-Monitor/September 11/15
Catholic Democrats leverage pope's visit to push for admitting more Syrian refugees/Author Julian PecquetAl-Monitor/ September 11/15
Muslim Soldiers Killing Christian Soldiers in Egypt/Raymond Ibrahim/PJ Media/September 11/15
Middle East Provocations and Predictions/Daniel Pipes/Mackenzie Institute/September11/15
Al-Qaeda Leader Al-Zawahiri Rejects ISIS Caliphate, Predicts Imminent 'Islamic Spring/MEMRI/September 11/15
Inquiry & Analysis Series Report/N. Mozes/MEMRI/September 11/15
A rigged vote, no real debate/Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/September 11/15
First Anti-EU Referendum Being Forced by Dutch Citizens/Timon Dias/Gatestone Institute/September 11/15

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin for Lebanese Related News published on September 11-12/15
What we have learned since 9/11
Some of Our Tweets For Today/Elias Bejjani
Rahi: Trash Protesters Must Pour Demands in Electing a President
Shehayyeb on Waste Plan: In the End, Government Must Find Solution
In Lines at Embassy in Lebanon, Refugees Dream of Future in Germany
Asiri: Let Dialogue Lead to Election of President
Police Arrest Syrian Aiding Terrorist Groups in Arsal
Majdal Anjar Residents Block Masnaa Road in Protest at Landfill Plans
Police Arrest Two in Akkar on Suspicion of Belonging to Extremist Groups
Winter of our discontent
Lebanon’s game of streets and display of power

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 11-12/15
The killing of Sheikh Wahid Bal’ous
Syria rebels end failed Daraa offensive
Syria political security chief visits Egypt
Russia running Damascus International Airport: report
Eighty-seven killed in Makkah crane collapse
Eastern European Countries Reject Migrant Quotas
French Jihadist Drugeon Likely Killed in Syria, Says U.S. Official
Bomb Attack on Bahrain Police Station, No Casualties
Egypt Sinai Car Bomb Kills Woman, Child
U.N. Opens Up Race to be World's Top Diplomat
Turkey Schoolboy Gets 11 Month Suspended Jail 'for Insulting Erdogan'
Young American Arrested for Alleged Plan to Attack 9/11 Memorial Event
IEA: Saudi Oil Market Shake up Set to Squeeze U.S. Shale
Abbas Hails 'Just' Vote to Raise Palestinian Flag at U.N.
Iranian troops join Russians in Syria fighting

Some of Our Tweets For Today
Elias Bejjani/11.09.15
The Middle East is disintegrating under the twin forces of Islamic militant Terrorists: The militant Sunni groups led by ISIS and the Iranian Mullahs regime and its proxies in Bahrain, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
ISIS is an acronym for the Islamic State jihadist group, which has seized swathes of Iraq and Syria, while Iran and Its proxies control The governments of Lebanese, Syrian and Iraq.
Fighting ISIS and ignoring the Iranian terrorism aggravates the deadly crisis in the Middle East and doe not solve any problem. Both terrorists, ISIS and the Iranians must be dealt equally and on the same level.
Iranian militant proxies in the ME, especially Hezbollah are much, much more dangerous than ISIS, Nosra and Al Qaeda.

What we have learned since 9/11
Robert Spencer/Jihad Watch/September 11, 2015
911 attacks
Fourteen years have gone by, and what have we learned?
Almost immediately, we learned that Islam was a religion of peace. We learned that, despite the explicit statements of the 9/11 hijackers and plotters explaining and justifying their actions by reference to the Qur’an and Muhammad’s example, those hijackers and plotters were not actually motivated by Islamic texts and teachings, which are entirely benign and, indeed, beneficial for mankind.
We have learned that anyone who thought that jihadis’ statements invoking Islamic texts and teachings to justify their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims was linking Islam to terrorism, which was an intrinsically bigoted action.
We have learned that those who thought that some effort should be made to ensure that the Islamic texts that the jihadis invoked were not being taught in American mosques were nativists following in the footsteps of the Know-Nothings, the Ku Klux Klan, and Deep South lynch mobs.
We have learned that it was racist to be too concerned about jihad terror plotting and activity.
We have learned that if we can set aside our bigotry and racism, we will face a glorious multicultural future in which Muslims will significantly enrich our nation, as they have throughout its history.
We have learned that Islam has been responsible for the best discoveries and scientific innovations in history, and that we should encourage an Islamic presence in the U.S., as that presence is entirely benign, and no care need to taken to determine whether or not Muslim immigrants are members of jihad groups, as such groups are only a tiny minority of extremists.
We have learned that if we simply give Muslim communities a sufficient amount of money and economic opportunity, and adjust our foreign policy to eliminate the aspects of it that target Muslims, the jihad will melt away.
We have learned that the real victims of jihad terror attacks were Muslims, for they must suffer from the “Islamophobic backlash” that follows every jihad attack and foiled jihad plot, even though FBI statistics show that such “backlash” is essentially nonexistent and anti-Semitic attacks are much more frequent than “Islamophobic” ones.
We have learned that the threat of “right-wing extremists” is a far greater threat than that of the global jihad, and that Islamophobia is a much greater threat to the U.S. than jihad terror, even though “right-wing extremists” have no ideology, goal, global network, financing, terror training camps, or recruitment infrastructure.
We have learned that law enforcement counter-terror efforts in Muslim communities are hateful and bigoted, in that they single out a single community for scrutiny, when everyone knows that extremism is found in all communities: Amish, Mennonite, Unitarian Universalist, what have you.
We have learned that hate speech is not free speech, and that whatever is deemed hate speech does not enjoy First Amendment protection, and that much, if not all, counter-terror material, especially that which explores the stated motives of the jihadis, is hate speech and should be forcibly suppressed.
We have learned that when Islamic jihadis threaten us with death for doing or saying things that they say offend them, we should immediately stop doing and saying those things. To do otherwise would be needlessly provoking the jihadis, such that the ensuing jihad murders would be entirely the victims’ fault.
We have learned, in sum, what Muhammad Atta told the people on the plane he had hijacked on 9/11: “Stay quiet and you’ll be okay.” That has become the motto of the United States, and may well be its epitaph.

Rahi: Trash Protesters Must Pour Demands in Electing a President
Naharnet/September 11/15/Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi voiced calls on the protesters demanding a solution to the trash crisis to pour their efforts in calling for election of a president. “Put right your demands and pour your efforts into one major request which is electing a president as soon as possible,” said al-Rahi from Aley where he is on a three-day visit to the region. He hailed the efforts of Agriculture Minister Akram Shehayyeb and the plan he set to solve the trash crisis saying: “We thank Shehayyeb for the road map he set as a solution to the problem, and we hope that it paves way for decentralization.”Lebanon has been swept by a series of demonstrations since July, after the closure of the Naameh landfill, protesting a waste management crisis that drowned the country in garbage and left the atmospheres of the once Switzerland of the Levant country air-filled with foul odor of rotting waste. The government approved in a marathon session late Wednesday a waste management plan proposed by Shehayyeb. Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. Ongoing disputes between the rival March 8 and 14 camps over a compromise presidential candidate have thwarted the polls.

Shehayyeb on Waste Plan: In the End, Government Must Find Solution
Naharnet/September 11/15/Agriculture Minister Akram Shehayyeb stressed on Friday that the trash crisis must be solved and that the “state must find a solution in the end,” in light of the stances of activists and municipalities rejecting the minister's waste management plan proposal that was agreed by the government. “The government must find a solution in the end. I have worked with the committee tasked on this plan to set ecological and scientific plans to be implemented as quick as possible,” said Shehayyeb in an interview to the An Nahar daily. “The plan was presented to the organizations and the municipalities' union and it will be discussed with all parties rejecting the proposal," he stated. He stressed that the Naameh landfill will not reopen until all the other suggested landfills do as well “everybody must be part of the solution, no one shall carry the burden alone."On the other hand, sources close to PM Tammam Salam stressed the necessity to implement the administrative decision on the ground saying: “Implementing the plan is the responsibility of the related administrative and security authorities,” al-Joumhouria daily reported. “Applying the stages as approved in the plan are not random but are the result of a consultation process with the civil committees, experts and representatives of concerned groups and those that claimed responsibility in the civil activities.”The government approved in a marathon session late Wednesday, a waste management plan proposed by Shehayyeb. The plan calls for reopening the Naameh landfill, which was closed in mid-July, for seven days to dump the garbage that accumulated in random sites in Beirut and Mount Lebanon. It also envisions converting two existing dumps, in the northern Akkar area of Srar and the eastern border area of al-Masnaa, into sanitary landfills capable of receiving trash for more than a year. Activists, municipalities and residents rejected the decision and took to the street in the northern region of Akkar to condemn the government's decision.

In Lines at Embassy in Lebanon, Refugees Dream of Future in Germany
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/15/When rumors spread through Lebanon this week that a massive boat was coming to bring Syrian refugees to Germany, huge crowds rushed to Berlin's embassy outside Beirut. To the disappointment of many desperate to escape to Europe's wealthiest nation, the embassy issued a statement denying the rumor. But that hasn't stemmed the flow of Syrians arriving in shared taxis and small vans outside the embassy in the ritzy Mtaileb suburb northeast of the capital. With their savings long gone and international aid drying up, Germany's new asylum policy has given hope to Syrian refugees in Lebanon looking for a fresh start. Several dozen Syrian men, women, and children lined up outside the embassy's entrance in the muggy late-summer heat on Thursday, clutching identification papers as they shuffled closer to the reception. During several visits to the embassy this week, refugees told Agence France Presse they want to leave for Germany legally -- seeking visas and a guaranteed route -- but many are also willing to pay smugglers and make the dangerous journey illegally if necessary. "I have no other choice," said middle-aged Wissam Youssef, who fled the northwestern Syrian province of Idlib four years ago. "I heard about this decision and I decided to apply," the father-of-four added. But he, like many others eager to take advantage of Germany's new openness, found themselves rebuffed at the embassy. "What do you want me to tell you? There's no asylum and no trips to Germany," a gruff voice at the reception window responded in Arabic to those enquiring. Many returned to the benches outside the reception area to share stories and advice about the alternative: the illegal route. "Ten days from now, if I haven't gotten a visa to go, I'll go with smugglers," Youssef said. "What am I supposed to do? It's too late for me. But I want to guarantee a future for my children."
'German humanity'
In Lebanon, refugees can seek asylum in Germany either through the UN's resettlement programme, or by applying for visas in Lebanon and claiming asylum once they arrive. But only a handful have been able to take advantage of such programmes in the country, which is hosting more than 1.1 million Syrians despite having a population of just four million. Berlin's decision to allow Syrian refugees to apply for asylum in Germany regardless of which country in Europe they reach first has convinced many in Lebanon that now is the time to try to leave. "Germany is accepting the most refugees and is expressing the most humanity," said a Syrian man from Eastern Ghouta, near Damascus, whose bright green eyes were tinged red from crying.
Declining to give his name, he said he heard about the change in German policies online and through relatives. Refugees say Germany is providing a lifeline at a time when they are struggling to eke out a living in Lebanon. More than four years since the Syrian conflict began, the situation for refugees in Lebanon is growing increasingly dire. In July, the World Food Programme reduced its monthly food aid for Syrian refugees to $13.50 (12 euros) a person. And Lebanese authorities, overwhelmed by the Syrian influx, have imposed expensive residency renewal procedures on refugees and tightened border restrictions.
'I'd rather die in the sea'
"The United Nations is giving us $50 each month for the kids," said Maher, who was at the embassy with his wife. "Dying here or dying in the sea is the same thing." Even for those willing, an illegal trip is not always an option. One man with graying hair said he could not afford smugglers' climbing prices because he had spent his family's savings trying to survive in Lebanon. And others have been chastened by photos of those who died trying to reach Europe. "There are people dying in the sea, and I don't trust anyone to take my family this way," said Khalil, a father of six who fled the Kurdish town of Afrin in northern Syria. He said the photo of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi, whose lifeless body washed ashore in Turkey after his family tried to reach Greece by boat, had convinced him it wasn't worth risking his family's life on the migrant route. Khalil said he would keep applying at different embassies until his family could "go safely". But many said they were undeterred by the risks. "We've seen the pictures, we know the journey costs $2,500 per person... But I'd rather die in the sea than starve to death here," one Syrian man told AFP. "We'll travel with smugglers, and we'll enter (Germany)," added Safa, a Syrian woman with dark eyes in a headscarf who was at the embassy with her son. "After four years of war, we've lived through everything. We're not afraid of anything anymore."

Asiri: Let Dialogue Lead to Election of President
Naharnet/September 11/15/Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Awad Asiri emphasized on Friday that his country is keen on Lebanon's stability, hoping that the dialogue among rival political parties would lead to fruition and elect a head of state after a vacuum at the post.
“Saudi Arabia is keen on Lebanon's stability. We hope that the dialogue succeeds in electing a new president to enhance the constitutional institutions,” the state-run National News Agency quoted the ambassador as saying. Asiri's comments came after meeting PM Tammam Salam at the Grand Serail where they also discussed the Syrian refugees issue in the presence of the embassy's charge d'affaires Majed al-Sharari. Lebanon has been without a president since May last year when the term of President Michel Suleiman ended. The rival March 8 and March 14 alliances failed so far to elect a head of state.

Police Arrest Syrian Aiding Terrorist Groups in Arsal
Naharnet/September 11/15/The General Security arrested a Syrian national on charges of modifying and armor plating vehicles in favor of terrorist groups in the outskirts of the northeastern border town of Arsal, the state-run National News Agency reported on Friday.
The suspect provided logistic help for the groups and had constant contacts with them when they carried out attacks against the Lebanese army in the town and assaulted, killed and kidnapped its members, NNA added. The groups had plans to booby trap the cars for future attacks. The man was interrogated and referred to the judiciary. Police are on the hunt after the other involved members.

Majdal Anjar Residents Block Masnaa Road in Protest at Landfill Plans
Naharnet/September 11/15/Residents of the Bekaa town of Majdal Anjar on Friday blocked the key al-Masnaa road that links the province to Syria in protest at government plans to set up a garbage landfill in the area's outskirts on the Eastern Mountain Range. Municipal chief Sami al-Ajami, al-Mustaqbal bloc MP Assem Araji and a number of dignitaries and spiritual leaders took part in the protest. Araji stressed his rejection of establishing a landfill in the area, which he described as “the town's real face, especially in front of the Arab tourists.”Meanwhile, Ajami and the town's imam Sheikh Mohammed Abdul Rahman expressed categorical rejection of setting up a landfill and bringing garbage from other regions, “no matter what the cost might be.”Protesters also carried banners urging the region's MPs to resign.The rally comes on the heels of similar protests in the Naameh area, south of Beirut, and in the northern district of Akkar. On Thursday, protesters took to the streets in both regions to condemn a plan devised by Agriculture Minister Akram Shehayyeb and a team of experts which envisages reopening the controversial Naameh landfill for a period of seven days and setting up a landfill in the Akkar town of Srar. Protests were also held or were scheduled to be held in the southern city of Sidon and the Bourj Hammoud area, east of Beirut, after Shehayyeb cited a role for waste management plants in the two regions. The waste management crisis began in July when the Naameh landfill closed, causing trash to pile up on roadsides and in parking lots and riverbeds. It sparked broad-based protests in Beirut, where demonstrators gathered again on Wednesday despite a sandstorm to demand a long-term solution to the trash fiasco.

Police Arrest Two in Akkar on Suspicion of Belonging to Extremist Groups
Naharnet/September 11/15/The General Security in the northern district of Akkar arrested a Lebanese national from the al-Amara neighborhood on suspicion of belonging to extremist groups, the state-run National News Agency reported on Friday. On the other hand, the State Security in al-Qobayyat arrested a Syrian National on suspicion of opening fire at Lebanese army troops and belonging to the Islamic State.

