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 Parable of the Samaritan who helped the a wounded man was attacked by thieves while a Priest & a Levite ignored him
Luke 10/25-37: "Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’He answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.’ And he said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’Jesus replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while travelling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, "Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend." Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?’ He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’"

Bible Quotation for today/ Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law
Letter to the Romans 13/08-14: "Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet’; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. Besides this, you know what time it is, how it is now the moment for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers; the night is far gone, the day is near. Let us then lay aside the works of darkness and put on the armour of light; let us live honourably as in the day, not in revelling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarrelling and jealousy. Instead, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires."

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 12-13/15
South Lebanon Army (SLA ) Commander, General Antoine Lahad Passed Away/Elias Bejjani/LCCC/September 12/15
Treason Criteria & General Lahad's Heroism/Elias Bejjani/September 13/15
Antoine Lahad, Israel's comrade in arms in south Lebanon, dies at 88/ARIK BENDER/J.Post//September 132/15
The passing of General Lahad, re-opens the file of the "South Lebanon Army" (SLA)/Thawrat Al Arz//September 12/15
Uproar in Lebanon after general's death reported/Roi Kais, Yaron Druckman/Ynetnews//September 12/15
Some of Our Tweets For Today/Elias Bejjani//September 12/15
Jordan: We Do Not Want Palestinians/Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone InstituteSeptember 12/15
Ukraine or Afghanistan: Reasons and Consequence of Putin’s Bold Move in Syria/Samir Altaqi &Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing/September 12/15
Ukraine or Afghanistan: Reasons and Consequence of Putin’s Bold Move in Syria/Samir Altaqi &Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing/September 12/15
Egypt’s Next Parliament: A Defining Role for the Business Community and the Salafi Islamists/Samir Altaqi &Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing/September 12/15
Military Escalation in Yemen: No Political Solution in Sight/Samir Altaqi &Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing/September 12/15
Obama has a ‘heart like railroad steel’ on Syria/Hisham Melhem/Al Arabiya/September 13/15
Don’t fear refugees like me/Yara al-Wazir/Al Arabiya/September 13/15

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin for Lebanese Related News published on September 12-13/15
South Lebanon Army (SLA ) Commander, General Antoine Lahad Passed Away
Treason Criteria & General Lahad's Heroism
Antoine Lahad, Israel's comrade in arms in south Lebanon, dies at 88
The passing of General Lahad, re-opens the file of the "South Lebanon Army" (SLA)
Uproar in Lebanon after general's death reported
Some of Our Tweets For Today
What is the definition of evil?"
The Government of Canada announced today the creation of the Syria Emergency Relief Fund.
In Lines at Embassy in Lebanon, Refugees Dream of Future in Germany
New Campaign Demands Recovery of Privatized Public Properties
Bid to Assault Customs Chief at RHIA, Police Seize Smuggled Goods
Majdal Anjar Residents Block Masnaa Road in Protest at Landfill Plans
Reports: Waste Management Plan Hampered, Shehayyeb Renews Contacts
Rahi Urges Protesters to Turn Demands to Election of President

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 12-13/15
First Iranian marines land in Syria, link up with newly-arrived Russian troops
Behind the Lines: Russia's military presence in Syria
JONATHAN SPYER/J.Post/09/12/2015
White House to invite Netanyahu for visit, says spokesman
Yitzhak Benhorin/Ynetnews/News Agencies/Published:09.11.15/ Israel News
Iran urged to sign nuclear test ban treaty
Egypt Government Quits in Wake of Corruption Scandal
Pro-Migrant Rallies in Europe as Hungary Says EU 'Dreaming'
Hajj to Go Ahead after Mecca Crane Collapse Kills 107
Tunisians March against Corruption Amnesty Law
Egypt Court Ratifies 'IS' Death Sentences
Algeria Confirms Arrest of Former Counter-terror Chief
Saudi-led Coalition Pounds Yemen Rebels Ahead of Talks
Belgium 'Ready' to Send Troops to Syria after Order Restored

South Lebanon Army (SLA ) Commander, General Antoine Lahad Passed Away
Elias Bejjani/LCCC/September 12/15
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2015/09/11/%D9%88%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82-%D9%84/
With sorrow and sadness it was officially announce yesterday that the patriotic Commander of the South Lebanon Army has passed away at the age of 88.
He died in Paris due to health complications.
A funeral will be held for the deceased in his Lebanese home town the Chouf village of Kfar Atra on September 20/15.
General Lahad assumed his role as commander of the SLA in 1984 after its first leader, Lebanese army officer Saad Haddad, died of cancer. Haddad had formed the SLA, which was originally known as the Free Lebanon Army in 1976 amid the breakup of the Lebanese state following the start of the 1975-1990 Civil War.
From the Lebanese Canadian Coordinating Council, (LCCC) and on behalf of its supporters, friends and all those Lebanese comrades in both Lebanon and Diaspora who genuinely share our political, patriotic, peaceful resistance stances, convictions and faith beliefs, we all extend our deeply and heartily felt condolences to General Lahad's family.
The General was a faithful Lebanese leader who has served his beloved country, Lebanon and its Lebanese people with honour, dignity honesty, courage and devotion.
We pray that his soul rests in peace.
For The LCCC
Elias Bejjani

Treason Criteria & General Lahad's Heroism
Elias Bejjani/September 13/15
Treason has international, ethical, human and judicial well know and fully recognized criteria. According to this criteria General Antoine Lahad is proudly a hero, while all those ignorant, savage cowardice, mercenaries and Trojan Lebanese politicians, clergymen and journalists in both Lebanon and Diaspora who are attacking Lahad in slender and defaming him after his death do completely fulfill all treason and cowardice criteria. All those mean mercenaries & dwarfs in Lebanon and abroad who are calling General Lahad A traitor & agent should look in the mirror and see who really they are and how ugly and rotten is their dead conscience..

Antoine Lahad, Israel's comrade in arms in south Lebanon, dies at 88
ARIK BENDER/J.Post/09/13/2015/Antoine Lahad, the former commander of the now-defunct South Lebanon Army, died in Paris this week. He was 88. Lahad headed the pro-Israel militia from 1984 until the Israeli withdrawal from its security zone in south Lebanon in May 2000. He took over command of the SLA, succeeding its founder, General Saad Hadad. Hadad founded the fighting force with the aid and support of Israel shortly after the IDF's invasion of Lebanon, also known as Operation Peace for Galilee. "Antoine was a proud Lebanese national, loyal to his homeland, Lebanon, and his heart was filled with love for it and its unique character, a love that moved him to take upon himself the enormous responsibility over the border area in south Lebanon," his former SLA comrades said in a statement. "He had two main goals - providing security to the people of south Lebanon and pushing for peace between Lebanon and the State of Israel." "He was a moral man gifted with courage and rare leadership abilities," the SLA veterans said. "We will never forget you, dear commander."Lahad, a Maronite Christian, left Lebanon with thousands of others following Israel's withdrawal from the country in 2000. He resettled in Tel Aviv, where he opened up a restaurant. A short time later, however, he departed for Paris. Lahad was tried in absentia by Lebanese authorities and sentenced to life in prison."General Lahad was a Lebanese patriot," said former GOC Northern Command Maj. Gen. (res.) Yossi Peled. "The State of Israel owes him a tremendous moral debt due to his years-long contribution to the security of the residents of south Lebanon and northern Israel.""I got to know him personally during the course of my career," Peled said. "He was a leader, a commander, and a person. In light of the instability in the Middle East, it is important that we remember those among our neighbors who worked to bring stability, security, and the realization of joint interests.""May his memory be a blessing," he said.

The passing of General Lahad, re-opens the file of the "South Lebanon Army" (SLA)
Thawrat Al Arz/September 12/15/The passing of General Antoine Lahd in Paris will be reopening the file of the "South Lebanon Army" (SLA). Lahd who was the commander of the SLA between 1984 and 2000, was an officer of the Lebanese Army before he assumed the command of the SLA. Hezbollah and the pro-Syrian militias pretend they "liberated south Lebanon from Israel and its SLA allies." This myth belongs to the past and to Iranian propaganda. The SLA wasn't Israel, it was Lebanon's popular resistance against the radical factions of the PLO, Amal's militia, and more importantly the terror forces of Iran-funded Hezbollah. The SLA leadership made many mistakes, General Lahd made many mistakes, Israel's Government, led by Ehud Barak, sacrificed the SLA and betrayed the people of south Lebanon, but the threat was and continue to be Hezbollah, and its pro-Syrian allies. Hezbollah propaganda ruled for too long. They said whatever they wanted since 1990, when Syrian tanks invaded the free areas. And they said whatever they wanted since the SLA was dismantled by Ehud Barak. The people of South Lebanon were silenced and many fled the terror of Hezbollah, including to Israel. But this doesn't mean that Hezbollah's propaganda is right. Now that General Lahd has passed the file of the SLA will reopen again, and the truth will be said.

Uproar in Lebanon after general's death reported
Roi Kais, Yaron Druckman/ynetnews/Published: 09.13.15/Israel News
A report says that Antoine Lahad, former commander of the Israeli-backed South Lebanon Army, is dead and will be buried in Lebanon, sparking a social media firestorm. A report published this week in a French-language Lebanese newspaper claimed that former South Lebanon Army (SLA) commander Antoine Lahad, 88, had died in Paris, triggering controversy in Lebanon. Many in Lebanon fumed at the reported intention to hold a funeral or memorial service in his birthplace, and thousands protested on social media. They called for a protest on Monday afternoon on the road leading to Beirut's international airport in hopes of preventing a burial in Lebanon. Lahad commanded the SLA from 1984 until it disbanded in 2000, when the IDF left southern Lebanon. The SLA, born of Lebanon's lengthy civil war in 1976, fought the PLO and Hezbollah and received Israeli backing. Under Lahad's leadership, the SLA transformed itself from a Christian-denominated militia to a professional military organization without a specific allegiance. When the IDF withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, Lahad sought to join his wife and children in Paris, but was rejected by French authorities, and he moved to Israel. In interviews, he strongly criticized the actions of the Israeli government, and then-prime minister Ehud Barak in particular, during the withdrawal from Lebanon. Five years ago, he managed to make Paris his residence. The report of his death has caused tremors throughout social media in Lebanon. A Facebook page opposing his burial in Lebanon has seen over 6,000 members join. "Because Lebanon is the land of the resistance and the martyrs and because the collaborator Antoine Lahad and his ilk were the bleeding wound of our families on the motherland," wrote one user.

Some of Our Tweets For Today
Elias Bejjani/12.09.15/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 is the definition of evil?"
Answer: A dictionary definition of evil is “morally reprehensible, sinful, wicked.” The definition of evil in the Bible falls into two categories: evil against one another (murder, theft, adultery) and evil against God (unbelief, idolatry, blasphemy). From the prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:9), to the destruction of Babylon the Great (Revelation 18:2), the Bible speaks of evil. For many centuries Christians have struggled with both the existence and the nature of evil. Most people would acknowledge that evil is real and has always had devastating effects on our world. From the sexual abuse of children to the horrific terrorist attacks on 9/11, evil continues to rear its ugly head in our own time. Many people are left wondering what exactly is evil and why does it exist. The existence of evil has been used as a weapon by opponents of theism—and Christian theism in particular—for some time. The so-called “problem of evil” has been the subject of various arguments by atheists in an attempt to demonstrate that a God who is good simply cannot exist. By implying that God must be the creator of evil, God’s holy character has been called into question. There have been many arguments used to indict God as the cause of evil. Here is one of them:
1) God is the creator of everything that exists.
2) Evil exists.
3) Therefore, God is the creator of evil.
The logic of this syllogism is sound. The conclusion follows logically from the premises. But does this syllogism demonstrate that God is the creator of evil? The problem with this argument is its second premise, that evil is something. For evil is not a thing; it is a lack or privation of a good thing that God made. As Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland has noted, “Evil is a lack of goodness. It is goodness spoiled. You can have good without evil, but you cannot have evil without good.”
Goodness has existed as an attribute of God from all eternity. While God is perfectly holy and just, He is also perfectly good. Just as God has always existed, so too has goodness as it is a facet of God’s holy character. The same cannot be said for evil. Evil came into being with the rebellion of Satan and subsequently entered the physical universe with the fall of Adam. As Christian apologist Greg Koukl has said, “Human freedom was used in such a way as to diminish goodness in the world, and that diminution, that lack of goodness, that is what we call evil.” When God created Adam, He created him good, and He also created him free.
However, in creating Adam free, God indirectly created the possibility of evil, while not creating evil itself. When Adam chose to disobey God, he made this possibility a reality. The same scenario had previously played out when Satan fell by failing to serve and obey God. So it turns out that evil is not a direct creation of God; rather, evil is the result of persons (both angelic and human) exercising their freedom wrongly. While evil is certainly real, it is important to recognize that evil does not have existence in and of itself. Rather, it only exists as a privation (or a parasite) on the good. It exists in the same way that a wound exists on an arm or as rust exists on a car. The rust cannot exist on its own any more than cold can exist without the existence of heat or darkness can exist without the existence of light. Despite the horrible effects of evil on our world, the Christian believer can take comfort in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ recorded for us in the Gospel of John, “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). More importantly, we look forward with great anticipation to our home in heaven where the ultimate evil, death, will finally be destroyed along with the “mourning, crying and pain” which it inevitably produces (Revelation 21:4). Recommended Resources: If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think about the Question by Norm Geisler and Logos Bible Software.
What's new on GotQuestions.org?