Winter of our discontent
MICHAEL YOUNG/Now Lebanon/September 11/15
Recently, Michel Aoun, in a speech to his followers, decried the impact of the Arab Spring on Lebanon. While the uprisings in the Arab world have indeed proven to be catastrophic, or have failed, it was surprising to hear this from the general.
Let me take you back to the end of the 1980s and explain why. At the time, I worked in a research center, and one of my jobs was to read all of Aoun’s speeches when he was head of a military government and fighting the Syrians and the Lebanese Forces. In his regular addresses to his followers Aoun portrayed himself as a revolutionary figure who sought to eliminate the privileges of the Lebanese political elite and overturn the sectarian system. The fact that Aoun was someone from the social periphery, a rural Maronite who had grown up in Haret Hreik, whose social promotion had taken place through the army, was a theme always implicit in what the general said.
The Arab uprisings, regardless of their successes or failures, were motivated by similar impulses. So for Aoun to refer to a desire for change solely as a catastrophe, without stopping to mention how the political orders that provoked the uprisings were themselves catastrophic, was instructive.
It would be easy to dismiss this as just another example of Aoun’s hypocrisy and double-dealing, of which examples abound. But his reaction reflects that of many members of religious minorities in the Middle East, who regard the Arab Spring merely as a byword for an Islamist revival. Indeed, such fears are one reason why Aoun has defended Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria, after having fought it back when Hafez Assad was responsible for ravaging Lebanese Christian fortunes.
For a start, Aoun’s reaction shows that his old promise of a secular order was a sham. The general is as sectarian as they come, but in this he is hardly alone. A good part of his populist message has been to attack Sunnis, with his followers recently depicting the Future Movement and Prime Minister Tammam Salam as socially acceptable versions of ISIS.
But it’s Aoun’s approach toward reform that is the greater question mark. In 2005 he joined the ruling class that he had earlier denounced. He and his family members began to profit from the political system, all the time insisting to their gullible followers that they were improving matters, or trying to, but that those with vested interests were hindering them.
Recall that Aoun held up the formation of Saad Hariri’s government in 2009 until his son-in-law Gebran Bassil was handed the lucrative energy ministry (this after Bassil had headed the prosperous telecommunications ministry). His reformist skills were hardly on display. Though Bassil promised 24 hours of electricity a day, the condition of Lebanon’s power system has never been as disastrous, with parts of Beirut (including my own) seeing power cuts of up to eight hours a day. And that’s not beginning to mention rural areas, where electricity is rather like the Virgin Mary: everyone has heard of it, but almost no one seems to ever see it.
It was revealing that when protesters took over the environment ministry two weeks ago, Aoun sided with the rest of the political class in condemning the move, warning that chaos was not a solution. In siding with the politicians against an initiative pushed by non-sectarian civil society activists, Aoun contradicted another of his promises from the 1980s. The general may be right in doubting the success of the activists, as are many people, but his willingness to affirm the mood of a political class he had done much to condemn was remarkable.
The jury is still out on the Arab Spring, but it’s fair to say that the record until now has not been heartening. A number of dictators and tyrants were overthrown, while others are still hanging on. The ensuing destruction, as well as the rise of extremism, will have made many people utterly cynical about the consequences of challenging authoritarian leaders. Better a despot who maintains order, many will insist, than democracy that leads only to undemocratic, intolerant religious rule.
Certainly the Arab Spring demands introspection by Arab societies. Why is it that, with the relative exception of Tunisia and to a lesser extent Egypt, the revolts led to a combination of civil war and religious radicalism? Much of the blame can be directed at the regimes themselves, especially in Libya and Syria, who provoked civil war to protect themselves. But it is also true that those opposing the regimes quickly allowed their movements to be taken over by a powerful extremist fringe.
So what should non-Muslim minorities, not to say Muslim majorities, think? Aoun’s reaction, while terribly shortsighted, is also one that many Christians in the region will echo. Is their salvation, then, to continue to survive in the shadow of absolutist regimes that stifle all freedom and suffocate all ambition? The decline in Christian numbers in the region, and indeed the large number of Muslims walking through Europe today, suggests not. Anyone who can, chooses to emigrate.
So, Aoun, once a defender of reform and change, views the Arab Spring as calamitous. He’s right that Lebanon has paid a high price, but without change and reform the Arab world will head toward new tragedies of biblical proportion. Aoun’s own career is a fine illustration of how the region can breed mediocrity.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of The Daily Star newspaper. He tweets @BeirutCalling

Lebanon’s game of streets and display of power
Nayla Tueni/Al Arabiya/September 11/15
Many may disagree over Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea’s decision to boycott the national dialogue session, called for by parliament speaker Nabih Berri, because he thinks it is of no use and does not serve the process of electing a new president.
The step itself is brave if it puts an end to divisions and tries to contain the street. The problem now is that each group - whether political, sectarian or civil society - has its own street. This game of streets has now surfaced again, as if politicians are once again betting on who has more supporters, and who can gather more people for a protest or a festival. Politicians are once again betting on who has more supporters, and who can gather more people for a protest or a festival. Following the March 8 protest in 2005 to end the Syrian occupation, and after the historical protest that followed it on March 14, the street no longer had a meaning. The other massive gathering that came after these two was to receive the pope during his visit to Lebanon. Perhaps this latter occasion can teach politicians something.
Before and after the pope’s visit, there were sectarian partisan gatherings - mostly paid for or encouraged via intimidation - that do not affect political formulae that countries and dialogue “leaders” admit are foreign-controlled.
Protests
No one denies that political parties have the right to take to the streets, as long as their protest respects public and private property, and does not harm people or security forces, especially when the country stands on the edge of an abyss. No one denies that protests, especially the recent civil society activity, have an impact. These protests exhausted politicians, expedited dialogue and forced the government to work more actively. However, those organizing this game of streets may lose control of it if intelligence members of a certain party get involved to sabotage it or deviate it from its path. Parties and militias that do not benefit from such street activity may also try to sabotage these protests, and they may even join forces to harm this activity or make it turn violent. It is thus necessary to be aware of the importance of not letting this activity turn into a display of power, or deviate from its aim of fighting corruption and demanding reforms.

The killing of Sheikh Wahid Bal’ous
MAKRAM RABAH & RAMI NAKHLA/Now Lebanon/September 11/15
Thousands of enraged Syrians took to the streets last Thursday chanting and demanding the removal of Bashar al-Assad, going as far as destroying a statue of his father, former President Hafez al-Assad. This event would have gone unnoticed if it had taken place in any other region than the Druze province of Suweida, the support of which the Assad regime never questioned until recently. The reason for the uproar was the assassination of Sheikh Wahid al-Bal’ous and 26 others who belonged to the Rijal al-Karama ) Men of Dignity) movement.
Led by Bal’ous, a junior cleric with no real religious authority, this movement came as a response to the regime’s ongoing usage of the Druze conscripts to do their bidding in all parts of Syria. Ever since the onset of the conflict, the Assad regime has worked hard to portray this war as an alliance of the minorities against the forces of terrorism and Islamic extremism funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Therefore, the regime worked diligently to appease and coerce these groups (Druze, Alawites, Christians, etc.) to take up arms against the opposition movement which, if triumphant, will eradicate these non-Sunni groups.
However, with the advent of the conflict many of these groups realized that an Assad gamble would be extremely costly in the future, mainly because this so-called threat only affected the regime. More importantly, in the case of the Druze, no immediate existential threat existed — at least not from the neighboring Sunni regions. It is within this context that the phenomenon of Sheikh Bal’ous should be viewed. His message was very plain and simple: the Druze will not allow anyone to use them as a sacrificial lamb and, more importantly, the Druze will only take up arms in self-defense. Concurrently, Bal’ous never directly attacked the regime or Bashar Assad, but instead sought to assure the regime that the Druze, like their Syrian compatriots, are citizens and part of Syria’s diverse and pluralistic sectarian mosaic. Consequently, Bal’ous and his movement started to amass popular support, demanding that no Druze conscript serve outside the vicinity of Suweida. This was a blow to the Assad regime, as it is in dire need of manpower and has a vested interest in maintaining its image as a protector of minorities.
On the ground, Bal’ous was able to set up groups of armed men whose loyalty did not extend beyond the borders of Druze regions and who solely operated in a defensive capacity. Moreever, his men would provide security for the peaceful demonstrations and gatherings that took place on the streets of Suweida, reiterating Bal’ous’s main slogan: “We live with dignity above ground, or we are buried underground but with dignity.” These ideas made Bal’ous an unnecessary inconvenience for the Assad regime, which for the past three years has been funding local Druze militias known as Popular Committees. While one can safely assume that Bal’ous’s rhetoric could be branded as mainstream in the Syrian Druze community, he was gradually winning people over in his bid to keep his sect neutral in the Syrian civil war.
It was for this reason that the regime had him assassinated. Bal’ous had already escaped one assassination attempt earlier this summer when his convoy was sprayed with gunfire. This time the assassination was a more elaborate scheme — the perpetrators used two car bombs, the first targeting his car and the second exploding right outside the hospital he and the other casualties had been transported to. Conveniently, and in just a few hours, the Syrian regime declared that they had apprehended a certain Wafed Abu Touraby.
Abu Touraby was shown in a recorded interrogation session fully disclosing the details of the elaborate murder he carried out, which, according to him, was commissioned by a renegade Syrian Druze officer, Marwan Hamad. And while Assad wanted everyone to believe that Bal’ous was the victim of the opposition — and thus revenge should be directed at them — the Druze were not deceived.
The Assad regime was clearly putting a number of options in front of the Druze, each with its own consequences and repercussions. The first and most obvious was for the Druze to attack the opposition (the Free Syrian Army and Jabhat al-Nusra) for killing one of their own and thereby enticing them to reenlist in the regular Syrian army. The second was for the Druze to revolt against the regime and eject it from Druze regions — the consequence of this presumably being that the Popular Committees would oppose this and drag the Druze into war. This would enable the regime to move back in and try to reestablish law and order and thus quell the sedition.
Thus far, none of these scenarios has occurred and the Druze reaction has been limited to the killing of six regime soldiers and burning of a few security offices — somewhat of a muted response given the usual Druze reaction to violence. So what should one expect from the Druze of Syria? While many have speculated that Bal’ous and his operational military movement were eliminated by the two car bombs, his legacy will be much harder to kill. Perhaps one of the main reasons the Druze did not openly join the armed opposition to Assad is their reluctance to bank on Western anti-Assad factions, which at best can be described as unreliable and fickle. The position of Jabal al-Druze, adjacent to the Jordanian border, will make their reliance on the monarchy pivotal. Therefore, any change in Jordan’s position and that of its main backer — the United States — would have calamitous repercussions for the logical and strategic options of the Druze as a whole.
Given this precarious situation, the Druze need to safeguard Bal’ous’s central message: the only way to protect Druze dignity and their land is to remain neutral. Neutrality in this case does not mean sitting on the fence but rather speaking out and refusing to join Assad and his allies as they try to destroy what remains of Syria and its people.The Druze as well as the rest of Syria’s so-called minorities need to keep in mind that while wars are fought on the battlefields, post-war deals are hammered out in backrooms by shrewd politicians who will ask which side of the fence they were on when the last bullet was fired.
**Makram Rabah is a PhD candidate at Georgetown University’s history department. He is the author of A Campus at War: Student Politics at the American University of Beirut, 1967–1975. He tweets @makramrabah
Rami Nakhla is a Syrian opposition member and World Fellow at Yale University.

Syria rebels end failed Daraa offensive
Now Lebanon/September 11/15
BEIRUT – The Free Syrian Army-affiliated Southern Front has officially ended its campaign to seize Daraa after the offensive on the provincial capital became bogged down in heavy back-and-forth fighting. In a statement to anti-Damascus outlet All4Syria, the spokesperson of the rebel coalition said that the “Southern Storm” campaign, which began on June 25, “has ended completely.” “The operations rooms, which were already present in the sectors around the city in the first place, have gone back to keeping a partial and ramshackle watch,” Southern Front spokesperson Ahdam al-Krad said. “There are no meetings by the ‘Southern Storm’ operations room at all,” he added. “The operation formed a kind of frustration among Daraa residents. Tedium and indignation now [mark] the language of discourse in circulation, and there are voices calling for the re-structuring of forces.” “The battle achieved some results on the ground insofar as it revealed some of their weak points with regard to organization, errors in coordination and other military errors.”
According to Krad, the battle also revealed “the degree of enemy lines’ preparations, and exposed, to everyone, the extent to which supply lines failed and the negative and direct effect this had on the battle.” He added that the failure of “Southern Storm” had made most of young men “of grey nature” decide to emigrate or disassociate themselves from the “tune of armed struggle.” The Southern Front launched the offensive on Daraa in late June following a series of stunning successes in the southern Syrian province. The coalition had seized the Nasib border crossing with Jordan in early April and the regime’s 52nd Brigade base northeast of Daraa on June 9.
Foreign powers withdraw backing for Southern Front
A week before the rebel spokesperson’s interview, Al-Quds al-Arabi reported that the US-run Military Operation Center (MOC) based in Jordan had “stopped all financial assistance to the Southern Front for the moment after it failed to take control of Daraa.”
The MOC, which is said to be directed by the CIA and a number of Washington’s allies in the region, had been supporting and supervising the FSA-affiliated Southern Front’s campaign in the Daraa province, according to reports. A military source told Al-Quds al-Araby that the MOC had completely opposed the Southern Front’s decision to launch an offensive to seize Daraa city, preferring instead that the rebels take control of the strategic Khirbet Ghazaleh area to cut off regime supplies into the province. However, “at the moment when the battle for Daraa began, MOC provided the rebels with a massive amount of ammunition and weapons.” “This included rocket launchers and truckloads of ammunition in the dozens, but it didn’t make the slightest bit of difference to the progress of the battle.” The source’s comments mirror those of FSA Higher Military Council member Ayman al-Aasimi, who told Alaraby Aljadeed in late June that the Southern Front had committed major strategic blunders. The FSA official said he believes the Southern Front’s offensive should have started with the occupation of Khirbet al Ghazaleh—a town 15 kilometers northeast of the provincial capital—to ensure the severing of all supply lines into Daraa.

Syria political security chief visits Egypt
Now Lebanon/September 11/15
BEIRUT - Syrian National Security Bureau chief Ali Mamlouk has visited Cairo to meet with top Egyptian leaders in a further sign of rapprochement between the two countries, according to a report in a leading pro-Assad Lebanese newspaper. “In the last third of August, Mamlouk visited Cairo… and met with a number of high level officials in the army, and the intelligence and security services,” Al-Akhbar reported on Friday, weeks after the Syrian regime’s troubleshooter visited Riyadh. “The visit was crowned by Egyptian President Abdul Fattah el-Sisi receiving the Syrian official,” the report added. Al-Akhbar cited a “well-informed” source as saying that the visit was “very successful” and that both parties were “pleased with the results.” The daily said that during the visit reactivation of bilateral diplomatic relations was agreed upon and that this would soon result in the return of ambassadors representing the two countries to Cairo and Damascus. The source told the paper that “Cairo is preparing to name the diplomat Ahmed Helmy, who was on the staff of its embassy in Beirut, Egyptian consul general in Syria.”
Counterterror ties
Mamlouk’s visit to Egypt reportedly focused on security issues, with a source telling the Lebanese daily that the Syrian official had “discussed bilateral security cooperation to confront terrorism.”This came “within the context of the political solution in Syria, the initiatives that have been put forward, the plan of international envoy Staffan de Mistura and efforts to convene the Moscow 3 [peace talks],” the report said. “It was agreed that Egypt must play a bigger role in Syrian affairs in view of the strategic depth Syria constitutes for Egyptian national security.”According to the source, “Cairo… considers the two countries to be facing a common enemy—the Muslim Brotherhood and, by implication, Turkey—that constitutes a greater threat to Egypt than Syria.”The Egyptian officials reportedly told their Syrian guest that “Cairo believes both of the countries’ regimes are based on the strength of their armies, which form the main base of rule in them.” Mamlouk’s hosts said they believed that “as long as the army is solid the Syrian state will continue to stand,” according to the source.
“Any collapse of the Syrian army will mean that we have entered the era partition in the region. Therefore, confrontation of partition begins from Syria.”
Egypt-Syria ties
Egypt’s government under Sisi officially opposes the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, however Cairo in recent months has moved closer to Damascus’ ally Russia on the diplomatic and military level. During his visit to Moscow on August 26, the Egyptian leader signaled his support for an anti-ISIS alliance that would include the Syrian regime. Reports have also emerged that Egypt has been working to repair its broken ties with Damascus, with Al-Quds al-Arabi saying that the two countries were moving toward rapprochement. The London-based daily also cited rebel accounts that the Syrian army was shelling Zabadani with Egyptian rockets made by the state-owned Arab Organization for Industrialization. The daily went on to claim that the supply of weapons to Damascus by Cairo is “a military translation of the recent Syrian-Egyptian political détente.”In late August, a retired Egyptian general known for his opposition to Sisi accused Cairo of arming the Syrian regime, while rebels have accused the Syrian army of shelling Zabadani with Egyptian-made missiles. “On July 22, 2015, a Ukrainian merchant ship loaded with weapons and light to intermediate military equipment was sent from our country to the Syrian regime,” retired General Samy Hassan wrote on his Twitter account. “The operation to send the ship loaded with weapons to Syria was completed with orders from [Egyptian Defense Minister] Colonel General Sedki Sobhi and in coordination with the Syrian Ministry of Defense,” the former officer further claimed. He did not go into more detail on the purported weapons transfer, which is the latest in a series of accusations he has leveled against the Sisi government. In the fall of 2013, Hassan claimed that Egypt and the UAE were conspiring to overthrow Hamas in the Gaza Strip.Syrian National Security Bureau chief Ali Mamlouk (image via imlebanon.org)The visit was crowned by Egyptian President Abdul Fattah el-Sisi receiving the Syrian official.

Russia running Damascus International Airport: report
Now Lebanon/September 11/15/BEIRUT – As Moscow ramps up its military presence in Syria, one pro-rebel news outlet has claimed that Russia is now in control of Damascus International Airport. “A number of workers in Damascus International Airport have said that the Russians in the past few days have fully taken over the management of the airport,” All4Syria news said Friday morning. “It is Russian officers who are directing air operations and issuing instructions,” All4Syria cited what it said was an “exclusive source” as saying. According to the source, the involvement of Russian officers comes “within the framework of preparations for them to [begin] air bridge operations if needed to transfer forces that will defend the capital according to the directions of Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
The anti-Damascus outlet also cited “military sources” as saying that the regime now intends to create a defensive cordon in the villages around the airport, in order to limit the ability of rebels to target the facility. Russia in recent weeks has been conducting a major military buildup in Syria amid a flurry of reports that Moscow is preparing to set up an airbase in the Latakia province to conduct airstrikes on behalf of the Bashar al-Assad regime.AFP on Wednesday reported that Russia’s military activities have centered on the Bassel al-Assad International Airport south of the coastal city of Latakia. The next day, Israel’s defense minister told reporters that Russian troops and technical advisors have been arriving in the country “for operating planes and combat helicopters.”
US Secretary of State John Kerry earlier in the week called his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, to express his concern over the reports, while NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said a Russian buildup “will not contribute to solving the conflict.”
Moscow has downplayed the reports, with Lavrov saying Thursday that Russia’s arms shipments were merely the fulfillment of contracts with the Syrian government while its military trainers had been in the country for “many years.”

Eighty-seven killed in Makkah crane collapse
By Staff writer | Al Arabiya News/Friday, 11 September 2015/Sixty-five people have been killed and 154 wounded in Makkah’s Grand Mosque after a crane collapsed on Friday, Al Arabiya News Channel reported citing the Saudi Civil Defense authority. It is believed the crane collapsed in high winds. The Saudi civil defense Twitter account said 15 search and rescue teams were at the scene, transporting the wounded to hospital. Also watch: Video captures moment of deadly crane collapse in Makkah.Pictures circulating on social media showed pilgrims in bloodied robes and masses of debris from a part of the crane that seemed to have crashed through a ceiling. The Emir of Makkah Prince Khaled Al-Faisal has commissioned a committee to investigate the cause of the deadly collapse. News of the collapse came about an hour after civil defense tweeted that Mecca was “witnessing medium to heavy rains.”The incident occurred as hundreds of thousands of Muslims are due to gather from around the world for the annual hajj pilgrimage set to begin later this month.

Eastern European Countries Reject Migrant Quotas
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/15/Eastern European countries rejected migrant quotas on Friday, exposing a deep rift on the continent over how to respond to the crisis as new footage raised further questions about Hungary's treatment of floods of refugees. Pressing his Czech, Hungarian, Polish and Slovakian counterparts in Prague, Germany's foreign minister warned that the influx of hundreds of thousands of migrants could be "the biggest challenge for the EU in its history." "If we are united in describing the situation as such, we should be united that such a challenge is not manageable for a single country," Frank-Walter Steinmeier said, calling for "European solidarity."But Steinmeier's appeal to agree to European Commission proposals unveiled on Wednesday to share around 160,000 migrants among the 28-nation bloc fell on deaf ears. "We're convinced that as countries we should keep control over the number of those we are able to accept," said Czech Foreign Minister Lubomir Zaoralek after the meeting. The U.N.'s refugee agency meanwhile welcomed the EU plan -- which Berlin has said should go further still -- to distribute refugees, but said more was needed to relieve pressure on frontline states. "The proposed relocation scheme for 160,000 refugees from Greece, Italy and Hungary would go a long way to address the crisis," UNHCR spokesman William Spindler told reporters, warning though that "our initial estimates indicate even higher needs."
Macedonia record
Underscoring the scale of the challenge, a record 7,600 migrants entered Macedonia in just 12 hours overnight, according to a U.N. official. And Steinmeier said Germany expects some 40,000 migrants to arrive this weekend. With the bloc continuing to squabble, EU president Donald Tusk said he would call a leaders' summit if a European justice and home affairs ministers' meeting in Brussels on Monday failed to yield a breakthrough. "After contacts that I had with member states in the last few days, I feel more hopeful today that we are closer to finding a solution based on consensus and genuine solidarity," Tusk said. But "without such a decision, I will have to call an emergency meeting of the European Council," he said. EU lawmakers have called for an international conference on migration bringing together the United States, United Nations and Arab countries. Facing criticism that his government has been too slow to help, U.S. President Barack Obama pledged to admit at least 10,000 Syrian refugees over a year starting October 1. Spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama had ordered staff to "scale up" the number after over 62,000 Americans signed a petition calling on Washington to take in more people.
Draconian new laws
The apparent failure of Steinmeier's mission came as record numbers of people, 70 percent of them fleeing Syria according to the UNHCR, entered both Macedonia and Hungary. In addition to the 7,600 entering Macedonia overnight from Greece, Hungarian police said 3,601 crossed the border on Thursday. From Hungary, the migrants attempt to reach western European countries, principally Germany and Sweden, via Austria, which on Thursday suspended rail services to Hungary. The response of Hungary, which has seen some 175,000 migrants enter this year, has been to lay a razor wire barrier and for almost 4,000 soldiers to begin erecting a fence four meters (13 feet) high with the help of prisoners from a nearby jail. Draconian new laws entering into effect on Tuesday will allow Hungary to jail migrants and mooted legislation will see the army deployed and soldiers and police given wide-ranging new powers. Further concerns about Hungary were raised by video footage showing migrants inside a holding camp being fed in the words of one volunteer "like animals in a pen", with women and children caught in a scrum. "It was inhumane and it really speaks for these people that they didn't fight over the food despite being clearly very hungry," said Austrian volunteer Michaela Spritzendorfer, who filmed the scenes. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban reiterated Friday that his country was merely applying European rules in seeking to register the new arrivals, pinning the blame on fellow EU member Greece for letting migrants leave and travel north. "Just because Greece is not keeping to the common (Schengen) agreement does not authorize Hungary to give up on the Schengen rules as well," Orban said in Budapest.
I'm no child-kicking racist'
Meanwhile, a Hungarian camerawoman who caused global outrage after being caught on film tripping and kicking refugees, including children, as they fled police apologized and said she had "panicked." "I'm not a heartless, child-kicking racist camera-person," said Petra Laszlo, who was sacked by N1TV, an Internet-based television station close to Hungary's far-right Jobbik party, after the footage went viral. Laszlo said in a letter to a newspaper that she did not "deserve either the political witch hunt that is going on against me, or the smears or the many death threats." Meanwhile on the Greek island of Lesbos the boats kept arriving, with hundreds making a grueling 50-60 kilometer (30-40 miles) walk from their landing place to the main town to be registered. "We have been walking for four hours. There is no bus, no taxi, no water, no anything," said Mohammed Yassin al-Jahabra, a 23-year-old English literature student. Thousands of people have been forced to camp on the streets in squalid conditions, and there were repeated clashes as riot police struggled to control huge crowds pressing forward to board ferries.

August 'One of Bloodiest Months' for Syria's Eastern Ghouta
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/A besieged area east of Syria's capital suffered one of its bloodiest months in August, with "intense" regime bombing attacks that killed and wounded hundreds, Doctors Without Borders said Friday. MSF said "20 consecutive days of intense bombing attacks" on rebel-held Eastern Ghouta last month killed at least 377 people and wounded 1,932 others citing data from six hospitals. "This is one of the bloodiest months since the horrific chemical weapons attack in August 2013," Dr. Bart Janssens, MSF Director of Operations, said in a statement. "It is clear that there were at least 150 war-wounded treated per day in East Ghouta during these 20 days of bombing," he said. Eastern Ghouta is the largest rebel stronghold in Damascus province. It is regularly targeted by government air strikes and has suffered a devastating siege for nearly two years. Last month, 117 people were killed in a single day of government air strikes on the town of Douma in Eastern Ghouta, causing a global outcry. Thirteen makeshift hospitals supported by MSF in Eastern Ghouta reported "being almost permanently overwhelmed with violent trauma cases from 12 to 31 August," the medical charity said. But treatment of victims is becoming increasingly difficult, as the government tightens its blockades of areas around the capital. "We are aware of around 400 amputations conducted in East Ghouta in August. Many of these people's limbs could have probably been saved if the medical care in besieged areas were not so desperately constrained," said Janssens. Rights groups have criticized both government forces and rebel groups for their use of sieges, which prevent access to food and medicine for civilians. More than 240,000 people have been killed and millions have been forced to flee since the conflict began in March 2011.

French Jihadist Drugeon Likely Killed in Syria, Says U.S. Official
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/15/French jihadist David Drugeon was likely killed in a coalition strike in Syria in July, a U.S. official said Friday. Drugeon, an alleged bombmaker, has been described as a key figure in the al-Qaida offshoot Khorasan group, which American officials say is a dangerous militant outfit planning to attack the United States and other Western countries. U.S. officials previously thought Drugeon was killed in a November 2014 drone strike, but the claim was later disproved. "There are very good chances that we did get him in a strike in July in Syria," a U.S. official told AFP on Friday. According to the official, Drugeon was a "very key technical member" of the Khorasan group and was an expert at making "non-metallic Improvised Explosive Devices" -- the military term for homemade bombs. "Khorasan is a very dangerous organization which uses cutting-edge technology for (preparing) attacks in the West," the official said. Drugeon's death was also announced on Twitter by a Saudi jihadist, who mentioned a strike near Aleppo. A football fan in his early years, Drugeon later drew close to ultraconservative Salafist Muslims, converted to Islam, started learning Arabic and studying the Koran. He eventually went to Egypt and studied in religious schools there. Drugeon, who was 24 or 25, returned to France and at the start of 2010 told his family he was going back to Egypt. Like many other international volunteers, however, he went down the jihad route and traveled to tribal zones in Pakistan, never to be seen by his relatives again.

Bomb Attack on Bahrain Police Station, No Casualties
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/15/A bomb attack targeted a police station in a Bahraini Shiite village without causing casualties, the Sunni-ruled kingdom's official BNA news agency reported Friday.Bahrain has been the scene of frequent unrest since a Shiite-led uprising in 2011 to demand a constitutional monarchy and an elected prime minister. The Gulf state's deputy chief of public security, Major General Naji al-Hajil, said the attack took place late Thursday in Bilad al-Qadeem village. "An investigation has been launched to identify the suspects and bring them to justice," said Hajil, quoted by BNA. Protesters often clash with police in Shiite villages across Bahrain, which has accused Tehran of backing the unrest. Bahrain's main Shiite opposition bloc, al-Wefaq, condemned Thursday's "incident." "These violent acts are isolated from the wide peaceful movement for legitimate rights. Any harm to lives or properties is strongly condemned," it said in a statement. At least 89 people have been killed in clashes with security forces over the past four years, while hundreds have been arrested and put on trial, rights groups say.

Egypt Sinai Car Bomb Kills Woman, Child
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/15/A car bombing killed an Egyptian woman and a child Friday in the North Sinai town of Rafah, where the military is engaged in a sweeping campaign against jihadists, the army said. The military said that the bomb went off as troops combed the border town neighboring the Palestinian Gaza Strip, and there were no army casualties. It launched an offensive against the Islamic State group militants this week which it says has killed 134 jihadists since Monday. At least two soldiers were killed during the operation, the army said. The military says it has killed more than 1,000 militants since 2013, but the figures are difficult to independently verify. The army is struggling to quell an Islamic State group insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula that has killed hundreds of soldiers and policemen since 2013, when the army ousted Islamist president Mohamed Morsi.

U.N. Opens Up Race to be World's Top Diplomat
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/15/The U.N. General Assembly on Friday decided to shake up the selection process for the next secretary-general, lifting some of the secrecy shrouding the choice of the world's top diplomat. For the first time candidates are being asked to present their resumes and lay out a vision for the job of U.N. chief, under a resolution adopted by consensus in the 193-nation assembly. The choice of the U.N. chief has for decades been the purview of the five permanent Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- in a selection process kept mostly behind closed doors. Ban Ki-moon, who steps down at the end of 2016, was chosen by the Security Council which forwarded his name to the General Assembly for endorsement. Under the new rules, the council and assembly will start looking for candidates now by sending a joint letter to all 193 nations inviting applications and explaining the selection process. Interested candidates must have "proven leadership and managerial abilities, extensive experience in international relations, and strong diplomatic, communication and multilingual skills," according to the resolution.Their names will be circulated to the assembly along with full resumes. In a first, the General Assembly will conduct "informal meetings" with candidates to ask about their vision for leading the world body. "We have started the race to find the person fit for one of the most important jobs in the world," said British Ambassador Matthew Rycroft.
Milestone
The next secretary-general will preside over an organization with more than 40,000 employees, pushing forward a new anti-poverty agenda to be adopted this month and possibly a historic deal on climate change to be decided in December. European Union diplomat Gerton Van den Akker called the resolution a "milestone in enhancing the transparency and inclusivity of the selection process" for Ban's successor. The secrecy surrounding the choice of the secretary-general has long been a thorn in the side of countries that do not sit on the Security Council and non-governmental organizations. While the measure opens up the selection process, the Security Council will still submit only one name to the General Assembly for approval even if the candidate's credentials will likely be well-known to member-states. Debate on choosing the next secretary-general has focussed on appointing a woman for the first time, after eight men in the job.
The resolution specifies that governments are invited to present women as candidates. "The selection of the secretary-general in 2016 will be significantly different from the appointment of any secretary-general since 1945," said William Pace, a leader of the "one for seven billion" campaign of NGOs that lobbied for the changes. "The ability of the United States, Russia and China, and to some degree the UK and France to control a secret process in which they pick someone who they can control will be significantly challenged by the decision of the General Assembly," said Pace. Russia has said that the next secretary-general should come from eastern Europe, the only region that has yet to be represented in the top job. Among the names being floated for the top job are two Bulgarians -- UNESCO chief Irina Bokova and EU budget commissioner Kristalina Georgieva -- along with Croatia's Foreign Minister Vesna Pesic. Lithuania's President Dalia Grybauskaite has been mentioned but it is doubtful that a candidate from the Baltics would win Russian support. Among non-eastern Europeans, attention has focused on former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark, who now heads the UN Development Program, and Chile's President Michelle Bachelet.

Turkey Schoolboy Gets 11 Month Suspended Jail 'for Insulting Erdogan'
France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/15/A Turkish court on Friday handed a suspended prison sentence of 11 months and 20 days to a 17-year-old schoolboy convicted of insulting President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in a case that raised new concerns about freedom of speech in the country. The boy, identified as M.E.A., was convicted of "insulting the president" while speaking at a public meeting in the central city of Konya in December 2014. He had then been held in prison for two days after being arrested at school in the middle of lessons, before being released on probation pending trial after an appeal from his lawyer. The court in Konya sentenced him to 11 months and 20 days in prison but suspended the sentence for three years due to his good behavior during the trial, the Dogan news agency reported. According to reports, the boy accused Erdogan and the Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) ruling party of corruption during his speech in Konya. The teen has defiantly declared after his detention that his political activism would continue, saying he was a "soldier" of modern Turkey's secular founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The case came amid growing concerns about freedom of speech in Turkey under Erdogan, with dozens of journalists, public figures and even a former Miss Turkey put under investigation for insulting the president.

Young American Arrested for Alleged Plan to Attack 9/11 Memorial Event
France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/15/A young American who assumed the online identity of an Australian jihadist has been arrested for an alleged plan to bomb a September 11 memorial event, authorities said. Joshua Ryne Goldberg, who was arrested in Florida, has admitted to providing instructions on how to make a pressure cooker bomb with the intent "to kill and injure persons," according to court documents. The 20-year-old's directives included instructions on how to fill the bomb "with nails, metal and other items dipped in rat poison," to be placed at a September 11 memorial in Kansas City, Missouri, the U.S. Department of Justice said. He could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted, the department said. Australian Federal Police confirmed they had helped the Federal Bureau of Investigation track down the 20-year-old man. They alleged that Goldberg, who posed online as "Australi Witness," had "provided information over the Internet in an attempt to facilitate and encourage terrorist acts in Australia" as well. Goldberg's arrest, which was authorized Wednesday by a U.S. judge, came as Americans prepared for the 14th anniversary of the September 11 attacks that brought down the World Trade Center in New York and destroyed part of the Pentagon, killing nearly 3,000 people. Australian authorities, who raised the nation's terror alert to high a year ago, said U.S. investigators took over when the Australians determined the person responsible for the threats was likely in the United States. Australian Federal Police's acting deputy commissioner for national security Neil Gaughan said the alleged assailant had presumed he was safe.
"This man thought that he could willingly and maliciously distribute disturbing information via the Internet and never have his identity discovered," Gaughan said. "This operation again highlights how law enforcement can investigate people in the online space and use our long-established partnerships to work with overseas agencies to bring people to account for their actions." Australia, which is part of the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State in the Middle East, has been increasingly concerned about the radicalization of its youth. Some 120 Australians are still fighting with IS in Iraq and Syria, while at least 30 have been killed. Another 160 sympathizers are believed to be supporting jihadists from home. To combat the problem, Canberra has raised its terror threat alert level to high, introduced new national security laws and conducted several counter-terrorism raids.