The Government of Canada announced today the creation of the Syria Emergency Relief Fund.
The Government will match every eligible dollar donated by individual Canadians to registered Canadian charities in response to the impact of the conflict in Syria, up to $100 million, effective immediately and until December 31, 2015.
The Fund will help meet the basic needs of conflict-affected people in the region, as well as in official development assistance-eligible transit countries for refugees. The Government’s contribution to this fund will provide assistance through international and Canadian humanitarian organizations and will meet humanitarian needs such as shelter, food, health and water, as well as protection and emergency education.
To be counted for the purposes of the Syria Emergency Relief Fund, donations from individual Canadians may not exceed $100,000 per individual and must be:
Monetary in nature;
Made to a registered Canadian charity that is receiving donations in response to the Syria crisis;
Specifically earmarked for response to the Syria crisis;
Made between September 12 and December 31, 2015;
Used by the registered charity receiving the donation in support of the humanitarian response to the impact of the Syria crisis; and
Declared by the registered charity receiving the donation to DFATD.
Since January 2012, Canada has committed $503.5 million in international humanitarian assistance funding in response to the Syria crisis.

In Lines at Embassy in Lebanon, Refugees Dream of Future in Germany
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/September 12/15/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."

New Campaign Demands Recovery of Privatized Public Properties
Naharnet/September 12/15/Change is on the Way, is a new campaign that protesters kicked off on Saturday calling for the recovery of public lands and the free access to beaches that became private property, the state-run National News Agency said. The movement started in Beirut’s Zaitunay Bay waterfront, where protesters took food and drinks to enjoy on the wooden corniche. Banners were raised and some read "This Sea is Ours."Zaitunay Bay is infamous for its high-end restaurants and chic yacht parties and has proven to be a heavy attraction for tourists, locals and Beirut-lovers alike. The move comes as part of a reminder that public properties should be free, in light of the fact that the majority of Lebanon's beaches have been turned into private enterprises.

Bid to Assault Customs Chief at RHIA, Police Seize Smuggled Goods
Naharnet/September 12/15/The army arrested on Saturday two Lebanese nationals after an attempt to assault the customs chief at the Rafic Hariri International Airport, the state-run National News Agency reported. Several individuals including, Tarek Hisham al-Sabeaa and another man from the same family, intruded into the office of the customs chief at the airport Samer Diaa and tried to assault him, NNA said. It added that the police airport had seized smuggled merchandise that the persecutors were trying to exchange for shoe insoles.
The army arrested the two of the men while the rest managed to escape. The merchandise was confiscated.

Majdal Anjar Residents Block Masnaa Road in Protest at Landfill Plans
Naharnet/September 12/15/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.

Reports: Waste Management Plan Hampered, Shehayyeb Renews Contacts
Naharnet/September 12/15/Attempts to put a spoke in the wheels of the waste management plan seem to carry on, which pressed Agriculture Minister Akram Shehayyeb, the plan’s sponsor, to hold a series of contacts in order to put it on the track of implementation. “Although the plan was able to garner political, technical and financial cover, but that did not stop some parties from hampering it,” ministerial sources told An Nahar daily on Saturday. The cabinet on Wednesday approved a waste management plan proposed by Shehayyeb during an emergency marathon session that was boycotted by Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil of the Free Patriotic Movement and State Minister for Parliament Affairs Mohammed Fneish of Hizbullah. The plan involves the reopening of the controversial Naameh landfill for a period of seven days, after it was closed in July drowning the country in garbage. The sources noted on condition of anonymity that “the parties hampering the plan are the same ones hampering the election of a president and paralyzing the government’s work,” in reference to the Free Patriotic Movement and Hizbullah. “Those obstructing the plan are linking its facilitation to the issue of upgrading military officials,” the sources added.

Rahi Urges Protesters to Turn Demands to Election of President
Naharnet/September 12/15/Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi voiced calls on Saturday on all the protesters not to be led astray by little demands and to emphasize on raising their voices in calling for the election of a president. “All the protesters should not be distracted by small demands for the resignation of a minister or other. They must focus on demands to elect a president,” said Rahi on his second day tour to Mount Lebanon. Rahi has kicked off a three-day tour to the area the day before. He addressed the politicians saying: “We cannot live without a president, and you cannot deafen you ears to the demands to elect one.”On Friday, the Patriarch conveyed a similar message, urging the campaigners of You Stink to take advantage of their demonstrations and call for the end of the vacuum at the top Christian post in the country. Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of President Michel Suleiman ended and the rival politicians failed to elect a substitute.You Stink campaigners kicked off demonstrations in July in protest to a waste management crisis that left the country drowning in garbage.

First Iranian marines land in Syria, link up with newly-arrived Russian troops
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report September 12, 2015/Iran this week sent its first ground troops to Syria, around 1,000 marines and elite troops of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). They moved straight into Ghorin, a small military air facility just south of the port town of Latakia, and hooked up with the just-landed Russian marines at Jablah. Three weeks ago, DEBKA file began reporting on Russian-Iranian military intervention afoot for saving the Syrian ruler Bashar Assad, followed on September 1 by the first disclosure of the Russian buildup in Syria. Our military sources report now that Moscow is about to send a shipment of advanced S-300 air defense missile systems for deployment at Jablah, the base the Russians have built outside Latakia for the intake of the Russian troops. The S-300 systems will also shield the Iranian facility at Ghorin. Jablah has been converted into a busy depot for the Russian troops still arriving in Syria, combatants from units of Marine Brigades 810 and 336. Russian MiG-31 interceptor craft standing by at the Mezza airbase at Damascus airport offer the combined Russian-Iranian force air cover. To the west, the giant Dmitri Donskoy TK-20 nuclear submarine is on its way to Syrian waters. Latakia is therefore fast growing into a powerful Russian-Iranian military enclave, able to accommodate Assad and top regime officials if they are forced to leave Damascus. According to our military sources, it is too soon to determine the exact function of this enclave, whether defensive or, after settling in, the Russian and/or the Iranian forces are planning to go after Syrian rebel and Islamic State forces making gains in northern Syria. There is no evidence to bear out the curious briefing high-ranking defense sources gave Israeli military correspondents Thursday that the incoming Iranian troops have come to beef up the large-scale Syrian army-Hizballah units, who have been unsuccessfully battering away at the rebel fighters holding the key town of Zabadani for nearly two months. Our sources find the Iranian and Russian units fully occupied for now in expanding and outfitting their new quarters at Ghorin and Jablah.

Behind the Lines: Russia's military presence in Syria
JONATHAN SPYER/J.Post/09/12/2015
The current increase of the Russian military presence in northwest Syria is a function of the declining military fortunes of the Assad regime. It represents a quantitative, rather than qualitative, change in the nature of the Russian engagement in Syria. Moscow’s goal throughout the conflict has been to keep Syrian President Bashar Assad in power by all means necessary. The ends remain the same. But as the situation on the ground changes, so the Russian means employed to achieve this goal must change with it.
Since the outset of the Syrian civil war, the key problem for Assad has been manpower.
Against a Sunni Arab rebellion with a vast pool of potential fighters from Syria’s 60 percent Sunni Arab majority and from among foreign volunteers, the regime has been forced to draw ever deeper from a far shallower base. At the outset of the conflict, the Syrian Arab Army was on paper a huge force – of 220,000 regular soldiers plus an additional 280,000 reserves. But the vast majority of this army was unusable by the dictator. This is because it consisted overwhelmingly of Sunni conscripts, whose trustworthiness from the regime’s point of view was seriously in doubt. Since then, the army has shrunk in size from attrition, desertion and draft dodging. The story of the last four years has been the attempt by Assad and his allies to offset the reality of insufficient manpower for the task at hand.
This has been achieved by two means.
First, the regime has chosen to retreat from large swathes of the country, in order to be able to more effectively hold the essential areas it has to maintain with its limited numbers. The abandonment of the country’s east and north led to the emergence of the areas of control held by Kurdish, Sunni Arab rebel, and later al-Qaida and Islamic State forces in these areas. But of course retreating in order to consolidate is a strategy that can be pursued only so far. At a certain point, the area remaining becomes no longer viable for the purpose intended – namely, the preservation of the regime in a form that can guarantee the needs of its Russian and Iranian backers, and the relative security of the ruling elite itself and to a lesser extent of the population which relies on it and upon which it relies.
To offset the arrival at this point, Assad and his friends have striven in ever more creative ways to put sufficient men in the field, and to maintain the edge in military equipment which could hold back the masses of the lightly armed rebels. There were the hastily assembled Alawi irregulars of the “shabiha.” Then an increasing commitment of Iranian regional assets – including the Lebanese Hezbollah and Iraqi Shi’ite militia forces. Then there was the Iranian-trained National Defense Forces. In recent months, northwest Syria has witnessed the arrival of “volunteers” from as far afield as the Hazara Shi’ite communities of Afghanistan (paid for by Tehran). Despite all this effort, the rebels have, since the spring, been pushing westward toward Latakia province.
If the rebels reach Latakia, there is nowhere left to retreat to. The regime and its allies must hold the province or face defeat. The appearance of apparently Russian-crewed BTR-82A APCs on the Latakia battlefield appears to be testimony to Russia’s awareness of this – and its willingness to dig deeper for Assad – even if this means the direct deployment of Russian personnel on the battlefield in a limited way.The apparent deployment of a growing force of the Russian army’s 810th Independent Marine Brigade at and around the naval depot of Tartus in Latakia province offers further evidence of this commitment, as well as a pointer to the interests in Syria that Moscow regards as vital. The bolder claims of Russian Pchela 1T UAVs and even Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jets over the skies of the Idlib battlefield are not yet confirmed. But the respected Ruslanleviev Russian investigative website found the evidence regarding the APCs and the marines around Tartus to be persuasive.
There is a reason why the rebel march toward Latakia cannot simply be absorbed by the regime as a further tactical withdrawal, analogous to earlier retreats from Hasakah, Quneitra, most of Deraa, Aleppo, Idlib and so on. Latakia province is the heartland of the Syrian Alawi community. It is a place where regime supporters have been able to convince themselves for most of the last four years that here, at least, they were safe. If the rebels break through on the al-Ghab Plain, and the front line moves decisively into the populated areas of Latakia, this will be over. The loss of Latakia province would render the hope of keeping a regime enclave intact no longer viable. It will raise the possibility of the regime losing its control of Syria’s coastline (vital for Assad’s Russian and Iranian backers).
This, in turn, could mean rebel capture of the Tartus naval depot. Hence the deployment of the marines, who, according to information available, have not yet been placed in forward positions facing the rebels. Rather, they are gathered around Tartus for its defense.
So the steady rebel advance in the direction of Latakia is producing a Russian response of a volume and nature not before witnessed on the Syrian battlefield. Russian weaponry and Russian diplomatic support have been the vital lifelines for Assad throughout the last four years. Previous levels of support are no longer enough. So more is being provided. Still, the current indications do not appear to suggest or presage a major conventional deployment of Russian forces. That would go against the known pattern favored by President Vladimir Putin. Rather, Russian assistance, while on the increase, is likely to be limited to an active support role, perhaps extending to the use of some air power, along with behind-the-scenes advisory and training roles and the use of some specialized personnel in combat or combat support roles. Meanwhile, as the Russians arrive in Latakia, the rebel mopping up of remaining regime enclaves in Idlib province adjoining Latakia is continuing. A force of the Jaysh al-Fatah (Army of Conquest) this week captured the last remaining regime air base in the province, at Abu Zuhour. Jaysh al-Fatah is a union of the northwest’s most powerful rebel groups. Prominent among its components is Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian franchise of al-Qaida. This coalition, supported by Turkey and Qatar and armed with advanced weapons by Saudi Arabia, is altering the military landscape of northwest Syria. In the weeks ahead, the fighting in northwest Hama and Latakia provinces looks set to intensify, with the Sunni rebels seeking to push further toward the coast. Assad’s benighted regime, aided by its Russian and Iranian friends, will be throwing everything into the effort to stop them. It remains to be seen if the Russian bear’s increased pressure on the scales will prove again sufficient to maintain the balance.

White House to invite Netanyahu for visit, says spokesman
Yitzhak Benhorin/Ynetnews/News Agencies/Published:09.11.15/ Israel News
Possible visit could take place in November in what would be the first meeting in months between the prime minister and President Obama; House of Representatives 'defeats' Iran deal in symbolic vote.
WASHINGTON - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be invited to the White House in early November, Spokesman Josh Earnest said on Friday.
The annual conference of the Jewish Federations of North America will begin on November 8, and it is likely that the White House intends the visit to coincide with the event. Earnest said that while the two leaders have disagreements, their relationship regarding defense was stable, and both were committed to strengthening relations. Obama pointedly refused to see Netanyahu in March when the Israeli leader appeared before a joint meeting of Congress and harshly criticized a US-negotiated nuclear deal with Iran, Israel's enemy. Lawmakers had arranged Netanyahu's appearance without White House input.
Friday's announcement of a possible visit came soon after the US House of Representatives defeated a resolution backing the nuclear agreement with Iran in a symbolic vote engineered by congressional Republicans who object to the deal.
House members defeated the measure 269 to 162 in a strongly partisan vote, part of an effort by Republicans to underscore their objections to the international accord despite a vote on Thursday in the Senate that blocked a Republican-led effort to kill it by passing a resolution of disapproval. "This deal is far worse than anything I could have imagined," John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House, said in a speech harshly critical of the July 14 agreement between the United States, five other world powers and Iran.
Twenty-five Democrats joined 244 Republicans in voting against the resolution. No Republicans voted in favor.
After a rebellion by some of the most conservative Republicans, party leaders abandoned plans for a House vote on a disapproval resolution, opting for votes on three measures to send a stronger message that a majority of Congress objects to the pact.
Members from each party accuse the other of using the dispute for political purposes.
Democrats have accused Republicans of leaping to reject the deal and ignoring US allies and international experts who back it. Some also accused Republicans of politicizing the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by holding the votes on that date. In turn, Republicans accuse Democrats of blindly supporting Democratic President Barack Obama in an agreement they see as going too far in easing economic sanctions on Iran in return for too few concessions on its nuclear program. They also joined with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who lobbied against the deal, in calling it a threat to his country's existence. An Israeli diplomatic source who could not be named said Israel was pleased with the outcome of the House votes.
Boehner and other Republican congressional leaders are considering more options, including suing Obama, to stop the deal. A disapproval resolution would have derailed the pact by eliminating Obama's ability to waive many US sanctions on Tehran. The three measures considered by the House would have no similar impact on the agreement. In a second vote on Friday, the House voted 247 to 186 to pass legislation that would bar Obama from waiving, suspending or reducing sanctions under the nuclear agreement.
That vote was even more strongly partisan. Two Democrats joined 245 Republicans in voting yes, while all 186 "no's" were from Democrats. To become law, that legislation would have to be passed in the Senate and then survive a likely veto.
There are no plans now for the Senate to vote on the House measures.

Iran urged to sign nuclear test ban treaty
By The Associated Press | United Nations/Saturday, 12 September 2015/The head of the U.N.’s nuclear test ban treaty organization says Iran should follow up on its historic nuclear deal with world powers by ratifying the treaty and assuring it will never conduct a nuclear test explosion. Lassina Zerbo said in an interview Friday with The Associated Press that if Iran doesn’t ratify the treaty, “it will leave room for the doubt that people have put in this deal and the good intentions of Iran.”Zerbo said Iran should have signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, known as the CTBT, before negotiations started on the deal to rein in its nuclear program, in order to give assurances to critics that it has no intention to develop nuclear weapons - and that there is a religious prohibition, or “fatwa,” against possessing them, issued in 2013 by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Ratifying the treaty now, he said, will assure doubters in the U.S. and elsewhere that before or after the nuclear agreement ends in 15 years, Iran will never conduct any nuclear test explosions in a search to develop nuclear weapons. Zerbo said ratifying the treaty will also give Iran a stronger position to say that it has complied with all arms control treaties and is part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, so “what else do you need from us to show good faith with regard to our intention to only use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes?”
“I believe in what they say, and that’s why I’m telling them, ‘I trust you,’” he said of Iran. But he noted the saying “Trust, but verify” and added, “Why don’t you give us this assurance?”The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty The CTBT organization has 196 member states - 183 that have signed the treaty and 164 that have ratified it. But the treaty has not entered into force because it still needs ratification by eight countries involved in originally negotiating it: Iran, Israel, Egypt, India, Pakistan, North Korea, the United States and China.
If Iran ratifies the treaty, Zerbo said, it would create the conditions in the Middle East for easier ratifications, potentially by Egypt, and would be an essential element for the ultimate goal of creating a nuclear weapon-free zone in the region.
Monitoring
While waiting for the CTBT to enter into force, the organization has spent more than $1 billion on an international monitoring system that can detect a nuclear test by Iran or any other country, Zerbo said. It detected all three tests by North Korea. The system uses four technologies - 170 seismic stations to pick up shock waves from any underground explosion, “hydro-acoustic” monitoring to pick up anything that happens underwater, 48 “infrasound” stations to detect low-frequency waves in the atmosphere that can travel long distances, and 80 “radionucleide” stations to sample the air for radiation, which Zerbo called “the smoking gun.”The highly sophisticated monitoring systems can also detect earthquakes, tsunamis, air contamination, the movement of whales and the trajectory of space launches, as well as meteors including the ones in Russia in February 2013 and over Thailand on Sept. 7, he said.

Egypt Government Quits in Wake of Corruption Scandal
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/September 12/15/Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi Saturday accepted the resignation of the government after it was rocked by a corruption scandal, and tasked the oil minister with forming a new cabinet. A senior official told Agence France Presse the resignation of premier Ibrahim Mahlab's administration aimed to "pump new blood" into the government after the arrest on Monday of agriculture minister Salah Helal on suspicion of taking bribes. The presidency said Sisi asked outgoing oil minister Sharif Ismail to form a new cabinet within a week. Media had reported an impending reshuffle after Helal's arrest following his resignation in connection with an investigation into corruption. Helal and his chief of staff were accused of having "requested and received" bribes from a businessman, via an intermediary, to legalize the purchase of state property. The government had denied reports of an impending reshuffle, and said no other ministers had been implicated in the corruption case. But there have growing calls for Mahlab's resignation and increasing protests by civil servants over a new law that centralizes promotions while taxing bonuses. "The main reason was the president was displeased with the job of some ministers, and his feeling that the government wasn't achieving what he wanted, especially in light of complaints by citizens regarding services," said Mostafa Kamel al-Sayyed, a Cairo University political science professor. Mahlab's resignation comes as Egypt prepares to hold long-delayed legislative elections in two phases between October 17 and December 2.
Discontent over prices
The elections had initially been scheduled for early 2015 but were cancelled by a court on technical grounds. Mahlab, who had headed the Arab Contractors construction firm, had been appointed by interim president Adly Mansour in March 2014, less than a year after the army toppled Islamist president Mohamed Morsi. He was viewed as a capable technocrat close to Sisi, the former army chief who removed Morsi and won the presidential election in May that year.
Ismail, who has experience in state-owned petroleum companies, had been the managing director of Ganoub El Wadi Petroleum Holding Company before his appointment as oil minister in July 2013 following Morsi's overthrow. Morsi's removal and detention unleashed a deadly crackdown on Islamists that killed hundreds of protesters, and the army has struggled to quash a jihadist insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula. The government had enjoyed support in the face of militants who have killed hundreds of soldiers, but in recent months had come under fire for corruption and the unpopular civil service law. There has also been growing discontent over a rise in food prices and slashes to a generous fuel subsidy system as Sisi pushes to narrow a budget deficit. Sisi has been able to pass decrees virtually unchecked in the absence of a parliament, including the subsidy cuts that previous governments had shirked to avoid unrest. The new parliament, expected to begin work by the end of the year, will review those laws.
However, it is unlikely to present the president with any sustained opposition and will probably be dominated by Sisi loyalists and weak and fractured political parties that have generally backed him. The previous parliament, elected in 2011 after an uprising ousted veteran President Hosni Mubarak, had been dominated by Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood movement. The Islamist group was banned after Morsi's overthrow in July 2013, and thousands of its members, including top leaders, have been jailed.

Pro-Migrant Rallies in Europe as Hungary Says EU 'Dreaming'
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/September 12/15/Thousands of Europeans were expected Saturday to rally in solidarity with refugees fleeing violence and war, as Hungary's populist premier said the migrants should come no further than camps around war-ravaged Syria's borders. Dozens of events are planned with the biggest likely in London but there are also rival anti-migrant rallies expected, notably in eastern European countries that are resisting pressure to take in more of the refugees. "It's time to speak out against the deadly borders that have been enacted in our name. People all over Europe are organising resistance and solidarity in their towns and cities," organisers of the "#EuropeSaysWelcome" initiative said on social media. "We want to let all the refugees know: You are welcome!" The International Organization for Migration said Friday that more than 430,000 people have crossed the Mediterranean to Europe this year, with 2,748 dying or going missing in packed and unseaworthy boats operated by often unscrupulous human traffickers.
The influx has exposed deep rifts with the European Union, with "frontline" states Italy, Greece and Hungary struggling to cope and European Commission proposals for sharing 160,000 of the new arrivals in a quota scheme facing resistance among eastern members.
Germany has absorbed the lion's share so far, taking in 450,000 people and the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel -- hailed as a heroine by many migrants but under fire even from allies at home -- relaxing asylum rules for Syrians. On Friday, Berlin's foreign minister pressed his eastern European counterparts in Prague to do more, saying the crisis could be "the biggest challenge for the EU in its history". But his appeal fell on deaf ears, with Slovakian Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajcak saying he wanted a solution "that is not imposed" but "made jointly". "Migrants don't want to stay in Slovakia," he added bluntly. Denmark's right-wing government also said it would not take part in the quota scheme. Like Britain and Ireland, the Scandinavian country has an opt-out on the 28-nation EU's asylum policies.
Not fleeing danger
Hungary, meanwhile, has seen some 175,000 people travel up from Greece across its borders this year. Its plans to build a large fence, deploy the army and jail immigrants have earned it stiff criticism, stoked by images of migrants in packed camps. Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann, whose country has seen thousands of migrants enter from Hungary in recent days, with all but a few passing through, was quoted Saturday as comparing Hungary's treatment of migrants to the Nazi era. "Piling refugees on trains in the hopes that they go far, far away brings back memories of the darkest period of our continent," Faymann told German weekly Spiegel. But on Friday, Prime Minister Viktor Orban launched his own broadside, saying Europe's leaders are "living in a dream world" with "no clue" about the dangers and scale of the problem, while denying that the migrants are, strictly speaking, refugees. "These migrants are not coming our way from war zones but from camps in Syria's neighbours: from Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey... So these people are not fleeing danger and don't need to be scared for their lives," Orban told Germany's Bild daily in an interview. Orban said he would propose to his EU counterparts that the bloc provides three billion euros ($3.4 billion) to Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, "and more if necessary -- until the flow of migrants is stopped."The idea that quotas would work is an "illusion," he said. "(Can) we really stop the migrants going where they want? Who is going to keep them in Estonia, Slovenia or Portugal if they want to go to Germany?"
Migrants keep coming
Thousands more were meanwhile travelling up from Greece through the Balkans. According to one UN official, a record 7,600 entered Macedonia overnight Thursday to Friday, bound for Serbia and then Hungary. New figures Saturday showed that 3,023 people entered Hungary on Friday, all seeking to travel -- via Austria, despite it having suspended train services to Hungary -- to countries in western Europe, particularly Germany and Sweden. Nearly 6,000 arrived in the southern German city of Munich. Germany has placed 4,000 troops on standby for this weekend alone to cope with the influx. At the flashpoint Hungarian border crossing point of Roszke, dozens of Afghans on Friday night lay down in front of buses, refusing to be taken for police registration out of fear they would have to stay in Hungary, an Agence France Presse reporter said. A huge operation has sprung up around the border zone, as NGOs, charities and doctors have set up a messy but well-stocked camp for the thousands crossing into Hungary every day. It is still not enough, however.
"We're overwhelmed. We just can't get ahead of it," said Mark Wade, a British volunteer. Earlier he helped carry a 12-year-old Syrian girl who had walked several miles with a grotesquely swollen knee broken after she was hit by a taxi. "At first I thought there was something wrong with her face, but it was just the agony from her knee," said Wade. "I had to take 20 minutes off after that one, just to get myself together again."