IEA: Saudi Oil Market Shake up Set to Squeeze U.S. Shale
France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/15/Cheap oil prices ushered in by Saudi Arabia's policy of protecting its market share will end up squeezing high-cost producers like U.S. shale drillers, leading next year to the biggest drop in output in nearly a quarter century, the IEA said Friday. Cheap fuel is also hooking consumers, with oil demand growth set to hit a five-year high this year, the International Energy Agency said in its monthly report. The oil market has been driven for the past year and half by an increasingly transparent policy by OPEC oil cartel kingpin Saudi Arabia to safeguard its influence against upstart shale producers who could change global dynamics by cutting U.S. dependence on imported oil. High crude prices of over $100 per barrel in 2013 were allowing U.S. shale producers to exploit costly technology to extract previously unreachable oil and sharply increase supply in the top oil-consuming nation. But with Saudi Arabia and its OPEC partners refusing to cut production, crude oil prices have slumped from over $100 per barrel at the end of 2013 to hit six-year lows last month, with the main U.S. oil contract slumping to below $40 at one point. The IEA, a Paris-based institution which analyses energy markets for advanced oil-consuming nations, said the industry was now beginning to react to lower prices by cutting output.
"U.S. oil production is likely to bear the brunt of an oil price decline that has already wiped half the value off" the main international oil contract, the IEA said in its report. "After expanding by a record 1.7 million barrels per day in 2014, the latest price rout could stop U.S. growth in its tracks," it added. The IEA forecast non-OPEC oil output may drop by half a million barrels per day next year -- the biggest decline in 24 years -- with U.S. shale producers accounting for four-fifths of that drop.
Intended effect
"On the face of it, the Saudi-led OPEC strategy to defend market share regardless of price appears to be having the intended effect of driving out costly, 'inefficient' production," said the IEA. While it had previously expected U.S. shale output to rebound next year, the IEA said "the latest price rout takes 2016 futures prices below the average breakeven cost for all major shale plays" and as such "the current slump in drilling and completion rates is expected to extend well into next year". U.S. oil output has until recently held up fairly well against the drop in prices although the sector has cut back drilling and laid of tens of thousands of workers. But it fell for the fifth week in a row in the week to September 4, dipping to the still relatively high 9.14 million barrels per day, according to information released Thursday by the U.S. Department of Energy. The IEA noted that the low prices were hurting not only U.S. producers, but those in Russia and the North Sea as well. Low prices were also putting high-cost projects in OPEC countries at risk, it added. And the gambit has not been without wider risks for OPEC countries, whose public finances have been pummelled as the price of their main revenue source plunged.
OPEC countries have had to tighten their belts, with even Saudi Arabia announcing at the weekend it will cut spending and issue more bonds as it faces a record budget shortfall due to falling oil prices.
The International Monetary Fund forecasts the Saudi deficit will swell to $130 billion this year, up from $17.5 billion last year, which was only the kingdom's second since 2002. But the IEA sees the drop in oil prices, along with a gradually improving global economic outlook, to accelerate growth in demand for oil, in particular demand for OPEC output. If forecasts oil demand growth to hit a five-year high of 1.7 million barrels per day (mbpd), and stay at an above trend at 1.4 mbpd next year. The IEA increased its forecasts for overall demand this year and next by 0.2 mbpd to 94.4 mbpd this year and 95.8 mbpd in 2016. It cut its forecast for non-OPEC supply by 0.3 mbpd next year to 57.7 mbpd. The IEA does not make supply forecasts for OPEC, but said it expects market demand on OPEC suppliers to rise to 31.3 mbpd in 2016, an increase of 1.6 mbpd as low prices dent high-cost production support higher demand. OPEC output dipped 0.2 mbpd to 31.57 mbpd last month, the IEA said, but that was still up 1.2 mbpd from last year. Oil prices were down on Friday, after having climbed the previous day on falling U.S. output. Brent North Sea crude for delivery in October, the European benchmark, fell 90 cents, or 1.8 percent, to $47.99 a barrel in London. U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate for October fell 92 cents, or 2.0 percent, to $45.00 per barrel, while

Abbas Hails 'Just' Vote to Raise Palestinian Flag at U.N.
France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/15/Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday praised the countries which sided with "justice" by voting for the Palestinians to be allowed to raise their flag at United Nations headquarters. The U.N. General Assembly, by a two-thirds vote, adopted a resolution on Thursday allowing the flags of Palestine and the Holy See -- both of which have non-member observer status -- to be hoisted alongside those of member states.
Abbas paid tribute to the countries which approved the resolution saying "they have placed themselves on the side of right and justice", the official Palestinian news agency Wafa reported. "The struggle will continue until the Palestinian flag flies over our eternal capital, occupied Jerusalem," said Abbas. The flag is expected to be hoisted ahead of a September 30 visit by Abbas to address the U.N. General Assembly -- which upgraded the status of Palestinians to that of non-member observer in November 2012. Thursday's resolution was adopted by 119 members while eight -- including Israel and the United States -- voted against and 49 abstained. Israel's U.N. ambassador, Ron Prosor, criticized the decision saying "it will not help the Palestinian people" and insisting the "only way to achieve statehood is through direct negotiations."The latest round of U.S.-brokered peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians broke down in April 2014. Israel seized east Jerusalem in the Six-Day War of 1967 and later annexed it in a move never recognized by the international community. Israel considers all of Jerusalem as its indivisible capital, but the Palestinians claim the eastern sector as capital of their promised state.

Iranian troops join Russians in Syria fighting
Yoav Zitun/Ynetnews/09.10.15 /Israeli security sources claim Quds Force sending hundreds of elite troops in unprecedented cooperation with Russia to save embattled Syrian regime. Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran's elite Quds Force, has sent hundreds of ground soldiers into Syria in the past few days apparently in cooperation with Russia's President Vladimir Putin, said a senior Israeli security official Thursday. Russia has also recently deployed military assets into Syria and according to the Israeli source, has teamed up with Iran in an unprecedented attempt to protect the embattled regime of Bashar Assad from falling to rebel groups including the Islamic State. The Israeli source said that Iran's increased military involvement in Syria was "due to Assad's crisis and under Russian-Iranian cooperation as a result of a meeting between Soleimani with Russian President Vladimir Putin," said the Israeli source. The only Iranian force that has operated in Syria so far has been the Basij militia, a paramilitary organization with a relatively small number of fighters.
The security official said that Israel has little to worry about Russia's military activity in Syria saying that it is "not directed at Israel. "We have dialogue with Russia and we aren't in the middle of the Cold War," continued the source. "We have open channels with the Russians."
Israeli security leaders assess that Assad currently controls just 25-30 percent of Syria, mainly around the country's shoreline where critical supplies are shipped into ports. "It's hard to forecast whether Russia's presence will decide the fate of Syria, but it will lengthen the fighting and bloodletting for at least another year because ISIS won't give up," said the Israeli source. Along Israel's border with Syria in the Golan Heights, Assad maintains just two enclaves at Quneitra and another smaller area further north, centered around Syrian-Druze villages that look to the regime for protection. Rebels used bad weather caused by a massive sandstorm across the Middle East in the last few days to gain control of a government-controlled air field near the northern city of Idlib.

What 9/11 has wrought for U.S. Mideast policy
Dr. John C. Hulsman//Al Arabiya/September 11/15
On Sept. 11, 2001, the Washington foreign-policy community, myself included, was emotionally terrorized in a way we had never been before. This alone explains the dramatic foreign-policy overreaction that tragically occurred in the Middle East soon after, and plagues us to this day. Al-Qaeda understood the power of human emotion in a manner we American intellectuals did not. By terrorizing us, it set in motion the overreaction of then-President George W Bush and his neoconservative cabal, and the consequent under-reaction of his successor Barack Obama that has followed. My life - like everyone else’s in New York and Washington - changed on 9/11. In that tragic, powerless, fearful interlude lay the seeds for the calamity that would follow. Much as I loathe what the Bush administration did next, on one level it was a very human response to the terror that had been visited upon us.America was uniquely powerful and uniquely vulnerable. We had been horrendously attacked, and had to strike back quickly so such a thing would never happen again. From that nugget of understandable emotion sprang the neoconservative program to democratize the Middle East, by gunpoint if necessary.
Misreading the world
The next Bush-administration mistake can also be seen as a reasonable assessment at the time. With the triumphant end of the Cold War, it seemed as if America was basking in the sun of a new uni-polar era, where U.S. predominance would continue far into the future. Now, after the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic crisis and the rise of China, it is hard to remember how dominant America seemed for that fleeting moment. The horrible truth of what 9/11 has wrought is that America was induced to make a series of calamitous (if understandable) errors in the Middle East that plague us to this day.Historically, uni-polar moments are far from the norm, and this case proved no exception. Short of colonizing Iraq for 100 years (which is what the Romans would have done in their heyday), Baghdad was not about to forget its intrinsic history, culture, sociology, economic structure and ethno-religious basis to fall in line with deeply flawed neoconservative yearnings for a region that would elect Iraqi versions of George Washington.
Intellectually worse, the neocons were trying to remake a country of which they knew next to nothing, which is where I entirely fault them. The Republican party is founded on a healthy (and correct) distrust of social engineering in the United States, believing that the market and individuals tend to do a better job of knowing their own interests than far-away bureaucrats in Washington. As I kept hammering home to the Bush people, if we do not think we can reengineer America, of which we know a lot, how do we think we can remake Iraq, of which we know relatively little? As a result I was fired from my job, but that does not mean I was wrong.
What Bush hath wrought
The invasion of Iraq, and its consequent collapse as a functioning state, was the direct result of 9/11. Through its colossal strategic miscalculation - brought on by the understandable human urge to pacify the region that had wreaked such havoc on America - the United States has unwittingly left its geopolitical foe Iran immeasurably strengthened in the vital Gulf. The dismemberment of Iraq has facilitated the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and all the horror that has followed from that.
The Bush administration did not follow such a baleful course because it was evil. It did not - as I wearily hear constantly - even do so primarily to get Iraq’s oil. The more horrifying if simple truth is that these were powerful, confident men and women, who as U.S. citizens had never experienced a true moment of terror and struck out after a devastating and unexpected blow.The horrible truth of what 9/11 has wrought is that, under the terrible pressure inflicted upon us by the murderers of Al-Qaeda, America was induced to make a series of calamitous (if understandable) errors in the Middle East that plague us to this day.

Will money and openness change Iranians?
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/September 11/15
Most American discussions about the Iran nuclear deal are optimistic that it will end an era of confrontation. Some see it as similar to the opening with China in the 1970s, when the puritanical communist state turned into a flexible moderate one that has good ties with the United States despite the regime not changing. Many people hope Iran will change for the better - a new China - adding positivity and peace to the world. Their wishes might come true, but this would require a change in the thinking of Iran’s leadership, which has cracked down on those advocating change. Extremists, who are anti-West and anti-modernization, have taken power. They have built high walls around the Iranian people, limiting their access to the outside world. We have serious doubts that the nuclear deal and openness can change its behavior and politics. Had the authorities decided to open up - allowing its citizens to travel abroad and foreigners to visit and work in Iran - the desired changes may have occurred, though it would likely have taken decades rather than a year or two. Careful what you wish for. In Iran, most inhabitants are poor, cities are plagued with misery, and the long embargo has put all means of entertainment on hold. However, having a lot of money and leading a materialistic life do not necessarily change society for the better.
They could increase political, social and religious radicalism, contrary to the current belief that they would make people more civilized. We have many present-day examples from Muslim societies where huge financial resources have contributed to greater extremism than what prevailed during times of poverty. Those of us in the region do not care about how Iranians handle their daily life, and do not have the right to tell them how to spend the royalties from the nuclear deal, or their new incomes resulting from cooperation with the West. We are the last to have the right to lecture them about openness and investing oil revenues. We have already lived the oil-wealth experience and mishandled it. It has ruined our social lives, and our understanding of development and progress.
What matters to us in American explanations of the phase to come once the nuclear deal ends is foreign politics and how the relationship with Iran will be managed. Tehran has spent billions of dollars on political projects in the Middle East under a clear, ongoing policy of exporting its Islamic revolution and imposing the Iranian model on other states. This is our only problem with Tehran, which has become a source of concern for all countries in the region, as well as a cause of chaos and wars. We have serious doubts that the nuclear deal and openness can change its behavior and politics.

Sinai struggle: Egypt’s army is not Iraq’s
Abdallah Schleifer/Al Arabiya/September 11/15
There has been scant reporting about a major offensive launched by Egypt’s army against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in northern Sinai earlier this week. The assumption is that the offensive continues while everyone in Cairo waits for a new army communique.
Reporting is scant because northern Sinai is a war zone, and in any war zone concerns about security and morale trump journalism, even the most responsible journalism, which in such circumstances can be a rare commodity anywhere, not just in Egypt.
The temptation of Egyptian news organizations to use unverified accounts telephoned in from near the front by anyone, and which can contradict official statements , is no longer a problem. That is because under a new law, reporting details of ISIS attacks that contradict official statements can result in massive fines for journalists, and courts barring journalists from working in their profession for up to a year. The Egyptian army is not the post-Saddam Iraqi army, which for all of the billions of dollars of American equipment and training fell apart during a series of ISIS offensives.
That means scant reporting. The way to balance the need for reporting from the front while preserving security and morale is to embed journalists with a minimal level of security clearance. They may accompany army units, and have all reporting from the front submitted for quick clearance by army censors. ISIS has few friends in Egypt (which is not necessarily the case in some other Arab countries), just as the Nazis had few friends in America during World War II. No American journalist suspected of sympathy for the Nazis would have accredited by the allied armed forces as a war correspondent. Those accredited still had to submit battlefield reports for quick clearance by a military censor.
Speculation. In Cairo, there is speculation as to why the army has launched such a massive offensive around the towns of Rafah, Sheikh Zuweid and El-Arish. Such speculation focuses on recent ISIS attacks: the killing of two policemen in El-Arish in late August, and two blasts on Sept. 3 that wounded six members of the Multinational Force and Observer (MFO) peacekeeping mission that has been operating in the Sinai since the Israeli withdrawal. Four Americans were among the wounded.
However, this misreads what is happening in the Sinai. The very name of the offensive, “Retribution for the Martyrs,” indicates that this is an ongoing response to a coordinated and unprecedented attacks by ISIS on July 1 against army checkpoints and police positions in northern Sinai. Three hundred ISIS fighters were involved. In eight hours of intense fighting - particularly in the town of Sheikh Zuweid close to the border with Gaza - at least 100 jihadists were reportedly killed. In the weeks leading up to that attack in July, there were reportedly a series of blasts targeting Egypt’s army and security forces. This has been the pattern of ISIS offensives in Iraq: intermittent attacks leading up to major assaults to seize towns and cities.
The barely-reported but apparent goal of ISIS in July was to take and hold Sheikh Zuweid. It failed. Between then and the Egyptian army offensive this past week, intelligence was gathered on the location of ISIS bases. As a result, heavy casualties were inflicted on ISIS this week, and more than 100 have reportedly been taken prisoner.
Comparisons
Egypt is not Iraq, and the Egyptian army is not the post-Saddam Iraqi army, which for all of the billions of dollars of American equipment and training fell apart during a series of similar ISIS offensives. Nor is Egypt Syria, where ISIS and its Al-Qaeda competition, Al-Nusra Front, have pushed out the Syrian army, as well as rebel militias theoretically opposed to both radical Islamist groups, from towns along the border with Turkey as well as the suburbs of Aleppo and Damascus. This summer, Washington resumed delivery of crucial military equipment to Egypt, and Secretary of State John Kerry came to Cairo to resume suspended strategic talks, deliver a reportedly conciliatory letter from the American president to his Egyptian counterpart, and talk with enthusiasm about U.S. support for Cairo in its struggle against ISIS, and readiness to participate in Egypt’s economic development. So perhaps the ISIS threat, and the Egyptian army’s performance in countering that threat, has finally had an impact on those White House circles that have been so receptive to the Muslim Brotherhood’s ambitions in Egypt even before the 2011 revolution, and so critical of Egypt since those ambitions were cut short by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

Iran’s marriage with Assad and the Alawite state
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya/September 11/15
The Iran-U.S. rapprochement, the improving ties between the Islamic Republic and European countries as well as the nuclear deal between the six world powers (known as the P5+1) and Tehran, have raised a considerable amount of expectations towards the country.
Some of those expectations are that Iran is going to play a constructive role in resolving the crisis in Syria and that it will halt its military support for President Bashar al-Assad and Syrian forces.Many of those who favor the nuclear deal argue that Tehran will change its regional and foreign policies regarding Syria and Assad. As the argument goes, this is due to the notion that Tehran is currently showing evidence of reintegrating in the international community and global financial system. Recently, Tehran and Moscow have announced plans to resolve the crisis and civil war in Syria, and they appear to have a sudden interest in taking the lead in resolving the conflict. Moscow is offering a proposal for a transitional government and parliamentary elections. This plan is most likely being supported by Tehran as well.
Is Iran changing its geopolitical and strategic position on Syria? Will Iran accept a formation of a new government in Syria?
The misconceptions
Several flaws exist in the above-mentioned argument wielded by those who point out that Tehran is going to change its position on the Syrian government or even on Assad. First of all, the primary reason that Iranian leaders are attempting to bring the case of Syria to the negotiating table is not due to the notion the Tehran had a change of heart on the Syrian people and refugees, or because it has altered its national security priorities.The Islamic Republic has been hemorrhaging billions of dollars into the Syrian government’s coffers in order to keep the current political establishment in power.The Islamic Republic is not in a pleasant or comfortable position when economic factors and military manpower come into calculation
Although Iran denies that it has forces on the ground in Syria, Tehran is regularly revealing the bodies of Iranian officers killed in Syria and the Iranian state media outlets mourn the death of Iranian officers who were killed in the war-torn nation. Iran, the leading patron and staunchest ally of Bashar al-Assad, has been assisting the Syrian government militarily, financially and politically. As a result, the Islamic Republic is not in a pleasant or comfortable position when economic factors and military manpower come into calculation.
Notwithstanding being in an unpleasant financial situation, Tehran is not necessarily ready to fundamentally change its strategic and geopolitical calculation on Syria.
With the current nuclear deal, the Islamic Republic has more hope for receiving further financial incentives from selling gas, oil and gaining access to over 100 billion dollars’ worth of assets. Hence, Iran is not in a completely desperate position economically speaking.
In addition, although Iranian leaders point out that the Syrian people are the ones who decide the fate of Syria, any plan which comes from a state (Tehran and Moscow in this case) will represent the national, geopolitical, economic and strategic interests of those who put the plan forward.
Top-down plans will not represent the interests of the people on the ground - the Syrian citizens. This is similar to the Sykes-Picot plan of great powers which drew boundaries in the region, based on the interests of those who put the plan forward rather than the citizens of those lands. Iran will not abandon Assad or the Alawite state. Some scholars, policy analysts, and politicians argue that in order for Iran to save the billions of dollars and military manpower spent on Assad, the Islamic Republic might at least agree to a plan in which Assad would resign and peacefully live somewhere else until the end of his life, as long as the Syrian Alawite state remains in power. It is accurate to argue that the Islamic Republic is not married to an individual, but to the state which preserves its national, geopolitical, ideological and economic interests.
Nevertheless, this argument fails to recognize the fact that to Iranian leaders, Assad is not only an individual who can be replaced by someone else, but he is an indispensable part of the Syrian state; he embodies the domination of the Alawites in the political establishment.
The removal of Assad from power will be a strong blow to the Syrian government and a moral boost to the oppositional and rebel groups. Iranian leaders have also witnessed that resignations of leaders in other Arab countries which went through turmoil which led to empowerment of opposition groups and the incitement of full-fledged revolution.
Reintegration
Knowing this, why Iran is offering plans at this point? The Islamic Republic is attempting to reintegrate in the global financial system and the international community for economic and geopolitical reasons.
In addition Iranian leaders attempt to project the Islamic Republic to the Western powers as the major player in the Middle East and as a constructive player in order to gain the trust of the West, lessen criticism about Iran’s role in Syria and the increasing numbers of refugees, and for the purpose of tipping the balance of power against Arab Sunni states and in favor of Tehran.
Iranian leaders are engaging in cosmetic diplomatic, tactical and political moves to achieve the aforementioned objectives.
Whatever benefits to other countries may be projected on the surface, what lies beneath is different. This does not mean that Iran is making strategic changes, but only tactical ones.
Therefore, Iran’s longstanding slogan of “Neither East nor West, but the Islamic Republic!” has now changed into a one in which the Islamic Republic is attempting to gain the favor of both the East and the West, through calculated tactical changes in order to serve Iran’s geopolitical, national, security, economic and strategic interests.