Hajj to Go Ahead after Mecca Crane Collapse Kills 107
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/September 12/15/Saudi authorities said Saturday the annual hajj pilgrimage would go ahead despite a crane collapse that killed 107 people at Mecca's Grand Mosque, where crowds returned to pray a day after the disaster.
Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims have already arrived in Mecca for the hajj, one of the world's largest religious gatherings which last year drew two million worshippers. Parts of the Grand Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, remained sealed off Saturday around the remains of the red and white crane, accentuating the crush of humanity inside. Worshippers thronged the mosque as the midday call to prayer sounded, according to an Agence France Presse reporter. Indonesians and Indians were among those killed when the crane collapsed during a storm on what is the main weekly prayer day for Muslims. Around 200 others were injured. A Saudi official said this year's hajj, expected to start on September 21, would proceed despite the tragedy.
"It definitely will not affect the hajj this season and the affected part will probably be fixed in a few days," said the official, who declined to be named. As world leaders offered condolences, the governor of Mecca region, Prince Khaled al-Faisal, ordered an investigation into the incident. Abdel Aziz Naqoor, who said he works at the mosque, told AFP he saw the massive construction crane fall after being hit by the storm. "If it weren't for Al-Tawaf bridge the injuries and deaths would have been worse," he said, referring to a covered walkway that surrounds the holy Kaaba, which broke the crane's fall. The Kaaba is a massive cube-shaped structure at the centre of the mosque towards which Muslims worldwide pray. Saudis and foreigners lined up on Friday night to give blood in response to the tragedy. Outside one hospital, more than 100 people waited in the street for their turn to donate. Pictures of the incident on Twitter showed bloodied bodies strewn across a courtyard where the top part of the crane, which appeared to have bent or snapped, had crashed into the building which is several storeys high. A video on YouTube showed people screaming and rushing around right after a massive crash was heard. Many faithful would have been gathered there ahead of evening maghrib prayers, which occurred about an hour after the tragedy.
Ahmed bin Mohammad al-Mansoori, spokesman for the two holy mosques, was quoted by the official Saudi Press Agency as saying part of a crane collapsed at 5:10 pm (1410 GMT) "as a result of strong winds and heavy rains".More rain and strong winds were forecast for Saturday, the agency said.
Worldwide condolences
Irfan al-Alawi, co-founder of the Mecca-based Islamic Heritage Research Foundation, compared the carnage to that caused by a bomb. He suggested authorities were negligent by having a series of cranes overlooking the mosque. "They do not care about the heritage, and they do not care about health and safety," he told AFP. Alawi is an outspoken critic of redevelopment at the holy sites, which he says is wiping away tangible links to the Prophet Mohammed. Indonesian foreign ministry spokesman Arrmanatha Nasir said that in addition to two Indonesians who lost their lives, more than 30 were injured, some seriously. The foreign ministry in New Delhi said two Indians were killed and that 15 others were being treated in hospital for injuries. Malaysia said 10 of its nationals were hurt and six unaccounted for. Iran's official IRNA news agency said 15 Iranian pilgrims were among those hurt, while Egypt said 23 of its nationals were injured. Condolences came from around the world, including from Arab leaders, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Britain's David Cameron. It is not the first time tragedy has struck Mecca pilgrims. In 2006, several hundred were killed in a stampede during the Stoning of the Devil ritual in nearby Mina, following a similar incident two years earlier. But the hajj has been nearly incident-free in recent years because of multi-billion dollar projects. Work is under way to expand the area of the Grand Mosque by 400,000 square metres (4.3 million square feet), allowing it to accommodate up to 2.2 million people at once. Several cranes tower over the site under a project being carried out by Saudi Binladin Group, which belongs to the family of the late al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Tunisians March against Corruption Amnesty Law
Associated Press/Naharnet/September 12/15/Hundreds of Tunisians marched Saturday through the capital under heavy security to protest a law offering amnesty for those accused of corruption. The controversial draft law on economic reconciliation is a centerpiece of the new government's program and seeks to boost the economy by clearing cases against businessmen and civil servants accused of corruption. Opponents to the law, however, see it as an attempt to whitewash the crimes of the old regime and ignore an ongoing process of transitional justice through the Truth and Dignity committee. "No to reconciliation that whitewashes corruption!" protesters chanted as they marched. "No to despotism and reconciliation with corruption!"A nationalist party, Nida Tunis, came to power in an election last fall and rules in alliance with the Islamist Ennahda party. Both support the new law. Police had originally banned Saturday's demonstration, citing threats of terrorist attacks, but left-wing and liberal parties went forward with the march. Hundreds of police have been mobilized to guard the demonstration route along the city's iconic Bourguiba Avenue, where four and a half years ago protesters brought down long-ruling dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Under Ben Ali, a few families dominated the economy and kickbacks and corruption was rife. Immediately after the revolution, cases were leveled against a number of businessmen. The new government argues that devolved into a witch hunt which has kept them from reinvesting in the faltering economy. "The union is against the draft law because it is unfair and unconstitutional," Sami Tahri, an official with the Union for Tunisian Workers, said at the protest. "It doesn't fight corruption, it encourages it."

Egypt Court Ratifies 'IS' Death Sentences
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/September 12/15/A court in Egypt on Saturday ratified death sentences for 12 people convicted of planning attacks on behalf of the jihadist Islamic State group. Six of those whose sentences were confirmed are in custody, while six were tried in absentia. All were convicted of having joined IS -- which has declared a "caliphate" in parts of Iraq and Syria under its control -- and of plotting to attack Egypt's police force and military. The court in the Nile Delta province of Sharqiya had recommended the death sentence for the men last month, and was awaiting the mufti's approval to ratify the ruling. The mufti, the government's official interpreter of Islamic law, issues a non-binding opinion in such cases. Those convicted can appeal a ruling before the Court of Cassation, which may either uphold the verdict or order a retrial. Hundreds of Islamists have been sentenced to death since the military toppled Islamist president Mohamed Morsi in 2013. Many, including Morsi himself, have appealed. Seven have been executed. Morsi's overthrow unleashed a deadly crackdown on Islamists that killed hundreds of protesters. Militants loyal to IS, meanwhile, have killed hundreds of police and soldiers, mostly in attacks in the Sinai Peninsula.

Algeria Confirms Arrest of Former Counter-terror Chief
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/September 12/15/Algeria confirmed Saturday the arrest of the former head of counter-terrorism, whose detention was reported by the media last month. "The case of General Hassan is now before the judiciary," Ahmed Ouyahia, President Abdelaziz Bouteflika's chief of staff, told a news conference, without giving further details. Abdelkader Ait-Ouarabi, better known as General Hassan, had been the head of Algeria's infamous DRS intelligence agency and embodied the army's fight against Islamist groups for two decades. He was forcibly retired at the orders of a military judge at the end of 2013 and had been under surveillance. News of his arrest was revealed at the end of August by the newspaper El-Watan, which said he was detained at his home and then taken to the Blida military prison south of Algiers. Allegations against him include possessing firearms, withholding information and insubordination, El-Watan quoted judicial sources as saying.

Saudi-led Coalition Pounds Yemen Rebels Ahead of Talks
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/September 12/15/Saudi-led coalition warplanes heavily bombarded rebel positions across the Yemeni capital Saturday, ahead of expected U.N.-mediated peace talks, witnesses said. They targeted arms depots and military camps in the rebel-held capital's northern districts. They also struck the rebel-held presidential residence in Sanaa's southeast and nearby arms depots, witnesses said, adding that warplanes were still overflying the city.
There were no immediate details on any casualties. In the eastern Marib province, where the coalition has been focusing its operations in recent days, pro-government military sources said air strikes on two separate rebel convoys killed at least 23 insurgents. AFP could not confirm the toll from independent sources, and the rebels rarely acknowledge their losses. Military officials on the Saudi border told AFP that 20 more coalition military vehicles crossed into oil-rich Marib, following at least 40 similar vehicles a day earlier. The reinforcements are being sent in preparation for an offensive to retake the capital, seized by the Shiite Huthi insurgents a year ago.
Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates announced that it has now received the remains of all of its "52 martyrs" who were killed in a missile strike in Marib last week, according to the official WAM news agency. The UAE had given an earlier toll of 45 of its soldiers lost in the attack. Ten Saudis and five Bahrainis were also killed in the strike, claimed by the Iran-backed Huthi rebels. The UAE said its jet fighters had carried out several strikes against rebel positions across Yemen Friday "targeting the military depots, command and control buildings and Huthi militia strongholds," WAM reported. The United Nations estimates that Yemen's conflict has killed more than 4,500 people since March. On Thursday, the U.N. special envoy for Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, said the exiled government and rebels had agreed to take part in peace talks in the region next week. However, in the absence of any announcement from the rebels, government spokesman Rajih Badi said he was unsure they would attend the talks, which he said will take place in neutral Oman without specifying a date. The government of exiled President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi confirmed it will join the talks but insisted that a rebel pullback from areas seized since last year -- as outlined by U.N. Security Council Resolution 2216 -- remained a precondition for negotiations. The United States has welcomed the announcements. Yemeni rivals held a round of fruitless U.N.-brokered negotiations in Geneva in June.

Belgium 'Ready' to Send Troops to Syria after Order Restored
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/September 12/15/Belgium is ready to send ground troops to Syria as part of an international coalition but "we must first re-establish order," the country's defense minister, Steven Vandeput, said on Saturday. Belgium has been a member of the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State (IS) group in Iraq since September last year, sending six F-16 jets and 120 personnel to join airstrikes, from a base in Jordan. "If a similar coalition is created in Syria, we cannot stay on the sidelines," Vandeput said in an interview published in Belgium's Flemish newspaper De Morgen. European powers have been more reluctant to join the U.S.-led coalition against IS in Syria, which has received the military support of several Arab states and Turkey. "There are no other solutions in the long run but to deploy troops to re-establish peace. Otherwise military action makes little sense," Vandeput added. "We must first re-establish order in Syria and then stay on the ground to protect it," he said, referring to the chaos in Libya that followed a NATO-backed revolt that unseated longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. "The troops with whom I am speaking are ready. We are not going to play Rambo, but if clear conditions are established, I am ready to send Belgian troops to the territory of Syria," Vandeput said. He said it was about carrying out "follow-up missions," like monitoring camps Belgian troops operate in Mali. In the De Morgen interview, he ruled out having Belgian troops take part in heavy battles.

Jordan: We Do Not Want Palestinians
Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone InstituteSeptember 12/15
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6484/jordan-palestinians
"Improve the living conditions of the Palestinian refugees. Allow them to settle down. Give them citizenship so that they can live as human beings." — Dr. Ahmad Abu Matar, an Oslo-based Palestinian academic, blasting Arab the world for its continued mistreatment of Palestinians. The Arabs do not care about the Palestinians and want them to remain Israel's problem. Countries such as Lebanon and Syria would rather see Palestinians living as "animals in the jungle" than grant them basic rights such as employment, education and citizenship. It is no surprise that refugees fleeing Syria have no ambitions to settle in any Arab country. They know that their fate in the Arab world will be no better than that of Palestinians living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries.
A recent decision by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) to cut back its services has left Jordan and other Arab countries extremely worried about the possibility that they may be forced to grant citizenship rights to millions of Palestinians.
During the last few weeks, many Jordanians have expressed deep concern that the UNRWA measures may be part of a "conspiracy" to force the kingdom to resettle Palestinian refugees.
According to UNRWA figures, more than two million registered Palestinian refugees live in Jordan. Most of the refugees, but not all, have full (Jordanian) citizenship, the figures show. The refugees live in 10 UNRWA-recognized camps in Jordan.
The "Cyber City" refugee camp in Jordan, where a number of Palestinians are being housed. (Image source: ICRC)
Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to Palestinians. Still, many Jordanians see their presence in the kingdom as temporary.
Although there is no official census data for how many inhabitants are Palestinian, they are estimated to constitute half of Jordan's population, which is estimated at seven million. Some claim that the Palestinians actually make up two-thirds of the kingdom's population.
Over the past few decades, the Jordanians' biggest nightmare has been the talk about resettling the Palestinians in the kingdom by turning them into permanent citizens. The talk about turning Jordan into a Palestinian state has also created panic and anger among Jordanians.
Jordan's "demographic problem" resurfaced last week when a senior Jordanian politician warned against plans to resettle Palestinian refugees in the kingdom.
Taher al-Masri, a former Jordanian prime minister who is closely associated with the ruling Hashemite monarchy, sounded the alarm in an interview with a Turkish news agency.
Commenting on UNRWA's severe financial crisis, which has resulted in cutting back services to Palestinian refugees living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, al-Masri said: "I believe this is part of a plan to turn the issue of the Palestinian refugees into an internal problem of Jordan. UNRWA is paving the way for liquidating the Palestinian cause."
Al-Masri, whose views often reflect those of the monarchy, expressed fear that the UNRWA cutbacks would prompt the world to consider the idea of turning the Palestinians in Jordan into permanent citizens, especially as most of them already carry Jordanian passports.
Al-Masri and other Jordanian officials maintain that Jordan is entitled to protect its "national identity" by refusing to absorb non-Jordanians.
Earlier this week, Jordanian Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour raised many eyebrows when he announced that there were more than two million Palestinians living in Jordan who are not permanent citizens. Ensour was apparently referring to those Palestinians who carry temporary Jordanian passports.
Jordanian and Palestinian political analysts described Ensour's comments about the Palestinians in Jordan as "fuzzy" and "controversial." They noted that Ensour mentioned the Palestinians together with Iraqi and Syrian refugees who have found shelter in the kingdom in recent years, and that therefore the Jordanians consider the Palestinians' presence in their country only temporary.
"The remarks of the prime minister are ambiguous, controversial and very worrying," commented Bassam al-Badareen, a widely respected journalist in Amman. "He referred to the Palestinians as being part of the foreigners and Iraqi refugees in Jordan."
Ensour's remarks, like those of al-Masri, are further proof that Jordan and the rest of the Arab world are not interested in helping solve the problem of the Palestinian refugees. Jordan, Lebanon and Syria -- the three Arab countries where most of the refugees are living -- are strongly opposed to any solution that would see Palestinians resettled within their borders.
That is why these countries and most of the Arab world continue to discriminate against the Palestinians and subject them to Apartheid laws and regulations. Although Jordan has granted citizenship to many Palestinians, it nevertheless continues to treat them as second-class citizens.
In the past few years, the Jordanian authorities have been revoking the citizenship of Palestinians in a move that has been denounced as "unjust" and "unconstitutional."
The Arab countries have consistently justified their discriminatory policies against the Palestinians by arguing that this is the only way to ensure that the refugees will one day return to their former homes inside Israel. According to this logic, the Arab countries do not want to give the Palestinians citizenship or even basic rights, to avoid a situation where Israel and the international community would use this as an excuse to deny them the "right of return."
But some Palestinians reject this argument and accuse the Arab countries of turning their backs on their Palestinian brothers.
Dr. Ahmad Abu Matar, a Palestinian academic based in Oslo, blasted the Arab world for its continued mistreatment of Palestinians.
"All the Arab countries are opposed to resettlement and naturalization of Palestinians not because they care about the Palestinian cause, but due to internal and regional considerations," Abu Matar wrote. "We need to have the courage to say that improving the living conditions of Palestinian refugees in the Arab countries, including granting them citizenship, does not scrap the right of return."
Noting that Palestinians have long been deprived of their civil rights in the Arab world, particularly in Lebanon, where they are banned from working in many professions and live in camps that do not even suit "animals in the jungle," Abu Matar pointed out that the U.S .and Europe have opened their borders to Palestinians and even given them citizenship. Addressing the Arab countries, the academic wrote: "Improve the living conditions of the Palestinian refugees. Allow them to settle down. Give them citizenship so that they can live as human beings."But Abu Matar's appeal is likely to fall on deaf ears in the Arab world. The Arabs do not care about the Palestinians and want them to remain Israel's problem. Countries such as Lebanon and Syria would rather see Palestinians living as "animals in the jungle" than grant them basic rights such as employment, education and citizenship. It is no surprise that refugees fleeing Syria have no ambitions to settle in any Arab country. They know that their fate in the Arab world will be no better than that of the Palestinians living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries.

Ukraine or Afghanistan: Reasons and Consequence of Putin’s Bold Move in Syria
Samir Altaqi &Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing/September 12/15
Russia’s increased military involvement in Syria will result in prolonging Syria’s civil war, additional difficulties in the already faltering war against ISIL, bringing the non-ISIL opposition closer to ISIL, and a substantial increase in regional tension.
The context of President Vladimir Putin’s decision to build a new military base in Latakia while increasing aid to Assad, including the probable participation of Russian military advisors in the battle of Zabadani, was set by the serious possibility of a sudden collapse of the Assad regime from within, or under attack from the opposition’s Southern Front.
Russia, a harsh critique of US interventionist policy in the Middle East, is now implementing its own interventionist policy. Prefabricated housing facilities, enough to host 1000 military personnel, have been air lifted to the site of the new base. Greek and Turkish authorities were asked to grant permission to fly a dispatch of military cargo planes in several occasions in the last few months.
It is not likely that the Russian increased involvement was coordinated with the US administration. We could not, however, confirm that from any official source in Washington, and we doubt we would be able to confirm or deny US prior knowledge in the near future. But there are several indications that Russia is deploying its forces along the lines believed to be separating areas of strategic interest to Iran and the Assad regime (the Western coastal region) from the rest of Syria. These are the lines where suggested UN forces could deploy in the future.
This summer, four factors played a major role in moving Moscow’s position from a limited support to Assad to going all the way in support of the Syrian President. Last June, after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had met with Putin, he told journalists that he sensed a change in the Russian leader’s previously unfettered backing of Al Assad. “He is no longer of the opinion that Russia will support Al Assad to the end. I believe he can give up Al Assad,” Erdogan said.
Putin’s policy seems to have changed directions as a result of the following four developments:
* Lessons learned from the summer diplomatic effort:
During the summer, the Russians understood that the timid alternative represented in the “civilian opposition” in Syria will not be the convenient “at the end”, defined in Russian, which Erdogan mentioned. They found out that the actual momentum is in the hands of the armed groups. The armed opposition was determined to end the rule of Assad, and it was the armed opposition that holds the cards of the future of Syria. Regional supporters of this opposition were also determined to kick Assad and Iran out of every inch of Syria. Saudi Arabia refused to negotiate anything unless there is a consensus that Assad should go. They rejected a proposed role for Tehran without a prior approval of the departure of Assad. This was a reflection of the Saudi understanding that no one in Syria will accept to keep Assad after all this killing. Assad continuation means a certain continuation of instability. The middle road that the Russians were looking for in the civilian opposition was too narrow to allow a passage for a political solution.
It is interesting that Russia’s open military assistance to Assad shows that the kind of political solution Moscow was talking about was unworthy of convincing Moscow itself to postpone its open aid to Assad. The Russians understood that the only solution possible will not guarantee their interests and that the solution they are marketing will change nothing. Furthermore, the situation on the war fronts was pushing the crisis beyond the point where the civilian opposition could make any real difference.
* Signing the Iran nuclear deal:
The Russian move gained momentum directly after the successful conclusion of the Iran nuclear negotiations. Moscow played an important role in helping the negotiations to succeed. President Obama said he was happily surprised at the assistance given by Moscow to overcome the obstacles that threatened the negotiations. It is now becoming clear that Moscow had its own plans in the Middle East and that breaking Iran’s international isolation was a mere part of it.
Apparently, Moscow’s agenda had two items- its own interests in Syria and those of Iran. The objective has always been to have a friendly regime in Damascus that guarantees Russia’s access to Syria’s coast and that respects Iran’s interests in South Lebanon and Syria. Iran, free of sanctions, was out of the hook. It has a lot to offer to Moscow. The interests of the two sides converged in Syria perfectly. ÷ it is time for Moscow to harvest what the West has planted-Long sanctions that ended with lifting them to make Iran a very valuable fruit for the Russians.
* The situation on the ground in Syria:
During the summer and as it became obvious that Assad could not hold on his own for long time, a different calculus must have been made. The endgame was nearing in a spontaneous way where no one, US included, can guarantee the results. Watching the situation plays out the way it did, while President Obama is lost in the middle, Putin decided to walk the walk. Waiting for the result of negotiations between the civilian opposition and the regime was futile in view of the situation on the ground and the little or no difference this opposition can make.
Moscow understands, probably correctly, that its interests in Syria cannot be a standalone issue-that is to say in isolation from the nature of the future regime and the active forces in the new Syria. Whatever promises they could have been given to preserve these interests in a post-Assad Syria shaped by the armed opposition were not going to satisfy Moscow. For President Putin, dropping Assad is a matter of strategic calculation. If he could have credibly seen a chance that Russian and Iranian interests would be preserved in Syria under an alternative to Assad, he would have considered this alternative.
During this summer as well, it was clear that ISIL is expanding and that US does not know what to do. The fig leaf of the air raids against ISIL was politically helpful to the US administration, but it was not sufficient at all to halt the terrorists’ advance, let alone “crush” or defeat them. Putin found out that he had to do what he had to do.
*The US paralysis in Syria:
By summer, it became abundantly evident that the US administration either does not what to do in Syria or does not have the will to afford what should be done.
The fiasco of the US “train and equip program” cleared some fog for the Russian leader. It became obvious that the US was stuck somewhere in the maze of the Syrian crisis. It could not tailor an approach that combines all the scattered factors in a favorable framework to guide its moves. The objectives looked to the US administration too contradictory to put together in one multifaceted approach. It wanted to bring the Iran talks to a fruitful conclusion, defeat ISIL, guarantee a soft landing for the regime in Damascus, prepare a friendly cohesive force to act on the ground in Syria, assist the opposition, pressure suspicious regional players to come to an accommodation on the future of Damascus, shape the armed conflict on the ground or do any other meaningful thing in the way of constructing a concept to deal with the challenge.
It is not only that the US administration’s “strategists” were unable to come up with a valid conceptual framework to get things where they want things to go, this was also combined with a lack of will to implement any meaningful strategy even if one was at hand. The do-nothing-approach was convenient to the US administration as it helped to avoid angering the Arabs or Iran and suited President Obama’s domestic political discourse.
This disinterested, disengaged state of mind led to scattered unconnected steps, and hence reaching an end station of total paralysis in the Middle East. The administration thought it sufficient to find cover in the success of the Iran talks in order to hide failures in everything else related to the Middle East.
Now, where will the Russian increased intervention in Syria take the Syrian crisis?
Four destinations are clear so far:
* The death of the political solution:
The first consequence of Putin’s decision is the death of any political solution. The one solution that is possible does not satisfy Moscow as it requires the departure of Assad, hence it jeopardizes Russian and Iranian interests. And the one solution that the Russians toyed with during the summer will change nothing in the actual configuration of the crisis.
It should be noted that even if there is a solution that addresses Russia’s interests but does not satisfy Tehran, it will be rejected by Moscow.
* The almost inevitable partition of Syria:
Putin’s move raised the confrontation in Syria to a higher level where a major international power is involved directly. It is clear that the Russian President estimates that the continuation of the crisis opens the doors to other powers’ intervention. There is already some speculations about a British and Australian military involvement under discussion. Putin decided that he must move quickly to demark “his”- and his allies in Tehran’s-territory-that is to say preserve Russia’s and Iran’s interests in Syria.
This territory does not include all of Syria. It is only the Western coast strip populated mainly by Alawis in addition to areas adjacent to south Lebanon, where Hezbollah is stationed. The Russian intervention is said to be introduced to major capitals as a preparatory step for the deployment of Blue Hamlets to guard the lines between the future Khamenei-Putin-Assad Syria and the rest of that country.
* The expansion of ISIL:
Russia’s bold step in Syria will complicate the effort to reach a political deal as it will harden Assad’s approach and bring him back to the non-starter conditions he previously announced. It will, furthermore, make the armed opposition, determined to get rid of the Syrian President, more reluctant to deal with the idea of a political deal. That will reduce the relative distance between this opposition and ISIL if measured in tactical approaches to the crisis.
In other words, if the prospects of a political solution is pulled out of the picture, the result will be putting ISIL and non-ISIL opposition forces on one common ground. Circumstances will be more conductive to solving subjective differences between them so far as objectively separating the two side is minimized by the absence of any political horizon and as they both meet in the same side of the fence.
A “reconciliation” between the opposition groups and ISIL would most probably be reached. The reason this reconciliation is likely is the fact that the Russian recent step, by its very nature, means a more militarization of the conflict. The opposition will realize that it is squeezed between either accepting bits of the remains of Syria or fighting until “the end”- their end. The Russian “end” has nothing to do with the Syrian opposition.
* The continuation of the war for the foreseeable future:
The problem that the Russian leader will encounter is the same that existed all along-Syria’s armed opposition. As just have been mentioned, Russia’s military base in Latakia betrays the fact that the endgame acceptable to Moscow and Iran is the partition of Syria with full control of both powers over the western coast of Syria.
But that reveals as well that there is an assumption, very questionable indeed, that the opposition will cease fire once it sees the “border line” of Assad-Khamenei-Putin’s western land. If this can happen in the future, it could have happened in the past. The war will certainly drag on and the imaginary borders between the West and the Rest will never be static. The assumption that ISIL and the non-ISIL will fight each other in the Rest may prove self-deceptive. Lessons of Kabul and the Rest during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan seem to have been forgetten.
Even when two sides of that kind fight each other, the result we usually see is not the ashes of both as empirical minds imagine. It is a third entity that does may not, seen from this early corner, be very attractive.
By entering Syria in this heavily militarized fashion, the Russian used the green light that may have been given by the US administration to achieve a different objective-establishing a permanent and unchallenged presence on the whole coast of Syria. It might have been Putin’s response to Suzan Rice Libya trick in the UNSC in 2011. Vitaly Churkin nodded then in approval of a limited humanitarian mission for NATO in Libya to find out later that it was the full-fledged operation that brought the current chaos. The question is whether Secretary Kerry nodded now in approval of an operation that will bring more of the same. But it appears that the last laugh will not be Putin’s. It is ironic that somehow the arrow manages in certain cases to make a U-Turn in midair.
Yet, the main question is if it will be another Ukraine, or is it Afghanistan all over again. All looks like we are on for another Afghanistan.