Protesters destroy Hafez al-Assad statue in Suwayda
Mustafa al-Haj /Al-Monitor/September 11, 2015
TranslatorSahar Ghoussoub
DAMASCUS, Syria — Suwayda, the relatively calm Syrian city with a majority of Druze residents located 100 kilometers (62 miles) south of Damascus, witnessed on Sept. 1 peaceful demonstrations that were the biggest of its kind since the outbreak of the Syrian revolution. Scores of protesters flocked to the governorate’s municipality building downtown, demanding the improvement of living conditions and the dismissal of the corrupt politicians and holding the latter accountable.
Summary
The residents of the Syrian city of Suwayda took to the street in peaceful demonstrations in early September to voice their opposition to the rampant corruption and bad living conditions in the city.
The sit-in came as a response to a campaign launched on Facebook — #Khanaqtouna (You Suffocated Us) — by a number of activists in the city. The page quickly garnered the attention and support of the city’s residents, who responded to the call and took to the street. Another protest took place on Sept. 3, where protesters raised their demands, calling for the ousting of the city's governor, Afef Naddaf. Protesters shouted slogans akin to the Arab Spring — “Down with the regime” — but were keen on keeping the march as peaceful as possible, so as to avoid any clashes with the security forces controlling the city, according to the campaign’s Facebook page. One of the organizers of the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Al-Monitor, “The campaign represents all segments of society in the city. We will give the authorities 48 hours to respond to our demands: to provide the city with fuel, improve the electricity distribution and dismiss corrupt officials. Should they fail to meet these demands, we will take to the streets again.”The young man stressed that this campaign is not affiliated with any political, religious or tribal party, as it merely represents the people of the city who have been affected by the dire economic situation and who are now fed up with the corruption, blaming the city’s governor and the heads of security departments for what is happening. He also stressed that the protesters will remain peaceful, and will make sure to prevent those who try to infiltrate their ranks to foment discord and chaos or exploit the movement for political purposes. He also said the demonstrators will only carry the Syrian flag.
By Sept. 3, the authorities had not met the protesters’ demands. The only response was that means of communication and the Internet connection in the city have been cut off since that day. The authorities also blocked the Damascus-Suwayda highway in an attempt to isolate the city and to disperse the activists who were using social media to get organized. All this happened in light of a total news blackout by the official media.Angry posts were published on the campaign‘s Facebook page, and one such post read: “They cut off communication means because they feared our peaceful protests but we will continue.”
Al-Monitor managed to get in touch with Rami, one of the city’s residents who participated in the sit-ins. On condition that his last name not be revealed, he said, “There were no security forces in the city’s streets during the protests that were held in front of the governorate headquarters on Thursday evening [Sept. 3].” He added, “At some point, the security forces did try to disperse the crowd by opening fire, leading to the death of two civilians. The peaceful protests continued until Friday."
While the sit-ins were ongoing in central Suwayda, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported Sept. 4 that several explosions rocked parts of the city. The first took place in Ein al-Marj, which killed four — including Wahid al-Balous, the Druze sheikh who is known for being an opponent of the Syrian regime and the Islamists. Balous' brother was injured in that attack. Another explosion took place near the National Hospital in Suwayda. The death toll of civilians in the two blasts amounted to 27, while 48 people were wounded.
In light of the ongoing Internet outage throughout the entire city, people have been unable to share news and report on what has been going on. The Syria Satellite Channel and Alikhbaria Syria shared the first images of the blasts, without offering a political or military analysis of the situation in the city. They merely made reassurances that there is a plan to calm the situation, without revealing any further details.
Media reports of the assassination of Balous and the other sheikhs was limited. Druze sheikhs such as Sheikh Rakan al-Atrash appeared in the news, sending a message to the people calling on them to stop protesting and to keep quiet. The blasts that rocked parts of the city caused the peaceful demonstrations to take a more violent turn. An armed group known by the name of “Balous Men” clashed with the security forces, according to Rami. “Protesters and gunmen stormed the military security headquarters and besieged the headquarters of the Criminal Security, prompting the regime forces to withdraw from their locations and the city’s streets. Given the absence of security forces, the protests escalated on Sept. 4 as protesters destroyed the statue of former President Hafez al-Assad in the largest square in the city. Gunshots continued to be heard until late at night,” he said.
On Sept. 5, media outlets published what was known as “Statement No. 1” by the Balous Men, announcing that Suwayda is a region liberated from the Syrian regime, in response to the assassination of Balous, thus pointing a finger at the Syrian regime. On the other hand, the official page of Sheikh Balous denied the statement, calling upon the city’s residents to wait for the announcements by the leadership council of the Balous Men. “The militia of Sheikh Balous continued to control the city’s streets amid a cautious calm on the part of the state. The militiamen were deployed across the city taking the place of the police. The cutting off of the Damascus-Suwayda highway caused the people to panic and rush to secure food supplies, medicine and basic necessaties, in anticipation of a siege by the regime,” Rami said. “Balous’ brother, who was injured in the blast, is likely to succeed [Balous],” Rami said, stressing that the Balous Men did not announce any official demands before the funeral of their sheikh on Sept. 6. There is information saying that meetings are currently ongoing between the Druze sheikhs and the security officers to reach some sort of a truce.
A local source from Suwayda told Al-Monitor in a telephone interview on Sept. 7 that the power was only cut for two hours, while at other times the city suffers from 16-hour power outages a day. “The regime is trying to absorb the people’s anger by improving electricity in the city,” the source added.
The state-owned Alikhbaria Syria broadcast a video Sept. 6, showing a man called Wafed Abu Turabi, who claimed responsibility for the two blasts in Suwayda.
“This is a fabricated story along the lines of the story of Abu Adas following the assassination of Rafik Hariri,” pro-Syrian opposition member Saleh al-Nabwani told Al-Monitor.
“Wafed Abu Turabi has been outside the governorate for over three years. Even if he did recently return to it, it would not have been possible for him to easily wander the streets as he said in the interview. Such an explosion requires complex equipment and it cannot be done by one person — it requires a group of experts,” Nabwani added.
Mustafa al-Haj
Contributor, Syria Pulse
Mustafa al-Haj is a pseudonym for a Syrian journalist based in Syria.
Original Al-Monitor Translations

Should Hamas recognize Israel?
Author Shlomi Eldar/Al-Monitor/September 10, 2015
Translator/Simon Pompan
Gaza residents have been telling a macabre joke in recent weeks: Once the Egyptians finish building the huge fishponds they’re planning in Rafah, tens of thousands of tunnel workers will have to take up diving.
Summary
Some factions within Hamas' political leadership think that recognizing Israel might be the only way to relieve the situation of the Gaza Strip and ensure the survival of the Hamas movement.
Not long ago, Egypt announced that in an effort to stamp out the smuggling enterprise through tunnels from the Sinai Peninsula to the Gaza Strip, it was planning to set up an enormous system of fishponds 14 kilometers (8.7 miles) long. How the ponds will be built, how the large quantities of water will be transferred from el-Arish and when the work will be completed all remain a mystery at this stage. These unknowns aside, the plan’s detractors and the concerned people in Gaza say that the project — if ever implemented — would take so long to complete it would give the tens or hundreds of thousands of unemployed people enough time to find new ways to adapt to the fishponds.
Israel, too, had tried to come up with creative ideas to secure its Egypt-Gaza border, such as a deeply planted steel wall (the Philadelphi Route) or digging a sea canal on the border between the Egyptian side of Gaza and the Palestinian one to make contraband smuggling harder. The canal was never dug, and Gaza’s tunnel experts found ingenious ways to overcome the obstacles that had been set up. But this time, it seems the lights have gone out in Rafah’s tunnels.
Until Cairo waged its all-out war against the tunnels that were Gaza’s lifeline, Hamas leaders saw the Saladin Project — the name for the smuggling enterprise from Egypt — as a huge pioneering success, a symbol of the triumphant Palestinian spirit. Thanks to the tunnels, Hamas' leaders were able to hold onto the reins in Gaza despite the hardships. But those times seem to be over. Gaza is shutting down. Though the last eight years have been horrible for its residents, the future appears to be even bleaker.
A report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development states that by 2020, Gaza will become uninhabitable. Eight years of blockade and three wars have wreaked havoc on the 1.8 million residents in the Gaza Strip. Published on Sept. 2, the report notes that the unemployment rate has soared to 44% while 72% of households suffer from food insecurity.
This grim forecast has not been lost on Hamas leaders. Although the movement’s senior officials — Ismail Haniyeh, Mahmoud al-Zahar and Qatar-based head of Hamas' political bureau Khaled Meshaal — continue in their statements and speeches to sing their praises for the endurance of Gaza’s residents, it is patently clear that the situation is deteriorating by the day and that no solution is in the offing.
And if Egypt’s fishponds were not enough, the invitation extended to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to visit Iran has been perceived by Hamas leaders as a resounding slap in the face of those who until three years ago had been the movement’s chief patrons.
The messages exchanged between Israel and Hamas about a long-term cease-fire, with the hope that it would end the blockade on Gaza, have yet to show any results. More precisely, they have never gotten off the ground.
The position of the leaders of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the movement’s military wing, is well known: They seek to continue its buildup. Most of the financial resources for salaries and the development of locally made weaponry come from Muslim charities that have been contributing to Hamas for years. The military wing operates almost completely separately from the rest of the movement. The debate over the movement’s future takes place primarily within the political wing’s various factions and camps.
Hamas’ political leadership is divided. Bitter arguments have been taking place for years, but they have become even more vigorous in recent months. Unlike in the past, when a distinction was drawn between Hamas’ hawkish and pragmatic camps as well as between the leadership in Gaza and the one abroad, the divisions go deeper. Due to the immense pressure on the leadership, the movement has split into different camps and factions with only one topic preoccupying its leaders: How can the movement survive?
Al-Monitor has learned that one of the camps, which consists of a number of leaders who were once considered the pragmatic stream, believes it is high time to think seriously about the conditions of the Quartet — the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States — relating to the mutual recognition between Israel and Hamas. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a source in the movement told Al-Monitor that the issue of mutual recognition has come up in the series of messages that Israel and Hamas have been exchanging in recent months in consideration of a long-term cease-fire.
This does not mean acceptance of the Quartet’s conditions to the letter; nor does it mean giving Israel the right to Palestinian land. Rather, there is vague wording about recognizing the right of coexistence but without giving up the rights over Palestinian lands held for generations.
The demand for it to recognize Israel as a condition for opening up Gaza to the world was raised by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair — the Quartet’s former envoy to the Middle East — during his visit to the Gaza Strip in February of this year. In his meeting with the movement’s leaders, including Deputy Foreign Minister Ghazi Hamad, a demand was made to recognize the principles of a two-state solution. The movement’s leaders, Ismail Haniyeh and Zahar, responded unequivocally, rejecting out of hand the proposals to recognize Israel. But the longer and the tighter the blockade on the Gaza Strip is, the more the idea seeps through.
Al-Monitor has learned that Haniyeh — once considered the leader of the movement’s pragmatic stream — is aware of this keen debate and for the time being has not expressed any objection to the ideas that have been introduced — nor, it should be noted, has he expressed any reservations. Some people in Hamas see Haniyeh’s irresolute position as a positive sign.
Mentioning Haniyeh in the context of possibly recognizing Israel is not insignificant. After Hamas’ victory in the 2006 elections and following the Quartet’s demands that it recognize Israel, accept past agreements and renounce violence, it was Haniyeh who coined the phrase “We will never recognize Israel,” using every possible negation in the Arab language. It seems that even Haniyeh realizes now that the day of reckoning is approaching, given that the other options for survival are nonexistent.
Yet, it should be remembered that pitted against the camp that wants the issue of mutual recognition to be brought for a serious deliberation at the Shura Council is the hawkish camp that believes that Israel only understands the language of force. One of the staunch advocates of a military buildup is Zahar, who also keeps pushing for more attempts to reconcile with Iran.
The debate within Hamas will not end anytime soon. It is hard for people to admit that their policy has failed and their promise was left unfulfilled. The movement’s leaders and activists, who have lived their entire lives on the notion of destroying Israel, cannot change overnight. But the debate that is now taking place within the movement is indicative of Hamas’ distress and deep crisis.
**Shlomi Eldar is a columnist for Al-Monitor’s Israel Pulse. For the past two decades, he has covered the Palestinian Authority and especially the Gaza Strip for Israel’s Channels 1 and 10, reporting on the emergence of Hamas. In 2007, he was awarded the Sokolov Prize, Israel’s most important media award, for this work. On Twitter: @shlomieldar
Original Al-Monitor Translations

Catholic Democrats leverage pope's visit to push for admitting more Syrian refugees
Author Julian PecquetAl-Monitor/ September 10, 2015
The lawmakers are leveraging the pontiff's upcoming visit to call for the United States to do more amid a growing migration crisis that has overwhelmed the Middle East and Europe. The White House said Sept. 10 it would seek to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees next fiscal year, up from 1,293 this year, while increasing the total number of refugees beyond the current 70,000 per year.
"Many in Washington are looking forward to a visit later this month by Pope Francis, who just this week asked the faithful throughout Europe to shelter refugees fleeing ‘death from war and hunger,'" Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in a statement on Sept. 9 following congressional briefings by Secretary of State John Kerry as part of his department's annual review of resettlement needs. "In the United States, we can do the same thing. We can respond, as we have before, with meaningful action that is worthy of a nation of immigrants with by far the largest capacity to act, as the world expects us to. I urge both the administration and leaders in Congress to do just that.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who is also Catholic, made a similar appeal on Sept. 10.
"We see Germany taking the lead on this. I hope that other countries will follow suit and that we will do something more substantial," she said at her weekly press conference. "But we have to have a conversation about it. It's not just about the number; it's about the reason why and what our moral responsibility is as well. And the pope is, of course, asking for countries to take in [people]."
The comments come after Pope Francis over the weekend called on every parish to take in a refugee family. He is expected to address the refugee crisis during his joint address to Congress on Sept. 24 and his speech at the UN General Assembly the next day.
"Facing the tragedy of tens of thousands of refugees — fleeing death by war and famine, and journeying toward the hope of life — the Gospel calls, asking of us to be close to the smallest and forsaken," Pope Francis said in Munich. "To give them a concrete hope, and not just to tell them: ‘Have courage, be patient!'”
The White House has also indirectly invoked the pope's authority in making its case. Asked Sept. 9 if the administration would announce a Syrian refugee figure before the pope lands in Washington, spokesman Eric Schultz said President Barack Obama "does believe the United States has a moral responsibility to play a role in addressing this issue."
"That's why we've launched a review of options that are available to be responsive to the global refugee crisis," Schultz said. "And we're also in regular contact with countries in the Middle East and in Europe that have been greatly impacted by the increased refugee flows."
The papal imprimatur may prove helpful in overcoming concerns about welcoming thousands of mostly Muslim refugees. Republican leaders on the House Homeland Security Committee immediately criticized Thursday's announcement, arguing that the administration cannot properly vet Syrian refugees given the conditions in which they're leaving their country.
“Today’s announcement by the White House that the US will admit at least 10,000 Syrian refugees next year will put American lives at risk," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the chairman of the Counterterrorism and Intelligence panel. "I oppose this decision. We do not want another Boston Marathon bombing.”
Others made no secret of their animus toward Muslims.
"If they're Muslims, why don't we resettle [them] in the Muslim states?" asked Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a member of the Judiciary Committee's immigration and border security panel. "Wouldn't they be happier? They wouldn't have to transform a society. They would just fit in like a hand in a glove."
The Middle East nations of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have resettled the vast majority of Syrian refugees.
Leahy has been leading the charge for Congress to allocate an extra $415 million for refugee aid in his position as the top Democrat on the Senate foreign aid panel. While the president has sole authority to set the annual ceiling for refugees after consultation with Congress, federal agencies need extra funding to deal with increased numbers.
While the White House announcement may set up a showdown over funding, Steve King made it clear he doesn't think Congress can do much to stop the Obama administration from carrying out its plans. Rather, he predicted the issue would be fought out as part of the 2016 presidential debate.
"When has Congress redirected the president in any way?" he told Al-Monitor. "Right now it's a matter of politics and how much of this objection gets into the presidential debate dialogue."
Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has invoked the pope's message.
"As Pope Francis has reminded us, this is an international problem that demands an international response," she said Sept. 9 during an appearance at the Brookings Institution. "The United States must help lead that response."
So has former Maryland governor and long-shot presidential candidate Martin O'Malley, who — unlike Clinton — is Catholic.
"On Sunday, Pope Francis called on people of conscience to come to the aid of 'tens of thousands of refugees that flee death in conflict and hunger and are on a journey of hope,'" O'Malley wrote in a USA Today op-ed Sept. 9. "We are watching as Germany, Austria and Scandinavia heed the call. The United States must not be a bystander on the sidelines."
On the Republican side, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the chairman of the foreign aid panel, has called on the United States to accept its "fair share" of refugees. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has also been open to the idea, while others have been more hesitant.