Ukraine or Afghanistan: Reasons and Consequence of Putin’s Bold Move in Syria
Samir Altaqi &Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing/September 12/15
Russia’s increased military involvement in Syria will result in prolonging Syria’s civil war, additional difficulties in the already faltering war against ISIL, bringing the non-ISIL opposition closer to ISIL, and a substantial increase in regional tension.
The context of President Vladimir Putin’s decision to build a new military base in Latakia while increasing aid to Assad, including the probable participation of Russian military advisors in the battle of Zabadani, was set by the serious possibility of a sudden collapse of the Assad regime from within, or under attack from the opposition’s Southern Front.
Russia, a harsh critique of US interventionist policy in the Middle East, is now implementing its own interventionist policy. Prefabricated housing facilities, enough to host 1000 military personnel, have been air lifted to the site of the new base. Greek and Turkish authorities were asked to grant permission to fly a dispatch of military cargo planes in several occasions in the last few months.
It is not likely that the Russian increased involvement was coordinated with the US administration. We could not, however, confirm that from any official source in Washington, and we doubt we would be able to confirm or deny US prior knowledge in the near future. But there are several indications that Russia is deploying its forces along the lines believed to be separating areas of strategic interest to Iran and the Assad regime (the Western coastal region) from the rest of Syria. These are the lines where suggested UN forces could deploy in the future.
This summer, four factors played a major role in moving Moscow’s position from a limited support to Assad to going all the way in support of the Syrian President. Last June, after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had met with Putin, he told journalists that he sensed a change in the Russian leader’s previously unfettered backing of Al Assad. “He is no longer of the opinion that Russia will support Al Assad to the end. I believe he can give up Al Assad,” Erdogan said.
Putin’s policy seems to have changed directions as a result of the following four developments:
* Lessons learned from the summer diplomatic effort:
During the summer, the Russians understood that the timid alternative represented in the “civilian opposition” in Syria will not be the convenient “at the end”, defined in Russian, which Erdogan mentioned. They found out that the actual momentum is in the hands of the armed groups. The armed opposition was determined to end the rule of Assad, and it was the armed opposition that holds the cards of the future of Syria. Regional supporters of this opposition were also determined to kick Assad and Iran out of every inch of Syria. Saudi Arabia refused to negotiate anything unless there is a consensus that Assad should go. They rejected a proposed role for Tehran without a prior approval of the departure of Assad. This was a reflection of the Saudi understanding that no one in Syria will accept to keep Assad after all this killing. Assad continuation means a certain continuation of instability. The middle road that the Russians were looking for in the civilian opposition was too narrow to allow a passage for a political solution.
It is interesting that Russia’s open military assistance to Assad shows that the kind of political solution Moscow was talking about was unworthy of convincing Moscow itself to postpone its open aid to Assad. The Russians understood that the only solution possible will not guarantee their interests and that the solution they are marketing will change nothing. Furthermore, the situation on the war fronts was pushing the crisis beyond the point where the civilian opposition could make any real difference.
* Signing the Iran nuclear deal:
The Russian move gained momentum directly after the successful conclusion of the Iran nuclear negotiations. Moscow played an important role in helping the negotiations to succeed. President Obama said he was happily surprised at the assistance given by Moscow to overcome the obstacles that threatened the negotiations. It is now becoming clear that Moscow had its own plans in the Middle East and that breaking Iran’s international isolation was a mere part of it.
Apparently, Moscow’s agenda had two items- its own interests in Syria and those of Iran. The objective has always been to have a friendly regime in Damascus that guarantees Russia’s access to Syria’s coast and that respects Iran’s interests in South Lebanon and Syria. Iran, free of sanctions, was out of the hook. It has a lot to offer to Moscow. The interests of the two sides converged in Syria perfectly. ÷ it is time for Moscow to harvest what the West has planted-Long sanctions that ended with lifting them to make Iran a very valuable fruit for the Russians.
* The situation on the ground in Syria:
During the summer and as it became obvious that Assad could not hold on his own for long time, a different calculus must have been made. The endgame was nearing in a spontaneous way where no one, US included, can guarantee the results. Watching the situation plays out the way it did, while President Obama is lost in the middle, Putin decided to walk the walk. Waiting for the result of negotiations between the civilian opposition and the regime was futile in view of the situation on the ground and the little or no difference this opposition can make.
Moscow understands, probably correctly, that its interests in Syria cannot be a standalone issue-that is to say in isolation from the nature of the future regime and the active forces in the new Syria. Whatever promises they could have been given to preserve these interests in a post-Assad Syria shaped by the armed opposition were not going to satisfy Moscow. For President Putin, dropping Assad is a matter of strategic calculation. If he could have credibly seen a chance that Russian and Iranian interests would be preserved in Syria under an alternative to Assad, he would have considered this alternative.
During this summer as well, it was clear that ISIL is expanding and that US does not know what to do. The fig leaf of the air raids against ISIL was politically helpful to the US administration, but it was not sufficient at all to halt the terrorists’ advance, let alone “crush” or defeat them. Putin found out that he had to do what he had to do.
*The US paralysis in Syria:
By summer, it became abundantly evident that the US administration either does not what to do in Syria or does not have the will to afford what should be done.
The fiasco of the US “train and equip program” cleared some fog for the Russian leader. It became obvious that the US was stuck somewhere in the maze of the Syrian crisis. It could not tailor an approach that combines all the scattered factors in a favorable framework to guide its moves. The objectives looked to the US administration too contradictory to put together in one multifaceted approach. It wanted to bring the Iran talks to a fruitful conclusion, defeat ISIL, guarantee a soft landing for the regime in Damascus, prepare a friendly cohesive force to act on the ground in Syria, assist the opposition, pressure suspicious regional players to come to an accommodation on the future of Damascus, shape the armed conflict on the ground or do any other meaningful thing in the way of constructing a concept to deal with the challenge.
It is not only that the US administration’s “strategists” were unable to come up with a valid conceptual framework to get things where they want things to go, this was also combined with a lack of will to implement any meaningful strategy even if one was at hand. The do-nothing-approach was convenient to the US administration as it helped to avoid angering the Arabs or Iran and suited President Obama’s domestic political discourse.
This disinterested, disengaged state of mind led to scattered unconnected steps, and hence reaching an end station of total paralysis in the Middle East. The administration thought it sufficient to find cover in the success of the Iran talks in order to hide failures in everything else related to the Middle East.
Now, where will the Russian increased intervention in Syria take the Syrian crisis?
Four destinations are clear so far:
* The death of the political solution:
The first consequence of Putin’s decision is the death of any political solution. The one solution that is possible does not satisfy Moscow as it requires the departure of Assad, hence it jeopardizes Russian and Iranian interests. And the one solution that the Russians toyed with during the summer will change nothing in the actual configuration of the crisis.
It should be noted that even if there is a solution that addresses Russia’s interests but does not satisfy Tehran, it will be rejected by Moscow.
* The almost inevitable partition of Syria:
Putin’s move raised the confrontation in Syria to a higher level where a major international power is involved directly. It is clear that the Russian President estimates that the continuation of the crisis opens the doors to other powers’ intervention. There is already some speculations about a British and Australian military involvement under discussion. Putin decided that he must move quickly to demark “his”- and his allies in Tehran’s-territory-that is to say preserve Russia’s and Iran’s interests in Syria.
This territory does not include all of Syria. It is only the Western coast strip populated mainly by Alawis in addition to areas adjacent to south Lebanon, where Hezbollah is stationed. The Russian intervention is said to be introduced to major capitals as a preparatory step for the deployment of Blue Hamlets to guard the lines between the future Khamenei-Putin-Assad Syria and the rest of that country.
* The expansion of ISIL:
Russia’s bold step in Syria will complicate the effort to reach a political deal as it will harden Assad’s approach and bring him back to the non-starter conditions he previously announced. It will, furthermore, make the armed opposition, determined to get rid of the Syrian President, more reluctant to deal with the idea of a political deal. That will reduce the relative distance between this opposition and ISIL if measured in tactical approaches to the crisis.
In other words, if the prospects of a political solution is pulled out of the picture, the result will be putting ISIL and non-ISIL opposition forces on one common ground. Circumstances will be more conductive to solving subjective differences between them so far as objectively separating the two side is minimized by the absence of any political horizon and as they both meet in the same side of the fence.
A “reconciliation” between the opposition groups and ISIL would most probably be reached. The reason this reconciliation is likely is the fact that the Russian recent step, by its very nature, means a more militarization of the conflict. The opposition will realize that it is squeezed between either accepting bits of the remains of Syria or fighting until “the end”- their end. The Russian “end” has nothing to do with the Syrian opposition.
* The continuation of the war for the foreseeable future:
The problem that the Russian leader will encounter is the same that existed all along-Syria’s armed opposition. As just have been mentioned, Russia’s military base in Latakia betrays the fact that the endgame acceptable to Moscow and Iran is the partition of Syria with full control of both powers over the western coast of Syria.
But that reveals as well that there is an assumption, very questionable indeed, that the opposition will cease fire once it sees the “border line” of Assad-Khamenei-Putin’s western land. If this can happen in the future, it could have happened in the past. The war will certainly drag on and the imaginary borders between the West and the Rest will never be static. The assumption that ISIL and the non-ISIL will fight each other in the Rest may prove self-deceptive. Lessons of Kabul and the Rest during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan seem to have been forgetten.
Even when two sides of that kind fight each other, the result we usually see is not the ashes of both as empirical minds imagine. It is a third entity that does may not, seen from this early corner, be very attractive.
By entering Syria in this heavily militarized fashion, the Russian used the green light that may have been given by the US administration to achieve a different objective-establishing a permanent and unchallenged presence on the whole coast of Syria. It might have been Putin’s response to Suzan Rice Libya trick in the UNSC in 2011. Vitaly Churkin nodded then in approval of a limited humanitarian mission for NATO in Libya to find out later that it was the full-fledged operation that brought the current chaos. The question is whether Secretary Kerry nodded now in approval of an operation that will bring more of the same. But it appears that the last laugh will not be Putin’s. It is ironic that somehow the arrow manages in certain cases to make a U-Turn in midair.
Yet, the main question is if it will be another Ukraine, or is it Afghanistan all over again. All looks like we are on for another Afghanistan.

Egypt’s Next Parliament: A Defining Role for the Business Community and the Salafi Islamists?
Samir Altaqi &Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing/September 12/15
Parliamentary elections in Egypt are set for next October 18 and 19. The new Parliament will enjoy unprecedented powers under the current constitution. While these powers may represent a temptation for authorities to forge the results, a practice common during Mubarak years, the risk of any fool play is high this time around. Internal security agencies know by now that forging the results of the 2010 elections was one of the reasons of the revolt that took place one year later. Furthermore, the eyes of the world are focused on the elections as a way to gauge the extent to which Egypt progressed towards a normalized political life, particularly in view of the intense criticism addressed at Cairo for its dismal human rights record. But the one reason that makes forging the results needless is that the regime of President Abdel Fattah Al Sissi is already popular the way it is. There is no motive to steal legitimacy out of the pockets of voters if the volunteer it willingly.
There are many things to watch, however, in this coming elections. We will name two here that are of particular interest. The first is if the legitimate business community in addition to the remains of Mubarak cronyism and corruption and the usual “men of all epochs”, will form a joint front to attempt to control as many seats as possible. The business community can back sympathetic runners or even direct representatives of its own, but it can also “buy” those who are for sale for the right price. The agenda of such a front, if formed, will be to preserve and expand their interests through the new Parliament. The second thing to watch is the percentage that the Islamists, represented by the Salafi Nour Party, will gain in the public vote and in terms of the numbers of seats in the new Parliament.
The significance of the business community’s heavy involvement in the elections could be read in the zig zag that marked its relations with Sissi since he took power in summer 2014. Sissi resorted to the armed forces as the main implementers of a chain of infrastructure projects aimed at giving Egyptians a feeling that the country has returned to the right path. This quick fix is as needed by Egyptians to feel there is hope as it is needed by the regime to gain a period of relative quiet until the country is pulled out of its current impasse.
Using the armed forces in projects gave Sissi the expediency and the reduced cost in times when resources were scarce and when the population needed to be reassured that there is hope in the future. But the business class expressed discontent with its new role of being a mere subcontractor. It perceived the role of the armed forces as infringement and unfair competition. Aware of the lack of resources, Sissi was not ready to pay much because he did not have much. The margin of profit of the armed forces was in many cases equal to zero. He even pressured the rich to contribute to a special fund he created to finance infrastructure projects. The response was lukewarm.
The tension found its way to media channels, some owned by big business interests, and was threatening more troubles in an extremely sensitive environment security wise. The Muslim Brotherhood, just toppled by Sissi, were waging an intensive campaign to destabilize the new regime. The Egyptian President did not need to add another front to his political fight and reached a kind of modus operandi with business community.
More or less the silent “understanding” between the two sides still exists. But as the lines between both sides are movable, this understanding may be subject to changes after the Parliamentary elections, if the business community got a substantial block of the seats. While tension in this case will not be expressed in any blunt form, there are many ways for the business community to harvest the fruits of the gained new leverage in case they get such a leverage through the new Parliament.
It is true that Sissi, with his overwhelming popularity, ultimately enjoys an upper hand among Egyptians. Yet, in legislative moves, it is not only a matter of popularity. It is a vote count. While the front of the regime-business community is currently stable, no one can exclude some future skirmishes in the real life twists and turns of any relation between political authorities and businesses. The business community in Egypt will seek to increase their cut in the pie. More is defined subjectively.
As for the Salafis, they position themselves now as the inheritors of the “Islamic Trend” in Egypt after the sweeping crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood. The relentless pressure on the MB almost terminated any role of the organization in Egypt’s political life.
During Mubarak years, authorities allowed Salafi groups to work almost freely so long as they do not do politics. The Salafi, an ultra-conservative Islamist trend, was active in recruiting youth and expanding presences on purely religious bases. Its objective was to “Islamize”, or in more accurate term “Salafize”, the Egyptian population. Their main enemies, as they state in their pamphlets, is the Sufists which is a centuries old spiritual way that characterized popular Islam in Egypt, the secular, the atheists, the Shias and the Coptic Christians.
Under the deal with Mubarak security apparatus, the Salafis were assigned the role of informers on any subversive activities in return for a large degree of freedom of movement. This allowed the trend to expand quickly.
When the 2011 revolt occurred, the Salafis switched camps in a relatively short time. They turned against Mubarak and moved into the realm of active political role with their bag of teachings and backward way of understanding Islam. They said openly that it was time to implement what is their books through political power. These teachings included the restoration of female genital mutilation, reducing the minimum age for marriage to allow girls to 13 years old, banning any “un-Islamic” scenes in media and a host of other incredible stuff.
Yet, due to ling years of active expansion and recruiting, they won almost 28% of the seats of the 2012 Parliament. During early Parliamentarian sessions they called for legalizing their demands after they labeled it social “reform”. They forced the MBs, who got almost half the seats of the same Parliament, to either appear as un-Islamic by publicly opposing the proposed “Islamic” legislations, or support it and turn itself into the laughing stock of Egyptian urbanists and a watching world. The Salafis also refused to stand for Egypt’s national anthem, as it was a sign of a political state not of a unified Islamic Caliphate. Egyptian liberals were getting ready to fight, but the MB convinced the Salafis, in tough talks behind closed doors, that time is not ripe for implementing such legislations and that they have to be patient.
The current political authority in Egypt adopted a policy towards the Salfis that is slightly different than that of Mubarak. It allowed their main party, the Nour Party, to participate despite a constitutional ban on any political parties that is based on religion. “Nour party will be judged by the voters. It has a religious background, but it is a political party nonetheless. We did not exclude this group from the political dialogue with the presidency”, Sissi said recently.
The reason why the Egyptian regime kept the door opened to the Salafis lies in a complex political calculus. Recently, when Sissi called for reforming the Islamic discourse in Egypt, Al Azhar, the official religious establishment, succeeded in putting limits to the proposed debate while expanding what it saw as the “Islamization” of the society. It called, successfully, for a ban on any critic of the ultra-conservative teachings from public appearances. Sissi needed a valid Islamists “alternative” to the MBs. As the Salafis were not using violence like the MBs, they could be tolerated for the time being.
The truth is that the Salafi trend has a substantial presence in Al Azhar itself. Furthermore, it is difficult for Sissi to crack down on the MBs and the Salafis at the same time (Though it is not certain that he will curb the activities of the Salafis even in a better security environment in the future).
But the Liberals in Egypt are moving swiftly to counter the activities of the Salafis on various grounds. A petition to prevent Nour from running based on its nature and the fact that the constitution prevents religious parties from even existing, let alone running in the elections, is gathering momentum. Videos of Salafi Sheikhs banning Egyptian Muslims from even saluting Egyptian Christians, the Fatwas related to female oppression and other self-incriminating statements are distributed widely.
The Nour Party has a sizable support in rural and southern backward regions. Yet, the isolation of the MB, though approved by the Salafis in order to gain political favor with the government and to inherit the bases of their brethren, is not helping the party. Egyptians believe that “All bearded are crooks” as they commonly say. The fall of the MB damaged the popular stand of all organized religious groups though with varying degrees. Yet we estimate that the Nour Party will gain anything between 10 and 15% of the seats of the next Parliament. The party is competing for 60% of the seats.
While the Egyptian government is unlikely to interfere in the fairness of the voting process, it tries to keep the elections within a strict pass not to cause a worsening in the security environment. Yet, and hopefully, the elections could be a step forward towards normalizing the political life and ending the usual paranoia and excesses of the security machine.

Military Escalation in Yemen: No Political Solution in Sight
Samir Altaqi &Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing/September 12/15
The huge intensification of the military confrontation in Yemen dimmed the lights of the ongoing diplomatic activities aimed at reaching a political solution in Yemen. A deeper look at the situation there shows that there is still some way to go before a serious window for a political deal opens up even with the worsening humanitarian crisis.
Some efforts are done by the UN, Oman and others. Yet, appearance of progress is based on deceptive sign and overoptimistic statements. One of these deceptive signs was the hardly noticed Russian reversal of positions on the Security Council Resolution 2216. Last week, Moscow sent an official letter to the Yemeni government announcing its acceptance of the UNSC R2216.
Moscow abstained in the Security Council when the Resolution was voted last April. There are certain ideas circulating and possibly Moscow wants to play an active role in the diplomatic search for a way out of the crisis in the future. As the Resolution is understood to require reinstating the government of Khaled Bahah, the idea is to form a joint government, still headed by Bahah, but combines representatives of both the Houthis and of former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. In the current circumstances, this project does not stand a chance whatsoever.
But as is always the case, things change and some sort of compromise maybe reached. That has to wait however. Escalations of military action on the ground complicates any attempt to create the momentum, atmosphere and openness necessary for the required exchange of concessions. The Houthi and Saleh supporters hit a military camp where Coalition forces were stationed with a Tochka missile Sep 3 killing 45 soldiers from the UAE. The attack was followed by another assault on the borders with Saudi Arabia that led to the death of five Bahraini soldiers. Ten other Saudi soldiers were also killed. The anger that follows, which will remain for some time, does not allow to speak about compromises at the present moment.
The death of the UAE soldiers will have a certain political impact particularly on Abu Dhabi’s policy towards former President Saleh. The son of Saleh, Ahmed, who also was the ambassador of Yemen in the UAE, returned to Sanaa two days after the incident. He might have been told to leave the UAE immediately.
This tragic death of the UAE soldiers may be a trigger for Saleh to reconsider his position. Yet, officers in Saleh’s army said after the attack that major Saudi cities like Abha, Jeddah and Riyadh are “legitimate targets for our forces”. Saudi and Emirati air raids intensified following the September 3rd attack on the camp.
The effort of UN Envoy to Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed is focused on finding a practical mechanism to implement the SCR. The efforts of Ahmed are revolving around preserving the form of the previous political arrangements reached before the current crisis while changing its content to include new realities. This is why there is an intensive escalation now to alter these realities. Qatari forces, 1000 of them, joined the fight in the side of Saudi Arabia. Egypt is reported to be sending several thousands of its elite forces Cairo denied the reports later). Saudi Arabia sent 1000 of its soldiers to the same spot where their brethren were killed. As it stands, it is the military campaign, not the peace effort, that is gaining momentum.
The problems facing the UN envoy are multiple. It is difficult to hope for a halt in the escalation so long as Saudi Arabia deems it necessary to alter the situation on the ground. Major cities still under the control of Saleh and the Houthis are coming now under attack. It is also difficult to reach a cease fire as long as the military front lines remain entangled the way they are now. Furthermore, the incident of the Tochka missile and the killings of Saudis and Emirati soldiers made Ahmed’s job a mission impossible at least for the time being.
For example, there was ongoing speculations in relevant Yemeni circles that Abdul Majid Al Ariani, a seasoned Yemeni politician, is being consulted to take the position of the Prime Minister. Ariani is a talented negotiator with a record of success in navigating political differences and reaching acceptable compromises. Thinking of Ariani as a Prime Minister may have expressed a realization that a period of serious negotiations is approaching. Bahah, who is accepted regionally and internationally, will be promoted to become vice president. However, the consultations with Ariani were frozen abruptly. Winds were blowing in a different direction.
Certain unofficial statements hinted that there will be no negotiations before the pro-Hadi, GCC backed forces take Sanaa back. In other words, no negotiations before ending all reasons to negotiate. For if Hadi recaptures Sanaa, the other camp would have suffered substantial losses to the extent that talks would be meaningless. Any kind of symbolic reconciliation then would only aim at avoiding an internal insurgency.