Muslim Soldiers Killing Christian Soldiers in Egypt
By Raymond Ibrahim on September 10, 2015 in From The Arab World, Muslim Persecution of Christians
PJ Media
On Sunday, August 23, a Coptic Christian soldier was killed in his army unit in Egypt. Baha Saeed Karam, 22, was found shot dead with four bullet wounds at the headquarters of his battalion in Marsa Matruh. Although transferred to a hospital in Alexandria, he was pronounced dead upon arrival.
According to Baha’s brother, Cyril, the Coptic soldier had recently told him that he had gotten into arguments with other Muslim soldiers in his unit and that one had threatened him with death.
Baha is certainly not the first Coptic Christian serving in his country’s military to be killed over his religious identity.
Two months earlier, on June 24, the only Christian in his army unit was found shot dead in a chair at the office of the military base he was stationed. Baha Gamal Mikhail Silvanus, a 23-year-old conscript, had two gunshot wounds and a gun at his feet. Relatives who later saw the body said he also had wounds atop his head, as if he had been bludgeoned with an object.
The military’s official position was that the Copt committed suicide—despite the fact that suicides are rarely able to shoot themselves twice or first hit themselves atop the head with blunt objects. Moreover, according to Rev. Mikhial Shenouda, who knew the deceased, “A person who commits suicide is a disappointed and desperate person, but Baha was in very good spirits. He was smiling always. He was keeping the word of God,” and planning on entering the monastic life after his military service.
A friend of the deceased Christian said that Silvanus had confided to him that he was regularly pressured by other soldiers in his unit to convert to Islam: “He told me that the persecution of the fanatical Muslim conscripts in the battalion against him had increased … and that they would kill him if he wouldn’t convert to Islam.”
On August 31, 2013, another Copt in the armed services, Abu al-Khair Atta, was killed in his unit by an “extremist officer” for “refusing to convert to Islam.” Again, the interior ministry informed the slain Copt’s family that he had committed suicide.
However, Abu al-Khair’s father, citing eyewitnesses who spoke to him, said that “one of the radical, fanatical officers pressured and threatened him on more than one occasion to convert to Islam. Abu al-Khair resisted the threats, which vexed the officer more.”
Then there was 20-year-old Guirgus Rizq Yusif al-Maqar, who died on September 18, 2006. Without notifying him why, the armed forces summoned his handicapped father to the station in Asyut. After making the arduous journey, he was verbally mistreated by some officers and then bluntly told, “Go take your son’s corpse from the refrigerator!” The father “collapsed from the horror of the news.”
Officials claimed the youth died of a sudden drop in blood pressure. Later, however, while family members were washing Guirgus’ body, they discovered wounds on his shoulders and a large black swelling around his testicles.
Assuming these were products of injuries incurred during harsh training, his family proceeded to bury him. Later, however, a colleague of the deceased told them that Guirgus was regularly insulted, humiliated, and beaten—including on his testicles—simply because he was Christian. The dead youth’s family implored authorities to exhume Guirgus’ body for a forensic examination but was denied.
And on August 2006, the mutilated and drowned body of another Copt serving in the Egyptian military, Hani Seraphim, was found. Earlier he had confided to his family that he was being insulted and abused for being a Christian by his commander, both in public and in private.
According to MCN, “His unit commander ordered him to renounce Christianity and join the ranks of Islam.” The Coptic youth refused, warning his Muslim commander: “I will notify military intelligence about this,” to which his superior replied, “Okay, Hani; soon I will settle my account with you.”
His body was later found floating in the Nile covered with signs of torture.
It should come as no surprise that some Muslim soldiers insist that the men fighting alongside them be Muslims as well. “Infidels” are seen as untrustworthy fifth columns (hence why Islamic law holds that non-Muslim subjects, or dhimmis, are forbidden from owning weapons). In Islam, allegiance belongs to the Umma—the abstract “Muslim world” that transcends racial, linguistic, and territorial borders—and not to any particular Muslim nation.
Thus it may seem reasonable for all Egyptian citizens—Muslims and Christians alike—to serve in their nation’s military. But for Muslims who equate “war” with “jihad,” having non-Muslims fighting alongside them is unacceptable—hence the aforementioned anecdotes of pressure on Christian soldiers to convert to Islam.
Nor is this sort of thinking limited to Egypt. In Kuwait, no one can become a citizen without first converting to Islam, and indigenous Kuwaitis who openly leave Islam lose their citizenship. In nations as diverse as Iran and Sudan, prominent church leaders are regularly persecuted, some put on death row, on the accusation that, because they are not Muslim, they must be treasonous agitators working for the West (which, in the popular Muslim mind, continues to be conflated with Christianity).
Finally, all these modern day slayings of Christian soldiers who refuse to convert to Islam thoroughly contradict the historic narrative being peddled by Mideast academics in America. Put differently, the present sheds light on the past.
In an attempt to whitewash the meaning of jizya—the extortion money non-Muslims redeemed their lives with—Georgetown University’s John Esposito writes that jizya was actually paid to “exempt them [non-Muslims] from military service.” Similarly, Sohaib Sultan, Princeton University’s Muslim chaplain, asserts that jizya was merely “an exemption tax in lieu of military service.”
Such assertions are absurd: Muslim overlords never wanted their conquered and despised “infidel” subjects to fight alongside them in the name of jihad—holy war against infidels, such as the conquered subjects themselves—without first converting to Islam.
That’s how it was in the past, and, increasingly, the way it is in the present.

Middle East Provocations and Predictions
Daniel Pipes/Mackenzie Institute/September11, 2015
The Middle East stands out as the world's most volatile, combustible, and troubled region; not coincidentally, it also inspires the most intense policy debates – think of the Arab-Israeli conflict or the Iran deal. The following tour d'horizon offers interpretations and speculations on Iran, ISIS, Syria-Iraq, the Kurds, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Islamism, then concludes with some thoughts on policy choices. My one-sentence conclusion: some good news lies under the onslaught of misunderstandings, mistakes, and misery.
Iran
Iran is Topic No. 1 these days, especially since the nuclear deal the six great powers reached with its rulers in Vienna on July 14. The "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" seeks to bring Tehran in from the cold, ending decades of hostility and inducing Iran to become a more normal state. In itself, this is an entirely worthy endeavor.
The problem lies in the execution, which has been execrable, rewarding an aggressive government with legitimacy and additional funding, not requiring serious safeguards on its nuclear arms program, and permitting that program in about a decade. The annals of diplomacy have never witnessed a comparable capitulation by great powers to an isolated, weak state.
The Iranian leadership has an apocalyptic mindset and preoccupation with the end of days that does not apply to the North Koreans, Stalin, Mao, the Pakistanis or anyone else. Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i et al. have reason to use these weapons for reasons outside of the normal military concerns – to bring on the end of the world. This makes it especially urgent to stop them.
Ali Khamene'i (r) is often placed along side Ayatollah Khomeini in Iranian iconography.
Economic sanctions, however, amount to a sideshow, even a distraction. The Iranian government compares to the North Korean in its absolute devotion to building these weapons and its readiness to do whatever it takes, whether mass starvation or some other calamity, to achieve them. Therefore, no matter how severely applied, the sanctions only make life more difficult for the Iranian leadership without actually stopping the nuclear buildup.
The only way to stop the buildup is through the use of force. I hope the Israeli government – the only one left that might take action – will undertake this dangerous and thankless job. It can do so through aerial bombardment, special operations, or nuclear weapons, with option #2 both the most attractive and the most difficult.
If the Israelis do not stop the bomb, a nuclear device in the hands of the mullahs will have terrifying consequences for the Middle East and beyond, including North America, where a devastating electromagnetic pulse attack must be considered possible.
To the contrary, if the Iranians do not deploy their new weapons, it is just possible that the increased contact with the outside world and the disruption caused by inconsistent Western policies will work to undermine the regime.
ISIS
The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (aka ISIS, ISIL, Islamic State, Daesh) is the topic that consumes the most attention other than Iran. I agree with Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to Washington, that Iran is a thousand times more dangerous than ISIS. But ISIS is also a thousand times more interesting. Plus, the Obama administration finds it a useful bogeyman to justify working with Tehran.
Emerging out of almost nowhere, the group has taken Islamic nostalgia to an unimagined extreme. The Saudis, the ayatollahs, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and Shabaab each imposed its version of a medieval order. But ISIS went further, replicating as best it can a seventh-century Islamic environment, down to such specifics as public beheading and enslavement.
This effort has provoked two opposite responses among Muslims. One is favorable, as manifested by Muslims coming from Tunisia and the West, attracted moth-like to an incandescently pure vision of Islam. The other, more important, response is negative. The great majority of Muslims, not to speak of non-Muslims, are alienated by the violent and flamboyant ISIS phenomenon. In the long term, ISIS will harm the Islamist movement (the one aspiring to apply Islamic law in its entirety) and even Islam itself, as Muslims in large numbers abominate ISIS.
One thing about ISIS will likely last, however: the notion of the caliphate. The last caliph who actually gave orders ruled in the 940s. That's the 940s, not the 1940s, over a thousand years ago. The reappearance of an executive caliph after centuries of figurehead caliphs has prompted considerable excitement among Islamists. In Western terms, it's like someone reviving the Roman Empire with a piece of territory in Europe; that would get everybody's attention. I predict the caliphate will have a lasting and negative impact.
Syria, Iraq, and the Kurds
In certain circles, Syria and Iraq have come to be known as Suraqiya, joining their names together as the border has collapsed and they have each simultaneously been divided into three main regions: a Shiite-oriented central government, a Sunni Arab rebellion, and a Kurdish part that wants out.
This is a positive development; there's nothing sacred about the British-French Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 which created these two polities. Quite the contrary, that accord has proven an abject failure; conjure up the names of Hafez al-Assad and Saddam Hussein to remember why. These miserable states exist for the benefit of their monstrous leaders who proceed to murder their own subjects. So, let them fracture into threes, improving matters for the locals and the outside world.
As Turkish-backed Sunni jihadis fight Iranian-backed Shi'i jihadis in Suraqiya, the West should stand back from the fighting. Neither side deserves support; this is not our fight. Indeed, these two evil forces at each others' throats means they have less opportunity to aggress on the rest of the world. If we do wish to help, it should be directed first to the many victims of the civil war; if we want to be strategic, help the losing side (so neither side wins).
As for the massive flow of refugees from Syria: Western governments should not take in large numbers but instead pressure Saudi Arabia and other rich Middle Eastern states to offer sanctuary. Why should the Saudis be exempt from the refugee flow, especially when their country has many advantages over, say, Sweden: linguistic, cultural, and religious compatibility, as well as proximity and a similar climate.
The rapid emergence of a Kurdish polity in Iraq, followed by one in Syria, as well as a new assertiveness in Turkey and rumblings in Iran are a positive sign. Kurds have proven themselves to be responsible in a way that none of their neighbors have. I say this as someone who, 25 years ago, opposed Kurdish autonomy. Let us help the Kurds who are as close to an ally as we have in the Muslim Middle East. Not just separate Kurdish units should come into existence but also a unified Kurdistan made up from parts of all four countries. That this harms the territorial integrity of those states does not present a problem, as not one of them works well as presently constituted.
Turkey
The June 2015 election turned out not so well for the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, or AKP), the party that's single-handedly been ruling Turkey since 2002. It's an Islamist party but more importantly of late, it is the party of tyranny. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, its dominant figure, does as he wishes, gaining undue influence over the banks, the media, the schools, the courts, law enforcement, the intelligence services, and the military. He overrides customs, rules, regulations, and even the constitution in the block-by-block building of a one-man rule. He's the Middle Eastern version of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.
For the most part, Erdoğan has played by democratic rules, via elections and parliament, which has served him well. But the June election could spell the end of his self-restraint. Long ago, when mayor of Istanbul, he signaled that he ultimately does not accept the verdict of elections, stating that democracy is like a bus: "You ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off." He has now reached that destination and appears ready to step off. He has initiated hostilities against the Kurdish PKK group as an ugly electoral tactic (to win over Turkish nationalists); he might go so far as to start a war between now and the Nov. 1 snap elections, taking advantage of a constitutional provision deferring elections in time of war.
Accordingly, the June electoral setback will not prove much of an obstacle to Erdoğan, whose path to tyranny remains open.
Erdoğan's undoing will likely not be domestic, nor will it concern a relative triviality like votes; it will be foreign and concern larger issues. Precisely because he has done so well domestically, he believes himself a master politician on the global stage and pursues a foreign policy as aggressive as his domestic one. But, after some initial successes of the "Zero problems with neighbors" policy, Turkey's international standing lies in tatters. Ankara has bad relations or major problems with nearly every neighbor: Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Egypt, Greek Cyprus, Turkish Cyprus, and Greece, as well as the United States and China. Some foreign escapade will likely be Erdoğan's undoing.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is the most unusual country in the world. Even if you're from, say, Qatar or Abu Dhabi, its social mores and governmental institutions are strange. It hosts, for example, not a single movie house. Men and women use separate elevators. Non-Muslims are forbidden to enter two of its cities (Mecca and Medina). A vice squad terrorizes the population. Christians get in trouble for praying, Jews are with rare exceptions prohibited.
Even McDonald's in Saudi Arabia has a "Ladies Section."
The government runs a powerful, competent police state with few pretenses of elections, a constitution, or the other rigmarole of dictatorships. It observes, censors and intrudes. Police checkpoints proliferate. The government employs three different military forces—Pakistani mercenaries to defend the oilfields, a national army to protect the borders, and a tribal guard to protect the monarchy. Monarchies typically count 10, 20, or even 50 members in the royal family; the Al Saud has around 10,000 males (females don't count politically) and they constitute a nomenklatura, to use that helpful Soviet term. Family members run the country, which has been called the only family business with a seat at the United Nations.
But this structure now stands in danger. For 70 years, the monarchy looked to the U.S. government to provide external security. Now, for the first time, in the age of Obama, that assurance no longer exists, and especially not after the Iran deal, in which Washington aligned more closely with Tehran than with Riyadh. The Saudi leadership is taking steps to protect itself, the most notable one of which is working with Israel. It's a logical step, but still it's mildly astonishing. My prediction: it's temporary and will not outlast the crisis. Should a Republican become president in 2017, the relationship with Israel will close down.
Egypt
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has now been in power for two years, since July 2013, in the aftermath of a massive demonstration against the Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi. Sisi has the right priorities in mind: suppressing the Islamists and fixing the economy. But I worry about his achieving success in either arena.
No one despises Islamists more than me. I endorse tough measures to battle this totalitarian movement, such as rejecting their efforts to apply Islamic law, excluding them from mainstream institutions, and banning their representatives from elections. But Sisi's heavy-handed and extra-legal policies go too far and are counterproductive. For example, sentencing nearly 600 people to death for the murder of a policeman, followed a month later by sentencing another near 700 people for the same murder, is not only massively disproportionate but also likely to backfire and help the Islamists gain sympathy.
The economy is the other major problem. In the 1950s, Gamal Abdel Nasser, also a military officer, put in place a socialist regime typical of that era, with great Soviet-style factories badly attempting import substitution. Not only is that system still in place but the state's economic role grew substantially under Mubarak and continues to grow further under Sisi. Both presidents keep retired military colleagues happy by giving them sinecures. "You're a retired colonel? Good, take over this cotton factory" or "Start this desert town." Estimates suggest that about 25 to 40 percent of the Egyptian economy hobbles as part of "Military, Inc."
Many of Egypt's factories are 1950s dinosaurs.
Also, a disdain for agriculture creates enormous problems, so that Egypt, both in absolute and relative terms, imports more of its caloric intake than any other country. For example, figures for the fiscal year 2013-14 show that Egypt imported 5.46 million tons of wheat, or 60 percent of the country's total consumption, making it the world's largest wheat importer. Once the breadbasket of the Nile, Egypt can no longer feed itself but instead depends on the Saudis and others for subventions to purchase food abroad. The recent gas field discovery in the Mediterranean will help, but will not solve this problem.
Sisi appears as unprepared to serve as president of Egypt as was another military man, Gamal Abdul Nasser, 60 years ago. In the acerbic analysis of the American analyst Lee Smith:
It's not an accident that an Egypt in decline gets a man like Sisi to step forward. Prideful and incompetent, Sisi nonetheless sees himself as part of a continuum of great Egyptian leaders, like Nasser as well as Anwar al-Sadat. Sisi told a journalist in an off-the record interview leaked to the media that he's been dreaming about his own greatness for 35 years. But the many choices Sisi made to get there show him to be dangerously over his head.
He still rides high, with impressive popularity ratings (recall the cookies and pajamas bearing his face), but should he falter, that support will quickly evaporate. Islamists will exploit his incompetence no less than he took advantage of their failures. The cycle of coups d'état threatens to repeat, with Egypt falling further behind, the precipice of disaster looming closer along with the prospect of massive emigration. I wish Sisi well but am braced for the worst.
Israel
In November 2000, Ehud Barak said that Israel resembles "a villa located in a jungle." I love that expression; and how much truer it is today, with ISIS on Israel's Syrian and Sinai borders, Lebanon and Jordan groaning under unsustainable refugee influxes, the West Bank in anarchy, and Gaza approaching the same?
Everyone knows about Israel's high-tech capabilities and military prowess. But much more about it is impressive bordering on extraordinary.
Demography: The entire modern, industrial world from South Korea to Sweden is unable to replace itself demographically, with the single, outstanding exception of Israel. Societies need roughly 2.1 children per woman to sustain their populations. Iceland, France, and Ireland come in just below that level, but then the numbers descend down to Hong Kong with its 1.1 children per woman, or just over half of what's necessary for a country to survive long term. Well, Israel is at 3.0. Yes, the Arabs and the Haredim partly explain that high number, but it also depends on secular Tel Aviv residents. It's nearly unprecedented development for a modern country to have more children over time.
There are lots and lots of Israeli children.
Energy: Everyone knows the old quip about Moses taking a wrong turn on leaving Egypt. Well no, it turns out he didn't. Israel has as large an energy reserve as—get this—Saudi Arabia. Now, this resource is not as accessible, so it's far more expensive and complex to exploit than Arabia's enormous and shallow pools of oil, but it's there and Israelis will someday extract it.
Illegal immigration: This is a brewing crisis for Europe, especially in summertime, when the Mediterranean and the Balkans become highways from the Middle East. Israel is the one Western country that has handled this problem by building fences that give control over borders.
Water: Twenty years ago, like everyone else in the Middle East, the Israelis suffered from water shortages. They then solved this problem through conservation, drip agriculture, new methods of desalination, and intensive recycling. One statistic: Spain is the country with the second-highest percentage of recycling, around 18 percent. Israel does the most recycling, at 90 percent, five times more than Spain. Israel's now so awash in water that it exports some to neighbors.
In all, Israel's doing exceptionally well. Of course, it is under the threat of weapons of mass destruction and the delegitimization process. But it has a record of accomplishment that I believe will see it through these challenges.
Islamist Ideology: Three Types
Islamists can be broken down into three main forces:
Shiite revolutionaries: Spearheaded by the Iranian regime, they are on the warpath, relying on Tehran's help, apocalyptic ideology, subversion, and (eventually) nuclear weaponry. They want to overturn the existing world order and replace it with the Islamic one envisioned by Ayatollah Khomeini. The revolutionaries' strength lies in their determination; their weakness lies in their minority status, for Shiites make up just 10 percent or so of the total Muslim population and further divide into multiple sub-groups such as the Fivers, Seveners, and Twelvers.
Sunni revisionists: They deploy varied tactics in the common effort to overthrow the existing order. At one extreme stand the crazies – ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Shabaab, and the Taliban, hate-filled, violent, and yet more revolutionary than their Shiite counterparts. The Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates (such as President Erdoğan of Turkey) fill the middle ground, using violence only when deemed necessary but preferring to work through the system. Soft Islamists like Fethullah Gülen, Pennsylvania's Turkish preacher living in self-exile, forward their vision through education and commerce and work strictly within the system, but whose goals, despite their mild tactics, are no less ambitious.
Sunni status-quo maintainers: The Saudi state heads a bloc of governments (GCC members, Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco), only some of which are Islamist, that wish to hold onto what they have and fend off the revolutionaries and revisionists.
Islamist Tactics: Violent vs. Lawful
Violent Islamists, Shiite and Sunni alike, are doomed. Their attacks on fellow Muslims alienate coreligionists. They challenge non-Muslims in precisely those areas where the latter are strongest; the combined might of the military, law enforcement, and the intelligence services can crush any Islamist uprising.
Islamist violence is counterproductive. Its drumbeat quality teaches and moves public opinion. Murderous assaults move opinion, not the analysts, the media, or politicians. An incident like the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris moves voters over to anti-Islamic parties. Blood in the streets teaches. It's education by murder.
In contrast, lawful Islamists working within the system are very dangerous. They are seen as respectable, appearing on television, appearing as lawyers in courtrooms, and teaching classes. Western governments mistakenly treat them as allies against the crazies. My rule of thumb: The less violent the Islamist, the more dangerous.
Therefore, were I an Islamist strategist, I'd say, "Work through the system. Cut the violence except on those rare occasions when it intimidates and helps reach the goal." In fact, the Islamists are not doing this, to their detriment. They are making a major mistake, to our benefit.
Islamism in Decline?
The Islamist movement could be on the way down due to infighting and unpopularity.
As recently as 2012, it appeared able to overcome the many internal tensions – sectarian (Sunni, Shiite), political (monarchical, republican), tactical (political, violent), attitudes toward modernity (Salafi, Muslim Brotherhood), and personal (Fethullah Gülen, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan). Since then, however, Islamists can't stop fighting each other. This fits an historic Middle Eastern pattern in which a victorious element tends to split. As it approaches power, differences become increasingly divisive. Rivalries papered over in opposition emerge when power is at hand.
Second, to know Islamists is to reject them. The massive Egyptian demonstrations after one year of Muslim Brotherhood rule offer the strongest piece of evidence for this conclusion. Other indications come from Iran (where a great majority of the population despises its government) and Turkey (where votes for the ruling Islamist party just went down by 20 percent).
Tens of millions of Egyptians marched against Islamist rule in June 2013.
Should these tendencies hold, the Islamist movement cannot succeed. Some already see the "post-Islamization" era as underway. Here is Haidar Ibrahim Ali of the Sudan:
We are witnessing the end of political Islam's era, which began in the mid-1970s, to be replaced by what Iranian intellectual Asef Bayat described as a "post-Islamization" era, when politically and socially, following a period of trials, political Islam's vitality and attractiveness have been exhausted even among the most ardent of its supporters and enthusiasts.
These problems offer grounds for optimism but not for complacency, for trendlines can change again. The challenge of marginalizing Islamism remains alive.
Three Middle Eastern Political Forces
From a Western point of view, Middle Eastern political forces divide into three: the Islamist, the liberal, and the greedy. Each requires a specific approach.
We should reject any and all that is Islamist. As much as possible, this means not dealing with and never helping Islamists, whether as seemingly democratic as the ruling party in Turkey or as maniacal as the ISIS militias, for they all aspire to the same ugly goal of imposing Islamic law. Just as we're wall-to-wall anti-fascist, let us similarly be resolutely anti-Islamist. That said, we have a major relationships with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other states, so raison d'état requires tactical compromises.
In contrast, we should always favor those called liberals, moderns, seculars, or Tahrir-Square types; they aspire to a better Middle East and are the region's hope. We in the West are their model; they look to us for moral and practical sustenance. The West must stand by them because, however distant from the corridors of power and forlorn their circumstances, they point to a better future.
The third group, that of greedy kings, emirs, presidents and other dictators, requires more nuance. We should cooperate with them but also constantly pressure them to improve. For example, with the exception of a mere two years, 2005-06, Western governments did not pressure Hosni Mubarak, the tyrant who ruled Egypt for 30 years; we didn't encourage political participation, advocate for the rule of law, or demand personal freedoms. Had we consistently taken those steps, Egypt would be in a much better place.
In sum: reject Islamists, accept liberals, deal warily with dictators.
American Policy
U.S. foreign policy has been thoroughly inconsistent the past fifteen years:
In a high-minded way, George W. Bush tried to attain too much in the Middle East—a free and prosperous Iraq, a transformed Afghanistan, a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, democracy throughout. Brushing up against the region's hard realities, he failed in all these efforts.
Barack Obama did the opposite—too little—and he too failed. Boiled to its essence, his policy amounts to "Downgrade US interests, snub friends, and seek consensus." He snubbed the Iranian uprising, abandoned long-standing allies, tried to leave the region to pivot to Asia.
Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama got the Middle East wrong.
This outlook marks the president as a standard-issue American leftist, not an outlier. Although he was born and raised a Muslim, this background does not have a perceptible impact on his policies. His political views alone explain his outlook.
Iran is the one (inexplicable) exception to this pattern: the past 6½ years reveal that Iran – and not China, Russia, Mexico, Syria or Israel – has been Obama's top foreign affairs priority.
I suggest a US policy between these two extremes: one defined by the protection of Americans and American interests. Promoting American interests offers a guideline to decide where to get involved and where not to. This also has a benign impact on allied countries, such as Canada.
Conclusion
A region notorious for its problems also offers some good news. Tyranny is shakier than five years ago. Islamists are weakened by their infighting and unpopularity. The foul Syrian and Iraqi states are dying, Kurdistan is emerging. Israel is flourishing. Gulf Arabs, especially in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, are experimenting with new paths to modernity. So, amid a sea of misfortune and even horrors, there are also some wisps of hope in the Middle East. Policy makers should note these and build on them.
**Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2015 All rights reserved by Daniel Pipes.

Al-Qaeda Leader Al-Zawahiri Rejects ISIS Caliphate, Predicts Imminent 'Islamic Spring'
MEMRI/September 11/15
The following report is a complimentary offering from MEMRI's Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM). For JTTM subscription information, click here.
On September 9, 2015, an online jihadi forum published a new audio message by Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri, in which he rejected the Islamic caliphate, predicted an "Islamic Spring," and urged jihadi groups to consider exchanging their hostages for Muslim women prisoners. Most of the message, titled "Series of the Islamic Spring" and posted on the Al-Qaeda-affiliated forum Al-Fidaa', was devoted to rejecting the Islamic caliphate declared last year by the self-proclaimed caliph Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi.[1]
Also in his message, in addition to his fierce criticism of the Islamic State (ISIS), Al-Zawahiri talked about the importance of winning the war in Syria, which he considered a prelude to liberating Jerusalem; eulogized top leaders of groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda, and praised an operation carried out by Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) against the U.S. and Pakistani navies. Al-Zawahiri also urged jihadi groups to include Muslim prisoners, especially women, in any negotiations for the release of hostages, and thanked Caucasus Emirate leader Abu Muhammad Al-Daghistani for including him in a letter to a number of Muslim scholars, among them prominent salafi clerics Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, Abu Qatada Al-Falastini, and Hani Al-Siba'i, regarding the dispute between jihadi groups.
The following are the main points of Al-Zawahiri's speech:
Al-Zawahiri criticized what he described as Israel's attempts to 'Judaize' Al-Aqsa mosque, said that the mosque is a unifying element, and promised to address the jihad of the Muslim ummah in a separate speech.
He offered his condolences on the death of the commander of the Al-Qaeda Somalia affiliate Al-Shabab, Sheikh Mukhtar Abu Al-Zubair, and quoted from a letter he said he had received from Abu Al-Zubair. According to the quote, Abu Al-Zubair had criticized ISIS and asked Al-Zawahiri to mediate to resolve the dispute between jihadi groups in Syria.
Addressing the mujahideen in Somalia, Al-Zawahiri stated that he approved their selection of Sheikh Abu Obaidah Ahmad Omar as commander of the group, and urged him to empower the shari'a courts whose rules should be applied to all people regardless of their status or class. He also offered his condolences to Ansar Al-Sharia in Libya on the death of their commander Sheikh Muhammad Al-Zahawi.
Al-Zawahiri went on to thank the commanders of two Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups, Nasser Al-Wuhaishi of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Abu Mus'ab Abd Al-Wadoud of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), for their joint letter urging the mujahideen in Syria and Iraq to stop fighting each other. It should be noted that the mention of Al-Wuhaishi's name was not followed by "may Allah have mercy on him," which suggests that the recording had been made before his death in June 2015.[2]
Then Al-Zawahiri harshly criticized ISIS and its leader Al-Baghdadi, whom he accused of rejecting all efforts to resolve the dispute between ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and questioned his legitimacy as a caliph and his authority to announce his state and order the dismantling of all jihadi groups. He said: "We disapproved of this Caliphate which we do not regard as a caliphate on a prophetic methodology but rather as an imposed Emirate without Shura to which people are not obligated to pledge allegiance; additionally, we don't consider Al-Baghdadi qualified for the Caliphate."
Despite his disapproval for Al-Baghdadi and his organization, Al-Zawahiri acknowledged that ISIS has had many accomplishments as well as major mistakes, and noted that had he been in Iraq, he would have cooperated with ISIS to fight against the crusaders, the secularists, the Nusairis, and the Safavids.
Next, Al-Zawahiri went on to congratulate Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) for targeting the Pakistani and the U.S. navies. He also thanked Abu Muhammad Al-Daghistani, the leader of the Caucasus Emirate, for including his name in his open letter to the Islamic ummah and Muslim scholars, among them prominent Salafi clerics Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, Abu Qatada Al-Falastini, Hani Al-Siba'i, Tark Abd Al-Haleem, and Abu Al-Mundhir Al-Shinqiti.
The last point addressed by Al-Zawahiri was the issue of the prisoners who are in prison for their involvement in terrorist activities or for their affiliation with Al-Qaeda. He urged all groups to include them in their deals when negotiating for the release of any of their hostages. Al-Zawahiri mentioned women prisoners in particular, such as the widow of late ISIS commander Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir, Pakistani scientist Afia Siddiqui, and Haila Al-Qasir, a Saudi woman affiliated with AQAP, saying: "I call on my brothers with hostages to negotiate over to put their imprisoned sisters on top of their demand list and never give in, as long as possible, unless they have to, even if the hostages remains [in their custody] for a thousand years or they capture a thousand of hostages for each of the sisters." He also reminded the jihadi groups about those who are imprisoned in the U.S., such as Sheikh Omar Abd Al-Rahman and 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheikh Muhammad. Al-Zawahiri then praised Jabhat Al-Nusra for exchanging the nuns they had abducted for female prisoners,[3] and praised those who had abducted American hostage Warren Weinstein,[4] who was killed in an air strike in January 2015, for demanding the release of Afia Siddiqi and Al-Muhajir's widow.
Source: fidaa1.net, September 9, 2015
[1] See Memri JTTM report ISIS Declares Establishment Of Islamic Caliphate, Appoints ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi As 'Caliph': 'It Is Incumbent Upon All Muslims to Pledge Allegiance To The Caliph... And Support Him', June 29, 2014
[2] See Memri JTTM report AQAP Confirms Death Of Al-Wuhaishi, Announces Appointment Of Al-Rimi As His Successor, June 16, 2015.
[3] See Memri JTTM report Exchange Of Accusations Between Syrian Regime And Opposition Groups Over The Storming Of Monastery Near Damascus And Kidnapping Of Its Nuns, December 6, 2013
[4] See Memri JTTM report Al-Qaeda In Indian Subcontinent (AQIS): We Will Avenge U.S. Drone Strike Killings Of American Jewish Aid Worker Warren Weinstein, Italian National Lo Porto – They Had Converted To Islam, June 19, 2015
MEMRI Apps available for: Available on the iPhone App Store Available on the Android App Store
Unsubscribe | Forward to a Friend | Sign Up for More | Donate | Visit Our Site