Obama has a ‘heart like railroad steel’ on Syria
Hisham Melhem/Al Arabiya/September 13/15
Former President George W. Bush bequeathed to Barack Obama a precarious and partially broken Arab World. A spectacularly ambitious imperial attempt at remaking the region, beginning in Mesopotamia, crumbled mightily in the inhospitable desert of Iraq.
The dream of planting a Jeffersonian democracy in the land of the two rivers, metamorphosed into an unprecedented sectarian bloodletting. Bush’s freedom agenda, coming after he admitted – correctly – that for more than fifty years U.S. administrations neglected human rights in the Middle East in the name of maintaining stability, the free flow of oil, and striking alliances against the Soviet Union, was ill-conceived, naively pursued, and badly executed.
Bush’s ‘War on Terrorism’ was equally flawed; Al-Qaeda was cut to pieces, but like the mythical Hydra it metastasized and produced the monstrous ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS). But hard as it is to conceive, President Obama will bequeath to his successor a breathtakingly pulverized – figuratively and, yes, physically – region, where in some states like Syria and Iraq whole communities have been uprooted and once great ancient cities have been ransacked, and precious cultural and religious jewels have been destroyed.
The President will be judged as an accomplice in the historic betrayal of the Syrian people, and in the creation of the worst refugee problem in the Middle East in a century.
There are no more streets in some Syrian cities; The Assad regime turned them into shallow valleys of broken concrete, twisted metal and shattered personal artifacts indicating that they were once full of life. If hell has streets, they will surely look like the streets of Syria’s cities today. It shall be written, that the words of a sitting American President in the second decade of the 21st century justifying his inaction and his inane silence in the face of the staggering savagery of the Syrian regime – which repeatedly used chemical weapons, barrel bombs, medieval sieges and starvation against his own people – were stunning in their moral vacuity. The President of the United States will be judged as an accomplice in the historic betrayal of the Syrian people – and, to a lesser extent, the Iraqi and Libyan peoples – and in the creation of the worst refugee problem in the Middle East in a century.
Whose responsibility is it anyway?
Surely, the primary responsibility for the agonies of the peoples of the Middle East lies in the hands of the political and cultural classes that inherited the new political structures erected in modern times by the colonial powers over the remnants of old civilizations.
True, European powers drew artificial boundaries – most countries have such borders – not taking into consideration the wishes of the affected peoples, whose promises were rarely honored. This left behind wounds that have yet to heal. But in subsequent years, the ideologues of Arab Nationalism and Political Islam, the military strongmen who perfected military coups along with some atavistic hereditary rulers maintained the ossified status quo or destroyed nascent and relatively open, diverse societies and representative forms of governance in countries like Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Tunisia. However, Western meddling and military intervention contributed to the rise of Arab autocracy and despotism. The American invasion of Iraq did not cause sectarianism in that tortured land; that dormant scourge was awakened by years of Ba’athist despotism and Saddam Hussein’s decision to invade Iran in 1980.
But the way the American invasion was conceived and executed accelerated Iraq’s descent into the abyss. Hence America’s partial political and moral responsibility for Iraq’s current torment. President Obama’s eagerness to disengage himself and his administration from Bush’s Iraq burden explains his reticence to push for a residual force after 2011, or to seriously and personally continue to engage Iraqis and help those forces willing to live in a unitary civil state, his deafness to repeated warnings that former Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki’s sectarian policies were deepening the sectarian fissures, makes him a partial owner of Iraq’s chaos.
A red (like in blood) line
In neighboring Syria, decades of military rule, and Ba’athist tyranny that was punctuated by violent upheavals and dark periods of repression, gave way to a tremendous popular and peaceful uprising in the spring of 2011 following those in Tunisia and Egypt.
Assad, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, and the rulers of Iran took the measure of President Obama and they knew that they would get away with murder. And they did.
The Assad regime responded by the application of gradual violence against a civilian movement calling for change, an end to the state of emergency, and political representation. Every qualitative violent escalation on the part of the Syrian regime – the use of the air force, barrel bombs, Scud missiles and chemical weapons – was taken after carefully watching and gaging Washington’s reaction. Assad, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, and the rulers of Iran took the measure of President Obama and they knew that they would get away with murder. And they did, in Syria, Iraq and the Ukraine. In 2011 President Obama cavalierly called on Assad to ‘step aside’ without any serious thoughts to the options available to him after the inevitable ‘go ahead and make me’ that he was warned would come from Assad. During the deliberation that preceded the president’s call on Assad, a very experienced Syria expert cautioned against the move unless the President was willing to back his words with action. One young advisor to the President, his principle wordsmith, dismissed such prudent advice, saying with churlish arrogance betraying his own ignorance of Syria that Assad will soon be swept from power by the winds of the ‘Arab Spring’ just like Presidents Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt.
Unsheathing swords and cocking guns
For a President who defined his political career by words and speeches, Obama acts at times as if his words carry the power of actions. On his own initiative he drew a virtual red line for Assad in 2012, warning that his use of chemical weapons will mean that he has crossed that bloody line, a violation that will force the President to change his calculus.
It was supposed to be Assad’s Rubicon. Once again, the lisping tinhorn dictator of Syria (beautifully described by an astute American diplomat in a cable as the ‘self-proclaimed Pericles of Damascus’) paid no heed to the American President. In one attack in August 2013 against a suburb of Damascus more than 1400 Syrian civilians, many of them children, were killed by chemical weapons. The scorned President huffed and puffed and issued threats backed by dispatching military assets to the Syrian coasts. Then the President took a walk with another young advisor and supposedly saw the folly of delivering on his words, and once again he flinched. On August 31, 2013, another American day that should live in infamy, he informed a stunned world of his (in)decision. Mighty America shrunk on that day. The word of the American President was no longer the coin of the realm. One could imagine Putin’s smug smile, and almost hears Assad’s nervous loud laugh.
The Arabs of olden days used to say that an honorable man should not unsheathe his sword unless he intends to use it. For ordinary people this is unbecoming, like breaking your word or reneging on a promise. For a ruler it could be a fatal mistake. I remember after writing this observation that I was thrilled when I heard former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in a televised interview saying that he warned President Obama about issuing threats if he is not ready to act upon them. Gates reminded the President of a saying in the old West; don’t cock the gun unless you are willing to pull the trigger.
For a president who did not want to do ‘stupid stuff’ in foreign policy, his approach to Syria is akin to a case of criminal negligence.
President Lyndon B. Johnson went to his grave haunted by the ghosts of Vietnam. President George W. Bush will live the rest of his life being tormented by the nightmares of Iraq, even if he claims he is not. President Obama’s catastrophic policies towards Syria will be a blot on his legacy. For a president who did not want to do ‘stupid stuff’ in foreign policy, his approach to Syria is akin to a case of criminal negligence.
A damaged legacy
President Obama’s attitude towards Syria says a lot about how he sees American power and how he sees the Middle East. He seems to be always cognizant of America’s limited power, and what he perceives as its shrinking ability to still do great things on its own. In Libya, he pursued a limited military role, leading from behind and hoping for the best and placing his faith solely in air power. He shirked the tedious political follow-up after the fall of the Libyan dictator, and in fact he admitted to that error.
Early in his first term President Obama wanted to have a new beginning with the Muslim world. That took him to Ankara and Cairo to pursue that path. And he extended an open hand to the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria. He also tried to stop the building of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. Then he was hit in the face by the so-called Arab Spring where he reluctantly withdrew his support for Egypt’s Mubarak. In a few months his Middle East policies began to meet the hard men and the harsher realities of the region. The Iranians maintained their clenched fist; the Assad regime went through the ritual of dialogue but was never serious about changing its ways in Lebanon or the region. Netanyahu stiffed Obama on settlements, and the ill winds of the season of uprisings, plunged Libya in a civil war, and put Egypt under a precarious military rule, and the fires reached Syria. Obama took a second look at the region and realized that he has to invest a huge political and moral capital without guaranteed success… and he flinched.
In his second term, the long arduous road to Persia began to open slowly for a nuclear deal. Ever since, Obama’s eyes were focused on that prize, at the expense of other pressing challenges. Meanwhile, Syria continued to bleed and die slowly. And from the beginning, and even before the Assad regime militarized the uprising, Obama looked at the conflict as someone else’s civil war. He derisively referred to the Syrian opposition as ‘former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth’ (words that could be used to describe the American rebels fighting for independence) before abandoning them to the tender mercies of Assad’s barrel bombs and the depredations of ISIS, when ISIS did not exist as an effective fighting terror army. The President wanted to believe the fiction that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria, when the Assad regime and his Russian and Iranian sponsors always acted and believed that they will prevail only by the sword. Obama was not even serious when he claimed that the limited programs of training and equipping the moderate Syrian opposition were designed to force the Assad regime and his backers to the negotiating table. Truth be told, President Obama betrayed Syria for the sake of a nuclear deal with Iran. To paraphrase Saint Luke, what good is it for a president to gain a temporary deal, and yet lose his very self?
Deception
What was most maddening was the sheer length the president went to when he engaged in the worst use of sophistry during his tenure to misleadingly frame the arguments of his critics by claiming that they want him to ‘invade’ Syria, when in fact not a single serious expert on Syria called for such a thing. This is as deceptive, as his argument that those opposed to the nuclear deal with Iran, are pushing for war with the Islamic Republic. Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry were repeatedly misled by Russia. A few weeks ago, the President himself more than hinted that Russia is seriously willing to engage in a political process that will end in Assad’s departure. General John Allen, the President’s Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, said three weeks ago that the Russians have told Secretary Kerry that they are ‘tired’ of Assad and are willing to move beyond him, that they may be able to lean on Iran to show some flexibility. Instead, both Russia and Iran are doubling down and qualitatively increasing their support for Assad. Russia has sent advisors and Special Forces and Marines to Tartus and Latakia. The U.S. is confirming these reports but it admits that it has no idea about their mission. The Obama administration is reduced to asking Moscow for explanations, for telling the Russians about its ‘deep concerns’ about these military moves. The Obama administration in dealing with the Russians and the Iranians is variously pleading, beseeching, and imploring. Words like these re-inforce the views of President Putin and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei that the President of the United States is willing to go the extra mile not to jeopardize the chances of implementing the nuclear deal and to secure Russian cooperation regarding Syria.
Hard as it is to believe, but the worst is yet to come in Syria, for the Syrians as well as for the region and beyond.
The worst is yet to come
What we see in Syria today, could be the shape of things to come in other parts of the region. The foreign fighters, and the endless river of refugees are threatening Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey where almost four million Syrian refugees currently and precariously reside. It is a question of time before Lebanon and Jordan implode. Violence has reached Turkey. With each passing day the chances for an acceptable political outcome are shrinking, and the chances of a permanent breakup of Syria and Iraq increase. Hard as it is to believe, but the worst is yet to come in Syria, for the Syrians as well as for the region and beyond. The best and the brightest of Syria are leaving the country to join a Syrian nation of refugees on the move. Most, if not all, will not return. Thus rebuilding Syria – if such a possibility is within reach in the foreseeable future – will become next to impossible.
The world has been shocked and moved in recent weeks at the sight of thousands of mostly Syrians, but also Iraqis and others from the Middle East and South Asia, risking their lives making the dangerous crossing into Europe by sea, and by land, leaving behind victims young and old. The photos of decomposing corpses in a truck, and of children and babies washed up on Turkish and Libyan shores, were a terrible reminder of the early warnings that many of us shouted when the Syrian conflict began; that what happens in Syria will not stay in Syria. Syria’s conflict is now a threat to a region already reeling from multiple crises; Syria’s agony has reached the heart of Europe. But the President of the United States – who, it seems, has a tremendous capacity to remain detached and immune to such agony – remained silent. Charley Patton, probably the greatest of the Mississippi Delta bluesmen in the pre-war era, bemoaned the cold indifference of the woman he loved, accusing her of having a ‘heart like Railroad steel’
Mr. President, it pains me to say, you have a ‘heart like railroad steel’.

Don’t fear refugees like me
Yara al-Wazir/Al Arabiya/September 13/15
There has been a strong shift in the public narrative towards how the influx of refugees should be handled ever since the tragic image of Aylan Kurdi shocked the world. It is horrific that hundreds of people have had to die for humanity to realize that its priorities should lie in saving people rather than letting them perish. And the deaths were allowed to continue because refugees are feared. That fear primarily comes from the economic and social implications refugees are perceived to have. Yet as a permanent resident of Europe, I have no issues with refugees coming onto my adoptive land, because I am a third-generation Palestinian refugee myself. Europe has not always been my adoptive home, and it probably won’t be my last home either. To the public who is still skeptical of the presence of refugees, I say ‘don’t be afraid’.
Don’t fear us for being unlucky
The simple difference between a refugee and a citizen of an EU-member country is luck. Refugees are unlucky to be born into a country that is currently going through a war, and will inevitably take years to recover. Refugees are simply unlucky for having legislation put in place against them that restricts their movements. Refugees are unlucky that many members of the public are not on their side. What makes my legal status in the UK different is luck as well.I feel compelled to point out what families like mine have contributed to the host economies. But life and death should not boil down to luck. So don’t fear the presence of refugees in a host country, and do not blame them for being unlucky. If anyone was in their situation and had figured out a way to get out, there is no doubt that they will do whatever it takes to survive. Through survival, however, refugees make vast contributions to the economies of their host countries. While I am forever indebted to the countries that hosted my grandparents and spent millions of dollars in aid to millions of Palestinian refugees, I also feel compelled to point out what families like mine have contributed to their host economies.
Returning the favor of saving lives
The running stereotype of Palestinian refugees that have escaped the life of refugee camps is that it is a community made of doctors and engineers. Indeed, the Association of Palestinian Doctors is the second largest in the Arab world. Sheikh Salem Al-Sabah, former Emir of Kuwait, described Palestinian refugees as “hardworking… Among them is the best surgeon, the best doctor, and the best administrator."The case-in-point is that refugees do not hold back on returning the favor by training to become quick-thinking doctors who save lives.
Employable skills
Unemployment in the Middle East is a topic of its own – the region has the highest rate of youth unemployment in the world. The truth of the matter is that while there is indeed a shortage of jobs, there is also a shortage of skills, as expressed in a joint report by Silatech and Gallup. What refugees have are the habits that are highly sought after by employers. By nature, refugees have been forced to be adaptable, multi-lingual, quick on their feet, and with a good attention to detail. The repercussions of missing a miniscule detail on a refugee form are tremendous, and this is reflected in their day-to-day lives as well. Whether refuges make their way to the Middle East or to Europe, the skills they have are valuable to whichever country takes them in, and are yet another reason for them to be welcomed.
Fear is understandable, but I urge that it be an initial reaction, and not a true conviction. If the circumstances were different, the odds are that refugees would choose to remain in their houses and keep their jobs. If the situation was reversed, and your house was the one under attack, what would you do?

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