Inquiry & Analysis Series Report
By: N. Mozes*/MEMRI/September 11, 2015Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No.1184
Media Affiliated With Assad Regime Confirm Reports Of Russian Military Involvement In Syria
Introduction
In the past three weeks, there have been numerous media reports in the non-Arabic media stating that Russia, the Syria regime’s main ally alongside Iran, has decided to step up its military involvement in Syria and participate in fighting alongside the forces of the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad; some of the reports also claim that this plan is already being implemented on the ground. Arab media outlets, both pro- and anti-Assad, have also reported on Russian military involvement in Syria. These reports focus on several main topics: the establishment of a new Russian military base near Jableh on the Syrian coast; the reinforcement of Russian troops, including with combat pilots, and the participation of Russian pilots in airstrikes on oppositionist and Islamic State (ISIS) targets in Syria; and the transfer of advanced weaponry, including fighter jets.
In fact, back in March 2015, Assad had called on Russia to increase its military presence in his country. He told Russian media: “A Russian presence in various locations around the world, including the Middle East and the Port of Tartus, is vital in creating a balance that the world lost after the fall of the Soviet Union. As far as we are concerned, the more this presence in our area increases, the better it is for the stability of this region, since the Russian role is crucial to global stability. We welcome any expansion of the Russian presence in the Middle East, particularly on the Syrian coast and in its ports, but obviously this is conditional upon a plan by the Russian political and military leadership to place forces in various areas…”[1]
Military ties between Russia and Syria are not new; they began during the time of the Soviet Union and continued after its collapse. During the current Syria war, which has been raging since 2011, both sides have acknowledged their military ties and stated that Russia was arming the Syrian regime based on agreements signed prior to the outbreak of the war.
The most prominent example of the Russian military presence in Syria is the Russian military base in the coastal city of Tartus, which serves Russian navy ships operating in the Mediterranean Sea. Another less obvious example is the presence of Russian military experts at various military bases across Syria. Evidence of this was uncovered at the Tel Al-Hara base in Quneitra in southern Syria, which fell to opposition forces in October 2014. Documents found there indicate that it was a joint Russian-Syrian intelligence facility.[2] There have also been reports of Russians fighting alongside Assad’s forces in the war,[3] but Russian authorities have said that they were mercenaries recruited by a Russian firm, whose license was subsequently revoked.
In response to the recent reports that Russia has increased its military involvement in Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that his country gives the Syrian regime “widespread support with equipment, military training, and weaponry. We are weighing several options, but this topic [military involvement] is not on the table yet.”[4] The Russian Foreign Ministry responded similarly: Several days after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in a phone conversation that he was concerned by reports that Russia had increased its military presence in Syria, a Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman said that Lavrov had said to Kerry that “Russia has never hid the fact that it transfers military equipment to the Syrian regime so it can combat terrorism” and “Russia will continue to provide this assistance to the regime.”[5]
The Syrian regime’s response to reports of intensified Russian military involvement in Syria has not been uniform. In an interview with Hizbullah’s Al-Manar TV, Syrian Information Minister Omran Al-Zou’bi denied the reports and claimed that there were no Russian forces and no Russian ground, naval, or aerial military activity in Syrian territory.[6] In contrast, Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Al-Maqdad confirmed that there was a Russian military presence, but that it comprised advisors only.[7]
On the other hand it seems that Syrian and Lebanese media close to the Syrian regime have been quick to report on and confirm these claims, adding more details. Thus, for instance, an article in the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to the Syrian regime, stated that “the Red Army is fighting in Syria” and that thousands of elite Russian troops are deployed in the country.
The reason for this media effort appears to the Assad regime’s desire to send a message, to both supporters and opponents, that it is still receiving support from Russia. This follows several recent reports that Russia has grown close to Saudi Arabia, which leads the opposition to the Syrian regime, and that Russia’s attitude towards the regime and towards Assad himself has shifted. It should also be mentioned that this trend of positive reports in the pro-Assad media about Russian reinforcements contradicts the line that was until recently taken by the regime and its allied media – which involved denial and downplaying of Iranian and Hizbullah participation in the fighting in Syria.
In contrast to the tendency in the pro-Assad media, at the start the Syrian opposition media and anti-Assad Arab media was discernibly laconic about reporting on Russian involvement – in stark contrast to their broad coverage of Iranian and Hizbullah involvement with the Syrian regime. This could stem from the desire of the Syrian opposition and its supporters to avoid angering Russia, which they still see as a key factor in solving the Syrian crisis, especially in light of reports that it has become more flexible vis-à-vis the current Syrian regime, and also in light of the hesitancy of the current American administration.
The first official response by the Syrian opposition to the Russian military intervention in Syria appeared only on September 10, 2015, about three weeks after reports of stepped-up Russian military involvement in Syria began to emerge. Mustafa Farhat, spokesman for the Free Syrian Army (FSA) chief-of-staff, warned that the Russian intervention in Syria was “dangerous” and threatened that “the FSA and the Syrian insurgents would transform Syria into a graveyard for the Russians.” Farhat also called upon Turkey, the Gulf states, and the international community to stop Russia.[8] Opposition sources told the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that Russia’s objective was “to establish a canton (statelet) on the Syrian coast that would be loyal to it and would extend from the port of Tartus to Latakiya, and encompass the towns of Baniyas and Jableh, similar to the Donbas region in Ukraine [controlled by pro-Russian separatists].”[9]
This paper will review the Syrian regime’s media efforts to play up, and confirm, claims of increased Russian military involvement in Syria:
Regime-Affiliated Daily Publishes Article By Thierry Meyssan: “The Russian Army Is Involved In Syria”
On August 26, 2015, the Syrian daily Al-Watan, which is close to the regime and which often publishes articles byFrench journalist and activist Thierry Meyssan, author of 9/11: The Big Lie, published a Meyssan article titled “The Russian Army Is Involved In Syria” exposing the establishment of a joint Russian-Syrian military committee and the military and intelligence aid that Russia is providing to the regime. It stated: “Although at the beginning of the conflict Russia refrained from taking part in the military operations, this did not prevent it from recently establishing a joint Russian-Syrian military committee. Within a few weeks, many advisors arrived in Damascus, and proposed the establishment of an additional Russian military base in Jableh. Recently, Damascus received six MiG-31 jets – considered the best in the world[10]… At the same time, Moscow began equipping Damascus, for the first time, with satellite photos. This decision, which took [Russia] five years to make, will completely change the situation on the ground…”[11]
Article In Regime-Affiliated Lebanese Daily Al-Akhbar: “The Red Army Is Fighting In Syria”
Nahed Hattar, columnist for the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to the Assad regime, confirmed, in a column titled “The Red Army Is Fighting In Syria,” reports that another Russian military base had been established in Jableh, and also reported that Russian forces were deployed in several areas across Syria, including Homs, Hama, Dar’a in the south, and ‘Ain Al-Sawda, on the Turkey-Syria border. According to Hattar, these [measures] comprise a strategic action that will expand until a comprehensive Syrian-Russian strategic alliance is established, with the aim of changing the balance of power in the Middle East. He added that following the dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons “Syria was placed under the Russian nuclear umbrella,” and noted: “The Russian military battle presence in the Syrian war has become a fact, and it may expand and develop, and have more impact on the ground… in the last third of the month of August 2015, officers and fighters from the Red Army landed at the first Russian military combat base in Syria… which is located at Hamimim in Jableh next to Latakiya… [where] infrastructure of an airport was set up, and which includes a military camp for pilots and select units – which could by now number 1,000 troops, but which certainly will increase to 3,000. Naturally, the number of Russian troops deployed in a number of areas, including Homs, Hama, Latakiya, Dar’a, and ‘Ain Al-Sawda,is not known. According to diplomatic reports, a Russian rapid intervention force is deployed at a base near Damascus..
“When discussing with Syrian officials the reports in the media and in the field that Russia is beginning to join the fighting in Syria, [their] first answer is ‘defense contacts between the countries are long-term, permanent, and developing, and what is happening now is within the framework of cooperation and surprises none but those whose imagination causes them to think that Moscow will not go all the way with us.’ That is, [these officials are saying that] the reports on the increase in Russian military activity in Syria are ‘correct’ but ‘in general, not in terms of the specifics’…”
Hattar added that the Syrian army’s air power has recently increased, and that Russia is providing Syria with satellite photos of the battlefronts. He wrote that “the Red Army has begun to fight alongside the Syrian people in the defensive war against terrorism” and stressed that this is not a development of the past weeks, but a move that began this spring, when Assad told the Russian media that he supports establishing a new Russian military base on Syria’s coast. According to Hattar, this does not come in response to fears of the development of an ISIS pocket in Damascus, but is a carefully examined strategic move. He added: “This move will expand until the establishment of a comprehensive Russia-Syria strategic alliance aimed at changing the balance of power in the Middle East from the roots…
Also according to Hattar, the turning point in the Russia-Syria military relationship was the understanding that Syria’s chemical weapons had to be dismantled in order to prevent an American attack: “At that moment, Syria was placed under the Russian nuclear umbrella…” He added that Moscow had coordinated the current military expansion in Syria with Iran.[12]
Syrian Army Facebook Page: Russian Pilots Participated In Bombing Rebel-Held Idlib
The Syrian Army Facebook page reposted an item originally posted on the pro-Assad “Heroic Deeds Of The Syrian Army – Syria-victory” Facebook page that included photos (below) of “Russian Pchela-1T drones and SU-27 and SU-34 jets that carried out attacks above Idlib.” The post notes that the photos “confirm the reports that the Russians are at a Syrian Air Force base and are carrying out attacks on positions of ISIS and other Islamic organizations (since Syria has no SU-34 planes, only Pchela-1T drones).”[13]
The Lebanese Al-Akhbar daily also published, and confirmed, this report: “We have been informed by reliable sources in the field that the reports on these [Facebook] pages are 100% correct. That is, the reports in the Israeli newspapers in the past two days, about ‘new developments in the Syrian arena,’ have become reality on the ground, that is, [there is now] direct Iranian and Russian fighting alongside Syria, and Russian pilots are participating in battle missions along with the army. This is being done as part of a trend to strengthen the Syrian army’s capabilities with the latest drones, which was agreed among Moscow, Tehran, and Damascus in recent weeks.”[14]
Lebanese Dailies Close To The Assad Regime: Russia Has Begun Supplying Advanced Weaponry To Syria
On September 9, 2015, following reports that the U.S. had asked Bulgaria and Greece to block the passage of Russian planes to Syria via their airspace due to suspicions that they were transporting military assistance to the Syrian regime, the daily Al-Akhbar wrote: “It appears that the implementation of the Russia-Iran agreement to upgrade the Syrian army’s armament level has begun. Therefore, the U.S. has recruited its connections in order to damage the air bridge that was established by Moscow in early September, and that is meant to continue until September 24, 2015. The rapid American response proves that there is information on the advanced standard of the arms and munitions being carried by the Russian planes to Syria via the skies of Bulgaria and Greece.”[15]
The Lebanese daily Al-Safir, which is also close to the Syrian regime, cited a Syrian source claiming that “up to now there is no substantial difference with regards to Russian forces operating on Syrian territory. We are still dealing exclusively with experts, advisors and trainers.” The source noted that although the pace of implementing the arms agreements by the parties still does not meet Syrian demands, several weeks ago a group of Russian experts began examining airfields in Syria and expanding the runways at some of them, mostly in northern Syria. This occurred after Syria asked to be armed with MI-28 combat helicopters to improve its nighttime military activity. According to the source, Russia armed the regime with advanced weaponry such as BTR-82 armored personnel carriers, BM-30 Smerch rocket launchers and additional Orlan UAVs.[16]
‘Al-Safir’: Russian Intervention Is Part Of Military Collaboration With Iran, Pre-Coordinated With It Months Ago
Al-Safir also reported that Russian military involvement in Syria is effectively taking place as part of military collaboration with Iran in north Syria, and that it was pre-coordinated between the two countries months ago. The daily stated that “this collaboration is manifested by a joint operations room” and by the two’s sharing of the Hamimim airfield near Latakiya. It daily added that the Russians had begun operating an independent Russian air operations base at the site, and that they are working there near the air supply lines of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The collaboration between Russia and Iran, it said, that had hitherto been limited to coordinating the air supply that is currently being conducted via Iranian airspace, should expand in the coming weeks, with the end of the Russian air bridge on September 24, 2015.
The paper went on to state that the military collaboration between Iran and Russia in Syria, and the preparations for Russian military involvement there, had begun in July, particularly after the July 14 announcement of the JCPOA that lifted the international boycott of Iran. It said that IRGC Qods Force commander Qassem Suleimani had visited Moscow in early August at Russia’s invitation, and had met with Russian President Vladimir Putin; this meeting, it noted, had been part of the preparations for expanding Russian military involvement in Syria. [17]
On Their Facebook Pages, Regime Supporters Post Photos Of Russian Fighters
Additionally, several supporters of the Syrian regime posted photos on their Facebook pages of Russian soldiers in Syria, apparently taken from other sources. Although some of the soldiers are stationed in Tartus and the location of others is unclear, the regime supporters’ posting of these photos on their Facebook pages shows this sector’s support of this sector for the Russian military presence.
On the pro-regime Facebook page “Bidna Nitsarah” (“We want to be discharged”), belonging to regime army soldiers from the 102 draft class, one user posted several photos of Russian soldiers in Syria (see below) and noted: “Photos of Russian soldiers fighting alongside the heroes of the Arab Syrian army. Of course these pictures were photographed in Damascus, Homs, Latakiya, and Tartus, and they were taken from the Facebook pages of the soldiers. This is just the beginning.”[18]
*N. Mozes is a research fellow at MEMRI.
Endnotes:
[1] Al-Hayat (London), March 28, 2015.
[2] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1138, Following Killing Of Hizbullah Operative Jihad Mughniyah, New Information Comes To Light Regarding Hizbullah, Iranian Activity In Syrian Golan On Israeli Border, January 28, 2015.
[3] See MEMRI JTTM, Pro-Assad Russian Fighters Reportedly Killed In Syria, October 23, 2013.
[4] RT.com, September 4, 2015.
[5] Al-Hayat (London), September 8, 2015.
[6] Champress.net, September 8, 2015.
[7] Syria-news.com, September 10, 2015.
[8] Alarabiya.net, September 10, 2015.
[9] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), September 11, 2015.
[10] Russia denied the report that it had furnished MIG-31 planes to Syria Sputniknews.com, August 22, 2015.
[11] Al-Watan (Syrian), August 26, 2015.
[12] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), September 7, 2015.
[13] Facebook.com/syrianarmy18, ,September 3, .2015
[14] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), September 4, 2015.
[15] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), September 9, 2015.
[16] Al-Safir (Lebanon), September 7, 2015.
[17] Al-Safir (Lebanon), September 11, 2015.
[18] Facebook.com, September 5, 2015.

A rigged vote, no real debate
Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/September 11/15
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6486/a-rigged-vote-no-real-debate
When I was growing up, "filibuster" was a dirty word. It was a tactic used by bigoted southern Senators to prevent the enactment of any civil rights legislation. I recall Senator Strom Thurman babbling on for 24 hours in an effort to keep the south racially segregated. We regarded the filibuster as the enemy of democracy and the weapon of choice against civil rights.
Yet, President Obama and his followers in the senate deployed this undemocratic weapon in order to stifle real debate about the nuclear deal with Iran and to prevent the up or down vote promised by the Corker bill. A President, who was more confident of the deal, would have welcomed the Lincoln-Douglas type debates that I and others had called for regarding the most important foreign policy decision of the 21st century. But instead of arguments on the merits and demerits of the deal, what we mostly got was ad hominems. Proponents of the deal trotted out famous names of those who supported the deal, without detailed arguments about why they took that position. No wonder so few Americans support the deal. According to a recent Pew poll approximately one in five Americans think the deal is a good one. The President had an obligation to use his bully pulpit to try to obtain majority support among voters. Not only did he fail to do that, he also failed to persuade a majority of senator and house members. So this minority deal will go into operation over the objection of majority of our legislators and voters.
One of the low points of this debate was a variation on the ad hominem fallacy. It was the argument by religious or ethnic identity. Supporters of the deal tried to get as many prominent Jews as they could to sign ads and petitions in favor of the deal. The implicit argument was, "See, even Jews support this deal, so it must be good for Israel," despite the reality that the vast majority of Israelis and almost all of its political leaders believe the deal is bad for Israel.
The absolute low point in the non-debate was a New York Times chart, identifying opponents of the deal by whether they were Jewish or Gentile. The implication was that Jews who opposed the deal must be more loyal to their Jewish constituents or to Israel than Americans who supported the deal. But the chart itself made little sense. It turns out that the vast majority of democratic Congressmen who voted against the deal were not Jewish, and several of them represented districts in which less than 1% of the voters were Jewish. It is true that two out of the four democratic senators who voted against the deal were identified as Jews, but one of the non-Jewish Senators represents West Virginia where Jewish voters constituted less than one tenth of one percent of the voting population. Moreover, opposition to this deal is considerably greater among evangelical Christians than among Jews.
Identifying by their religion members of congress who voted against a deal that the Times strongly supported is, as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (Camera) aptly put it, more than a dog whistle; it is a bull horn. It plays squarely into anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews having dual loyalty. Will the Times next identify bankers, media moguls, journalists and professors by their religious identity? Would the Times have done that for other ethnic, religious or gender groups?
This has been a bad month for democracy, for serious debate and for the treatment of all Americans as equally capable of deciding important issue on their merits and demerits. Whether it also turns out to have been a bad month for peace and nuclear non-proliferation remains to be seen. But even those who support the deal should be ashamed of some of the undemocratic tactics and bigoted arguments employed to avoid a real debate and a majority vote.
**Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Emeritus Professor at Harvard Law School and the author of his new book: "The Case Again the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting Nukes? " now available on Kindle and other ebook sites.

First Anti-EU Referendum Being Forced by Dutch Citizens
Dutch Citizens Being Urged to Sign Up (Below)
Timon Dias/Gatestone Institute/September 11/15
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6485/anti-eu-referendum
Above all, Dutch citizens seem affronted that they were never consulted by their elected officials, who never even mentioned the EU-Ukraine treaty during the 2012 national elections.
"Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?" -- Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission.
A referendum in the Netherlands would create the precedent of even having EU referenda by "mere" citizens. The process could easily be replicated for future referenda.
The European Union, the supranational governmental body that seeks an ever-increasing political and economic unity of the European continent, has for years been struggling with dwindling popularity among its member-state citizens.
The main objections of its member-state citizens seem to be focused on the lack of actual democracy and transparency inside the European Union. And it is not exactly as if key EU figures are going out of their way to prove them wrong.
Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission (the EU's highest position), is on record saying brazenly the following about European democracy and transparency:
"When it becomes serious, you have to lie." -- Referring to the Greek economic meltdown of 2011.
"Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?" -- Referring to calls for a British referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people do not understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." -- Referring to the introduction of the euro.
The list goes on, and very aptly inspires the resentment that an increasing number of EU member-state citizens feel towards the EU.
Now, for the first time in EU history, a national population is close to succeeding in forcing its government to answer to the will of the people directly. The largest Dutch political and entertainment blog, GeenStijl.nl, has launched a campaign to mount a referendum on the new treaty between the EU and Ukraine. The treaty would endorse the creation of a visa-free travel arrangement between Ukraine and the EU, and Dutch taxpayers would have to donate financial aid to Ukraine without knowing how Ukraine would spend it. The Netherlands would have to contribute to "powerful support for the European course of the country," which would mean increased involvement in the Ukrainian civil war.
By law, the campaign has to be conducted within six weeks, in which 300,000 signatures need to be collected in order to approve a referendum. Within the first three weeks, GeenStijl gathered 150,000 signatures, half the number required, and chances are it will succeed in crossing the 300,000 mark before the deadline, September 28.
Why do many Dutch citizens seem to oppose the EU-Ukraine treaty? European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (right) has shown the EU's contempt for member-state citizens when he said, "When it becomes serious, you have to lie," and "Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"
Why do so many Dutch citizens seem to oppose the EU-Ukraine treaty enough to want to undo it through a referendum? Above all, they seem affronted that they were never consulted by their elected officials, who never even mentioned the treaty during the 2012 Dutch national elections. The treaty was ratified by the Dutch government this summer, after almost no debate about the issue. It all happened in line with how Jean-Claude Juncker prefers making policy: "If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people do not understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."
Other objections seem to be that Dutch citizens do not see why they should associate themselves with a country that is highly corrupt. It is likely that the financial aid Dutch taxpayers -- as a party to this treaty -- will have to send to Ukraine will not be used the way it is meant to be.
Ukraine also has a strong far-right political undercurrent that is not compatible with Dutch political culture; Ukraine is in a state of civil war, and also in a state of war (by proxy) with the continent's strongest military power, Russia.
In addition, the treaty would imply the creation of a visa-free travel arrangement between Ukraine and EU member states. Since Ukraine is a major hub for human trafficking, one of the "largest suppliers of slave labor in Europe" and one Europe's most important transit countries for international drug trafficking, it may be understandable why the Dutch would oppose an unrestricted travel arrangement between Ukraine and the EU.
The Netherlands is a small country, but the consequences, if and when this referendum succeeds, could be very significant. First, a referendum in the Netherlands would create the precedent of even having EU referenda by "mere" citizens. The process could easily be replicated for future referenda. Second, it could inspire other national populations of EU member-states to undertake similar ventures. If that ball starts rolling, European populations could take back the sovereignty that the EU gradually took from them. It could also send a serious message to the unelected, non-transparent and unaccountable EU as a whole.
Right now, the EU is a remote governmental body where unelected Euro-federalist technocrats decide on significant national matters. It is a government without a country to govern. The Soviet dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky, has called it the EUSSR.
If the Dutch people succeed, they may very well be initiating a new chapter of government by the people and for the people that could finally make the continent flourish.
People can sign up here online to demand the referendum (Dutch citizens ONLY please).
Dutch citizens abroad can fill out this form here, print it, and send it to the address: GeenPeil, Postbus 37743, 1030 BG, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Non-Dutch members of the EU can show their support by spreading the word about the Dutch EU-referendum in their own national media, and by examining the possibilities for EU-referenda in their own countries.
Readers who would like to support the campaign in any other way they see fit, can contact the campaign team at democratie@geenstijl.nl

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

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